3. The death penalty, particularly the case of Troy Davis
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the death penalty, particularly the case of Troy Davis.
author. - Mr President, this House has taken a clear and strong stance as far as the death penalty is concerned. It supports its abolition and the need for an immediate moratorium on executions where the death penalty still applies.
The latter is the case in many states in the USA such as Georgia, where Troy Davis is awaiting his lawful killing to be carried out at the end of July. Apart from ideological and humanistic considerations against executing human beings, in the case of Troy Davis there appear to be additional reasons in the form of serious doubts as to the robustness and validity of the evidence which led to his conviction in the first place.
Such doubts, we believe, justify the reasoning of any individual using common sense that retrial should be granted in this case. Consequently we call on the relevant authorities in the USA to order that Troy Davis be retried and, if found guilty again, that his death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment.
Furthermore, we call once again on the US Government, and all governments in the world that still have capital punishment, to abolish the death penalty in the interests of humanity. In particular we call on the governments of those countries such as China, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where executions are still carried out regularly, and where in many instances this is done in a most appallingly barbaric way, to stop executions.
author. - (PL) Mr President, I would not want this to be a debate on the subject of the death penalty as such. Since we cannot conceal the fact that opinions differ on this matter, it seems to me that we should be talking about the very specific case of an individual who was given the death penalty, subsequent to which seven out of nine witnesses to the charge against him withdrew their testimony. This is a very specific situation. I would not want us to veer off in an abstract fashion into a debate on whether the death penalty is completely bad or not. I do not want at the present moment to call on the US authorities to amend a law that in 1972, that is 36 years ago, brought back the death penalty. We are talking about a specific and extraordinarily controversial case. It really is worth defending Mr Davis and demonstrating that there are situations in which it is worthwhile intervening. I would caution against generalisations, and that is why I did not sign this joint resolution.
author. - Mr President, this case certainly is an urgency because, as we have been hearing, the execution is due to take place by the end of this month. So I would urge each and every one of us in this Chamber and listening to this debate to make personal representations to the American Government - and indeed the Georgia state government - to see if clemency can be applied. Then we would move towards a retrial, if that is necessary. At least we would have a living being and a retrial would be able to take place. I think it is really important that we take our personal responsibility on this as well as looking to representations by Parliament.
Certainly, in this particular case, the evidence - as we have also been hearing from many of the witnesses - has been retracted and contradicted. The American Bar Association's Georgia Death Penalty Assessment Team released a report looking at the circumstances in that particular state and felt that one of the major problems they had found was inadequate defence counsel, and a concern that defendants already on death row may not have had adequate counsel at the time of their trials. They noted that Georgia was the only state that did not provide lawyers to death row inmates for their post-conviction appeals.
So there are a number of reasons to be very concerned about this particular case, which is the one cited in the title of the resolution on the death penalty, notably the case of Troy Davis. But I would also like to raise other cases, in particular what is happening at the moment with some of those still detained in Guantánamo. One case in particular concerns a British resident, Binyamin Mohamed, who has been detained there for over six years now and is likely to face a military commission where the death penalty is all too possibly an outcome.
This Parliament, and the European Union as a whole, takes a very strong view on the death penalty. We consider that it is not something that a civilised society should be applying, and that there are all too many reasons for death penalties not to be imposed. The case of Troy Davis is, I think, an absolutely classic example of the real problems with the implementation of the death penalty.
Once again, as well as what is called for in this particular resolution, I would call on each and every one of us, as responsible individuals, also to take action in communicating our distress on this particular case.
author. - (LT) The European Parliament has adopted quite a few regulations encouraging the abolition of the death penalty and executions or at least a moratorium on executions in the countries in which the death penalty still exists.
Today we, the European Parliament, are supporting a person we have never met, Troy Davis, who is to be executed at the end of this month. Can you imagine yourself in his place, having had to spend 17 years waiting to be either cleared or executed, when there is strong evidence that he is innocent, with the seven witnesses who gave evidence against him having retracted their statements, and so on. We are aware of quite a few cases of a person being executed and his innocence being proved only afterwards. There are a lot of known cases where people are given the death penalty but avoid execution owing to the discovery of new evidence that proves they are not guilty of the crime.
Therefore, today we are once again calling on all the countries of the world in which the death penalty is still used to take immediate measures to abolish it. Today we are making our position against the death penalty clear, standing by a real person and pleading with the relevant US courts to reinvestigate the case of Troy Davis and pass a more lenient sentence instead of the death penalty.
In my opinion, supporting a real person, trying to protect him from being executed, even if he has made a huge mistake, is the best way to make our position on the necessity of abolishing the death penalty absolutely clear.
Mr President, the first human right is the sanctity of life. The death penalty is the most disrespectful of all the instances of contempt for dignity, civilisation and progress. Right now, at this precise moment, when we are breathing and speaking freely, one man, Troy Davis, is locked up in a cell, counting the minutes left of his life. He has been on death row for more than 15 years and has always denied committing the crime he was accused of. Some of those who testified against him have recanted or contradicted themselves in their statements, which were obtained under police coercion. There is no clear, objective and convincing evidence in this case. The application of the death penalty to Troy Davis by the authorities of the State of Georgia runs completely counter to the moratorium on the death penalty adopted last December by the United Nations General Assembly.
Although the moratorium is not legally binding, it carries enormous moral and political significance. It is now up to the States who do not abide by it to review their policy with a view to abolishing the death penalty and respecting human rights in their entirety. The State of Georgia now has the opportunity with this case to give the most fundamental values of democracy the substance they deserve once again. Commissioner Louis Michel recently heard the President of Sudan himself, Omar al-Bashir, say that he would not hand over those who have been indicted for crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court, just as the United States does not. The United States' example in these two areas is a disgrace, and we have to bring all means available to bear on the United States to show that we cannot accept this stance and the terrible example that is being set for the world in the field of human rights.
Therefore, as the resolution requests, it is vital that the Presidency of the European Union and the European Commission Delegation in Washington make representations so as to prevent Troy Davis' sentence being carried out and for the United States to effectively review its position on the death penalty.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, in 2007 some 1 252 executions took place in the world, in 24 countries. The true number was undoubtedly higher. Of those executions, 88% were carried out in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States.
There are two matters I would like to raise in today's debate. Firstly, I disagree entirely with what was said by my fellow Member Mr Czarnecki, that this issue is the subject of differences within the European Union. That is not the case. I would like to remind Mr Czarnecki of the official stance taken in the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine, which was also the personal view of Pope John Paul II, who was against the use of the death penalty. It seems to me that that should be a very clear indication to Mr Czarnecki of the stance of the majority on this matter in EU countries.
