WRITTEN QUESTION E-2050/02 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Tibetans arrested in Nepal.
Date: 2002-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, India, Nepal, Tibetan question, UNHCR, aid to refugees, arrest, human rights, return migration, transit

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/11

to ensuring, in a given situation, compliance with the public service obligations incumbent on Distrigaz,
whilst at the same time observing the requirements of legal certainty. As to the participation of the Dutch
authorities in TPG and KPN is concerned, the Commission decided to send a letter of formal notice to the
Dutch authorities, which was responded to. The arguments presented by the Dutch authorities to justify
the special rights attached to the ‘golden shares’ existing in both companies involved are being analysed by
the Commission, in particular in the light of the above Court of Justice ruling of 4 June 2002.

4.
As mentioned in the reply to question 3, Member States may retain a certain degree of influence
within privatised undertakings active in fields involving the provision of services in the public interest or
strategic services. However, restrictions to the free movement of capital have to be justified either by
reasons referred to in Article 58 of the EC Treaty or by overriding requirements of the general interest.
Furthermore, in order to be so justified, the national legislation must be suitable for securing the objective
which it pursues and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it, so as to accord with the
principle of proportionality.

Moreover,
it might be recalled that the existing Community framework governing a number of areas
referred to in the question generally contains provisions aiming at safeguarding the public interest or
establishes policies designed to guarantee it whilst respecting the rules of the internal market.

5.
The means through which and the circumstances under which restrictions to capital movements may
be established in order to protect the general interest in conformity with Community requirements have
been presented in the replies to questions 3 and 4.

6.

The question has been answered in the affirmative.

(2003/C 161 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2050/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Tibetans arrested in Nepal

According to the Nepalese Immigration Department, twelve Tibetans (including Choeyang Dorje, 30 years
of age, Palden Gyatso, 32, Tenzin Yangzom and her four-month-old baby, and the monks Sonam Lama
and Sechya Lama) are being held in Dili Bazaar prison, and a thirteenth Tibetan (the monk Heruka) in the
Khar prison in Kathmandu, where he is apparently serving a ten-year sentence for being in Nepal illegally.

It would appear that these arrests are due to the fact that the unwritten arrangement between the Nepalese
Government and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guarantees safe transit
through Nepal to India for Tibetans leaving China, but does not apply to Tibetans travelling in the
opposite direction, i.e. wishing to return to Tibet. The ban affects some 3 000 Tibetans who wish to travel
back to Tibet, having completed their studies in India.

The 13 detainees face fines ranging from USD 1 584 to USD 2 666. They could avoid prison if they paid
the fines. However, the amounts of these fines, which are far in excess of the money normally available to
the detainees, quite clearly reflect a hardening of the attitude of the Nepalese authorities.

Is the Commission aware of these arrests and of the Nepalese authorities’ decision to deal in this way with
the situation of Tibetan exiles travelling through Nepal on their way back to Chinese-occupied Tibet?

If so, what steps has the Commission taken to help the 13 Tibetans out of prison and, more generally, to
ensure that no further action is taken to prevent Tibetans from travelling through Nepal?

C 161 E/12

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member of the results of his question concerning
the arrest and detention of Tibetans travelling through Nepal.

On 12 July 2002 the EU Heads of Missions in Kathmandu informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(the Joint Secretary, Mr Gyan Chandra Acharya) of their concern at the treatment of Tibetans travelling
through Nepal en route to Tibet from India.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Heads of Missions that an ad hoc inter-departmental
committee had been set up with a view to finding a satisfactory solution quickly.

Meanwhile, similar representations were made to the Prime Minister, Mr Sher Bahador Deuba, by the
United States.

Contact between the Commission and the local office of the UNHCR have confirmed the existence of an
unwritten arrangement whereby Tibetans transiting Nepal en route to India are given the status of ‘person
of concern’. This arrangement does not apply to Tibetans returning from India, as it is impossible for the
UNHCR to negotiate the procedures for the return of Tibetans to Tibet with the three countries concerned
(India, Nepal and China).

The Commission is ready to support any further initiative to facilitate a more flexible approach by the
Nepalese authorities which complies with local
laws on the basis of humanitarian considerations and
respect for human rights.

The Commission Delegation and representatives of Member States on the spot are closely following this
case in the hope of an equitable decision by the Government.

The Honourable Member will be informed as soon as possible of further developments.

(2003/C 161 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2063/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 July 2002)

Subject: Harmonised jurisdiction on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes

On 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice in the Hague ruled that incumbent ministers of
foreign affairs are immune from prosecution for crimes under international law, including crimes against
humanity and war crimes. The ruling impeded Belgium from putting on trial, because of his immunity, a
former foreign minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for allegedly killing hundreds of Tutsis in
1998.

I fear that such a view on immunity represents a step backward in the campaign for universal justice and
also undermines the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction.

The immunity of State officials has already been excluded from international treaties,
including the
Genocide Convention. They are also excluded by the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for
the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court, which is in force as of 1 July 2002. All of these instruments explicitly
provide that a person’s official capacity is not a bar to prosecution on the grounds of genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes. The decision of 14 February is disappointing because it effectively
shields some state officials from prosecution for atrocities. Government ministers who commit crimes
against humanity, genocide, or war crimes are not likely to be prosecuted at home, and the ruling means
they will enjoy impunity abroad as well.