6877/09 (Presse 51) PROVISIONAL VERSION
PRESS RELEASE 2927th meeting of the
Council
Justice and Home Affairs Brussels, 26-27
February 2009
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/NewsWord/en/jha/106371.doc
Main results of the Council
ITEMS DEBATED
EUROPEAN ASYLUM SUPPORT OFFICE 1
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 2
FREE MOVEMENT OF EU CITIZENS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY 2
SITUATION OF IRAQI REFUGEES IN EUROPE 3
CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 3
EU/JAPAN NEGOTIATIONS ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE 4
E-JUSTICE ACTION PLAN 4
MIXED COMMITTEE 5
ANY OTHER BUSINESS 5
Guantanamo 5
Anti-drug policy 5
Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme - SWIFT
network 5
Plane crash in Amsterdam 6
Ship-source pollution 6
International Tribunal for Law of the Sea, Hamburg 6
Transparency policy 6
World Summit of Prosecutors General in Bucharest 6
OTHER ITEMS APPROVED
JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS
Schengen Information System "SIS II" - Council
conclusions 6
Convention on Choice‑of‑Court
Agreements - Private international law 8
Council of Europe - Convention on financing of
crime and terrorism 8
Council of Europe's legislative work in the area of
criminal justice - Council conclusions
Criminal records - Exchange of information between
member states 9
Trials in absentia 9
Customs Information System - Progress report 9
EUROPOL - Budget discharge for 2007 10
EUROPOL - India 10
______________________________________________
EUROPEAN
ASYLUM SUPPORT OFFICE
The Council held, in public session, a first exchange
of views on a new proposal for establishing a European asylum support office,
in the context of the development of a common European asylum system (6700/09).
The Council welcomed the proposal and asked the
relevant Council bodies to take forward work on the proposal as quickly as
possible.
The debate focused on key aspects of the proposal and
provided guidance in order to continue examination under the Council-Parliament
codecision procedure.
This proposal, tabled by the Commission on 18 February,
was discussed together with a supplementary draft decision aimed at
transferring funding from the European Refugee Fund to the asylum support
office (6702/09).
The main tasks of European asylum support office would
be the following:
Last October the European Council, when adopting the
European Pact on immigration and asylum (13440/08), requested to "establish in 2009 a
European asylum support office with the task of facilitating the exchange of information,
analysis and experience between Member States and developing practical
cooperation between the administrations in charge of examining asylum
applications.
ILLEGAL
IMMIGRATION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN
The Council had an exchange of views on combating
illegal immigration in the Mediterranean, following the presentation of a
paper put forward by Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta.
The purpose of this paper is to raise awareness and
suggest action at EU level on the
challenges posed by illegal migration and asylum in the Mediterranean region.
It takes inspiration from the Pact on immigration and asylum adopted by the
European Council in October 2008 .
It sets out how the fundamental principles set out in
the Pact could be reflected in a series of measures that will be implemented at
both EU and national levels.
The Council welcomed the initiative as a valuable
input for the preparation of the upcoming Stockholm programme[1].
The common initiative is aimed at reinforcing
practical cooperation measures and coordinated synergies in order to enhance
the capacity of the member states to protect the lives of illegal migrants and
to regulate migratory flows entering from sea or land borders.
These practical measures include intensifying efforts
through the strengthening of Frontex (the agency for the management of
operational cooperation at the EU's external borders) and the continuation of
joint operations in the Mediterranean region.
The four Mediterranean countries also call for
complementary actions with a view to assisting neighbouring countries in the
areas of management of mixed migration flows, border control and the fight
against illegal migration.
The attention on migration from the Mediterranean was
previously reflected in the Council conclusions of 27-28 November 2008
concerning the global approach to migration (16041/08). The global approach offers a common
policy framework which enables to improve the integration of migration issues
into the EU's external relations, on the basis of an effective and balanced
partnership with third countries.
FREE MOVEMENT
OF EU CITIZENS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
The Council took note of a report concerning the
application of directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and
their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the
member states (5553/09).
The report, elaborated by the Commission, presents an overview on how directive 2004/38/EC[2]
is transposed into national law and how it
is applied in everyday life. It also encourages member states to
launch awareness-raising campaigns to inform EU citizens of their rights under
the directive.
The Council welcomed in particular the Commission's
intention to offer, as soon as possible, information and assistance to member
states by issuing guidelines on a number of issues, such as expulsions and
fight against abuse, in order to facilitate an effective application of the
directive.
In November 2008, the Council
adopted conclusions on abuses and misuses of the right to free movement of
persons. In the conclusions, the Council left open the possibility of a more extensive
examination of the issue after the Commission submitted a report on the
operation of the directive.
Moreover, these conclusions underlined the importance
which EU member states attach to protecting the right to free movement from the
abuses created inter alia
by illegal immigration (see press release 16325/1/08,
page 27).
Article 39 of directive 2004/38/EC requires the
Commission to monitor the application of
the provisions of the directive and to report to the European Parliament and to the Council.
SITUATION OF
IRAQI REFUGEES IN EUROPE
The
Commission briefed Ministers on the progress being made regarding reception of
Iraqi refugees following the adoption of Council conclusions on the subject in
November 2008. The Council agreed to keep developments under review.The Council
also took note of information provided by the Netherlands on the establishment
of a "Temporary desk on Iraq". The Desk's remit will be to determine
how immigration services can improve their practical cooperation on protection,
particular pressures, resettlement and return.
Last November, the Council adopted a set of
conclusions based on a Commission report on a mission in Syria and Jordan to
examine the possibilities for the resettlement of Iraqi refugees in member
states willing to receive them (16325/1/08,
page 23).
At that occasion the Council emphasized that the main
objective is to create the conditions in which displaced persons inside Iraq
and refugees in neighbouring countries can return safely to their homes, while
ensuring that the human rights of all Iraqis are protected and defended. It
also requested the Commission to report at the beginning of 2009 on the
information gathered from member states.
On 1 and 2 December 2008, the Netherlands convened
a high-level meeting in The Hague aimed at contributing to a coordinated
response by the EU to migratory flows from or to Iraq.
CONFLICTS OF
JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
The Council held an orientation debate on key elements
of a draft framework decision on prevention and settlement of conflicts of
jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, with a view to providing with political
guidance to carry out further work (5208/09).
EU delegations acknowledged the merit of this joint
initiative put forward by the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and
Sweden last January.
The debate focused, in particular, on the objectives
and scope of the future instrument, the nature of the competent authorities
which would be able to act under the framework decision, and the communication
procedures.
A large consensus has appeared on the opportunity
to restrict the scope of the instrument to situations where the same person(s)
is (are) subject to parallel criminal proceedings in different member states, which might
lead to the double final disposal of the same proceedings facts (the "ne
bis in idem" legal principle).
In a common area of freedom, security and justice it
is necessary to ensure that national authorities are made aware, at an early
stage, of facts of a case which fall within the jurisdiction of two or more
member states and that agreement is reached to concentrate, as far as possible,
criminal proceedings for such facts in a single jurisdiction.
In order to achieve these principles, the following
measures are proposed:
The framework decision is aimed at improving judicial
cooperation in the EU, as well as contributing to a better application of the
principle of mutual recognition, both in the pre-trial and post-trial stage. It
is also aimed at allowing a more thorough consideration of the rights and
interests of individuals in relation to the place of the trial, including the
victims protection. To avoid undue bureaucracy, in situations where more
flexible instruments or arrangements are in place between member states, those
should prevail.
EU/JAPAN
NEGOTIATIONS ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
After examination of the framework conditions for a
negotiating mandate, the Council authorised the EU presidency to enter into
negotiations with Japan with a view to concluding a future agreement on mutual
legal assistance with this country. The European Commission will be fully
involved in the negotiating process.
Such an agreement could contribute to strengthening
and facilitating mutual legal assistance between Japan and the 27 EU member
states, while safeguarding fundamental rights and guaranteeing respect for
member states' common values.
It would constitute a further element within the
framework of the strategic partnership between the EU and Japan.
The launch of preliminary talks on cooperation in the
area of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters was welcomed at the 16th
EU-Japan summit in June 2007. The two sides held three informal meetings in
2007 and 2008 to assess the feasibility of concluding an agreement in this
field.
Currently, none of the EU member states has a
bilateral agreement of this kind with Japan.
E-JUSTICE ACTION
PLAN
The Council took note of the state of play regarding
the implementation of the European e‑Justice action plan (15315/08) adopted in November 2008 and which
provides in particular for the setting up of a European "e-Justice"
portal.
The Council endorsed the work done so far to develop
and launch the portal by December 2009 and noted the ongoing work on
videoconferencing.
Videoconferencing is an important aspect of the
European e-Justice system, as confirmed at the informal Council meeting in
January 2009 in Prague. In order to promote and facilitate the use of
videoconferencing in cross-border proceedings, work has already been done on an
information booklet and a draft manual is being prepared. Further work will
examine issues such as a booking system for arranging videoconferences and
interpretation via videoconferencing.
The Council also noted the Commission intention to
submit an inventory of available resources in the EU budget to finance projects
in the area of e-Justice at the next Justice ministerial meeting in April
The European e-Justice system is a step on the way to
the completion of a European judicial area. It aims at simplifying procedures
in cross-border proceedings and facilitating access to justice.