The second matter is of course the ongoing situation linked to the situation of Troy Davis in the United States, on whom the death penalty is to be carried out. We must do all we can to suspend the execution of this death sentence and to enable a review process to take place, with a possible replacement by a life sentence if he is proven guilty.
(RO) Over 40 countries have given up the death penalty method since 1990 and, today, over 120 countries have legally prohibited such a penalty.
At the European level, under the European Convention on Human Rights, which comprises an article 2 on the right to life and protocol 6, article 1, "Abolition of the death penalty”, no one shall be either condemned to such penalty or executed.
Shocking statistics have been presented worldwide. Over 1591 people were executed in 2006; over 3861 people were sentenced to death in 55 countries.
I believe that no person has the right to take another human being's life. How could you take something that is not yours? According to my reasoning, I cannot even conceive something like that, especially since, in the countries using the death penalty, the number of serious crimes has not decreased thanks to such penalties.
We propose the replacement of the death penalty with the deprivation of liberty.
(PL) Mr President, our discussion must of course allude to one fundamental matter, and that is the sense in general terms, as well as the moral aspect, of such court verdicts as sentencing a person to death. One of the arguments that I think is very important in this discussion is doubt regarding whether someone who has been accused in an absolutely final way may be recognised as guilty of the deed with which he is charged. In any other situation there is always the potential to drop the verdict and return someone to normal life. In the case of the death sentence this potential does not exist. In view of this, besides the purely moral aspects, exceptionally important though they are, this legal aspect too must be taken into consideration. This is particularly the case in the instance we are discussing, where there are major doubts regarding the grounds for the charge.
(PL) Mr President, everyone should have the right to a fair trial. In this case, where there are many doubts about guilt, and seven witnesses have withdrawn their testimony, there is a need for the case to be re-heard. A further matter, which those who have risen before me have mentioned, is the problem of the irreversibility of the death sentence. If doubts exist, this is all the more reason for not applying such a punishment.
Mr President, I should like to take the opportunity provided by this debate to call for a moratorium on the death penalty for innocent unborn human beings. It is high time civilised countries discontinued the practice of abortion.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the European Union is firmly opposed to the use of the death penalty and actively works towards the abolition of capital punishment worldwide.
In countries that maintain the death penalty, the EU aims at the progressive restriction of its scope, as well as at the establishment of a moratorium so as to eliminate the death penalty completely.
The Guidelines to EU Policy Towards Third Countries on the Death Penalty, adopted in 1998 and revised in 2008, set out the framework for EU action. They include declarations or demarches in international fora and towards third countries, including the United States of America.
As regards the USA, the EU is deeply concerned about the resumption of executions since the lifting of the de facto moratorium on the death penalty in May.
We have repeatedly urged the US Government to reintroduce a moratorium on the death penalty at Federal level and we hope that the United States will consider abolishing the death penalty by law in the foreseeable future.
We take note of Parliament's motion for a resolution regarding the individual case of Mr Troy Davis. We have intelligence from our Washington Delegation that the Governor of Georgia has not yet signed the execution order and that he is apparently in no hurry to do so.
The Commission, along with EU Member States and the Presidency, will of course follow this case very closely.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debates.
Mr President, reference was made to me earlier by Mr Matsakis and I wanted to respond to it. I did not want to abuse the catch-the-eye system on a different debate, which was an important issue on the death penalty. But I think he made reference to my not understanding the system of urgencies. I would just like to say, for the record, that I have been involved in a number of urgencies and I would say that it is the least transparent and open system we have.
Of course in my group we have a debate about it, but urgencies are only agreed on the Thursday before Strasbourg and there is an hour-long meeting on the Tuesday before, where urgencies are quickly cobbled together.
I think that some of these issues are not urgent and should be properly debated in this Parliament to maintain its credibility.


Bi-annual evaluation of the EU-Belarus dialogue (debate)
- The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on the bi-annual evaluation of the EU-Belarus dialogue.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I am grateful to the Members of this Parliament for the opportunity to provide an update on developments in Belarus, and in particular to report on the outcome of last Monday's discussion on this issue in Council.
As many of you will be aware, following the Council's decision last October to suspend temporarily and partially the visa-ban list, we have seen a number of positive developments in Belarus. I would point in particular to the registration of the 'For Freedom' movement and of the Centre for Chernobyl Initiatives, the printing and distribution of independent newspapers such as Narodnaya Volya and Nasha Niva, the round table on regulation of the Internet with the OSCE Representative on the Freedom of the Media, the ongoing expert consultations with OSCE/ODIHR on improving electoral legislation, and the establishment of Consultative Councils, including one on human rights issues, which brings together representatives of civil society and even the opposition.
These steps, whilst they might appear relatively minor to some, are significant in the Belarusian context. This has been acknowledged by some representatives of civil society in Belarus.
However, there have also been incidents which are a cause for our concern. The important human rights NGO, Viasna, has been denied registration, there are problems with the accreditation of some of the independent media, and, while there is less harassment against civil society and opposition activists than earlier, short-term detentions continue to take place. We are also following closely complaints from the opposition over 'forcible conscription' to the army.
Se we cannot deny that the picture is mixed. Nevertheless, we are convinced that there is a need to continue with a policy of engagement and to support the positive developments. This should be the way forward in our relations with Belarus. We must keep in mind our wider strategic interests in the region as well as the impact of the financial crisis when we consider our future policy direction.
These were the considerations which lay behind our decision on 16 March. This decision, while extending for one year the restrictive measures, maintains the suspension of the application of the travel restrictions imposed on certain officials of Belarus for nine months.
The in-depth review foreseen by the end of this nine-month period will concentrate on the five areas set out in the Council's conclusions of October 2008. These are electoral reform and other concrete actions towards respect for democratic values, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and of the media, and freedom of assembly and political association.
We firmly believe that the continuation of the suspension agreed last week will enable us to pursue our policy objectives. It will provide us with the opportunity to continue to raise with our Belarusian partners developments which concern us in the field of human rights. The launching, in the coming month, of a human rights dialogue will be particularly important.
Following the lifting of the ban on bilateral political contacts, a number of high-level visits have taken place, including a ministerial troika at the end of January. The aim of these various contacts has been to encourage Belarus, and to create understanding over differences in expectations. We hope that the dialogue will continue over the coming months.
