—

having regard to the Council common position (8698/4/2007 — C6-0258/2007),

—

having regard to its position at first reading (1) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0230) (2),

—

having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

—

having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0308/2007),

1.

Approves the common position;

2.

Draws attention to the statement made by the Commission at the plenary sitting of 6 September 2007 according to which the Commission committed itself, exceptionally to transmit as swiftly as possible to the Chair of the competent parliamentary committee the draft annual work programmes relating to the specific programme, in addition to sending them via the comitology register, and to inform the European Parliament as soon as possible about any changes made to them following committee meetings of that committee;

3.

Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the common position;

4.

Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty;

5.

Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union;

6.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

—

having regard to Article 3 of the EC Treaty, which provides for the creation of a Single Market through the removal of barriers to the free movement of persons,

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2007 on Community action on the provision of crossborder healthcare (1),

—

having regard to the Report of the World Health Assembly (WHA 58.) on the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the WHA Resolution of 26 May 2006 calling for voluntary early application of certain IHR aspects relating to pandemic influenza (WHA 59,2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2), Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the EU (3) and Commission Decision 2000/57/EC of 22 December 1999 on the early warning and response system for the prevention and control of communicable diseases under Decision 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4),

—

having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0263/2007),

A.

whereas the recent past has seen the emergence of new disease challenges for national and international public health and whereas better procedures for assistance and information should be developed at national and regional level; whereas it is necessary to deal with the spread of diseases at a European level,

B.

whereas in a highly mobile and globalising world the need for public health protection with an all-European and international dimension is growing,

C.

whereas priority should be given to ensuring maximum protection against the global spread of infectious disease and public health emergencies of international concern, but with minimum interference with world traffic,

D.

whereas, in accordance with Article 5 of the EC Treaty , the subsidiarity principle needs to be respected as the organisation of health services falls within the competences of individual Member States,

1.

Acknowledges the significance of a clear and comprehensible international mechanism which aims to prevent, protect against and control the spread of disease, and to provide a public health response proportionate to the risks and accessible to all those who need it;

2.

Appreciates the abovementioned WHA resolution calling for voluntary early application of certain IHR aspects relating to avian and human pandemic influenza;

3.

Calls on the international community to observe and apply the WHO code of good practice on the rapid sharing of strains, published in January 2007;

4.

Welcomes the Commission's views on implementation of the revised International Health Regulations as expressed in its Communication (COM(2006)0552), aimed at promoting a structured discussion with the Council and Parliament;

5.

Stresses the urgent need to implement the International Health Regulations as soon as possible, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, while simultaneously strengthening existing systems and capacities;

6.

Underlines the necessity to implement the International Health Regulations in a coordinated manner across the Community;

7.

Points out at the same time, however, that, on the basis of their powers and of the subsidiarity principle, it is up to the Member States alone to organise their health services, while ensuring a high level of health protection for their citizens;

8.

Notes that this international mechanism ‘shall not be more restrictive of international traffic and not more invasive or intrusive to persons than reasonably available alternatives that would achieve the appropriate level of health protection’ (Article 43 of the International Health Regulations);

9.

Considers that, to address better the risk, there is a need to support the development of information systems, both those meant for exchange of information between healthcare providers and those providing information for patients; and emphasises the need to enhance the safety of the abovementioned information systems;

10.

Is convinced that in order to achieve a high level of protection and preparedness in a globalising and highly mobile world, it is absolutely necessary to support and cooperate with neighbouring and third countries;

11.

Underlines the need for close cooperation between national as well as between national and European authorities when exchanging information in the area of public health safety, in order to optimise implementation and better protect EU citizens from public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs);

12.

Recalls the role of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and the EU Early Warning and Response System for public health threats (EWRS) in implementing the International Health Regulations and in cases of emergency;

13.

Urges the Member States to fulfil their obligations as set out in the International Health Regulations;

14.