The system is intended to serve as a tool not only for
legal practitioners, judicial authorities and businesses, but also for citizens
in general, informing them of their rights and of the ways to make use of these
rights. Its purpose is to fulfil three basic functions:
The creation of the European e-Justice portal,
videoconferencing and technical security issues were also topics discussed at
an international conference on "e-Justice without barriers", held in
Prague on 17/18 February 2009 (see www.justice2009.cz/en).
* * *
Over lunch, ministers of justice discussed the
procedure concerning conclusion of treaties between the European Community and
third states if the treaties contain coercive measures or criminal provisions.
MIXED COMMITTEE
The EU/Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland
Mixed Committee met on 26 February in the margins of the Council meeting
to debate a set of conclusions on the second generation of the Schengen
Information System (SIS II).
The conclusions have been subsequently adopted by the
Council (reproduced on page 20).
They took note on the progress of the Visa
Information System which
is due to be launched by the end of 2009.
Following a complementary evaluation mission at the
Swiss air borders in the framework of the Schengen evaluation, the Mixed
Committee took note that the final report will be discussed on 17 March by a
group of experts, which will establish whether all conditions allowing lifting
of internal border controls at the Swiss air borders as of 29 March 2009 have
been fulfilled. Controls at the land borders between Switzerland and its EU
neighbours were lifted as of 12 December 2008 (15698/08).
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Ministers of Interior had a first exchange of views on
the issue of the closure of the US detention facility at Guantanamo. Ministers
agreed on the necessity to obtain more information and study all aspects of the
issue. In accordance with the results of the previous discussion in the General
Affairs and External Relations Council, the ministers agreed that further
discussion with the United States in this matter is desirable.
Anti-drug policy
The Council took note of the priorities of the
Presidency in the field of anti-drug policy, which will include the following
issues:
Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme -
SWIFT network
The Council took note of information from the
Commission on the review of the procedures governing the handling, use and
dissemination of financial transaction records form the EU which are carried
over the SWIFT network and obtained by the United States Treasury Department in
support of the US terrorist finance tracking programme (TFTP).
The Commission confirmed that the US Treasury
Department has been vigilant from the outset in respecting the safeguards in
the handling of personal data included in the TFTP and the strict counter
terrorism purpose limitation.
The Commission designated the judge Jean-Louis
Bruguire as the eminent European person in charge of delivering a first
report for the purpose of verifying the protection of EU-originating personal
data.
Plane crash in
Amsterdam
The Dutch delegation received expressions of sympathy
by the rest of delegations regarding the recent airplane crash occurred near
Amsterdam.
Ship-source
pollution
The Council took note on the developments for amending
directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of
penalties for infringements, with a view to reaching a first reading agreement
with the European Parliament under the codecision legislative procedure.
International Tribunal for Law of the
Sea, Hamburg
The Council took note of information provided by the
German delegation on this issue.
Transparency policy
The Swedish delegation drew out attention on the
importance of the transparency policy in all areas of the EU institutional
activities, and in particular within the area of Justice and Home Affairs, as a
tool for strengthening the citizens' trust in the EU institutions.
World Summit of
Prosecutors General in Bucharest
The Romanian delegation announced the
World Summit of Prosecutors General, Attorneys General and Chief Prosecutors to
be held on 23/25 March 2009 in Bucharest.http://www.summitgp2009.ro/
OTHER ITEMS APPROVED
JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS
Schengen Information System "SIS
II" - Council conclusions
The Council adopted the following conclusions:
"Following the exchange of views at the informal
JHA ministers meeting held on 15 January 2009 in Prague, and referring to the
Note of the Presidency as set out in document 6067/09,
the Council,
Reaffirming that the rapid entry into operation of SIS II
remains the absolute priority,
Taking note of the status of the current SIS II project in which a
number of problems persist and of the Commission's view that all outstanding
issues can be resolved without a major re-design of the SIS II application,
Endorses the implementation of a SIS II analysis and
repair plan allowing the identification of all issues and their immediate
solution, as well as the evaluation of the technical architecture, so as to
ensure a stable and flawless SIS II system;
Welcomes the implementation of a global SIS II programme
management approach involving Member States within the framework of the
SIS II Task Force established in accordance with the Council conclusions
of 5 October 2006, working together with the Commission in compliance with
their respective legally defined competencies and thus ensuring enhanced
management and coordination of the SIS II project and related activities as a
whole (including the contingency plan), as well as consistency between the
central and national systems developments;
Welcomes the review of the SIS II testing approach,
guaranteeing an increased involvement of Member States in test definition and
management and facilitating an efficient use of financial and human resources;
Regrets the fact that, given the time required to resolve
outstanding issues, the date for migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II, set
for September 2009, is no longer realistic;
Welcomes the completion of a feasibility study serving as a
basis for creating a workable alternative technical scenario for developing
SIS II based on SIS 1+ evolution as part of a contingency plan;
Requests that as soon as possible, but at the latest by May
2009, a report containing an in-depth assessment and comparison of both
scenarios, in the light of the criteria set out in the Annex, be submitted to
the Council by the Presidency and the Commission, in close cooperation with the
SIS II Task Force and in consultation with the appropriate instances. As
regards the alternative scenario, this report should be based on detailed input
timely provided by the relevant Council preparatory bodies;
Resolves, as soon as possible, but at the latest at its meeting
on 4-5 June 2009, on the basis of the report referred to in paragraph (6) and
the analysis criteria as retained in the Annex to the present Council
Conclusions, inter alia,
Urges the Commission and Member States to cooperate fully in order to
achieve these common goals;
Invites the Commission to fully inform the European
Parliament and the Council on a regular basis about the expenditure figures
related to the central SIS II project and the measures taken to ensure the
complete financial transparency;
Invites the Presidency and the Commission to fully inform
the European Parliament about the problems related to SIS II and the way
forward.
ANNEX
Analysis Criteria For Decision Making On
Alternative SIS II Scenarios
Political and Legal Criteria:
(a) Time
factor
Schedule for bringing a system into operation, all
functionalities at least as legally required
- Short
term (2009), medium term (mid 2010) and long term (up to 2012) perspectives
(b) Integration
schedule for Member States which do not participate in SIS 1+ (UK, IE, BG, RO, CY, FL)
– dates per Member States to be specified
( c) Project
credibility
Proper functioning of the Schengen information
exchange
Added value to the internal security of the area of
freedom, security and justice
(d) Compatibility
with the SIS II regulatory framework (including governance and responsibilities)
Financial criteria:
(a) Expenditures
for the EU budget and for Member States (individually and jointly)
(b) Investment
protection - "reusability" of investments already dedicated to the
development of SIS II and preparation for
its operation
( c) Total
cost of ownership
(d) Contractual
implications for the Commission and for Member States
Technical criteria:
(a) Technical
feasibility and corresponding risks (including migration)
(b) Capacity
to integrate all functionalities required for SIS II (new types of alerts,
logging, security,
) and biometric search functions
( c) Robustness,
adequacy and reliability of each solution (network and system stability and system
architecture)
(d) Absence
of negative impact on bringing VIS into operation
(e) Impact
on continuity of operations
(f) Project
management
(g) Compatibility
with already developed SIS II national systems
(h) Compliance
with security requirements".
Convention on
Choice‑of‑Court Agreements - Private international law
The Council adopted a decision approving the signing
of the Convention on Choice‑of‑Court Agreements (16248/08).
The Convention on Choice-of-Court Agreements concluded
in June 2005 under The Hague Conference on private international law is
aimed at promoting party autonomy in international commercial transactions and
increasing the predictability of judicial solutions in such transactions.
The Convention affects Community secondary
legislation on jurisdiction based on choice by the parties and the recognition
and enforcement of the resulting judgments; in particular regulation 44/2001 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
matters.
The Community is working towards the establishment of
a common judicial area based on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial
decisions.
Council of
Europe - Convention on financing of crime and terrorism
The Council adopted a decision authorising the
signature, on behalf of the European Community, of the Council of Europe
Convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds from
crime and on the financing of terrorism.
The new Convention No 198 on laundering, search,
seizure and confiscation of the proceeds from crime and on the financing of
terrorism was opened for signing in May 2005.