We are convinced that we need to be constructive with Minsk. We remain realistic and do not expect any dramatic changes. Transformation takes time, and it is in our shared interest to take every opportunity to encourage further positive developments.
It is important that our policy of engagement has been openly supported by representatives of civil society in Belarus, who took part recently in a very helpful discussion with Members of this Parliament. We also maintain regular contacts with the representatives of Belarusian civic society and we intend to continue this dialogue as well as our support to civic society and the independent media in Belarus.
Let me close with a few words on the Eastern Partnership, which was endorsed last week by the European Council, and will be launched at a summit-level meeting in May. Belarus is one of the six Eastern Partnership countries. We strongly believe that Belarus should be involved in this new initiative from the outset. But the extent of its participation in the bilateral track will depend on a number of factors, in particular progress in some of the areas to which I have just referred.
I am grateful to the public support which Parliament has given to the outcome of the Council last Monday. Clearly the in-depth review to be conducted in nine months' time will be a key to any further decisions, and will have an important bearing on our future relations with Belarus more generally. The Council is very ready to continue to keep this Parliament informed of developments, and welcomes the opportunity for you to continue to contribute to this debate.
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, Belarus is at a crossroads.
We find ourselves in the wake of a Council decision confirming the temporary suspension of the visa ban until the end of the year, and on the eve of the adoption of a resolution by the European Parliament. It is time to perform an initial review of our policy on Belarus after six months of suspended sanctions - since October 2008 - and to reflect on what lies ahead for the next nine months.
Personally I am convinced that the decision taken by the European Union last October to suspend the sanctions was the right one, and, in fact, this suspension has given rise to a positive process.
Belarus has taken measures that are unquestionably along the lines of more democracy. I am thinking in particular of the return of two independent newspapers to news-stands, of the fact that even Mr Milinkevich's organisation has finally been legalised, of the cooperation with OSCE/ODIHR on electoral law, and of the various congresses of opposition parties or NGOs - such as the Union of Poles in Belarus - that have been able to take place. Admittedly, this progress is limited and insufficient, but it is also unprecedented and, in general, we can still conclude that progress has been made.
That is why this mixed review received a mixed response from the European Union, with the balanced decision taken during the last GAERC. Suspending the sanctions for longer enables us to maintain a dialogue, just as the civil society itself expressly asked us to do, including at the forum held at the European Parliament, as recently as 4 March.
At the same time, we are holding on to the tool at our disposal, since the sanctions may be reintroduced at the end of the year if we consider that the progress made by then is insufficient, and we are going to continue our examination by paying ongoing attention to the situation on the ground with regard to whether progress has been made in the five key areas identified in the GAERC's conclusions of last October. Furthermore, thanks to our delegation in Minsk, the Commission is playing an active part in analysing the situation on the ground.
Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the European Parliament's initiative to send a delegation of members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with Belarus, which will travel to Minsk in 10 days' time to meet with the authorities and the various parties and to get an idea of the situation on the ground.
I shall also be sending my director responsible for this region at the same time, and he will be sure to cooperate closely with the European Parliament delegation. Setting up a new dialogue on human rights with Belarus is another, appreciable step forward that will enable us to structure our demands better and to give more depth to our discussions.
The first session of this dialogue should take place in the next few days in Minsk, and the European Union will put all the issues on the table. We shall meet with members of civil society before and after this dialogue, to benefit from their expertise.
Ladies and gentlemen, developing our relations with this neighbour located at the heart of Europe requires us to take the time to reflect on a response, including in the longer term, to the progress made by Belarus. A response that enables us to bring Belarus closer to our European family and its values, and to do this, in fact, as our President-in-Office said, the European Council took the decision last Friday to admit Belarus to the Eastern Partnership, and, more specifically, to its multilateral component, the platforms. This Partnership will provide Belarus with an opportunity to develop new support and exchange networks with all its neighbours, including on behalf of Belarusian civil society, which wants to end its isolation and take part in the forum on civil society.
With regard to Belarus's participation in the bilateral strand of the Eastern Partnership, the text of the Commission's proposal is unequivocal: the development of bilateral relations between the European Union and Belarus is, and will remain, dependent on the development of the political situation in the country.
Finally, in the light of the financial and economic crisis that is also seriously affecting all of our neighbours in the East, I am personally in favour of economic support measures for Belarus. An important first step has been taken by the IMF, with the active support of its European members, and that was to grant a USD 2 billion loan to tackle the immediate effects of the crisis, by which I mean putting an end to the balance of payments. The second stage should enable Belarus to gain access to EIB loans and to more substantial EBRD loans in order to fund projects linked to the trans-European networks, while also helping to diversify the country's economic links.
At the same time, the Commission is in the process of strengthening its technical dialogues with Belarus in sectors of common interest such as energy, transport, customs, standards, and, in the longer term, the economy.
To conclude, in order to strengthen these dialogues, ladies and gentlemen, next week Parliament will adopt a resolution on Belarus, and the Commission will genuinely pay very close attention to your recommendations. I for my part sincerely hope that we continue to cooperate closely over the coming months in our assessment of the situation and in our dialogue with Belarus, its authorities and its civil society, and I hope that this first step will lead us to make an in-depth mutual commitment based on concrete progress.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the EU's relations with Belarus are rightly now being driven by pragmatic considerations on both sides. Years of isolationist policy led nowhere, as the Council has somewhat belatedly now realised. It certainly did nothing to loosen the grip on power enjoyed by Europe's last self-isolating dictator, President Alexander Lukashenko.
Two weeks ago, here in Strasbourg, I had the privilege to meet two prominent dissidents from Belarus to discuss political developments in their country. One of them, Alexander Kazulin, had recently been released as a political prisoner, which is one of the reasons why the EU has begun to look at Lukashenko in a more favourable light.
But political repression still remains a serious problem in Belarus. It is therefore open to question whether this apparent thaw in relations between the EU and Belarus will lead us anywhere, as Lukashenko may well be playing a game with Russia as he leans more towards the EU. But it is better than our sticking with the failed boycotting policy of the past decade.
It is essential that the Council maintains a carrot-and-stick approach to Belarus: if Lukashenko is offered clear incentives for internal political reform he may well respond favourably. But, equally, he needs to know that he cannot carry on as before and that any sign of increased authoritarianism and repression will cause rapprochement to cease and reduce support by the EU for Belarus's WTO membership ambitions. At this stage, inviting Lukashenko to Prague for the May Summit to launch the Eastern Partnership, to which Belarus belongs, could be a step too far in my view. We need to link closer relations to tangible commitments on the regime's part to change its ways.