Calls on the Commission to prepare guidelines for threat detection and assessment, in cooperation with the competent committee of the European Parliament;

15.

At the same time asks the Commission to formalise the ECDC's role in the implementation of the International Health Regulations, particularly regarding the collection of data on issues within its mandate;

16.

Invites the Commission to find ways and means of supporting the establishment of adequate systems in neighbouring and third countries through financing and regional development mechanisms;

17.

Calls on the Commission to define ways and means that will make it possible to support the WHO's policy concerning access to pandemic vaccines for developing countries;

18.

Urges the Commission to develop programmes to tackle European and global health threats such as healthcare associated infections and the growing resistance to antibiotic treatments; points out that a pan- European solution is clearly required as such health crises do not respect geographical borders;

19.

Stresses the need for the creation of a central EU stockpile of indisputably effective anti-viral and vaccination products to protect Union citizens against a possible influenza pandemic affecting all Member States, to complement Member State measures; stresses the need for EU-wide measures to be adopted by the Commission to address the possibility of an influenza pandemic such as are able to effectively halt the spread of influenza in Europe within a period of 24 hours.

20.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, and the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

—

having regard to the 8th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP8) to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), being held from 3 to 14 September 2007 in Madrid, Spain,

—

having regard to Rule 108(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas desertification means land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities, and therefore requiring a holistic diagnosis and implementation programme,

B.

whereas climate change provokes earth warming, with an increase in soil temperature and a consequent increase in the evaporation level, which results in desertification,

C.

whereas an increased temperature dries out springs and reduces the flow of the water level of rivers and of the underground water basins, thereby destroying the superficial structure of soil; whereas, with the increasingly prolonged droughts now being experienced, it will be more difficult to restore forests after fires, with the attendant risk of desertification,

D.

whereas desertification and drought are problems affecting all regions of the world and whereas joint action is needed to combat desertification and/or mitigate the effects of drought; whereas the UNCCD is the only legally binding international instrument that addresses the problem of land degradation in drylands, with a near universal membership of 191 States Parties,

E.

whereas there is a high concentration of developing countries, notably the least developed countries, among those experiencing serious drought and/or desertification,

F.

whereas the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that desertification currently affects approximately twenty-five to thirty percent of the world's land surface area, and whereas between 1,2 and 2 billion people in at least 100 states are at risk; whereas economic losses due to lost productivity have been estimated at USD 42 billion in 1992 (USD 64 billion in 2006 prices); whereas the global rate of desertification is increasing, leading to poverty, forced migration and conflict,

G.

whereas three quarters of the soils in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid regions are undergoing degradation and almost half the land under fluvial cultivation is under threat while the degradation results in loss of biodiversity, reduction in soil fertility and the soil's capacity to retain water, increased erosion and reduction of carbon capture,

H.

whereas desertification occurs mainly through over-cultivation, over-grazing, improper irrigation practices and deforestation; whereas these activities arise from poor land management, which, in turn, often stems from the socio-economic conditions in which the farmers live; whereas according to studies investments into sustainable land management practices would be profitable,

I.

whereas extreme climatic events such as floods and droughts linked to climate change are becoming more frequent and more drastic in their effects, further increasing the risk and the negative economic and social consequences of desertification,

J.

whereas desertification also contributes to climate change, with land degradation and related loss of vegetation resulting in increased emissions and reduced carbon sink; whereas restoration of dryland conditions could have an important positive impact,

K.

whereas the UNCCD plays a key role in global efforts to eradicate poverty, achieve sustainable development and reach the Millennium Development Goals,

1.

Expresses its support for the UNCCD and its reform process; calls on the Commission and the Member States to present a unified position in the COP meeting, in close cooperation with ACP partners;

2.

Expresses its support for a strategic plan for action with time-bound targets; calls for the EU to engage constructively in the formulation and negotiation of the 10-year strategic plan in order to build strong and efficient mechanisms for an effective implementation of the Convention; in this connection, calls for particular attention to be given to:

3.