Council of
Europe's legislative work in the area of criminal justice - Council
conclusions
The Council adopted the following conclusions:
"MINDFUL of the important achievements that have
been brought about by the Council of Europe in creating a treaty framework for
legal co-operation in criminal matters between the Members of the Council of
Europe;
STRESSING that many of the Conventions of the Council
of Europe form part and parcel of the bedrock of co-operation in criminal
matters between the Member states of the European Union;
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT that duplication of work should,
as far as possible, be avoided to the extent that the objectives pursued can
also be achieved through ratification and implementation of Council of Europe
Conventions in all EU Member States;
RECALLING the crucial role that the Council
of Europe has played in the approximation of criminal legislation in Europe
regarding fundamental issues;
STRESSING in particular the fact that the Council
of Europe Conventions have often laid the indispensable foundations for further
approximation of the legislation of the Member States of the European Union;
REFERRING to the need for Member States to sign
and/or ratify in particular the Criminal Law Convention No 173 on Corruption,
Convention No 196 on the Prevention of Terrorism Convention No 197 on Action
against Trafficking in Human Beings; the Council of Europe Convention No 198 on
Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on
the Financing of Terrorism and Convention No 201 on the Protection of Children
against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse;
ACKNOWLEDGING that in some cases it may be necessary
to provide for more specific and detailed rules between the Member States of
the European Union. Such deeper integration does not detract from the important
nature of the Conventions of the Council of Europe;
STRESSING that the Council of Europe Conventions play
an essential role in the co-operation between EU Member States and third
states;
Reiterates its respect for the legislative activities
of the Council of Europe in the area of criminal justice;
Reaffirms its intention to continue the close
co-operation between the European Union and the Council of Europe in this area;
Calls upon Member States to sign, ratify and implement
the Conventions of the Council of Europe in the area of international
co-operation in criminal matters and on approximation of criminal legislation
when appropriate, in particular when the provisions of these conventions are
integrated in the acquis of the EU. "
Criminal records
- Exchange of information between member states
The Council adopted a framework decision on the
exchange of information extracted from criminal records between EU member
states (13017/08).
The framework decision on the organisation and content
of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records is aimed at
improving the exchange of information on criminal convictions handed down
against nationals of the members states. It lays the ground rules for the
transmission of information on convictions to the country of the person's
nationality as well as for the storage of such information by that country and
for the retransmission, upon request, to other member states. The framework
decision also addresses the issue of information exchange arising from convictions
for sexual offences committed against children.
Trials in
absentia
The Council adopted a framework decision on
enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the
principle of mutual recognition in respect of decisions rendered in the absence
of the person at the trial (trials in absentia) (11638/08).
Differences in approach across the EU have been
creating a degree of uncertainty and delay in cases where the defendants were
convicted in their absence. The procedural guarantees established in this
framework decision, in particular the right to a retrial or appeal if the
defendant was not properly informed about the original trial and had not
appointed a lawyer to represent him or her, will allow member states to enforce
each others' judgments with even greater confidence that the persons' rights of
defence are fully respected.
The existing instruments on mutual recognition
(framework decisions on the European arrest warrant, on financial penalties, on
confiscation orders, on transfer of sentenced persons, and on the supervision
of probation measures and alternative sanctions) will have to be modified to
take into account the provisions of this framework decision.
Customs
Information System - Progress report
The Council took note of a report on the application
of the Customs Information System (CIS) during the period from January to
October 2008.
The CIS was created to store information in order to
assist in preventing, investigating and prosecuting actions which are in breach
of customs and agricultural legislation or serious contraventions of national
laws. It is running since 2003.
EUROPOL - Budget
discharge for 2007
The Council took note of an audit report and gave
discharge to the director of Europol in respect of the budget implementation
for the year 2007 (17160/08
+ ADD1).
The Council adopted a decision with a view to adding
India to the list of countries with which the director of Europol is authorised
to start negotiations on cooperation agreements (5439/09).
(..)
EXTERNAL RELATIONS
EU NAVFOR -
Atalanta military operation - Cooperation with Kenya
The Council adopted a decision approving the
Exchange of Letters between the EU and the Government of Kenya on the
conditions and modalities for the transfer of persons suspected of having
committed acts of piracy and detained by EU NAVFOR, and seized property in the
possession of EU NAVFOR, from EU NAVFOR to Kenya and for their treatment after
such transfer (5234/09).
In November 2008 the Council adopted a joint
action 2008/851/CFSP on a EU military operation to contribute to the
deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off
the Somali coast (operation Atalanta) (OJ L 301, 12.11.2008, p.
33.). The operation was launched on 8 December 2008.
For more information on EU NAVFOR : www.consilium.europa.eu/eunavfor-somalia.
International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia - Restrictive measures
The Council adopted a common position extending for 12 months, until 16 March 2010, common
position 2004/293/CFSP on measures in support of the effective implementation
of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY) (6334/09).
The measures are intended to prevent entry
into the EU of persons who are engaged in activities that help persons at large
continue to evade justice for crimes for which ICTY has indicted them, or are
otherwise acting in a manner which could obstruct ICTY's effective
implementation of its mandate. The list of persons, which was first drawn up in
April 2003, now includes 34 persons subject to a travel ban.
______________
OTHER RELATED PRESS SOURCES
EASTERN EUROPEANS MAINTAIN BLOCKADE OF NOMINATION OF EUROPOL DIRECTOR Les ministres europens de l'Intrieur
ne sont pas parvenus jeudi s'accorder sur le nom du nouveau directeur du
centre europen de coordination policire, Europol. "Les Etats membres qui
avancent un candidat auront encore un peu de temps pour ngocier", a
comment jeudi le ministre de l'Intrieur tchque, Ivan Langer, dont le pays
prside actuellement l'Union. Les ministres europens avaient choisir
l'unanimit entre le Britannique Rob Wainwright et le Hongrois Ferenc Banfi,
deux candidats dsigns comme les plus qualifis lors d'une procdure
d'valuation interne Europol, avec nanmoins un lger avantage au
Britannique. Arguant qu'il est grand temps qu'un nouvel Etat membre dispose
enfin d'une haute fonction parmi les institutions et organes europens, la
Hongrie est toutefois parvenue ces dernires semaines rallier une srie
d'autres pays entrs rcemment dans l'UE autour de de son candidat, bloquant
ainsi toute dcision. Les ministres europens de l'Intrieur se retrouveront
nouveau en avril prochain pour tenter de dgager un consensus sur cette
question. "S'il n'y a pas d'accord en avril, nous utiliserons une nouvelle
mthode inspire du Vatican", a ajout le ministre Langer. "Je
fermerai la porte (de la salle de runion, ndlr) et personne ne pourra sortir
tant qu'il n'y aura pas d'accord! ", a-t-il menac sur le ton de la
rigolade. En 2004, la dsignation du directeur actuel, l'Allemand Max-Peter
Ratzel, avait dj donn lieu plus d'un an de tractations difficiles au sein
du conseil, Paris et Berlin convoitant alors ardemment la fonction.
SCHENGEN MAY ABANDON DATABASE PLANS L'ambitieuse modernisation de la base de donnes
policires de l'espace Schengen pourrait tre abandonne en juin s'il s'avre
qu'elle ne pourra pas tre mise en service, ont confirm jeudi la prsidence
tchque de l'UE et la Commission europenne. "Nous saurons au mois de juin
si nous pouvons garder SIS II (la seconde gnration du Systme d'Information
Schengen). Sinon, il y aura la possibilit d'une variante du SIS I", a
dclar le commissaire europen charg de la Justice Jacques Barrot l'issue
d'une runion des ministres de l'Interieur de l'UE Bruxelles. "Cela
n'aura aucune incidence pour la Suisse", dernier adhrent l'espace Schengen,
a-t-il assur. "Il n'y a pas de difficults insurmontables et nous
esprons pouvoir mettre au point le SIS II", a-t-il confi. "C'est un
systme complexe et les Etats ont voulu ajouter des services supplmentaires
qui ont ajout la complexit", a-t-il expliqu. L'hypothse d'un
abandon, prne par certains pays, avait t voque lors d'une runion
informelle des ministres de l'UE en janvier Prague. "SIS II est dans une
situation critique", avait alors reconnu le ministre tchque de
l'Intrieur Ivan Langer. "Il faut voir si cela peut tre rpar. En mai,
soit a marche, soit les problmes sont si graves que l'on devra suivre un plan
d'urgence", avait-il expliqu. Les ministres ont pris acte jeudi de
l'impossibilit de mettre en oeuvre le SIS II en septembre 2009 et ont demand
un rapport sur ce dossier "au plus tard pour mai 2009" afin de
pouvoir se prononcer "au plus tard lors de leur runion des 4 et 5 juin
2009". SIS II, cens largir et enrichir la base de donnes SIS I+ conue
pour une zone Schengen limite 18 pays, devait initialement tre oprationnel
en 2007, avant que la date ne soit reporte de deux ans. Le projet complte les
donnes personnelles par des donnes biomtriques (empreintes et
photographies). Aux informations existantes sur les automobiles s'adjoindront
les immatriculations de bateaux, d'aronefs, de conteneurs et des donnes
concernant les cartes de crdit voles.
OBAMA DISMAYS EUROPE BY KEEPING CIA FLIGHTS OPTION
Opponents in Europe of secret CIA transfers of terrorism suspects are
disappointed that Barack Obama is keeping rendition as an option in the fight
against terrorism. CIA Director Leon Panetta told a Senate hearing on Feb. 6
that suspects might still be sent to third countries for questioning, subject
to assurances they would be treated humanely, an approach he reconfirmed on
Wednesday. "Rendition is still permitted," he told reporters in
Washington. "If we render someone we are obviously going to seek
assurances from that country that their human rights are protected and they are
not mistreated." European observers note that the same assurances were
made under former President Bush, yet past rendition cases have given rise to
allegations by human rights lawyers that detainees were tortured while in the
custody of third countries. "The Bush administration said we only send
them to places after the embassy assures us that not a hair on their heads will
be touched," said Claudio Fava, an EU lawmaker who wrote a European
Parliament report on CIA secret flights and prisons. "But obviously, if
you entrust a presumed terrorist to the Egyptian or Moroccan police, that
assurance is worth little." The realisation that rendition will continue
to be an option for the new administration surprised some observers, and
dampened European hopes that Obama might lift Bush-era secrecy over any past
operations in Europe that may have led to torture. "We're somewhat
disappointed," said Dick Marty, who authored a report for the Council of
Europe over secret CIA transfers that accused European states of collusion.
