WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/04 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission. Churches in Indonesia.
Date: 2004-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Indonesia, Moluccas, freedom of religious beliefs, religious discrimination, religious fundamentalism

C 88 E/252

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Is the Commission aware of these reports by Amnesty International, Human Right Watch and

1.
AWAAZ?

2.

3.

Has the Commission taken any action in response to the reports?

If so, what was the outcome? If not, why not?

Does the current situation in Gujarat have implications for the ability of European firms effectively to

4.
apply the principle of non-discrimination in their personnel policy?

(1) See page 30.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the reports mentioned by the Honourable Member and continues to follow
closely the developments in Gujarat. The Commission fully agrees that the perpetrators of the crimes
should be brought to justice, the victims rehabilitated, and the rights of religious minorities protected.

The Commission has responded to the Gujarat violence by providing a relief package for the victims
through its Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO).

Furthermore, the EU has agreed to deal with all matters concerning democracy and human rights in India
through its regular, on-going constructive dialogue with the Indian Government.

India and the EU have recently engaged in the ‘Athens process’ (cid:1) regular human rights consultations with
the Indian authorities (cid:1) to exchange views on issues of concern. EU Heads of Mission in New Delhi
(including the Commission’s Head of Delegation) are closely monitoring human rights issues, with a
particular emphasis on Gujarat and questions of religious freedom.

It is not within the purview of the Commission to give explicit recommendations to private companies on
how they should operate in third countries. However, the Commission is committed to encouraging
companies to act according to United Nations (UN) and EU guidelines on Corporate Social Responsibility.
These guidelines notably make clear reference to the need to protect and promote the human rights of
employees, and to avoid discrimination against minority groups.

(2004/C 88 E/0257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/04

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Churches in Indonesia

I have received several
letters from constituents regarding Reverend Rinaldy Damanik, a leader of the
Indonesia. Has the Commission any further
Protestant Christian Community in Central Sulawesi,
information on his situation to add to the response that it gave to Written Question E-2815/03 (1) in
October 2003?

Is the Commission also aware of the recent closure of several churches in Indonesia and the lack of
resolution of the enforced conversion of thousands of Christians to Islam during the sectarian conflict in
the Molucca Islands? Is the Commission making representations to encourage the Indonesian Government
to put an end to these and other examples of the persecution of Christians in Indonesia?

(1) See page 117.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/253

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission is still
following the case of Reverend Damanik whose sentence to three years
imprisonment for illegal possession of weapons was confirmed by the Supreme Court at the end of 2003.
Since Reverend Damanik has already spent more than one-and-a-half years in prison, there is a possibility
of an earlier release.

The Commission Delegation in Jakarta has contacted the human rights non-governmental organisation
(NGO), linked to the Indonesian Church, which has taken over the assistance to Reverend Damanik after
the sentence of the highest court, and was informed that they are assessing the feasibility of starting a new
case, with new evidence/witnesses.

As regards the areas with a high level of religious tensions, the Commission is encouraged by information,
received from local religious groups, that inter-faith groups are set up aiming at co-operation and
reciprocal protection and defence. The Commission has recently received one of these inter-faith groups
active in the Maluku Province.

The Commission is closely monitoring the situation of religious freedom in Indonesia. Moreover, support
to organisations defending minority rights in Indonesia is part of
the Community’s co-operation
programme with the country, in particular through projects supported under the European Initiative for
Democracy and Human Rights.

(2004/C 88 E/0258)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0941/04

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: GMOs

Is the Commission aware of the case before the Supreme Court of Canada of Percy Scmeiser v Monsanto?
The case involves the issue of liability in the case of GM crops spreading into conventional or organic
crops as well as the intentional and non-intentional spread of GMOs into the environment on the one
hand and infringement of patent on the other.

Questions have been raised in the court case as to whether infringement of patent can occur even if the
farmers accused of infringement may have themselves been victims of non-intentional spread of GMOs.

In response to Written Question E-0819/03 (1), the Commission referred to its international discussions on
liability and redress in the context of the Biosafety Protocol. Will the Commission be seeking to ensure that
safeguards are included so that a recurrence of such a legal situation may be prevented?

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 358.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Honourable Member mentions in his question the case before the Supreme Court of Canada of Percy
Schmeiser v Monsanto regarding an alleged infringement of a patent following the spread of genetic
material into conventional crops.

In the EU, the infringement of patents is governed by the law of the Member States. The Commission is
not aware of the existence of any difficulties of the kind in question within the EU.

The Honourable Member refers in particular to the discussions on liability and redress for damage resulting
from the transboundary movement of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
in the context of the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.