Stresses the role of civil society and local populations in the implementation and achievement of UNCCD objectives;

4.

Recommends organising a Conference to assess the implementation and effectiveness of Action Plans in the most affected regions, notably in Africa, before future Conferences of Parties;

5.

Recognises the importance of land degradation as a crucial hindering factor in the future development of affected countries; calls for EU development policy to pay special attention to this phenomenon, including in the assessment of development assistance needs;

6.

Voices its concern at the lack of committed funding for actions; welcomes the use of the Global Environment Facility as the Convention's financial mechanism and calls for the EU to strengthen financing for measures against desertification in the context of flexible mechanisms under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol;

7.

Calls for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to introduce binding criteria on combating desertification and land degradation in the affected areas in the European Union; calls, moreover, for a prevention and implementation policy in order to maintain people in the rural areas;

8.

Calls for comprehensive forest care to reduce as much as possible the fire load of forests and the spread and velocity of fires; points out that the recovered biomass could contribute to the economic feasibility of the operation;

9.

Calls on the Commission to consider the establishment of a European Drought Observatory, that would collect knowledge and propose mitigation and follow-up measures in order to minimise the effects of the droughts on Europe;

10.

Recognises that recent studies have come to the conclusion that the cost of investing in reducing land degradation in affected areas would be lower than the costs resulting from the degradation; is mindful of the long-term commitment needed for measures against desertification to be effective;

11.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to step up international cooperation in the implementation of the UNCCD by providing additional incentives and financial support, and to support transboundary water cooperation programmes; calls, furthermore, for the issue to be put on the agenda of the next EU-Africa summit;

12.

Reiterates its resolution of 7 July 2005 on speeding up the implementation of the EU action plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) (1) and its disappointment regarding the absence of compulsory and comprehensive regulations prohibiting the import of illegal and unsustainably harvested timber into the EU;

13.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the parties to the UNCCD and the UNCCD Secretariat.

—

having regard to all agreements between the EU and third countries and the human rights and democracy clauses contained in those agreements,

—

having regard to Articles 177, 178, 300 and 310 of the EC Treaty and Articles 3, 6, 11, 19 and 21 of the EU Treaty,

—

having regard to the European Union Guidelines on Human Rights and in particular those on Human Rights Dialogues, adopted in December 2001, and the evaluation of the implementation of those Guidelines, adopted in December 2004, and having regard also to the European Union Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, adopted in June 2004,

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 February 2006 on the human rights and democracy clause in European Union agreements (1) and to the follow-up provided by the Commission to that resolution,

—

having regard to the Council's document of 7 June 2006 entitled ‘Mainstreaming human rights across CFSP and other EU policies’,

—

having regard to the Framework Agreement of 26 May 2005 between the European Parliament and the Commission,

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 April 2002 on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the European Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries (2),

—

having regard to its previous resolutions on the situation with regard to human rights in the world,

—

having regard to its previous debates and urgency resolutions on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law,

—

having regard to its specific guidelines for human rights and democracy actions of MEPs in their visits to third countries,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (3),

—

having regard to the conclusions reached during the debates held in its Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Human Rights, at the meetings of 3 May 2007 on human rights in China and in Uzbekistan and of 23 April 2007 on human rights in Russia,

—

having regard to its resolutions of 10 May 2007 on the EU-Russia Summit to be held in Samara on 18 May 2007 (4), of 26 April 2007 on the recent repression of demonstrations in Russia (5), of 18 January 2007 on the conviction and imprisonment by Libya of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor (6), of 16 November 2006 on Iran (7), of 26 October 2006 on Uzbekistan (8) and of 7 September 2006 on EU-China relations (9),

—

having regard to the conclusions on Central Asia reached at the 2796th External Relations Council meeting held in Luxembourg on 23 April 2007; to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreements with Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which have already entered into force; to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreements with Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, which have been signed but not yet ratified; and to the Commission's Strategy Paper on Central Asia 2002-2006,