"Those who believe in human rights and the rule of law expect more." PLUS
A CHANGE The Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner has called on
European states to seize upon the change in leadership in Washington to come
clean about secret CIA transfers. "Now with the new (U.S.) government, EU
governments could really be honest about it," Thomas Hammarberg told
reporters. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, has proposed creating a commission to review Bush-era security
policies including the treatment of terrorism suspects. But Marty and Fava say
Obama has signalled that secrecy over Bush-era covert operations may continue.
His administration has extended Bush-era secrecy on documents authorising
waterboarding and used a state-secrecy argument to block a rendition lawsuit.
Perhaps nowhere have the legal ramifications of rendition been better
highlighted than in Italy, where U.S. and Italian spies face kidnapping charges
for grabbing a suspect in Milan. Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr was taken to Egypt
where says he was subjected to electric shock, beatings and rape threats. Milan
prosecutor Armando Spataro said that although he was denied judicial assistance
from the United States, the biggest challenge to his kidnapping case against
spies has come from Italy -- which wants it thrown out on state secrecy
grounds. "The problems facing this case have been mostly created by the
Italian governments," Spataro said. (See also Assessing
Damage, Urging Action: Report of the ICJ Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism,
Counterterrorism and Human Rights)
BRITAIN NOW ADMITS IT PLAYED PART IN CIA FLIGHTS Britain's defence
minister made an unusual public apology on Thursday, admitting that Britain had
taken part in the "rendition" of suspects held in Iraq when it had
previously always denied doing so. In a lengthy statement to parliament,
Defence Secretary John Hutton confirmed that Britain handed two suspects
captured in Iraq in 2004 to U.S. custody and that they were subsequently
transferred to Afghanistan, breaching U.S.-British agreements. The Ministry of Defence has
repeatedly been asked over the past five years about its involvement in
rendition, the transfer of suspects captured or held in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and consistently denied that it has played any role. "I regret that it is
now clear that inaccurate information on this particular issue has been given
to the House by my department on a small number of occasions," Hutton
said. "I want to apologise to the House for these errors." The case
relates to two men seized by British troops in southern Iraq in February 2004.
They were transferred to U.S. detention and later flown to Afghanistan, where
they remain in U.S. custody. The U.S. has provided assurances that the suspects
are being properly treated, Hutton said. But such assurances have been
questioned in the past and human rights group said it was time the government
"came clean" once and for all. "We have been asking the
government for years now to have a full-blown, public inquiry into these
matters and this inquiry has been resisted and resisted," Shami
Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty,
told the BBC. "The pressure to lift the lid on clearly some very unsavoury
things that happened in the name of the war on terror, the pressure has had to
come from lawyers and through the courts." Asked about Hutton's apology, a
spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said there was nothing illegal about
Britain's involvement in the rendition process. The Americans, he said, had
merely breached a long-standing agreement that people captured by British
forces in Iraq would not be transferred out of Iraq without prior consultation.
Extraordinary rendition, which involves transferring a suspect to a third
country where they risk being subjected to torture and abuse during
interrogation, goes one step further than rendition and is considered illegal
by Britain.
SWEDEN WANTS EUROPEAN COURT TO SET EU ASYLUM STANDARD
The European Court should be allowed to set the standard for asylum
decisions across the European Union, and Sweden could push for that when it
takes over the bloc's presidency in July, the country's immigration and asylum
minister said Friday. "If you get an asylum application, you need a body
that says that this decision should apply to all similar applications,"
Tobias Billstrom told journalists in Brussels. "We will probably say that
the body which should make such decisions would be the European Court of
Justice," he said. At present, EU member states have the final say on who
can claim asylum in their territories, and officials complain that there are immense
differences between those states in the way the EU's shared asylum rules are
applied. Billstrom's idea would see the Luxembourg-based ECJ empowered to set
the rules across the bloc. Thus, if a Chechen refugee was refused asylum in
Slovenia, but the ECJ then judged that he should qualify for protection, all
similar future cases in all EU member states should be decided the same way.
Similarly, if the ECJ refused the application, that would apply to
future cases in the same way, Billstrom stressed. "Without a common
denominator, it will be a question of pushing the (asylum) problem around among
member states," he said. According to figures from the European
Commission, Iraqis seeking asylum in Europe can face anything from a 2-per-cent
chance of acceptance to a 71-per-cent chance, depending on the country in which
they apply. People fleeing areas such as Chechnya and Somalia face similar
problems. "It's impossible to continue with the current minimum rules.
They are creating imbalances and injustice, not creating solidarity among
member states," Billstrom said. In April, EU member states agreed that the
asylum system was not working properly, and called for the creation of an
EU-level office to help them coordinate their policies. The proposal would have
to be approved by EU member states, who are fiercely protective of their
national legal policies. Discussions of the idea could be "very
interesting," Billstrom said.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE PUSHES FOR INVESTIGATION ON HUMAN TRAFFICKING Un groupe d'experts du Conseil de
l'Europe, le Group of
Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings GRETA, va s'efforcer
durant son premier mandat d'tablir un difficile tat des lieux du trafic
d'tres humains en Europe, pralable indispensable une lutte efficace contre
ce flau. Qui sont les victimes, leurs trafiquants, les responsables ? Combien
sont-elles ? Quelles sont les lacunes lgislatives des 20 pays membres du
Conseil de l'Europe qui ont ratifi la nouvelle Convention europenne sur le
trafic humain ? "Nous ne savons pas exactement combien de personnes sont
victimes de trafic. Cela fera partie de notre travail", explique l'AFP
la prsidente du groupe, la juriste norvgienne Hanne Sophie Greve. Si
l'Organisation internationale du Travail (OIT) avance le chiffre de 2,5
millions de victimes dans le monde, il concerne uniquement le travail forc et
ne tient pas compte des victimes des pays en guerre, de l'exploitation sexuelle
et, lment nouveau, des victimes de prlvements d'organes. "Le trafic,
c'est le fait de recruter, transporter ou transfrer une personne alors qu'au
bout du compte on sait qu'elle sera victime d'exploitation", rappelle le
Franais Nicolas Le Coz, vice-prsident du groupe. "Il peut s'agir d'un
homme, d'une femme ou d'un enfant. Il n'y a pas de discrimination",
souligne-t-il. Mme Greve cite le cas d'une Togolaise envoye en France par un
ami de son pre avec la promesse d'une ducation et garde comme domestique 15
heures par jour. "C'est un voisin qui a alert une ONG franaise qui l'a
dclare aux autorits, et la France a t condamne par la Cour europenne car
elle n'avait pas prvu de condamnation pnale pour ce type de traitement",
a rappel la prsidente. Le GRETA dit ne pas avoir de pays particulier en ligne
de mire, ni "aucune liste noire". "Notre mandat (de 4 ans)
concerne tous les pays", indique sa prsidente. Selon une mthode de
travail assez proche de celle du Comit de protection contre la torture (CPT),
qui a fait ses preuves dans les prisons du Conseil de l'Europe, il valuera la
manire dont les pays membres respectent la Convention dans les faits et
modifient leur lgislation en consquence. Des rapports d'valuation seront
frquemment publis sur les mesures prises par les pays membres.
"Actuellement nous ne ne connaissons pas quelle est la situation qui
prvaut dans chaque pays, mme si nous en avons peut-tre une ide. Nous devons
faire notre travail srieusement", insiste M. Le Coz. Runi pour sa
premire session jusqu' vendredi, le groupe compos de 13 experts indpendants
des droits de l'Homme et de spcialistes de la traite des tres humains, a
discut de la manire dont il valuera les pays et tablira les normes en vue
d'laborer un questionnaire qui sera envoy aux pays membres. "Cela parat
administratif, mais (le questionnaire) est une stratgie", explique
l'expert franais, car "les Etats devront (y) rpondre honntement".
Selon le GRETA, ces questionnaires constitueront "une source trs
importante d'informations". En cas de rponses ambigus, il se rserve la
possibilit de poser des questions complmentaires, de solliciter l'opinion des
ONG ou de se rendre sur place. La Convention ratifie par 20 pays europens et
signe par 20 autres est considre par le Conseil de l'Europe comme un outil
"trs audacieux et trs moderne" pour prvenir la traite, protger
les victimes et traner les trafiquants devant la justice.
