WRITTEN QUESTION E-3447/02 by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council. Human rights situation in Iran — resolution in the UN General Assembly Third Committee.
Date: 2002-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Iran, UN General Assembly, death penalty, human rights, resolution, the EU's international role

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/73

Since, according to an established tradition of diplomacy in both the Member States and the Union
institutions, interpretation into the language or languages of the host country or institution is provided by
its own staff, a fortiori at meetings as important as this one, what induced the Council to infringe this
sacrosanct and sound rule governing international relations? Furthermore, has the Council made an official
complaint to the Russian authorities and the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC)
asking them to condemn this blatant violation of ethical rules by the Russian interpreters, in particular the
rule according to which interpreters should translate what is said in its entirety? Finally, what conclusions
does the Council draw regarding the racist, offensive and even threatening nature of the remarks made by
the President of the Russian Federation at the press conference in Brussels on 11 November last?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council would point out to the Honourable Member that the EU-Russia Summit was held within the
Council premises in exceptional circumstances, the Presidency having made a late switch of the event from
Copenhagen to Brussels.

With regard to interpretation, the practice followed by the Council at Council meetings is for simultaneous
interpretation to be assured solely by interpreters from the Joint Interpreting and Conference Service (SCIC)
in order to guarantee quality. This practice is normally followed by respective Presidencies for the
organisation of high level meetings, such as bilateral summits between the EU and third countries.
However, this is not a sacrosanct rule and, in exceptional circumstances, the Presidency has on occasion
accepted, after consulting SCIC, that simultaneous interpretation into an other language be provided by the
visiting delegation.

At
the recent EU-Russia summit, simultaneous interpretation into Russian was provided by SCIC’s
interpreters and the Russian delegation provided interpretation into English at the request of President
Putin.

The same interpreters accordingly provided simultaneous interpreting of President Putin’s statement at the
press conference which concluded the Summit. As far as the standard of interpretation during the summit
is concerned, the Council has made no complaint either to the Russian authorities or the International
Association of Conference Interpreters.

It is, however, not the policy of the Council to comment on statements to the press made by visiting
Heads of State.

(2003/C 222 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3447/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Human rights situation in Iran (cid:1) resolution in the UN General Assembly Third Committee

On 21 October 2002 there was a discussion in the Council (for General Affairs and External Relations) on
the human rights situation in Iran and the Union’s position on this subject. A central issue was how to
reconcile the possible tabling by the EU of a resolution on Iran in the UN General Assembly Third
Committee with the human rights dialogue agreed with Iran as part of a package including negotiations on
a trade and cooperation agreement. It was eventually agreed that the EU would not table a resolution on
Iran in the Third Committee this year and would make any follow-up action (for instance at the Human
Rights Commission in Geneva) partly dependent on the course of the planned dialogue with Iran.

Does the Council agree that the human rights situation in Iran has deteriorated in the period since

1.
then?

C 222 E/74

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Does the Council agree that the EU’s human rights dialogue with Iran does not preclude the
2.
possibility of placing the human rights situation in Iran on the agenda in other fora by means of
resolutions? If so, why has it decided not to table any resolutions in the UN General Assembly Third
Committee?

3. What is the human rights dialogue with Iran expecting to achieve, when on the day before an EU
delegation visited Teheran (on 30 September 2002) five people were hanged in Teheran in public? What
impact has this event had on the dialogue between the EU and Iran?

Does the Council agree that the decision to table a resolution at the 59th meeting of the UN Human
4.
Rights Commission in 2003 must not be dependent on the course of the human rights dialogue, but on
the actual human rights situation in Iran? If not, why not?

Reply

(8 May 2003)

1.
The first session of the EU-Iran human rights dialogue, established by the Council’s conclusions of
21 October 2002, took place in Teheran on 16 and 17 December 2002. The format of the session
consisted of a roundtable including members of civil society from both the EU and Iran, and separate
officials’ meetings. The themes addressed in the roundtable were discrimination and torture prevention.
In the officials’ meetings, those themes and all other issues of concern to the EU about the human rights
situation in Iran were addressed. The Council has not yet had the opportunity to assess the results of this
first session of the dialogue, nor to take a position on whether or not the human rights situation in Iran
has in fact deteriorated since October 2002.

2.
In its conclusions of 21 October 2002, the Council reaffirmed its position of principle that the
establishment of a dialogue is without prejudice to the tabling of a resolution at the Third Committee of
the UN General Assembly or the UN CHR. This position is already enshrined in paragraph 9 of the EU’s
Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues adopted in 2001.

The Council decided on 21 October 2002 not to table a resolution on the human rights situation in Iran
at the 57th session of the UN General Assembly in October/November 2002. The Council took no
decision on 21 October 2002, however, as to whether or not it would table a resolution on Iran at future
sessions of the UN General Assembly or of the UN CHR.

3.
The purpose of the dialogue with Iran is to achieve concrete progress in the situation of human
rights on the ground. The EU human rights expert delegation, which visited Iran on 30 September and
1 October 2002, expressed its concerns to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs during that visit about
the public executions to which the question refers.

In order to monitor whether the dialogue is achieving concrete progress in the human rights situation in
Iran, the Council will assess the results of the dialogue on a regular basis. The benchmarks by reference to
which progress will be measured refer to all the areas of concern to the EU, including the imposition of
the death penalty.

(2003/C 222 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3466/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Town twinning

What is the Commission doing to rectify the problems applicants are experiencing with the town twinning
grant due to the excessively short period of time between the submission of applications and the phase
period?