—

having regard to Articles 8, 9, 96 and 97 of, and Annex VII to, the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and the European Community and its Member States, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (10) and amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (11) (the Cotonou Agreement),

—

having regard to the resolutions of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (ACP-EU JPA) and, in particular, its resolution of 25 November 2004, adopted in The Hague, on the ACP-EU political dialogue (Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement) (12),

—

having regard to the bilateral Action Plans adopted by the Commission under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) with the ENP partner countries, with the exception of Algeria, Belarus, Libya and Syria,

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on strengthening the ENP (COM(2006)0726) and to its forthcoming resolution thereon,

—

having regard to its recommendations to the Council of 15 March 2007 on the negotiating mandates for association agreements between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Andean Community and its member countries, of the other part (13), and between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the countries of Central America, of the other part (14),

—

having regard to its resolutions of 12 October 2006 on economic and trade relations between the EU and Mercosur with a view to the conclusion of an Interregional Association Agreement (15) and of 27 April 2006 on a stronger partnership between the European Union and Latin America (16),

—

having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A6-0302/2007),

A.

whereas human rights dialogues are one of a range of instruments which the EU may use to implement its policy on human rights, and constitute an essential part of the European Union's overall strategy aimed at promoting sustainable development, peace and stability,

B.

whereas the universality, individuality and indivisibility of human rights, meaning not only civil and political rights but also social, environmental, economic and cultural rights, must be upheld and promoted, and whereas the EU continues to establish meaningful instruments to that end,

C.

whereas any decision to initiate a human rights dialogue is taken on the basis of certain criteria adopted by the Council which notably take into consideration the major concerns on the part of the EU about the human rights situation on the ground in the country concerned, a genuine commitment on the part of the authorities of the country concerned, with regard to such dialogue, to improve the human rights situation on the ground, and the positive impact which a human rights dialogue may have on the human rights situation,

D.

whereas the European Union Human Rights Guidelines call for human rights issues to be addressed adequately and systematically within the framework of the overall political dialogue conducted with third countries at all levels,

E.

whereas the Council decided in 2004 to examine twice each year the overall status of the dialogues on the basis of an overview and an updated timetable, and whereas, at the same time, the Council underlined that dialogues should not be engaged in for an indefinite period but rather for a certain timeframe, with an exit strategy also being borne in mind,

F.

whereas human rights dialogues and consultations are conducted using a wide variety of structures, formats, and procedures, without sufficient regard for the necessary consistency, whereas this lack of consistency may undermine the credibility of EU human rights policy on the international stage, and whereas greater transparency and democratic control over the application of the abovementioned EU Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues would be desirable,

G.

whereas the Council's current practice is to provide a debriefing on the agenda and the objectives of the forthcoming round of structured human rights dialogues/consultations, and to invite a Parliament official to participate along with representatives of non-governmental organisations,

H.

whereas the Cotonou Agreement is directed towards sustainable development and centred on the individual as the main protagonist and beneficiary of development policy; whereas this entails respect for, and promotion of, all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and whereas the abovementioned revision of the Agreement of 25 June 2005 resulted in more intensive political dialogue under Article 8, particularly with regard to human rights,

I.

whereas failure by one of the parties to fulfil an obligation stemming from the principle of respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law as referred to Article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement results in the initiation of a consultation procedure under Article 96 to redress the situation,

J.

whereas, although Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement, which provides for political dialogue between ACP countries and the EU, and also for a regular assessment concerning respect for human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance, is to be welcomed, concern remains that this provision is used to circumvent the consultation procedure under Article 96 in cases of human rights violations,

K.

whereas the implementation of ENP Action Plans is monitored by several subcommittees, and whereas, under the bilateral Association Agreements, the EU has launched a process of extending subcommittees for human rights, democratisation and governance to all ENP countries; whereas, to date, Morocco, Jordan and Lebanon have approved the creation of such subcommittees, which have held meetings, Egypt has approved the creation of a subcommittee although it has not yet held a meeting, and Tunisia is in the process of approving a subcommittee,

