WRITTEN QUESTION E-1768/03 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Rehabilitation of torture victims.
Date: 2003-05-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Iraq, aid policy, budget policy, medical centre, torture

C 88 E/618

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

His statement corresponds well with the description of the role of the occupying power (‘the Authority’) in
the United Nations Security Council (UNSCR) of 22 May 2003.

Of course the statement of the Member of the Commission was an expression of his own analysis of the
situation, (cid:1) and as such neither very original nor controversial. Mr Camre could also have drawn guidance
from the thorough and constructive debate on Iraq in the Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg on
14 May 2003 where the Commissioner represented the Commission.

(2004/C 88 E/0637)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1768/03

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Rehabilitation of torture victims

Would the Commission agree that in post-war Iraq, one of the main priorities must be to address the
needs of the Iraqi people, particularly those who have suffered from the torture and inhumane treatment
which was so widespread under Saddam Hussein’s regime? There are many rehabilitation centres outside
Iraq that have provided treatment for Iraqi survivors of torture, and would the Commission agree that is
essential that they continue to carry out this important work? However, there has been a shift in policy
priority in the EU from the rehabilitation of torture victims to prevention, which has resulted in a dramatic
reduction in EU funding allocated to rehabilitation, from EUR 14,5 million to EUR 8,2 million between
2001 and 2002, a reduction of 45 %. Will the Commission acknowledge that it is important that the EU
funds policies both to prevent torture and to rehabilitate torture victims? Will the Commission reconsider
the reduction in funding for the rehabilitation of torture victims to ensure that this vital work can still be
carried out?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s view about the fact that the needs of Iraqi people,
particularly those who have suffered from the torture and inhumane treatment under Saddam Hussein’s
regime, should be specifically targeted under a possible humanitarian intervention. The Commission is
currently examining which activities could be supported in the short and medium term in Iraq, once the
appropriate political framework will be established for the Commission’s contribution to the post-war
reconstruction of Iraq. Human rights, including rehabilitation of torture victims, are considered as one of
the possible priority areas.

The Commission decided to adopt a more strategic approach to funding channelled through the European
Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). The Commission’s Communication on Human Rights
and Democratisation of May 2001 (1)
identified four thematic priorities for future EIDHR support,
including the fight against torture. In line with the need to focus limited funds more effectively, the
Communication also underlined that
the Union should seek to focus as much as possible on the
prevention of torture, as opposed to support for rehabilitation centres. The subsequent programming
document for the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) in 2002-2004 noted that
funding would be re-oriented in the direction of prevention of torture in the longer term.

The reduction in funds for rehabilitation centres has been accompanied by measures designed to reduce
existing dependency on Community funding in a progressive fashion, with the aim of enabling centres to
look for funds from other sources. For example, the 2001 call reduced the maximum percentage support
for rehabilitation projects to 60 % for centres inside the Union and 80 % for projects outside the Union.
These percentages were further reduced in the 2002 call to 50 % and 75 % respectively. In this aspect, the
degree of importance accorded to sustainability questions during the assessment process is a determining
factor for funding decisions by the Commission. Moreover, ‘institutional strengthening’, which includes the
development of fund-raising capabilities, was explicitly eligible for funding in 2001 and 2002.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/619

The 2002 Call for Proposals was designed to continue this process. The Call, for EUR 25 million, covered
the funding of torture prevention projects and rehabilitation centres, with a plan to allocate one third and
two thirds of the funds available to those two fields of activities respectively. All projects submitted were
evaluated by two experts, one of whom was experienced in project management and the other in the
psychiatric/psychological field. The projects were ranked according to score and were selected with a view
to ensuring a balance in the geographical distribution of the proposed activities.

The quality of the projects submitted by the rehabilitation centres for activities based within the Union
(budget line B5-813) did, in fact, produce a result which respected the planned balance. However, the
projects submitted by centres based outside the Union scored rather badly (sometimes below the minimum
required), which did not allow for the selection of sufficient rehabilitation projects to respect the envisaged
two thirds (cid:1) one third balance. Around EUR 4,5 million was allocated to centres outside the Union (for
the period 2002-2003), with around EUR 8 million being provided for torture prevention projects.
Approximately EUR 4 million was allocated for rehabilitation centres inside the Union, with an additional
EUR 2 million for projects including aspects in support of victims of torture.

As regards the likelihood of centres closing as a result of failure to secure Community support, this must
be considered in light of the expressed policy to move away from rehabilitation and towards prevention
and the measures outlined above which have accompanied that change in policy. Support to centres can
only be given in accordance with competitive rules designed to ensure that the Union taxpayer gets value
for money by only funding the best proposals, which meet minimum quality requirements.

It is not possible to reallocate funds from the 2003 budget to rehabilitation centres. This would result in
other important human rights’ priorities under the EIDHR facing cuts, would fail to respect EIDHR
programming and could not be executed within the rules set down by the revised Financial Regulation (2).
A further call for EUR 5,5 million for centres inside the Union is, however, planned for 2003.

(1) COM(2001) 252 final.
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2004/C 88 E/0638)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1891/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE)
and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Iran’s nuclear activities

The European Union is currently negotiating on a trade treaty with Iran. Iran has nuclear activities that are
not entirely transparent to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In February 2003 IAEA
officials visited Iran. They are still not convinced and have asked Iran to provide a written answer to their
questions.

Does the Commission agree that total transparency on nuclear activities is a precondition for a trade
treaty?

What steps will the Commission take if total transparency is not provided?

Is the Commission prepared to stop the negotiations in the absence of total transparency?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The Union has repeatedly stated that the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) constitutes one of
the major areas of concern in its relations with Iran. While recognising Iran’s right as a party to the Non-