Belarus must also be persuaded that recognition of the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states - as at present is the case only by Russia - is unacceptable. I believe that Belarus is seeking to distance itself from Russian control and we need to take advantage of this window of opportunity. Undoubtedly, promoting genuine change in Belarus demands patience and commitment on the part of the EU, but the prize - Belarus back in the European family of nations - is well worth aspiring to.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, we, too, are happy to support the continuation of the European Union's policy of bringing about dialogue and closer cooperation with the Belarusian regime. We have been working on this for six or seven months already and we need to see whether what the European Union is aiming for also bears fruit over the coming period. That does not change the fact that we will continue to have our doubts about the intentions of a government that is not known for being democratic. I have personally had the honour of being in contact with the regime on a number of occasions and, believe me, Mr Lukashenko has not become a democrat overnight.
The fact that he wants more involvement with the European Union has to do with other factors, but the fact that that is what he wants is something that we can use in order to put pressure on him to move further along the path that he has now embarked on by taking a number of positive steps in the area of human rights. Like Mr Tannock, I think that it is still too early to speculate whether he should be rewarded with an Eastern Partnership. A real dialogue on human rights still needs to be brought about and violations of human rights are still taking place.
When it comes to dialogue on human rights, we believe that the opposition must be allowed to play a fully-fledged role. We have supported the opposition in all kinds of ways in recent years, including by means of awarding it two Sakharov prizes. Minsk thinks that it is not acceptable to support the opposition like that. There are precedents, however: for six or seven years I was personally involved in an attempt, along with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe, to bring about dialogue involving the government of Belarus and the then opposition. That attempt did not succeed, but it does represent a precedent for that kind of gathering.
The European policy that we want must clearly contribute to greater freedom and openness. The points that we think are important are also mentioned in the resolution that is currently on the table. If progress is made on these points over the next few months, we believe that further EU restrictions can then be lifted.
There are a couple more points I would like to add. Firstly, we believe that the Commission also needs to take account of the fact that there is so little knowledge about the European Union in Belarus and that a satellite TV station will not change that. More must be done from the country itself and in the country itself. Secondly, I urge that the authorities in Minsk be asked whether it is not finally time to lift all the restrictions on travel by the children of Chernobyl.
My final comment is on a somewhat more personal note. The new situation has, at least, delivered one thing, and that is that, for the first time in six or seven years, I have been granted a visa, making it possible for me and a delegation from Parliament to travel to Belarus for a few weeks, an opportunity that I will be happy to seize upon.
When sanctions against Belarus were lifted we hoped that the process of softening the system would go a little further. It turns out, however, that this has not happened. Those who have already spoken today have mentioned this, but I would like us to remember that no other political parties have been registered, the threat to cancel the registration of parties which already exist has not been lifted, newspapers which might have been granted the right of distribution have not been granted that right, and web-based attacks on Internet sites, such as the Radio Free Europe site, have been renewed. Furthermore, President Lukashenko decided to leave Minsk and so Mrs Ferrero-Waldner's visit could not go ahead. I do not think this was a friendly gesture, and neither does it show that he respects and understands the significance of contacts with the European Union.
It is true that President Lukashenko has not recognised Abkhazia and Ossetia, but he has visited Abkhazia and it seems that there is to be close economic cooperation between these two partners - I will not say states, because of course for us Abkhazia is not a state. As for the opposition, President Lukashenko calls it a 'fifth column', and we cannot see any readiness whatsoever to recognise it, as is the case in every country, as an important element of political opposition.
I think that in this connection we should, however, maintain some kind of dialogue. I agree with what Mr Tannock said, that President Lukashenko should not be present in Prague. That would clearly be going too far, but really we should make significant and more effective use of another instrument which we have at our disposal, namely a financial instrument in the form of the funding for democratic and economic development. In connection with this I would like to ask a question - not what sums were allocated, but what sums were spent on support of democracy in Belarus last year and in 2007, not including support for radio?
Commissioner, the experiment with suspending sanctions against Belarus must continue, so that we can try every possibility of dialogue with that country. The Belarusian authorities must, however, be aware that the time allowed for this experiment is limited, and that we are not going to wait with our proposals indefinitely.
We must also be very careful. The first months have given us only a vague picture of the intentions of the authorities in Minsk. At the same time repression continues against the Association of Poles in Belarus, Catholic priests are being expelled, and Belsat Television, the only independent television which broadcasts to Belarus, has been refused registration of an office in Minsk. This is sufficient cause not to invite Alexander Lukashenko to the EU summit, in response to the appeals of the Belarusian opposition.
- (PL) Mr President, Prime Minister, Commissioner, I agree with the Commissioner that the Council decision to extend sanctions against Belarus by a year and simultaneously to suspend them for nine months was a sensible solution. We are inviting Belarus to cooperate with us, but we have not forgotten that it is still the last undemocratic country in Europe.
Despite the positive changes which have taken place recently in Belarus and which Mr Vondra spoke about, it cannot be said that fundamental human rights are respected there, such as freedom of speech, the right to express political views, or respect for national and religious minorities. In spite of this we are offering Belarus participation in the Eastern Partnership, because we believe that this will bring benefits, first and foremost to the people of Belarus.
The Eastern Partnership means the chance for cheaper visas, better economic cooperation and financial support for civil society. These are ways in which Belarus can profit from the new policy, after many years of isolation. On the cost side, however, there is undoubtedly a cynical abuse of our good will in order to lend credibility to undemocratic rule. The Belarusian Government, which controls the main mass media and uses them not for information but for propaganda, is already announcing triumphantly that the European Union accepts the 'Belarusian model', in which democracy and freedom can be restricted. In this Chamber we must state unequivocally that Belarusians have the same rights as the citizens of other free European countries, and this includes the right to demonstrate freely in Minsk today, on the 91st anniversary of Belarusian Independence. Participation in the Eastern Partnership is intended to help them realise those rights, and if the Belarusian authorities stand in the way of this they will not be able to count on partnership and good relations with the West, especially not at the high level which Mr Vondra mentioned, and especially not when we are thinking about the Prague Summit in May, which is about the Eastern Partnership.
As long as political activists remain under arrest in Belarus, as long as young democratic opposition activists are forcefully conscripted, and as long as demonstrations are forcefully broken up by the militia and independent journalists are fined for their words and publications, the leaders of Belarus do not have the right to expect partnership and a conciliatory approach from European leaders, from the Council, the Commission and our Parliament.