L.

whereas, as a short-term measure in various ENP Action Plans, it is recommended that a subcommittee be set up under Article 5 of the Association Agreement, with a view to developing structured political dialogue on democracy and the rule of law; whereas the subcommittee in question has no decisionmaking power but may submit proposals to the relevant Association Committee or to bodies at a higher level in the political dialogue,

M.

whereas, as a result of the reform of the financial instruments on external assistance, Parliament has acquired the right to carry out democratic scrutiny of the relevant strategic documents, and is at the same time one of the budgetary authorities,

N.

whereas the rights of women and children form an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights, as laid down in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action of 1995,

1.

Stresses that the promotion of human rights is a fundamental part of the EU's external policy making; urges the Council and the Commission to systematically include human rights issues in the agenda of the EU's political dialogues and consultations with third countries, and increasingly to mainstream human rights into all external EU policies, including the external aspects of the internal EU policies, and insists on the use of all available instruments with a view to attaining those objectives;

2.

Takes the view that human rights issues should be placed at the highest political level in order to give more political weight to human rights concerns; recalls that the promotion and defence of human rights in third countries should not be conditioned by geopolitical or geo-strategic alliances; stresses that, within the framework of political, economic and trade-related dialogues, respect for human rights should be fundamental to strategic and privileged relations with the EU;

3.

Calls on the Council to fully apply the abovementioned EU Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues;

4.

Endorses the conclusions of the first review of the implementation of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, which point out that the situation pertaining to human rights defenders and the environment in which they work should be systematically integrated into the EU's political dialogues and consultations with third countries, including bilateral dialogues and consultations conducted by EU Member States;

5.

Welcomes the newly adopted decision of the Council to draft EU Guidelines on the Rights of the Child, to be finalised during the Portuguese Presidency in 2007; stresses, in this regard, the necessary complementarity to be respected with the existing Guidelines on Children in Armed Conflicts and the need to consider the Paris commitments of 6 February 2007 to protect children from unlawful recruitment or use by armed forces or armed groups;

6.

Calls on the Council once again to systematically apply in full the Human Rights and Democracy Clause in all EU agreements and relations with third countries; reaffirms its call for a transparent procedure to be laid down for the purpose of assessing the human rights situation and the application of the human rights clause; calls for the findings of such an assessment to be systematically taken into account in the human rights dialogues and consultations with third countries and vice versa;

7.

Points out that the main purpose of dialogue and consultation is to encourage the consolidation of democracy, the rule of law, good governance, and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights in third countries, meaning not only civil and political rights but also social, environmental, economic and cultural rights; emphasises that these objectives will be pursued in observance of the general principles established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and any other universal instrument on human rights adopted within the framework of the United Nations, and taking into account the Millennium Development Goals;

8.

Maintains that the fact of conducting a human rights dialogue or consultations with a third country has to lead to systematic mainstreaming of human rights in every sphere of EU cooperation with the country concerned, including the Community's development policy and economic, financial and technical cooperation with third countries, so that the existence of a human rights dialogue or consultations does not constitute an end in itself;

9.

Welcomes the Council's efforts to bring coherence to the human rights dialogue and consultation with the aid of the abovementioned EU Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues; maintains that the flexibility and pragmatism required to ensure that dialogue and consultation are effective must not undermine the coherence needed to prevent the dialogues and consultations being reduced to a matter of free choice;

10.