SOUTHERN EUROPE TO BE HIT HARDEST BY CLIMATE CHANGE, SAYS EU COMMISSION
Italy, Spain and Greece could bear the brunt of climate change in Europe
this century, with heatwaves and wildfires hitting tourism earnings and food
production, according to a draft European Commission report. The economic
impact of climate change could be 6.2 billion euros ($7.9 billion) a year by
2020 if the EU's 27 nations do nothing to adapt, says an early draft of the
"Adapting to Climate Change" report, seen by Reuters on Friday. That
could rise to 54-63 billion euros a year by 2060, depending on the success of
measures to cut emissions, says the draft, which has not yet been approved by
Europe's environment commissioner and will not be officially adopted until
April. "The studies show a strong distributional pattern of effects predicted
across Europe, with a significant trend towards more negative potential effects
in southeastern Europe and the Mediterranean," said the draft. The report
did not specifically name Spain, Italy and Greece, but six accompanying maps
showed heavy impacts on crop yields and availability of fresh water in all
three countries. They also highlighted increased risks from wildfires in the
eastern Mediterranean and Balkans and dangerous heatwaves in Spain. North and
west Europe face a mix of good and bad impacts. "Young, old and frail
persons are the most susceptible," said the draft. "It raises the
issue of whether planned adaptation should specifically try and target such
groups." The European Union last year agreed to cut carbon dioxide
emissions to one fifth below 1990 levels by 2020. It is now gearing up for
global talks in Copenhagen in December aimed at finding an international
response to climate change. The talks come amid renewed optimism that both
China and the United States are ready to commit to cutting emissions.
RISK OF MASS MIGRATION FROM AFRICA The draft report also highlighted the threat of mass
migrations as arid regions, such as north Africa, become increasingly hostile
environments. "The EU's neighbours include some of the most vulnerable regions
to climate change," said the report. "Climate change could lead to
vast displacement of populations, including into regions close to Europe or EU
ultra-peripheral regions." "Parts of the Mediterranean region, being
both a neighbouring region and susceptible to the effects of climate change,
(are) particularly important in this respect."
JUSTICE : EU CONSIDERS ABOLISHING
DUAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY
The EU's justice ministers debated, on
27 February in Brussels, a proposal for a framework decision aimed at abolishing
conflicts of jurisdiction between member states in criminal matters. The Czech
EU Presidency drew up the proposal, joined by Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and
Sweden.
"I think that a consensus was
obtained. The experts will now discuss the details," announced Czech
Justice Minister Jir Pospsil at the end of the Council. The idea is to
abolish dual criminal liability for a single offence committed by an
individual. All criminal offences - provided they have an impact in several
member states - would be concerned. The EU will have to agree on the basic
principles governing single criminal liability, such as the exchange of
information, the judicial procedure, coordination among enforcement
authorities, the scope of the framework decision and how it would apply. The
person charged would thus be convicted or acquitted only once for one and the
same offence. "This is also a question of efficiency because dual criminal
liability generates costs," said the minister.
Justice, Freedom and Security
Commissioner Jacques Barrot backs the proposal, but it is simply a first step
that will need to be "prolonged through other measures". More
generally, the proposal seeks to improve judicial cooperation in the EU and to
contribute to better application of the principle of mutual recognition, both
before and after the trial. Another aim is to improve review of the rights and
interests of the persons concerned, including victims.
The European Parliament will be
consulted.
By Nathalie Vandystadt
GUANTANAMO CLOSURE :
EU WANTS ANSWERS FROM WASHINGTON BEFORE ACCEPTING EX-DETAINEES
The onus is on the United States to find
a solution. Such is the decision taken by the EU's interior ministers at the
end of their debate on the fate of ex-detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison
camp in Cuba, held in Brussels on 26 February. The prison, commonly associated
with anti-terrorist measures (notably torture), is to be closed within the next
year. But the fate of the inmates - approximately sixty of whom cannot return
to their countries of origin for fear of torture or even worse - is still
uncertain (see Europolitics 3700).
"My colleagues agreed that, in
essence, it's America's problem", said the Czech Minister in charge of the
EU Presidency, Ivan Langer. Despite this, certain countries, such as France,
Spain and Portugal, have said that they are willing to welcome the
ex-detainees. The United Kingdom, for its part, has already welcomed the first
of them, Binyam Mohammed from Ethiopia, which led to questions being asked
about cooperation between British information services and his torturers. Other
countries, such as Austria, Sweden, Poland and Denmark, have excluded the
possibility.
POSSIBLE RESTRICTIONS ON MOBILITY
While the final decision to accept - or
not - ex-detainees is "exclusively" the national competence of member
states, the EU is still optimistic about finding a "coordinated
approach," said Langer, adding that the necessary information about
ex-detainees should be in the public domain because "we are in the
[border-free] Schengen area". But "restrictions to their movements
cannot be excluded," added Justice, Freedom and Security Commissioner
Jacques Barrot.
Nevertheless, no decisions will be taken
before the scheduled 15-17 March visit by Barrot, Minister Langer and EU
Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove to Washington. "We also
need the United States to fill us in with all relevant information and make a
formal request, which they have not yet done," explained Langer.
The European delegation will arrive in
the capital of the United States with fifteen questions in a document prepared
jointly by the European Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council
of the European Union. For example: What status will these ex-detainees have
(release or transfer)? How many of them does the USA intend to welcome on their
territory? What transfer procedure and what timetable will be followed for
those who are to be released? How will the exchange of (confidential)
information about the detainees who are to be released be organised? What
guarantee does the United States have that the ex-prisoners are not (or no
longer) dangerous? How do they intend to ensure that a Guantanamo equivalent is
not established elsewhere (such as at Bagram, a US base in Afghanistan)? Do
they intend to compensate the released detainees?
The answers given by Washington will be
used to assess the "security risk to member states" posed by the
former prisoners.
"They must be people who don't pose
an potential threat to public security, they must come to our country willingly
because no-one should be forced to come to France and they must have some ties
with our country to justify their presence in France," explained the
French Minister, Eric Besson.
TWO POSSIBILITIES
Once they have confirmed their willingness
to welcome the ex-detainees, these countries may issue them with residence
permits, giving them the legal right to live on their territories, possibly
with certain conditions imposed: security measures and restricted freedom of
movement within their own territory. With regard to freedom of movement within
the Schengen area, this right may be limited by either the host member state or
other Schengen countries, explains the note, which Europolitics was able to access. The
second possibility would be to grant the ex-detainees international protection
(refugee status or subsidiary protection) with a three-year residence permit
depending on the status granted.
The note, in a bid to provide a
coordinated response, also makes certain recommendations to member states,
including measures for the insertion and integration of the former prisoners.
According to Gilles de Kerchove, "this dossier could take months,"
considering the time it will take for the new Obama administration to classify
the ex-detainees according to three categories: those who should be tried by
the United States, those who qualify for release or transfer and those who are
deemed to be potentially dangerous but cannot be prosecuted because they are
victims of torture.
By Nathalie Vandystadt
JUSTICE : EU WARNS NEGATIONIST
BISHOP WILLIAMSON
The British fundamentalist Bishop,
Richard Williamson, who was deported from Argentina for his negationist
comments, has been warned that such arguments are punished under criminal law
in most member states, announced the Czech EU Presidency and the European
Commission after the Council of Justice Ministers, on 27 February in Brussels.
In other countries, however, including Williamson's home country, the United
Kingdom, where he returned two days ago, the framework decision making it a
criminal offence to publicly condone, deny or grossly trivialise crimes of
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for racist or xenophobic
purposes still has to be transposed into national laws.
"In most member states, negationism
is already subject to serious inculpation by the relevant courts. But
negationism should be part of [EU-level] inculpations: there is a sort of
indirect incitement to racial hatred, which leads to denial of the hostilities
perpetrated, in this case, against Jews," said Justice Commissioner
Jacques Barrot after the Council.
The problem is that this decision,
adopted by the EU on 28 November 2008, is not yet being applied. "I regret
that in democratic countries like ours, procedures take months or even years to
be applied," added Czech Minister Jir Pospsil. The member states have
two years to transpose the measure.
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT
The 2001 text was very tough to
negotiate. It took seven years for the Northern countries, which are reluctant
to restrict freedom of expression, to waive their final reservations (see Europolitics
3648). As a
result, the United Kingdom, Italy, Ireland and Sweden obtained that negationist
behaviour would be sanctioned if it "occurs in such a way as to risk
inciting to violence or hatred against a group of persons". Consequently,
today, claiming, as does Williamson, that the gas chambers did not exist is not
a punishable act in the United Kingdom. Once the EU legislation has been
transposed, if a case is referred to a British court, it may submit an
application for a preliminary ruling to the EU Court of Justice, which will
decide.
The fundamentalist bishop (aged 68, an
official of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X) may therefore exercise his
freedom of movement in the EU, recognised Barrot, "but it is up to the
states to ensure law and order". On 26 February, Williamson asked for
"pardon before God" from all those offended by his statements, but
did not withdraw his claims.
Richard Williamson is being investigated
in Germany for his negationist statements on Swedish television. "In
principle, this offence falls under the rules on the European arrest
warrant," said the German minister, who said Berlin could issue a warrant.
