WRITTEN QUESTION E-3252/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission. International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
Date: 2003-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, International Criminal Tribunal, Serbia and Montenegro, application of EU law, common foreign and security policy, restriction of liberty, war crime

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/137

A bill abolishing the Death Penalty in the Philippines has been tabled at both the House of Representatives
and the Senate and, after having been finalised at committee level in May 2003, is ready to be discussed at
both chambers of Congress. However, and although the groups lobbying for the abolition of the death
penalty seem to have gathered enough support to pass the bill in both chambers, the likelihood of this
happening decreases as the elections in May 2004 approach, since the death penalty remains a
controversial issue in the Philippines.

(2004/C 88 E/0144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3244/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Policy Coherence for Development Network

(3 November 2003)

On a Netherlands initiative, a Policy Coherence for Development Network was recently set up for the
purpose of promoting information-exchanges between EU Member States on maintaining policy
consistency.

1.

Can the Commission state how the network operates?

2. What have been the initial results of information-exchanges?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

At the meeting of Union Directors General for Development Cooperation on 2/3 October 2003, the Dutch
Director General tabled a proposal to set up a senior level informal network on coherence, which would
foster capacity building, co-ordination and set concrete targets for work on coherence. The participants
would alert each other on policy initiatives with implications for development co-operation and spot
incoherence where it exists.

The prime objective of the network would be to improve co-ordination between the Member States.
On key issues of policy coherence, Member States would communicate and co-ordinate more intensively:
exchange information about pending decisions, share analyses of development aspects, draft positions and
where possible co-ordinate strategies. It was argued that such an exchange would help to ensure that the
development perspective is effectively taken into account in decision making at Union level.

The proposal was warmly welcomed.

The Commission will participate as one of the members of this network.

At this stage the network is still in its inception phase. Member States are designating co-ordinators for
information exchange and collaboration between Member States and with the Commission concerning
coherence issues. A list of priority issues is being prepared.

(2004/C 88 E/0145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3252/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

The External Relations Council of 13 October, expressing deep concern that certain Western Balkan
countries were still failing to cooperate sufficiently with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY), reiterated the need to intensify efforts to bring Radovan Karadzic, General Mladic and
General Gotovina to the ICTY.

C 88 E/138

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

In its Common Position 2003/280/CFSP (1) of 16 April 2003 the Council imposed an EU travel ban on
some persons obstructing the mandate of the ICTY, and this has had a positive impact, especially in Bosnia
and Herzegovina (BiH).

What steps is the Commission taking to broaden the list of persons named in that Common Position to
include those helping ICTY indictees elsewhere in the region to evade justice?

Specifically, will those sheltering Karadzic, Mladic and Gotovina, whose respective support networks in
Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro are reported by ICTY to be significant, now be subject to the travel
ban?

(1) OJ L 101, 23.4.2003, p. 22.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

With Common Position 2003/280/CFSP of 16 April 2003 the Council adopted measures preventing the
entry into or transit through Member State territories of individuals engaged in activities which help others
to evade justice for crimes for which the ICTY has indicted them.

When adopting this Common Position, the Council agreed that amendments to the list of persons
identified in the annex could be adopted as required. Thus, on 27 June 2003 under Council Decision
2003/484/CFSP (1), the Council, following recommendations from the office of the High Representative for
Bosnia and Herzegovina and after consultations with the ICTY, added new names.

The Commission and Member States remain in contact with the ICTY and the High Representative for
Bosnia and Herzegovina and keep the list under review. If or when new evidence emerges concerning
other individuals, appropriate steps can be taken.

(1) OJ L 162, 1.7.2003 amended by OJ L 178, 17.7.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3263/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Powers of the region of Wallonia to approve arms exports, and the use of such weapons to repress

the people of Nepal

1.
Is the Commission aware that the financing of 5 500 machine guns purchased by the state of Nepal
from the Belgian arms manufacturer FN Herstal has been at the expense of measures to combat poverty,
education, health care and the holding of elections, and that all of these weapons are ready for deployment
just over a year after the placing of the order?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that, since the delivery of these weapons, the Government of the
Kingdom of Nepal and the army have ended the dialogue with the opposition begun in the first half of
2003, and that the weapons are being used on a massive scale in western Nepal for the killing of unarmed
citizens suspected of possibly joining the protest against the conditions of inequality under which people
traditionally live in this country?

Does the Commission regard the delivery of such weapons to an area of conflict like Nepal for such

3.
purposes to be compatible with the EU code of conduct on the export of arms?

4.
Is it only the EU Member States that are bound by this code of conduct, or also the individual states
of which they are comprised, such as the region of Wallonia, which has been delegated powers to export
arms by the federal Belgian government and which bases its decisions primarily on the employment
opportunities provided by arms production?