- (LT) Belarus is at the centre of Europe and I believe it should be interested in having good relations both with the European Union and its other neighbour Russia. Participation in the European Union's Partnership Programme offers such opportunities.
An independent, stable Belarus, which is taking steps towards democracy, the spreading of human rights and a social market economy, is in the interest of the European Union and in particular Belarus' immediate neighbours, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. I am convinced that the people of Belarus increasingly want this.
The policy of isolation with regard to Belarus was unjustified, and this must be said loud and clear. On the other hand, as long as there are restrictions on freedom of speech and opinion, the activities of parties and the opposition, there can be no true dialogue or understanding between Brussels and Minsk.
I am not sure whether the time has come to roll out the red carpet in Brussels for all the leaders of Belarus.
Belarus is the only state in Europe which still carries out executions, although the number of these, according to calculations by organisations defending human rights, has fallen dramatically. I believe that all Members of the European Parliament, regardless of the group they are working in, are very unhappy about this situation and would demand that Minsk abolish the death penalty at the earliest opportunity.
In seven years time Belarus is planning to build a nuclear power plant quite close to the Lithuanian border. I would like to remind you that the European Commission pledged to follow carefully how the Belarusian government adheres to the rules of the IAEA and other international organisations, and to ensure that the nuclear power station complies with all the latest safety requirements.
- Next is the 'catch-the-eye' period.
I have too many requests to speak, a large number of which are from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. I will give the floor to just three Members.
- Mr President, the 'catch-the-eye' procedure agreed by this House does not lay down that the President may select Members according to which group they belong to. The 'catch-the-eye' procedure, as I understand it, is for each individual Member to catch the eye of you, the President. I think it is regrettable that you have just said you will only allow three members of the PPE-DE Group to speak. That is not in accordance with our Rules of Procedure.
- Mr Beazley, this has always been the procedure, and always will be while I am in the chair.
As there are simultaneous requests, because virtually all the Members are asking for the floor at the same time - and as I am limited to five requests to speak - I cannot extend this period without encroaching on other debates. Moreover, this is the practice that has been followed in the past, and to change it now would be to create differences from previous sittings.
Mr Beazley, the point of order has been clarified. There is no point in insisting as I will not give you the floor. I will not give you the floor. The point of order has been clarified.
- (LT) Today the people of Belarus are marking Independence Day. I would like to remind you that Belarus declared itself a republic on 25 March 1918. Right now, as our discussion is taking place, in Minsk in the square opposite the Academy of Sciences, there is a demonstration initiated by the democratic opposition. Five thousand people have gathered in the square. I hope that repressive measures will not be used against them. Therefore, as before, and especially today, I would like to show solidarity with all Belarusians throughout the world, and above all with the Belarusians who have gathered in one of Minsk's squares, those who hold dear the spirit of independence and freedom.
As for dialogue with Belarus, this is necessary, but not at any price. What we, the European Union, can do without making concessions to the regime, but by encouraging dialogue with civil society, is to solve the question of the price of Schengen visas as soon as possible. The Schengen visa, which costs EUR 60, is too expensive a treat for many Belarusians. I would like to remind you that for Russian citizens the Schengen visa is half this price.
- (PL) It is important to keep working on building new relations between the European Union and Belarus. It is undoubtedly necessary to bring about a situation in which the fundamental rights of Belarusian citizens are respected, and it is not acceptable today that rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of opinion or the right to elections or an independent judiciary are not respected.
Therefore I agree with the philosophy of encouraging Belarus to make every effort to move towards democracy, and I am pleased with the decision to include Belarus in the new programme for strengthening the EU's Eastern policy through the European Neighbourhood Policy. I believe this will help Belarus to achieve stability and security, and to raise the standard of living of its citizens. The Community should continue to give financial aid to the deprived in the region, and to intervene when citizens' rights are violated. I repeat: intervene when citizens' rights are violated.
- (HU) European policy on the Belarus issue was unambiguous. Human rights and the process of democratisation were the most important. We did not reject rapprochement, but our conditions were also unambiguous; today, however, the situation has changed significantly.
It is true what the Belarusian political activists and independent experts state: that the regime has not altered fundamentally, only cosmetic changes have been made. Although a few political prisoners have been released, new ones have taken their place, and the young activists are sent not to prison but to the army. Other things have changed, not the regime.
Many in the EU believe that the success of the Eastern Partnership depends on Belarus as well. Brussels needs to fill the gap left by Ukraine's uncertainty, and for this purpose even President Lukashenko may prove acceptable. The EU institutions have succeeded in killing off their own set of conditions. The Commission's work over many years has been torn down by a single visit by Javier Solana. President Lukashenko thought he was strong enough to cancel the visit of Mrs Ferrero-Waldner. Instead of accepting the conditions, Minsk has found a partner in the compromise-loving Javier Solana.
- (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, I have listened to you very carefully. The Greens are in favour of dialogue, but we are only in favour of critical dialogue, in other words dialogue which does not pay a dictator lip service.
Dialogue must be used to achieve progress in human rights policy in this country, for example so that the European University for Humanistics can legally return or so that freedom of expression is no longer restricted or so that demonstrations such as today's can take place unimpeded. Dialogue must strengthen the democratic forces. Only then does it make sense. It should not stab the democratic forces in the back. Human rights issues must be addressed as the core issue at this point and the EU's human rights instruments must be permitted in this country.
I too believe that a partnership is premature. That notwithstanding, visa costs should be reduced.
- (FR) Mr President, all the measures listed by the Council and the Commissioner have been approved because they improve the situation of the people.
Is it right to let a dictator take his place at the top, however? Is it not an affront to those who have been imprisoned again recently and who are still being imprisoned? Commissioner, Minister, I should like to ask you a very frank question: might there have been some pressure put on the European authorities by Belarus so that it could secure this invitation to the Prague summit, an invitation that I consider to be disproportionate and inappropriate?
- Ladies and gentlemen, as there is some spare time, I can give the floor to some of the other speakers on the list. This has nothing to do with what was said earlier. It is simply a case of the balanced management that I always practise during this 'catch-the-eye' period.
- (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, (...) with satisfaction of Belarus' new willingness to collaborate with the European Union and the international community. We are very cautious in our dealings with President Lukashenko, but a new direction in this area is welcome. We will not tire of pointing out the need for a comprehensive and substantial shift in relation to respect for human rights.