By Nathalie Vandystadt
EU/SWITZERLAND :
TALKS FOR FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON TRACK
The Swiss yes' vote in the referendum on
the freedom of movement of people presents Bern with many new possibilities,
said Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the European commissioner for external relations,
when she met with Micheline Calmy-Rey, the Swiss foreign minister in Brussels,
on 26 February. The possibility of a framework agreement between the EU and
Switzerland is thus back on the table but there are still thorny issues that
need to be tackled.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner welcomed the
green light given by the Swiss people, on 8 February, to the gradual opening of
the Swiss labour market to all citizens of the EU. "It will allow for
continued relations in areas of mutual interest," she said. "Now we
need to look to the future."
Staying in the domain of bilateral
relations, Bern and the EU have already initiated sectorial negotiations in
different domains (electricity, free trade, agriculture). Micheline Calmy-Rey
and Benita Ferrero-Waldner have also announced the launch of exploratory'
discussions about the possible signing of this new framework agreement between
the EU and Switzerland.
This framework agreement, which has been
talked about since 2001, should allow for structuring' the numerous existing
bilateral agreements (approximately 120) between the two parties as well as
making them easier to manage and, most importantly, to introduce mechanisms to
allow for them to be adapted rapidly to fit in with the evolution of the
Community acquis. Indeed, EU member states have no intention of quickly cobbling
together agreements just to suit the Swiss.
"This procedure will be
difficult," admitted Micheline Calmy-Rey, with Switzerland intent on
preserving its legislative autonomy. Nevertheless, Ferrero-Waldner reassured
her that "the procedure of renewing the body of law will not be automatic
because our aim is not to encroach on Swiss sovereignty".
EXCELLENT ATMOSPHERE
"The atmosphere between Switzerland
and the European Union is excellent," continued the Swiss minister, who
since 8 February, has nevertheless changed two poisoned' dossiers, which have
once again come to the surface: the cantonal tax dossier and the secret Swiss
bank accounts dossier.
The Commission, however, feels that the
proposals made by Bern to reduce the fiscal advantages which the cantons award
to national companies, holdings and mixed companies established on their
territory are not enough. The EU equates them to state aids, which are
incompatible with the smooth operation of the free trade agreement signed between
Switzerland and the EU in 1972 because they are the cause of many companies
relocating.
The Swiss government is not convinced
that these accusations are well-founded, but nevertheless says it is prepared
to make a proposal to the Swiss parliament that it abolish the letter box
company' system (approximately 10,000 companies will be affected) and to ban
holdings and mixed companies from practising certain commercial activities.
But even though these proposals are on
the right track, Ferrero-Waldner asked for "improvements". In fact, a
report drawn up by the Commission maintains that holdings and mixed companies
would still benefit from "preferential taxes" and "selective
advantages," which are unacceptable for other companies based in
Switzerland. The European Commission, however, remains convinced that "a
solution will be found" to these problems.
In the meantime, Switzerland looks set
to be faced by another dilemma following the revelation by the Swiss bank UBS
of the names of its 300 clients accused of tax fraud to the American judicial
system. "The United States shouldn't get better treatment than the
EU," said Ferrero-Waldner, noting that the UBS affair is to the EU's
advantage in its desire to fight against any misuse of secret bank accounts.
With the support of numerous member
states, the Commission has already proposed that they be abolished for
non-residents - it would like to oblige Luxembourg and Austria, upon request,
to offer administrative assistance to their partners in cases of tax evasion. In
Bern, where the government has created its own strategic delegation', there is
fear that the pressure will become unbearable.
By Tanguy Verhoosel
EU-COE TO COOPERATE IN PENAL MATTERS
The Council of Europe (a non-Community
European authority representing 47 member states) and the EU are to continue
their cooperation in the field of penal justice, reasserted EU interior
ministers, during a meeting, on 26 February in Brussels. They have a
"number of conventions" in common, adopted by the former, based in
Strasbourg. The result is that any duplication should be avoided, as far as
possible, state the CoE's conclusions. The EU clearly does not need to act if
the objectives can be reached via the ratification and implementation of the
conventions of the Council of Europe, in all member states. This is the case
for the conventions on the fight against corruption, prevention of terrorism,
human trafficking, money-laundering, as well as the search, seizure and
confiscation of the proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism and,
lastly, the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual
abuse. EU member states are also invited, if necessary, to sign, ratify and
apply the conventions relating to international cooperation in penal matters
and to the rapprochement of penal laws, above all those that are part of the
Community acquis. (NVA)
EU-JAPAN MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN
CRIMINAL MATTERS
The Czech EU Presidency has obtained a
mandate from the Council of Justice Ministers to negotiate an agreement on mutual
assistance in criminal matters with Japan. "Even Hungary, which had
constitutional reservations, agreed because the Hungarian constitutional order
will continue to be respected," said Czech Minister Jir Pospsil, on 27
February. Such an agreement could reinforce and facilitate EU-Japan mutual
assistance in criminal matters, while protecting fundamental rights and
guaranteeing respect for the common values of the member states, notes the
Council. To date, no EU member state has concluded a bilateral agreement of
this type with Japan. (NVA)
ESDP/EUNAVFOR :
EU, KENYA AGREE LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON PIRACY PROSECUTIONS
The Union's justice and home affairs
ministers endorsed, on 26 February (without debate, as an a' item), an exchange
of letters with Kenya on bringing to justice in that country persons suspected
of having committed acts of piracy or armed robbery (1) apprehended by the
vessels participating in the European Union's EUNAVFOR Atalanta military
operation, and on the conditions and arrangements for their transfer. According
to international legal experts, this exchange of letters has the same value as
an agreement. Spain, moreover, expressed a parliamentary reservation stating
that the agreement should be ratified as such by its parliament. It will be fully
applicable immediately upon publication in the Official Journal.
EXTRADITION AGREEMENT
The Kenyan government and the Council of
the European Union, with Javier Solana as its representative, proceeded, in
late November and early December 2008, with an exchange of letters. Endorsed
officially by the ministers, on 26 February, this exchange is equivalent to an
extradition agreement. It contains details on the transfer procedure and on the
rights of the persons transferred. It also gives EUNAVFOR representatives the
power to check whether the detainees transferred are being well treated. Such a
power is rarely granted to those in charge of military operations in the
traditional judicial system (apart from EULEX in Kosovo).
After discussions, the European diplomats
found that this document offers sufficient guarantees that the death penalty
will not be applied and that suspects will not be subject to degrading or
inhumane treatment (banned by the 1984 UN convention). This position may be
reviewed in the event any serious doubts' arise as to compliance with the
international convention, note Council sources.
TRANSFER PROCEDURE
Kenya agrees to the transfer of persons
apprehended by EUNAVFOR in connection with acts of piracy and will hand them
over (as well as the goods seized) to the authority in charge of investigation
and prosecution. The Kenyan authorities may not transfer such persons to
another state without the authorisation of EUNAVFOR.
All transfers require the signature of
the EUNAVFOR representative and that of the competent Kenyan legal authorities.
EUNAVOR will provide Kenya with
detention records on the transferred persons, including as far as possible:
physical condition of the transferred person, time of transfer, reason for
detention, time and place of the commencement of detention and any decisions
taken with regard to the detention.
Kenya will be responsible for keeping an
accurate account of all transferred persons and precise records. These records
will be available to the EU and EUNAVFOR (upon a written request to the Kenyan
Foreign Ministry). Kenya must also notify EUNAVFOR of the place of detention of
any transferred person, of any deterioration of his physical condition and of
any allegations of improper treatment.
The EU or EUNAVFOR representatives will
have access to transferred persons as long as they are in custody. National and
international humanitarian agencies will be authorised, at their request, to
visit them.
EUNAVFOR must provide assistance to the
Kenyan authorities within its means and capabilities: hand over detention
records, evidence, statements of witnesses or affidavits (sworn statements) and
seized property.
All disputes concerning the
interpretation of the provisions between the EU and Kenya will be settled by
diplomatic means.
RIGHTS OF TRANSFERRED PERSONS
A number of guarantees are written into
the exchange of letters to protect the fundamental rights of transferred
persons. The protection level is that of international agreements, although not
all these rights are fully respected in all prisons in the European Union (as
reported regularly by the Council of Europe).
"Any transferred person charged
with a criminal offence will be presumed innocent."
Right not to be subjected to torture, or
cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. The detained person must be given
adequate accommodation and nourishment as well as access to medical treatment
and will be able to carry out religious observance.
Right to be brought promptly before a
judge or other officer who will decide without delay on the lawfulness of the
detention and will order release if the detention is not lawful.
Right to be entitled to trial within a
reasonable time or to release.
Right to a fair and public hearing by a
competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Right to be informed promptly and in
detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge
against him; to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his
defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choice. The suspect must be
tried in his presence, and has the right to defend himself in person or through
legal assistance of his choice. He has the right to legal assistance without
payment if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it.
Right to examine all evidence against
him and to obtain the affidavits of witnesses against him.
Right to free assistance of an
interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
Right not to be compelled to testify
against himself or to confess guilt.
Right to appeal the sentence before a
higher court, in accordance with the law of Kenya.
The death penalty may not be applied.
Any death sentence must be commuted to a sentence of imprisonment.
The agreement is available at www.europolitics.info
> Search = 244713
By Nicolas Gros-Verheyde
(1) In law of the sea, there are
two separate offences: acts of piracy', when committed on the open seas, and
armed robbery" when committed in territorial waters.