Notes that there is a wide variety of dialogues and consultations, each based on different structures, formats, frequencies, and methodologies, thus obscuring the picture and creating confusion as regards EU action in this area; deplores the fact that whatever information may exist concerning the agendas, aims, benchmarks, or outcome of the dialogues and consultations based on agreements, of ad hoc dialogues and consultations, of dialogue and consultation with like-minded countries, or of the political dialogue and consultation, the information does not extend to human rights; notes that neither the Council nor the Commission has devised a method for organising and systematising these dialogues and consultations, making the results impossible to view from an overall perspective; calls on the Commission and Council to bring a systematic approach to bear on the human rights dialogues and consultations with third countries, classifying them by methodology and subject so as to provide a basis for objective assessment and monitoring of the human rights situation, the breakthroughs achieved, and so on;

11.

Considers it essential to find ways of improving coordination among the different EU institutions (the Council, the Commission, and Parliament) by establishing an interinstitutional trialogue on the political dialogue and the human rights dialogues and consultations; also calls for avenues to be explored immediately with a view to improving internal communication within those institutions;

12.

Welcomes the Council Working Party on Human Rights (COHOM) initiative whereby all of the EU's human rights dialogues and consultations are to be periodically reviewed in order to maintain a global perspective in the light of twice-yearly debates based on an updated general framework and a timetable for human rights dialogues and consultations in progress; calls for the review to be duly carried out and for information to be passed on as a matter of course to the other Council working parties, to the Commission and its delegations in third countries, and to Parliament, as part of the abovementioned interinstitutional trialogue;

13.

Calls on the Council to implement the COHOM mandate so as to ensure coherence between the dialogues or consultations and the other ways in which the EU seeks to promote human rights in the countries concerned (whether those dialogues or consultations result from work in international bodies or originate from obligations laid down in the EU's own instruments);

14.

Renews its call for the Council to consider making COHOM a working party with representatives based in Brussels, and to cooperate closely with the European Parliament's competent committee; believes that this would allow more time for meetings and ensure better coordination and hence, possibly, closer supervision of EU human rights policies in the broad sense and human rights dialogues and consultations in particular, as well as for mainstreaming of human rights to give coherence to the EU's policies;

15.

Calls on the Council to enhance the role of the Human Rights Unit of its General Secretariat by allowing it to be involved in the conduct of the political dialogues, including the dialogues and consultations based on cooperation agreements under the responsibility of the Commission, and to set up, within its Human Rights Unit, a permanent coordination system for each structured human rights dialogue or consultation, in order to ensure the innovativeness of the dialogue and consultation topics, the selection of relevant participants and continuity, proceeding on the basis that such coordination should contribute to the establishment of bilateral networks of organisations, institutions and academics between Europe and the country in question, so as to ensure the requisite mainstreaming of human rights and democracy in all EU policies, especially following the reforms of the financial instruments for external EC aid; calls, to that end, for the necessary steps to be taken to enable the unit to perform the above tasks, including an increase in financial resources and personnel;

16.

Calls on the Council to increase coherence among the bilateral human rights dialogues and consultations conducted by individual Member States and by the EU, and to increase the role of COHOM in coordinating the activities of Member States' embassies with those of the Commission's delegations;

17.

Calls on the Commission and the Council to include in each Country Strategy Paper and other strategy documents a specific strategy on human rights and the situation pertaining to democracy, and to use it as a framework for political dialogue;

18.

Renews its call on the Commission to ensure that, within the staff serving at any given time in each Commission delegation in a third country, an EU official is in charge of the human rights dialogue and consultations, and requests it to ensure that the persons responsible for such matters are present whenever any form of political dialogue is being conducted; to this end, calls for the adoption of the necessary measures in order to enable the Commission to fulfil this task, including increasing its financial and human resources;

19.

Calls on the Commission to ensure coherence between Election Observation Missions (especially as regards the post-electoral strategy) and the process of human rights dialogues and consultations; calls on the Commission to put in place, together with the European Parliament and third countries concerned, a postelectoral protocol mechanism to monitor and support the democratisation process, which includes the involvement of civil society at all stages, in the implementation of post-electoral recommendations;

20.