On one point I believe that the Commission could require clearer and more consistent behaviour from Minsk: I refer to the situation of the tens of thousands of children who stay with European families for a few months. For many years, the Belarusian Government has acted absurdly, sometimes incomprehensibly, often cancelling children's visits at the last minute, mortifying the host families and giving another loud slap in the face to children who, often orphans from somewhat complicated family backgrounds, resented the whole affair. Let us try and come to a change of course on this as soon as possible.
- (SK) Slovakia is today commemorating the 21st anniversary of the Bratislava Candlelight Demonstration. On 25 March 1988 Christians who had been demonstrating peacefully for a free press and freedom of religion were brutally dispersed by the police and the army. The candlelight demonstration marked the historic beginning of Slovakia's long-awaited freedom and I therefore well understand the fears expressed by my colleagues regarding the EU's changed attitude towards President Lukashenko.
I firmly believe that President Lukashenko should not come to Prague. Based on my personal experience with the totalitarian regime in Slovakia, I do not believe that a totalitarian leader is capable of transforming himself into a democrat in heart and mind. This can happen only when he is motivated by pragmatic reasons to do so. Ladies and gentlemen, we should listen more to the Belarus opposition, to Alexandr Milinkevich, and only if we can be sure that Belarus has become genuinely democratic should we lift all sanctions against Belarus.
- Mr Beazley is also on the list, but apparently he has left the Chamber in a huff with me. I am therefore unable to give him the floor.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I should like to thank you for all your contributions. As I said in my introductory remarks, in the last months we have seen steps made by the Belarus authorities that go towards the expectations formulated in the October 2008 Council conclusions. These steps are significant in the Belarus context. At the same time, the picture is mixed, and I think the debate here confirmed that. We would like see further steps, such as the changes to the criminal court, registration of other media outlets and NGOs in Belarus.
During the future review of the restrictive measures, the situation in Belarus and steps made by the Government will be taken into account. The progress in areas listed in the October 2008 Council's conclusions will be evaluated; we are already doing this on a permanent basis, and also discussing progress with the members of the opposition - for example, I met Alexander Kazulin in Prague just a week ago.
Subject to progress made towards democracy, human rights and the rule of law, we remain ready to deepen our relations with Belarus. I believe that we can offer Belarus concrete incentives within the Eastern Partnership, but not only.
Now let me turn to the lively debate here on the Eastern Partnership launching summit and in particular the level of participation of Belarus. Listen carefully: no decision has yet been taken on this issue, which requires consensus within the EU. It will be addressed closer to the summit and I do not want to speculate at this stage. But the pressure itself is simply the fact that no invitation has yet been issued.
I should like to thank you once again for this interesting debate and your valuable input. We very much appreciate the interest and active involvement of the European Parliament on Belarus. We are also encouraged by your support for the EU's policy of engagement. Belarus is an important neighbour of the EU and, therefore, developments there are of concern to all of us. It is important that we send a clear and consistent message to Minsk and I am pleased that Parliament has been able to support us on this.
Engagement is important since it offers us the best way of securing the sort of changes which we wish to see in Belarus and which are important to the EU's wider interests. As I said in my opening remarks, I stand ready to keep this Parliament informed of developments, and I am sure that also goes for the future presidencies, not least in relation to the future in-depth review agreed by the Council last week.
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, honourable Members, once again I will be very quick.
As we know, Belarus has made some progress but, naturally, much remains to be done. It is also clear that the policy of isolating Belarus has had its day, and that dialogue is the only effective way in which we can influence this country's democratic future.
Of course, Mrs Schroedter, this is a critical dialogue; that is absolutely clear. The European Union has made a commitment in this regard to monitor very closely developments concerning the following five key issues: political prisoners, electoral law, freedom of the media, freedom of NGOs and freedom of assembly. Regular reports are currently being drafted and will be instituted by our heads of mission, in Minsk, and the human rights dialogue will supplement this process.
Naturally, other issues remain, not least the university issue. We have asked to assess the progress made in relation to the aforementioned five points, and I believe that this is necessary. It is also important that we give our word, by which I mean, if we see progress being made, then we will also take some first steps.
From our perspective, in fact, this is a necessary process that is still in its infancy and that requires our ongoing attention. To that end, monitoring is required.
I should also like to say at this point - and I hope we have realised that this is absolutely fair and genuine - that bilateral agreements have been concluded in the meantime between Belarus and certain countries, in particular Italy, on child-related matters. I believe that this is very important, and we are all the same observing some progress.
On the issue of visas, the situation is equally clear. Individual Member States can reduce the cost of visas for specific categories, including citizens. However, a general visa facilitation agreement cannot be created as yet because it would require the entire Eastern Partnership or Neighbourhood Policy to be implemented.
Lastly, on the issue of nuclear energy, I can tell you that, last November, a Commission delegation travelled to Belarus. We held a dialogue on energy and exchanged views on the issue of international safety and security at the highest level. Naturally, we shall maintain this position.
- The debate is closed.
The vote will take place during the next part-session.


Statement by the President
Ladies and gentlemen, we are all aware of the dreadful tropical cyclone, Nargis, which ravaged Burma/Myanmar last Saturday. It was a tragedy in which tens of thousands of people lost their lives, hundreds of thousands lost their homes, and the infrastructure in the most densely populated areas of the country was destroyed. This is the greatest disaster the country has ever experienced, and the full extent of the loss of human life and damage is not yet known.
The military junta that rules the country has apparently not managed to deal with the situation properly. No preventive measures were taken, nor was the population given adequate support.
Although it is welcome news that the constitutional referendum has been postponed until 24 May in the regions worst affected by the cyclone (the Rangoon and Irrawaddy Delta regions), this postponement must be extended throughout the country if the government's concern for its own people is to be expressed by focusing on urgent humanitarian support and immediate action.
The authorities have indicated that they would welcome international support. This should be seen as a positive gesture, and we expect the government to facilitate the implementation of international assistance measures.
The European Union has already begun initiating emergency assistance measures. During our next plenary session in Strasbourg we will hear the European Commission' report on the humanitarian aid provided and the conditions for the provision of aid there.
The people of Burma/Myanmar deserve our heartfelt solidarity. Therefore, I would like to express this on behalf of the European Parliament, and in all sincerity, and I would add that at this time we are also thinking of our Sakharov Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi. We stand with her in a bond of solidarity and demand that she be released so that she can work for the freedom of her people and for democracy in their country.


Financial support to Member States (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes


Closure of sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.30 p.m.)