BARROT TO VISIT MALTA AND LAMPEDUSA
Commissioner Jacques Barrot (justice,
freedom and security), in response to the pressing demands of the Southern EU
countries faced with a rising influx of illegal immigrants, will visit Malta,
on 13 March, and Lampedusa (south of Italy), on 14 March, "to review the
situation on the ground" in the detention camps. He announced the
decision, on 26 February, at the Council of Home Affairs Ministers in Brussels.
These two islands are the main gateways for illegal immigrants hoping to find a
better life in Europe. The four countries most concerned - Italy, Malta, Cyprus
and Greece - teamed up again at this Council to urge their partners to take
"practical and common actions" to prevent the arrival of illegal
immigrants on their coasts, often aboard makeshift boats and sometimes ending
in tragedy (see Europolitics 3675). They called in particular for a strengthening of
Frontex, the European agency for the management of operational coordination at
the external borders, and "the conclusion of European bilateral agreements
with the countries of origin of illegal immigrants" on expulsions. (NVA)
UK's Security, Immigration & Anti-Terror
Laws (FAQs)
Sarah Sherif Abdelaziz is
a British-Egyptian writer and researcher who holds a Master of Letters in
Islamic Jerusalem Studies, with distinction first
class honors, from Almaktoum Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies in
Dundee, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom. Abdelaziz also earned a Bachelor's
degree in Political Science from the Faculty of Economics and Political Science
English Section, Cairo University. She can be reached via euro_muslims@iolteam.com.
France, Germany and the United Kingdom
have long histories with Islam and Muslims. Each of these countries is home to
a large Muslim population, Muslim organizations, and recently-Muslim-related
laws and practices. The conditions for practicing Islam can be understood when
seeing the increase of state policies toward females' wearing of the head scarf
hijab) in public, the presence of places of worship and Muslim cemeteries,
faith schools, halal butchering, and marriage legislations [i].
Thus, IslamOnline.net (IOL)'s European Muslims Page is presenting a series of
FAQs on the security,
immigration, and anti-terrorism laws in the United Kingdom, France, and
Germany. After this elementary introduction, we are highlighting only the laws
of the UK in a FAQ-format.
The UK has a long history of exposure to
terrorism coming from within, in the 1970s the skinhead movement began among
the working-class youths as a countermovement to the hippies; it was also
engaged in violent acts and racial harassments against the Asians and
Blacks [ii]. This is not to neglect the UKs long
fight against the IRA.
Thus, it is normal for this country to
have had terrorism laws existing in their legislatures long before the
September 11th attacks. The difference is that after these attacks which
coincided with the rise of radical Muslims in European countries generally,
more attention has been given to national terrorism, security and asylum laws
and acts.
In the years following the September 11th attacks, a large number of Muslims
have been arrested and detained; and most of the time released without being
charged. These governments have passed laws with the intention of tightening
security and seeking more protection, however, these laws are greatly affecting
one's personal life, liberty, and in many cases future.
The rise of radical Muslims in the United Kingdom
could be the consequence of a number of reasons both national and international
such as the military presence of these countries in the Middle East under the
banner of the war on terror, and/or the discrimination faced by the Muslim
minorities on national levels, and segregation from the dominant society.
Radicalism could also be due to "public provocation" acts such as the
recurring publication of the "Danish cartoons" of Prophet Mohammed
(PBUH) under the claim of defending freedom of expression, while knowing that
laws criminalizing holocaust denial and incitement show that there could be
limits to freedom of expression in Western societies.
However, the rise of radical Muslims and
the reasons behind the increase of terrorism and terrorist-related attacks
inside these countries is not the core of this article; rather it is the
raising of peoples' awareness –in particular Muslims- about the content
of the main British laws enacted in these countries to fight terrorism.
1- Which terrorism-related laws are enacted in the United
Kingdom?
2- How is the term "terrorism" defined in the
legislations of the UK?
3- What are the areas that should be taken into
considerati on with these laws?
1- Which terrorism-related laws are enacted in the United Kingdom?
The UK's Home Office states that The
Terrorism Act 2000 is the primary piece of counter-terrorism legislation and
contains the most vital counter-terrorism measures. This act aims at tackling
international terrorism and has replaced previous anti-terrorism temporary
legislation that specifically dealt with Northern Ireland.
In response to the September 11th
attacks, Britain passed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; which gives more powers to
the police to investigate terrorist acts and other "serious" crimes.
However, following the 7th of July London bombings the Prevention
of Terrorism Act 2005, also known as the
Control Order Act, was introduced. The 2005 Act permitted control orders to be
imposed on suspects of terrorism — be they UK nationals or not, and whatever the
nature of the terrorist activity. Breach of such order without valid
justification is considered a criminal offence and warrants a sentence of up to
5 years.
In 2006, a more "controversial"
legislation was passed by the government. Terrorism Act 2006 created a number of new
offences which once brought to force would be considered a criminal offence to
commit. Such offences cover Acts Preparatory to Terrorism, Encouragement to Terrorism, Dissemination of Terrorist
Publications,
and Terrorist Training Offences. The 2006 Act
also amends existing legislation –particularly the 2000 Act- as it introduces warrants to enable the
police to search any property owned or controlled by a terrorist suspect,
extended terrorism stop-and-search powers to cover bays and estuaries, extended
police powers to detain suspects after arrest for up to 28 days — though
periods of more than two days must be approved by a judicial
authority), improved search powers at ports, increased flexibility of the
proscription regime, including the power to proscribe groups that glorify
terrorism.
2- How is the term "terrorism" defined in the legislations of the UK?
It is known that there is not one unified universal definition for the term
"terrorism" partly because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom
fighter, and also because of daily developments that occur which would make it
very difficult to encompass all acts of terrorism in one definition. Thus,
defining terrorism remains a subject for discussion in international bodies and
forums.
In a report presented to the UK Parliament
by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and prepared by Lord Carlile
of Berriew Q.C.(Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation), it is stated
that a starting point for the definition of terrorism would be the definition
included in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989:
"terrorism is the use of violence for political ends (including) any use
of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public
in fear". However, it must be noted that the present definition used in UK
legislation is found in Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 with the amendments to
the definition that Terrorism Act 2006 introduced and which came into force on
the 13th of April 2006.
3- What are the areas that should be taken into consideration with these laws?
Terrorism laws and acts in UK allow the
responsible authorities to undertake many measures for the combat of terrorism.
Thus, in the following list of questions and answers we shall shed light on the
developments in detention-related matters, control orders, diplomatic
assurances vs. the expulsion/ deportation of terrorist suspects, impact on
asylum laws and regulation, civil liberties (freedom of speech, the
criminalization of thoughts; access to data and personal privacy), how
ethnicity is used as a ground for detaining terrorism suspects, and Muslims
being the victims of suspicion in most cases.
Period of detention:
The powers given to terrorism-related
authorities in the proscribed countries particularly Britain (the longest
pre-charge detention period in the European Union) are authorized to enforce
lengthy detention of terrorism suspects without charge. This is a major violation of crucial
human rights such as the right to liberty and personal security. France and Germany do not have the
concept of pre-charge detention like the UK.
In October 2008, the House of Lords
rejected a proposal to extend the period of detention of terrorism suspects to up to 6 weeks (42
days). Currently, the 2006 Terrorism Act has already extended the period of
detention to 28 days beginning "including the day on which the
authorization is given", before they must be either charged with an
offence or released.
The Right to remain silent!
Clause 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to delay a terrorism
suspect's access to a lawyer
for up to 48 hours. But even then the authorities might impose that the suspect
meet with his/her solicitor in the presence (sight) and hearing of a qualified
officer, thus infringing the suspects right to an effective exercise of
his/her defense rights[i][iii].
What do control orders entail?
Unlike the UK, neither France nor Germany has explicit acts allowing the enacting
of control orders.UK has explicit acts allowing the enacting of control orders,
the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2005 introduced the current control order
regime which has been closely scrutinized for its violation of the major human
rights it creates. The act which is directed to terrorist "suspects"
allows the Home Secretary to "impose curfews, prohibition on arranged
meetings with non-approved persons, proscription of use of the internet or
mobile phones, and enforce home arrest confinement". It is worth noting
that breach of control orders could be considered a criminal offence.
In the Universal Periodic Review of the
United Kingdom prepared by Human Rights Watch, it is stated that the
restrictions imposed under the control order regime and the procedures for
their imposition affect a range of rights guaranteed under international human
rights law, including: the right to liberty, the right to a fair hearing,
freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of expression, and the
right to privacy and family life. The orders are imposed on the basis of secret
and other evidence that falls well below that required to convict a person of a
crime, and on the basis of a procedure that violates the right to a fair
hearing.
The combat of terrorism and the promotion of
diplomatic assurances
The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees affirms that no lawful
refugee in the country of asylum is to be expelled except "for required
compelling reasons of national security " However, other international law
instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR and UN
Convention Against Torture CAT) ban the return of individuals to countries
where they might be tortured or face other human rights violations.
