WRITTEN QUESTION E-0708/03 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission. Right of asylum for women threatened with female genital mutilation.
Date: 2003-03-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Kenya, reproductive health, right of asylum, sexual discrimination, sexual mutilation, the EU's international role, women's rights

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/41

(2004/C 51 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0708/03

by Gianfranco Dell’Alba (NI) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Right of asylum for women threatened with female genital mutilation

Is the Commission aware that over the last few days in Kenya a hundred or so girls and young women
have sought refuge in a church in order to avoid the risk of having to undergo genital mutilation (cid:1)
an ancestral practice which is still carried out in at least 28 African countries and which is inflicted each
year on over two million girls?

In the light of Parliament’s resolution of 20 September 2001 (1) and the international ‘STOP FGM’ appeal
which has been signed by thousands of prominent figures and ordinary people throughout the world and
which calls, amongst other things, for the right of asylum to be granted to women who are threatened
with mutilation (a practice which may be regarded as an extremely serious infringement of the most basic
human rights):

(cid:1) does the Commission not think that, given the particular situation of the 100 Kenyan women, the EU
should as a matter of urgency include such a situation amongst those in respect of which asylum
within the EU Member States should be granted?

(cid:1) what action has the Commission taken (or does it intend to take) in response to this situation?

(1) OJ C 77 E, 28.3.2002, p. 126.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

In the field of asylum, there are no Community provisions in place based on Article 63 of the EC Treaty
related to the situation described in the question. In particular, the proposal for a Directive on minimum
standards for the qualification as a refugee or as a person otherwise in need of international protection (1)
is still under negotiation in the Council. At present there is, therefore, no Community law in place that
would enable the Commission to make inquiries about individual asylum and immigration cases and,
therefore, there is no power to intervene on that basis with the Member States.

Article 7(d) of the Commission’s proposal states that in case of women applicants, account shall be taken
of the fact that persecution, within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, may be effected through sexual
violence or other gender-specific means. It should be borne in mind that in many cases gender-specific
violence is purely a form of persecution and any of the persecution grounds as mentioned in the 1951
Refugee Convention may be applicable. However, sexual violence to refugee women, such as Female
Genital Mutilation (FGM), can also be inflicted for the sole reason of their gender. In such situations, the
persecution ground ‘membership of a particular social group’ could apply.

As regards this particular ground, Article 12(d) of
the proposal sets out rules for interpretation.
Its applicability will depend on particular circumstances and contexts in the country of origin and the
the persecution and the persecuted. The rules foresee the inclusion of groups of
characteristics of
individuals who are treated as ‘inferior’ or as ‘second class’ in the eyes of the law, which thereby condones
persecution at the hands of private individuals or other non-state actors, or where the State uses the law in
a discriminatory manner and refuses to invoke the law to protect that group. This may be the case in
situations where women are the victims of domestic violence, including sexual violence and mutilations, in
those States where they are unable to obtain effective protection against such abuse because of their
gender or social status as married women, daughters, widows or sisters, in that society.

The Honourable Member is, however, advised that the Council has not yet adopted the above Directive.
In Kenya, FGM was formally banned for girls under 17 after the Children’s Act was adopted by the

C 51 E/42

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

(2001). However,

the Commission believes that confronting the complex and culturally
Parliament
entrenched beliefs that underlie FGM is an undertaking that must involve not only public repression, but
also education and public awareness in the country.

the Commission has already brought up the question of women’s rights with the
In this context
Government of Kenya including FGM issues. The Commission is also assisting civil society initiatives with
regard to women rights and women’s involvement in political decision making while supporting a specific
project focussing on FGM prevention in the Kisii district.

The Commission will continue in the future to support adequate measures to ensure progress on women’s
rights and the eradication of FGM practices. In particular, the Union is proposing to reinforce political
dialogue with the newly elected Kenyan Government focussing,
inter alia, on human rights including
gender issues. The Commission will also continue to bring up human rights issues, including gender issues,
in the appropriate forums, including in the context of the Community-dialogue with Non-State Actors
who monitor and enforce women’s rights.

For further details please refer to the Commission’s answer given to Written Question E-0519/03 by
Mrs Smet (2) regarding women’s rights in Kenya.

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2002.
(2) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 47.

(2004/C 51 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0709/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Census of coca producers in Peru and reclassification of coca leaf

The first (and so far only) census of legal and authorised coca-leaf producers in Peru dates back to 1978
and the purchase of coca leaf (exclusively by the state-run ENACO) is now based perforce on arbitrary
criteria employed for the purpose of selecting the producers from whom coca leaf is bought for legal use.
Furthermore, the figures relating to the increase in the size of the areas set aside for coca-leaf cultivation
are contradictory.

The UN classifies coca leaf in the same category as cocaine and heroin, despite the fact that independent
studies and ones carried out by the World Health Organisation itself have demonstrated the medical and
nutritional properties of the product which, in the Andes, has an essential role to play in local culture,
tradition and religion.

In view of the above facts and the passage of 25 years, does the Council not think that it should call for
and assist the drawing up of a new register of authorised producers on the basis of public, transparent and
non-discriminatory criteria, not
the alternative-development projects to be
implemented in the areas concerned?

for the benefit of

least

Does the Council not consider that, at the Ministerial-level segment of the UN Commission on Narcotic
Drugs which is to be held in Vienna on 16/17 April 2003, it should propose the deletion of coca leaf
from Table I in order to enable a legal coca-leaf market to emerge and thus a sustainable agricultural
economy to develop in the Andean countries?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The question raised by the Honourable Member has not been examined by the Council’s bodies.