2007 Sakharov Prize (announcement of winner)
Ladies and gentlemen, I have another announcement to make before we move on to the budget. At its meeting this morning - Thursday, 25 October - the Conference of Presidents unanimously chose the winner of the Sakharov Prize. For his commitment to the all-too-long-forgotten victims in Darfur, the Conference decided that the prize would be awarded to Salih Mahmoud Osman.
(Applause)
For more than 20 years, Mr Osman, a human-rights lawyer and member of the Sudanese Organisation against Torture, has been defending countless victims of the conflict in Darfur who have been arbitrarily imprisoned, driven from their homes and tortured or who face the death penalty. His seat in the Sudanese Parliament now enables him to bring their cause to the attention of the international community, though sometimes at great personal sacrifice.
Mr Osman champions the cause of dialogue and justice against violence and tyranny. Without democracy there can be no justice. By awarding the Sakharov Prize to Salih Mahmoud Osman, the European Parliament would like to support the work of this courageous man who has become the voice of Darfur and, through him, to support the establishment of the rule of law in Sudan.
The formal presentation of the prize will take place in Strasbourg on Tuesday, 11 December.
In addition, I should like to inform you that the Conference of Presidents was also unanimous in its view that we should consider an appropriate way to honour the murdered Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, and ...
(Applause)
... the Conference of Presidents will decide at its next meeting what form that tribute will take.


3. Albino killings in Tanzania
The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on albino killings in Tanzania.
author. - (PL) Mr President, in the 21st century people are being murdered simply because they are albinos. This is happening in Tanzania, a country where over a third of the population is living below the poverty threshold. In recent times, 173 individuals have been arrested on suspicion of killing or injuring albinos. This indicates the scale of the problem. Twenty-five people have been killed or injured because they were albinos during the last six months.
There is a sizeable population of albinos in the world. In fact, 50 out of every million persons are albinos. It is only in Tanzania, however, that they are treated so cruelly. In that country, the blood and body parts of albinos are traded. The responsibility for this lies with animist witch doctors and the gangs they employ. It should be noted that the police also bear a share of the blame as they tend to turn a blind eye.
As I conclude, I should like to point out that we will only be able to consider that our protest here today has been effective if and when medical care, education and the opportunity to integrate into society are made available to albinos in Tanzania.
Today we are discussing a case of discrimination against a minority. The minority in question are albinos, who are being killed and mutilated in Tanzania, including small children. This is a serious problem throughout sub-Saharan Africa. I would like to remind you that albinism affects one in 20 000 people worldwide. As mentioned in the previous speech, witch-doctors in Tanzania sell severed body parts and blood from albinos to miners and fishermen, who naively believe that they can bring them luck, health and fortune. Our position is very clear - the killing of albinos and discrimination against them is totally unacceptable and should not be tolerated. The Tanzanian Government must take consistent measures to end this dreadful situation. The Government and President of Tanzania have already started to implement measures, which we appreciate, but it is not enough. The court case in which 173 people suspected of albino killings are to be tried will be a litmus test that will reveal the disposition of those in power in Tanzania, and the guilty must be punished. However, the best way to solve the problem would be through better education and adequate health care that is accessible to all the citizens of this country, including albinos. The international community as well as the European Union should render assistance in overcoming these problems. Most people with albinism die of skin cancer before they reach age 30.
author. - Mr President, people with the genetic defect of albinism, apart from serious health-care problems, suffer various degrees of discrimination internationally.
But recently in sub-Saharan Africa, and especially in Tanzania, albinos have, in addition, suffered unprecedented barbaric attacks of mutilation, with their body parts being used by witchcraft doctors as ingredients in the production of potions that are promised to make people rich. Such a state of affairs, apart from its obvious criminality, points towards a seriously backward society in which sickeningly brutal witchcraft practices are still operating.
The government of Tanzania has an obligation to act swiftly and decisively in the following aspects: firstly, to protect all albinos from further attacks; secondly, to investigate fully all crimes against albinos and bring those responsible to justice; thirdly, to educate their citizens sufficiently, so as to rid them from the curse of witchcraft and superstition and, fourthly, to make sure that people with albinism are offered the best possible medical and social assistance they need in order to lead near-normal, safe and peaceful lives.
Mr President, what is going on in Tanzania is not violence perpetrated by the State. The discrimination and violence are practices which have survived from the time before the Judeo-Christian-Islamic civilisations, a time when there was no assumption of the equality of all persons.
Tanzania has 150 000 inhabitants who, due to a shortage of the colour pigment melanin, have red eyes, pale skin and fair hair. They are seen as products of witchcraft. Many of these people are murdered, after which their skin is stripped off and their skin and other body parts are used in magic rituals. Because of its large number of albinos, Tanzania is the largest supplier of human body parts for the whole of Africa.
It will not be possible to put an end to these horrific practices without actively educating ordinary people in Tanzania and throughout Africa, providing better medical care and ensuring better access for albinos to prominent jobs. The Tanzanian Government is taking measures, including a register of all albinos, with a view to being able to protect them. Without changing attitudes on the position of albinos, this register could be misused in future to track down these people and exterminate them. We had bad experiences in Europe in the 1940s with the registration of threatened population groups.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the plight of albino people in Tanzania seems barely credible in today's age. When I first heard about this issue, it seemed like something straight out of Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness. I would like to believe in the renaissance and potential of Africa, as so many other colleagues in this House seem to, but the murder of albino people for their body parts does nothing to improve the image of the continent internationally. Sadly, the suffering of albino people is not limited to Tanzania but occurs all over Africa.
Quite apart from the medical consequences of albinism in the tropics, including a high risk of terrible skin cancers, the long-suffering albino people are at best traditionally considered as freaks or curiosities, and at worst they are murdered to satisfy demand for traditional medicine that is more akin to medieval sorcery.
The EU should not hesitate to campaign on the issue and bring pressure to bear on countries like Tanzania, where, apparently, such scant regard for human rights and dignity is common. However, I am heartened that the Tanzanian President has appealed to his people to change their traditional ways. Let us hope that other leaders throughout Africa repeat this important message.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, in March of this year over 25 albinos living in the vicinity of Lake Victoria, were brutally murdered or maimed. The victims included children. People alleged to have supernatural characteristics had been the subject of attacks in that area in the past.