In October 2007, the French, German and British
Ministers of Interior along with the ministers from Italy, Poland and Spain
gathered in the G6 meeting —the great six countries are; France, Germany,
Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, and issued a joint declaration that
should "ideally" further promote security to EU citizens. Clause 3 of
the joint declaration mainly tackles anti-terrorism measures to be undertaken
such as the expulsion of terrorists relying on diplomatic assurances.
"Ministers have noted that in some legally
regulated cases expulsion has proved an effective tool to protect people from
non-nationals who pose a threat to national security The G6 believes that the
mechanism of seeking assurances, on a government-to-government basis, designed
to secure this protection, could provide an "effective way forward in
some cases The G6 Governments will initiate and support continued exploration
of the expulsion of terrorists and terrorist suspects, seeking assurances
through diplomatic understandings, and other policies[iv]." Thus, the real problem posed here
is that expulsion is directed to any terror suspects and not only ascertained terrorists which
gives room for innocent people being deported and sent back to countries whose
authorities have high records of maltreatment and torture and hence the chances
for deportees to a fair trial are nil; which is not only an inhumane act to do
but is also against international human rights law. Moreover, expulsions can
interfere with the right to family and private life of the individuals removed
and their relatives in a manner that also breaches international human rights law.
Amnesty international says "the UK's attempts to
rely on Memorandums of Understanding (MU) in deportation cases where people are
at risk of torture are a dangerous circumvention of international law the MU
fail to effect systemic changes in the countries in question that alone can
safeguard against torture [v]."
Moreover, in Human Rights Watch Universal Periodic Review of the United Kingdom
(April 6, 2008) [vi], it is stated that the UK has agreed MU
with countries to permit the deportation of terrorism "suspects" to
countries such as Jordan, Libya, Lebanon and Algeria, based on humane
assurances upon return, knowing that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission
has previously blocked deportations to some of these countries on the grounds
that assurances from them are not reliable. Additionally, there is evidence
that some of these countries have bad records with regard to the treatment of
detainees.
Anti-terrorism measures and their impact
on asylum laws and regulations
After the September 11th attacks, the governments of
France, Germany and the United Kingdom started taking more restrictive measures
on granting asylum seekers refugee status particularly those from Muslim
backgrounds.
After the September 11th attacks, asylum has become one of the facets of the
terrorism problem as seen by the UK. Legislatures adopted afterwards tackled
the abuse of the UK asylum system, tightening processes on foreigners entering
the UK and even those who were already in it.
In March 2006 the UK government introduced the Immigration, asylum and
nationality Act 2006. As per the act, the Home Secretary has the powers to
deprive an individual of British citizenship or the right to live in the United
Kingdom if he sees this is in the public interest.
How are civil liberties and personal rights being affected by the newasylum and terrorism laws?
Freedom of Expression/ Possession of Terrorist Materials:
With the new terrorism related legislatures, civil liberties such as freedom of
expression and speech have been challenged. Restrictions are not only imposed
on incitement to terrorism but also on speech that could be indirectly
interpreted as "glorification" (as per the UK 2006 Act, glorification
in the past, present or future) or "apology" for terrorism. In a
report by the Council of Europe (CE) [vii] it is stated that internet-based
speech has also been affected with attempts to block or remove websites with
controversial material. We are currently at a time where "thoughts"
are being criminalized, not all ideas are free to be published and/or read by
others, "promoting terrorism with all its means" is an offense and
shall be dealt with under terrorism related legislations.
In November 2007, Samina Malik (lyrical terrorist) was convicted under sections
28 and 58 of the Terrorism Act. She was found guilty of possessing terrorism
manuals, of writing poems that praised terrorists (Osama Bin Laden), of
supporting suicidal attacks and of discussing beheading [vii]. Malik's case was dropped after the
police admitted that there was no proof against Malik
that there was an intention to commit acts.
In May 2008, a Master's degree student at Nottingham University and a clerk
were arrested under the charge of possessing terrorism material. The student,
Rizwaan Sabir, who is studying Islamic terrorism, spent six days in detention
and was released without being charged. The Times Higher Education has
reported [ix] the student said he had downloaded a
copy of an al-Qaeda training manual for use in his MA dissertation and PhD
application and had forwarded it to the administrator, Hicham Yezza, for
printing.
The student is now in confusion not knowing what it is that he could and could
not legitimately research for his PhD. Moreover, it is reported that Oliver
Blunt QC, of the Anti-Terrorism team at Furnival Chambers in London, said that
academics do have a "right" to "access" terrorist
materials, whether for research or otherwise, as long as they do not
"possess" them...Once the researcher knowingly downloads or saves the
materials that he is accessing, then he is in "possession" of
terrorist materials..."There is no 'right' to 'possess' terrorist
materials and, while a genuine researcher would be able to establish a defense,
the evidential burden is on the researcher to do
so." If this case is to raise concerns then academics are in great concern
of the implications this case could raise on academic freedom and
research.
On the other hand, State-watch reports that Christopher Hitchens recently
defended the author Martin Amis of racist attacks on Muslims, saying "the
harshness Amis was canvassing was not in the least a recommendation, but rather
an experiment in the limits of permissible thought." State-watch then quotes John Pilger and
others who asked in a letter to the Guardian newspaper following the conviction
of the "lyrical terrorist," is the right to "experiment with
the limits of permissible thought now only accorded to people who have the
correct skin color, religion and academic background [x] ?"
Access to data and interference with personal privacy
The UK counter terrorism authorities want access to -some- Britons' private
information as a means to identify terrorists and terrorist activities. Such
information could be gathered from knowing records of journeys traveled.
Privacy International reports that in the
summer of 2007 and post the failed terrorism attacks on London, the UK
Government ordered that all data on cars driving into London, recorded for the
"congestion charging" scheme, would be submitted en masse to the
intelligence agencies and this data could then be sent elsewhere around the
world. Privacy International has filed a complaint at the UK Information
Tribunal to question the legality of this measure, arguing that such a decision
needs to be made by Parliament and not through a secret declaration by the
Government[xi].
Hinsliff [xii] in the Guardian states that records of
journeys traveled by underground, bus and train using smart cards are among the
private information held by the state to which MI5 and police counter-terrorism
officers want access in order to help identify patterns of suspicious behavior.
It is also stated that security services can acquire "Oyster [xiii]" records of some persons
under investigation to establish their whereabouts, yet, at the time the
security services were not allowed to surf the whole database. However, there
have been calls for further information sharing of personal data. Critics to
such calls argue "it is unfair for millions of innocent people to have
their privacy invaded on the off-chance of finding a handful of bad
apples."
Impact on Muslim Community in the UK
Benjamin Ward, Europe and Central Asia
associate director at Human Rights Watch stated that "The Blair
governments counterterrorism policies have breached human rights, damaged
relations with the countrys Muslims, and tarnished Britains standing
abroad...A change of course is urgently needed [xiv]."
In a report by Human Rights Watch [xv]it is stated that according to Home Office
Statistics 669
out of 1,228 individuals arrested as part of terrorism investigations between
September 11, 2001, and March 31, 2007, were released without being charged. it
is therefore reasonable to expect that the new powers would lead to terrorism
suspects "many if not most of whom" would doubtless be British
Muslims-being
detained for the equivalent of a three-month prison sentence and then released
without a charge.
It is a fact that sentiments
against Muslims have been on the rise since the 11th of September attacks on
the US, which was further fuelled with the 2005 July bombings especially in
London. In Euro-islam.info [xvi] it is stated that "assaults,
arsons, and other violence incidents seem to have been highest immediately
after the attacks, but have stayed high since."
_______________________________________________________________
i For more details on Islamic practice, please visit: for
France, http://www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/france/
for Germany, http://www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/germany/
for the United Kingdom http://www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/unitedkingdom/
iii German Law Journal: No. 7, Anna
Oehmichen, 1. July. 2008, Incommunicado Detention in Germany: An Example of Reactive Anti-terror Legislation
and Long-term Consequences.
iv To view the whole text of the joint
declaration, click here.
v BBC News: UK: 23. Feb. 2006. UK
terrorism laws 'cause abuses'.
vi Human Rights Watch: News: 6.
April. 2008. Universal Periodic Review of the United Kingdom.
vii Banisar, David. Speaking of Terror. 2008. Counsel of Europe:
Multimedia
viii BBC News: UK: 8. Nov. 2007.
'Lyrical
Terrorist' found guilty.
ix Times higher education: M. Newman. 17. July. 2008. Researchers have no 'right' to study terrorist materials.
x State watch: News: B. Hayes.
Vol 18 no 1. 19. Jan. 2008. White mans burden: criminalising free speech.
xi Privacy International. 21.
Dec. 2008. Privacy International Releases its 2008 Annual Report.
xii guardian.co.uk: News: UK News: UK
security and terrorism. G. Hinsliff, 16. March. 2008. MI5 seeks powers to trawl records in new terror hunt.
xiii Transport for London: Tickets: What is Oyster?
xiv Human Rights Watch: News: 20. June. 2007. UK: Brown Should Adopt New Approach Against Terrorism
xv Human Rights Watch: News: 1. July. 2008. Briefing
on the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008
xvi Euro-islam.info:
country-profiles. united-kingdom