WRITTEN QUESTION E-0188/04 by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission. Abduction of two Ivorians.
Date: 2004-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, EU relations, political kidnapping

C 88 E/688

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Commission is well aware of reports of alleged persecutions of ethnic minority groups by the military
in Burma/Myanmar and has on numerous occasions expressed its grave concern for the human rights
situation in the country, particularly in ethnic minority areas, to the Burmese Government.

The Commission has always stated that it is convinced that a lasting solution to the political situation,
which is a necessity for the improvement of the human rights situation in Burma, must be based on
agreement between the State Peace and Development Council
the democratically elected
‘opposition’ and the ethnic minorities.

(SPDC),

According to the EU Common Position on Burma/Myanmar, non-humanitarian aid or development
assistance to Burma remains suspended. However, exceptions may be made for programmes defined in
consultation with democratic groups and run with their involvement in areas such as basic education,
health and poverty alleviation.
Initiatives in support of human rights and democracy can also be
supported.

At present, Commission humanitarian support to Burma/Myanmar, totalling approximately EUR 10 million
per year, is mainly targeted at refugees, returnees and internally displaced persons. Activities include food
aid, basic health and Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS),
water and sanitation. All humanitarian programmes are implemented by non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) or International Organisations.

As regards the situation of Burmese refugees in Bangladesh and India, the Commission has discussed its
concerns with Indian and Bangladeshi authorities on several occasions.

The Commission is also providing substantial financial assistance to the Rohingya population, both in
Bangladesh and in the Rakhine State in Burma. This assistance is provided in full co-operation with the
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). The Commission will continue to monitor the
situation of the Rohyinga refugees closely in order to ensure that no forced repatriation takes place and it
remains ready to take further action if needed.

(2004/C 88 E/0707)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0188/04

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Abduction of two Ivorians

On 4 December 2003, while inside their vehicle, a grey Peugeot 405 with the registration number
2532CE01, Gbane Aboubacar and his brother Soule Ouattara were abducted by an armed commando near
the Treichville cultural centre in Côte d’Ivoire.

Since then, attempts by their family in Koumassi to find them have been in vain. Searches at police
stations and gendarmes’ barracks in the administrative capital, Abidjan, have so far proved fruitless.
Relatives of the victims and their political family, the Democratic Party of Côte d’Ivoire (PDCI-RDA), are
shocked by this new episode of violence in the country.

Does the Commission have any information about
circumstances?

this abduction that

took place in mysterious

Can the Commission intervene with the Ivorian authorities so that this kidnapping can be solved as
quickly as possible?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/689

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the case of Mr Gbane Aboubacar and his brother Mr Soule Ouattara. Their
abduction was mentioned in various newspapers, including ‘le Nouveau Réveil’ and ‘le Libéral’.

The party of which Mr Aboubacar is a member, the PDCI-RDA, undertook inquiries in police stations in
the neighbourhood, and in the central jailhouse, the ‘Maison d’Arrêt et de Correction’, in Abidjan, but
found no information.

The International Red Cross Committee was neither informed by the family nor by PDCI and was not
aware of this case.

The ‘Ligue Ivoirienne des Droits de l’Homme’ (LIDHO) was informed of the case through newspapers.
Their board discussed the issue on 26 January 2004, but decided not to make further inquiries because
neither the family nor PDCI requested any help from them.

The ‘Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits Humains’ (MIDH) sought further information from members of the
family, but they did not want to give any details and suggested to ask PDCI. In the meantime, the family
moved to an unknown address.

The Delegation of the Commission in Côte d’Ivoire will raise this matter with the Government.

(2004/C 88 E/0708)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0213/04

by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: The Pharmaceutical Tariff Elimination Agreement (Zero for Zero)

The Pharmaceutical Tariff Elimination Agreement was agreed by 22 countries (1) during the Uruguay Trade
Round and entered into force on 1 January 1995. It has meant the elimination of tariffs on thousands of
pharmaceutical entities and includes a commitment not to replace tariff barriers with non-tariff barriers
and even extends to cover products imported from states not signatory to the Agreement. All finished
pharmaceutical products (2) are automatically covered by the Agreement, however, active ingredients and
intermediates (used in the manufacture of finished pharmaceuticals) do not automatically qualify for zero
tariffs and must be formally added to the list of eligible products.

During Uruguay, signatories to this Agreement undertook to update the list of products covered by the
Agreement at least once every three years in order to include new active ingredients and intermediates that
have been developed since the Agreement was signed. The second update entered into force in July
1999 (3), meaning that the third update (Update III), should have been completed 18 months ago. Since the
1999 update, thousands of new products have been developed which are waiting to be recognised as
eligible for zero tariffs.

In parallel, WTO negotiators could consider simplifying the methodology to ensure that future updates are
no longer necessary and to encourage more WTO member states to join the Agreement. Such an initiative
would fall under the new trade round and, while welcome, should not prevent or further delay the speedy
conclusion of the already long overdue update committed to during the Uruguay Round.

Could you explain what stage the EC has reached with the third update to the Pharmaceutical Tariff
Elimination Agreement, due to be completed 18 months ago under the timetable agreed during the
Uruguay Round? Could you detail when the update process is due to be completed?

(1) Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, European Communities, Japan, Norway, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland,

United States.

(2) The Agreement refers to items classified in Chapter 30 of the Harmonised Tariff System (which includes all finished

pharmaceutical products).

(3) With the exception of Japan where it entered into force in June 2000.