WRITTEN QUESTION E-2421/02 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Possible execution of Mr Omori Katsuhisa in Japan.
Date: 2002-08-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU policy, Japan, death penalty

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/167

(2003/C 92 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2410/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council

(7 August 2002)

Subject: Peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda

Earlier this week, representatives of Rwanda and of the Democratic Republic of the Congo concluded a
peace agreement in the South African capital, Pretoria. That agreement follows in the wake of a recent
agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda.

What is the Council’s assessment of the peace agreement concluded between the Democratic Republic of
the Congo and Rwanda?

What implications does the agreement have for relations between the European Union and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo?

Will the arrangements for EU assistance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo be strengthened
thereby? If so, how?

Reply

(19 December 2002)

The EU has congratulated the governments of the DRC and Rwanda for the signing of the Peace
Agreement between the DRC and Rwanda on the withdrawal of Rwandan troops from the territory of the
DRC as well as for the programme for its implementation. The EU also welcomed the dismantling of the
ex-FAR and Interahamwe forces in the DRC. The EU has at the same time, expressed the hope that the
Congolese Parties will make full use of the present momentum to promote an all-inclusive conclusion of
the Inter-Congolese Dialogue. It repeatedly reassured all Parties of its continued support to the ongoing
process of securing peace and security for all countries and people in the region of the Great Lakes.

The EU considers that progress in the Inter-Congolese Dialogue and the withdrawal of external troops in
the DRC are both necessary prerequisites for obtaining a lasting peace in the DRC. It therefore considers
the agreement between the DRC and Rwanda as a major step forward towards peace in the region.

The bilateral relations between the EU and the DRC are already normalised and the signing of the Peace
Agreement in itself is therefore not expected to have any immediate consequences in this respect. The new
National Indicative Programme with the DRC, opening up for resources under the European Development
Fund was signed in January. Whether the Peace Agreement and its implementation will have any
implications for EU assistance to the DRC will have to be examined in due course.

(2003/C 92 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2421/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(20 August 2002)

Subject: Possible execution of Mr Omori Katsuhisa in Japan

Mr Omori Katsuhisa, 53, who is under sentence of death, could be executed within the next few days.
As more than one execution is usually carried out at the same time in Japan, there are fears that other
executions will take place in August. Executions are carried out in secret; there is consequently no official
confirmation of the names of individuals scheduled to be executed.

Omori Katsuhisa was arrested on 10 August 1976 on charges of having planted and detonated a bomb in
prefectural government offices in Hokkaido in the north of Japan,
in March of that year. His death
sentence became final when his appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court in July 1994. It appears that
Omori Katsuhisa’s lawyer was preparing a fresh appeal when it emerged that his client’s execution was
imminent.

C 92 E/168

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Does the Commission realise that Omori Katsuhisa’s execution could very well take place within the next
few days? Has it already called on the Japanese authorities not to carry out that execution or that of others
sentenced to death? What moves has it made, or what moves does it intend to make, to persuade the
Japanese Government to introduce a moratorium on capital punishment, as Parliament called for in the
resolution it adopted in June 2002?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

The Commission has actively supported the Union’s efforts to work for the abolition of the death penalty
in Japan. Union Heads of Mission prepared a report on the death penalty in Japan in December 2001. An
Union troika démarche, addressed to the Japanese Minister of Justice, was subsequently carried out on
18 February 2002 with a full explanation of the Union’s position on the death penalty.

Moreover, in February 2002, the Union Troika in Tokyo was given a permanent mandate to carry out
démarches on the death penalty and is engaged in an active dialogue with the Japanese Parliamentary
League for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. The subject is kept under review by the Heads of Mission
with a view to further initiatives, including on this particular case.

As regards M. Omori Katsuhisa, the Commission notes that the Japanese Ministry of Justice announces
executions after they have taken place. The fact that no such announcement has been made suggests that
the execution has not yet been carried out.

Mr Omori Katsuhisa has appealed for a retrial in July 2002, and the Parliamentary League has requested
the Ministry of Justice not to execute Mr Omori Katsuhisa before the end of the retrial. Mr. Kamei, the
President of the Parliamentary League, has also requested Justice Minister Morayama not to execute
Mr Omori Katsuhisa outside the session period of the Japanese Parliament (which has ended).

(2003/C 92 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2422/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Surplus prawn-fishing capacity in the Netherlands

(20 August 2002)

The Netherlands has disregarded the targets of its MAGP IV regarding prawn boats and, in recent years,
has created a considerable amount of surplus capacity by building new vessels. According to the
Netherlands fishing industry’s newspaper, the target for 1993 was 2 812 GT/10 318 kW. However, the
capacity of the Netherlands prawn-fishing fleet in 2001 stood at 4 423 GT/16 931 kW.

Moreover, funds have been used to build new vessels which were granted for scrapping vessels, such as
large flatfish boats, in other parts of the industry.

By acting in this manner, the Netherlands’ prawn-fishing fleet has gained a considerable competitive edge.
Even if the surplus capacity is cut back at the present time, there is a risk that only the older and less
profitable units will be decommissioned. The Netherlands would have a rejuvenated fleet at its disposal
while other Member States would continue to use boats over 30 years old only.

How does the Commission intend to force the Netherlands to reduce its surplus prawn-fishing

1.
capacity?

How does the Commission intend to prevent the competitive advantages gained over the other
2.
Member States’ older vessels through the illegal building of new vessels being subsequently legalised
through the new structural policy?

3.
Can the Commission rule out the possibility that funds granted for reducing the Netherlands’ flatfish
fleet have been used to build new prawn boats? How does the Commission intend to punish such conduct?