It should be recalled that 36% of Tanzania's population lives below the poverty threshold. To all intents and purposes these people have no access to health care. Normal practice is to turn to local witch doctors for help. The low level of education of the local population contributes to its belief in supernatural characteristics. A large number of albinos live in the territory of sub-Saharan Africa and they have become the victims of open discrimination because they are different. Not only are albinos denied the right to health care, but they are also denied the right to social and legal assistance. It is standard practice to discriminate against albinos in daily life, in schools, in public institutions and on the labour market. Albinos feel that they are being constantly humiliated and treated like second-class citizens.
The current intolerance could be countered and the number of attacks against albinos reduced in future by penalising those guilty of murder whilst at the same time undertaking fundamental awareness-raising work within Tanzanian society. It is essential to support the initiatives taken by the Tanzanian Government in this regard. Such initiatives include special protection for albino children along with cooperation with civil society and non-governmental organisations. Actions should be focused first and foremost on rural areas, where social awareness is at its lowest. In addition, the Commission and the Member States should give strong support to the emergency actions undertaken by the Tanzania Albino Society. Longer-term measures should aim at ensuring that the albino population enjoys full rights in terms of access to education, the labour market and also to social and health protection.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, since March of this year 25 albinos have been murdered in Tanzania. These murders are connected with the superstitious practices current in the area and are based on the belief that albino body parts such as the feet, hands, hair and blood will make a person healthy, wealthy and rich. The latest victim was a seven-year-old child. Last year too, 25 albinos lost their lives.
These occult practices take place along the shores of Lake Victoria, in farming areas and also amongst fishermen and miners. Albinos are often the victims of discrimination and persecution. President Kikwete has been using the police to try and locate albinos in hiding. The President has promised to provide albinos with protection, but the albinos remain mistrustful, because some police officers are also involved in occult practices. Witch doctors' gangs are responsible for organising the murder of albinos. One hundred and seventy-eight local people have been arrested on suspicion of involvement in the murders.
The President of Tanzania has been instrumental in the appointment of Mrs Kway-Geer as the country's first albino Member of Parliament in recognition of her fight against discrimination. We welcome this appointment as a step in the right direction. We support the activities of the Tanzania Albino Society and trust that the Commission will offer it genuine support.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, we are today discussing breaches of human rights in Tanzania. The latter is a subtropical country where albinos are discriminated against, as is the case in many other African countries.
Albinos are murdered in a particularly brutal fashion in Tanzania, however. Last year more than 25 individuals lost their lives in this way. There are 39 million Tanzanians, 270 thousand of which suffer from a genetic defect caused by the presence of a recessive gene which means their skin lacks pigment. Consequently, albinos can suffer from sight problems, sunburn, cancer and premature death. Both parents have to be carriers of the gene for the condition to become apparent in their children. Women who give birth to albino babies are forced into divorce. The children are considered to be a curse on their family. They are thought to be possessed by unclean spirits and are treated as animals. On the other hand, however, witch doctors spread tales of the magical properties of albinos' white skin, which allegedly helps to bring luck and wealth. This leads to the killing of albinos who are then brutally quartered and their body parts used in the production of potions.
It is hard to understand what the reason for such cruelty might be and what purpose it could serve. Perhaps it is an attempt to eliminate sick people who have a genetic defect. In recent times, the government has condemned the use of force against white-skinned Africans and run educational campaigns. An albino member of parliament has even been appointed. Nonetheless, the tragedy affecting these people still continues. In addition, there is a lack of funding for protective clothing and other assistance for this marginalised sector of the population which is discriminated against and denied work and education.
Protests and appeals by the international community, together with educational and financial help would help to counter extreme discrimination of this type. Bringing legal proceedings against the 173 would-be witch doctors arrested and accused of murderous activity, incitement to murder and trade in human organs would also help.
Mr President, I would just like to add my voice of support to that of colleagues on all sides of this House about the appalling story of the treatment of albinos in Tanzania. I know it happens in other parts of Africa but there is a concentration in Tanzania - we have heard the number of 270 000 albinos - who are discriminated against, who are marginalised, brutalised and murdered for their body parts due to superstition, witchcraft and various occult practices.
By raising this issue here (and I commend all my colleagues who have raised it and those who put this item on the agenda), we add our voice in the European Parliament to the international voice of protest, and hopefully the Tanzanian Government - and indeed others - will listen.
It is a question mainly of education but, above all, we need protection for albinos within their own communities; we need full investigation. The fact that some of the police force are part of the problem and cannot be trusted to be part of the solution is extremely worrying.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, we share Parliament's outrage at the increasing number of attacks in Tanzania against the albino population and at the abhorrent and illegal trade in albino body parts linked to traditional medicine, to superstition and to the practices of witch doctors.
In particular, we share the concerns recently reported by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women that, for instance, albino women and girls have been targeted very specifically in ritual killings. We condemn all forms of discrimination and victimisation, and we are committed to supporting policies and actions aimed at eradicating them.
The Government of Tanzania, too, it must be said, is committed to stamping out these practices and raising awareness of the plight of the albino population. Therefore, we welcome the nomination of an albino Member of Parliament, the recent arrests of some witch doctors, and the President's commitment, as has been mentioned, to bringing those responsible to justice.
We also closely monitor the human rights situation in general in Tanzania, together with Member States and other development partners. Several Member States and other partners are supporting organisations, such as the Legal and Human Rights Centre, which regularly monitor possible human rights violations. As a member of the Donor Group on Governance, the Commission will continue to coordinate donor responses to addressing the problem, including the Albino Association.
The Commission will also, with Member States in Tanzania, raise the problem in its political dialogue with the Tanzanian authorities.
The EUR 3 million EDF-funded Civil Society Programme will help to create awareness: workshops are being organised to highlight the albino situation and a new sensitisation campaign is shortly to be implemented in the Mwanza region of Northern Tanzania.
So, in general, we use our regular dialogues to refer to this issue. These questions are, of course, also being raised in our ongoing exercise concerning public funds and the health, education and employment sectors. We believe that an independent and functioning judicial system is vital.
Therefore, we, the Commission, in our contacts with the authorities, will underline the importance of appropriate legal action being taken against the perpetrators of these horrible acts.
We will also contact the honourable Kway-Geer, the first Albino Member of Parliament in Tanzania (she has already been mentioned), and discuss possible actions with her, because she can tell us even better what can be done. Finally, together with the presidency in Tanzania, we will discuss this issue at the 60th anniversary of the signature of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights planned in Tanzania on 10 December 2008.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place immediately after the debates.


6. EURES activity report 2004-2005: Towards a single European labour market (vote)
- Resolution:


4. 2008 discharge: EU general budget, Court of Justice


Documents received: see Minutes