WRITTEN QUESTION E-0392/03 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Situation of Mr Tohti Tunyaz, an ethnic Uighur sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Date: 2003-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, ethnic group, human rights, imprisonment, political cooperation, right to justice, rights of minorities, the EU's international role

C 192 E/182

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Directives mentioned by the Honourable Member have been transposed into Greek law. Consequently,
in the situations referred to in the written question, it is the responsibility of the national authorities to
ensure that national and/or Community provisions for protecting the health and safety of workers are
upheld and to take action against any infringements.

It is only in cases where a consistent administrative practice can be established that the Commission could,
if necessary, act against a Member State on the basis of incorrect application of Community law.

(2003/C 192 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0392/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(13 February 2003)

Subject: Situation of Mr Tohti Tunyaz, an ethnic Uighur sentenced to 11 years in prison

Mr Tohti Tunyaz, an ethnic Uighur from the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR), while visiting
XUAR as a postgraduate student at the Tokyo University School of Humanities (Japan) specialising in the
history of Chinese Government policy towards minority groups, was arrested on 6 February 1998 for
obtaining and copying part of a 50-year-old document, which he obtained with the help of an official
librarian.

On 10 November 1998, Mr Tunyaz was officially charged by the Chinese authorities with ‘stealing state
secrets for foreign persons’ and ‘inciting national disunity’. The latter charge was based on an allegedly
published book in Japan in 1998 entitled ‘The Inside Story of the Silk Road’, advocating, according to the
Chinese government, ethnic separation, which according to scholars in Tokyo was not written by
Mr Tunyaz.

Mr Tunyaz was convicted by the Urumqi Intermediate People’s Court on 10 March 1999, and following an
appeal, was sentenced by China’s Supreme Court on 15 February 2000 to 11 years in prison with an
additional two years’ deprivation of political rights.

Mr Tohti Tunyaz is currently serving his 11-year sentence in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region Prison
No 3 in the provincial capital of Urumqi. It is reported that he has exhausted his appeals and will therefore
remain incarcerated until his sentence expires on 31 March 2009.

Has the Commission undertaken any initiative concerning the case of Mr Tohti Tunyaz? Does the
Commission intend to enforce in any way the December 2001 Declaration of the United Nations Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention granting Mr Tunyaz ‘arbitrarily detained’ status? More generally, what
initiatives does the Commission intend to take in order to create the conditions for a political dialogue on
the future status of East Turkistan between the Chinese authorities and the representatives of the East
Turkistan opposition movements?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the information provided on the case of Mr Tohti
Tunyaz.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern about the human rights situation of the Uighur
minority in Xinjiang.

Human rights issues,
including freedom of religion and respect for the fundamental rights of ethnic
minorities are systematically raised during the EU’s regular political contacts, and in particular during its
Human Rights Dialogue with the Chinese authorities. In the context of the preparations for the next round

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/183

of its Human Rights Dialogue on 5/6 March in Athens, the EU expressed, once again, its concern over the
human rights situation in general and insisted particularly on issues of concern to ethnic minorities such as
cultural rights and the freedom of expression.

Furthermore, the Commission is urging China at every possible occasion to enhance co-operation with the
United Nations’ human rights mechanisms. Some progress has been achieved in this area, given that China
has agreed to invite the United Nations’ rapporteur on religious freedom, on the right to education, the
independence of judges and lawyers and the chairperson of the working group on arbitrary detention.
Additionally, the new High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, is expected to visit
China this spring.

The EU will continue to closely monitor the Chinese government’s respect for freedom of expression and
respect for the civil and political rights of ethnic minorities, including the Uighur minority in Xinjiang, and
will continue to express concern about violations of these fundamental rights, including the on-going
crackdown in the Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region. The next session of the EU-China Human Rights
dialogue will offer the first in a series of opportunities to give voice to these concerns in 2003.

(2003/C 192 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0396/03

by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: EU/Chile Association Agreement

The European Union and Chile have just concluded an association agreement (1) which has been presented
as the most innovative and most wide-ranging agreement ever concluded with a State which has not
applied for EU membership.

As part of that association agreement, the Commission directly negotiated an agreement on wines and
spirits and, in particular, the rules governing the use of traditional expressions.

Although, in overall terms, the agreement on wines is satisfactory, the French delegation had drawn the
Commission’s attention to the use by the Chileans, in French, of the traditional expressions ‘Chateau’,
‘grand cru’, ‘cru bourgeois’ and ‘clos’, which might mislead consumers as to the real origin of the wine and
thus give rise to unfair competition. The Commission would appear to have disregarded this fact during
the negotiations.

Above all, there is no proof of the prior right in law of Chilean wine-growers to use these terms: although
current Chilean law acknowledges the existence of complementary quality mentions, it lays down neither
definitions nor a list of such mentions.

1. Why did the European Commission disregard the remarks made by the French delegation concerning
this precise matter?

2.
Can the European Commission provide proof that, prior to the conclusion of the agreement, Chilean
national law recognised the expressions ‘Chateau’, ‘grand cru’, ‘cru bourgeois’ and ‘clos’, and is it aware that
the lack of such proof would give rise to a problem concerning the prior right in law to use such
expressions?

3.
If that prior right in law is established, would the European Commission be prepared to place this
item on the agenda for the first meeting of the Joint Consultative Committee with a view to laying down
‘the practical conditions of use to make a distinction between the homonymous traditional expressions and
complimentary quality mentions referred to in paragraph 5, bearing in mind the need to treat
the
producers concerned fairly and to ensure that consumers are not misled’ (Article 8(6) of the agreement)?

(1) OJ L 352, 30.12.2002, p. 3.