Calls on the Commission to apply and use the results of human rights dialogues and consultations in drawing up yearly strategies providing a basis for implementation of projects under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006, and systematically to link those two tools;

21.

Calls on the Commission and the Council to mainstream the human rights dialogue and consultations results into projects and programmes, notably for development aid and technical, trade and financial cooperation;

22.

Welcomes the Council's stipulation that the existence of bilateral human rights dialogues or consultations should not have the effect of reducing the international pressure exerted by the EU when human rights violations occur in a given country, and points out that it is essential for dialogue or consultation to be backed up by appropriate diplomatic and political pressure at every level, extending to United Nations bodies and its Human Rights Council, in particular;

23.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to analyse, support and coordinate the setting of benchmarks for EU human rights dialogue or consultation with actions of other donors and international organisations, with a special focus on the UN mechanisms in place (reports of the Special Rapporteurs, expert committees, the Secretary-General, the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, etc.); considers that, in their overall approach to raising human rights issues in the context of political dialogue, the Council and the Commission should systematically refer to the pledges made upon election by the Member States of the UN Human Rights Council;

24.

Recommends that appropriate arrangements be put in place to enable indicators and objectives to be harmonised with other third countries and international bodies carrying on a human rights dialogue or consultation with the same given country or group of countries; recommends that such arrangements be modelled on the Berne Process, established by Switzerland for relations with China, and that, to that end, informal forums be set up in which to exchange information and good practice;

25.

Considers that the human rights dialogue and consultations should be conducted in a more transparent and coordinated way, and calls for appropriate means to be sought to achieve this aim without jeopardising the effectiveness of the dialogue and consultation;

26.

Understands the need to respect a certain level of confidentiality in the dialogues and consultations and calls for a favourable response to the request to set up a system, in collaboration with Parliament, whereby selected Members of Parliament could be supplied with information about confidential activities connected with the human rights dialogue or consultation and related procedures; proposes once again that such a system be modelled on the criteria already established by the inter-institutional agreement of 20 November 2002 between the European Parliament and the Council concerning access by the European Parliament to sensitive information of the Council in the field of security and defence policy (17);

27.

Calls on the Council to ensure that, before the EU sets the specific goals to be attained by entering into a dialogue or consultation with the country in question, or lays down the criteria for analysing the progress achieved in the light of the predetermined benchmarks, and the criteria regarding a possible exit strategy, consultations are first held with all interested parties, especially with Parliament and with NGOs;

28.

Believes that specific objectives need to be laid down for each dialogue and consultation, using all the documents drawn up by the Council, the Member States, the Commission and Parliament, and reports from international and local human rights organisations, to identify the objectives of a human rights dialogue or consultation with a third country, and calls for the best courses of action to obtain concrete results to be analysed; believes that dialogues and consultations should be conducted in such a way as to ensure that those objectives are effectively met;

29.

Maintains that dialogue and consultation objectives should be based on the principle that human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent, and recommends that the criteria to be established should encompass not only civil and political rights but also economic, social, environmental and cultural rights;

30.

Stresses the need to send a delegation of the EU Troika, comprising high-level experts, to a country under consideration with a view to the possible initiation of a human rights dialogue and consultation, to be followed by a presentation of the delegation's report to COHOM and to Parliament;

31.

Calls on the Council to set clear criteria for the initiation, suspension or termination of a dialogue or consultation, to conduct an impact assessment before giving the reasons for its initiation or suspension (dealing with its expected period and the steps to be taken in order to restart the dialogue and consultation) and to make sure that the delegation of the country in question does not perceive the EU as viewing the dialogue or consultation as an end in itself that must be maintained at all costs;

32.

Calls on the Council, in cases where a third country rejects the initiation or continuation of a human rights dialogue or consultation, to consider specific action with regard to human rights and democratisation, in particular through support to civil society;

33.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to publish dialogue and consultation agendas sufficiently in advance for the benefit of all interested stakeholders, especially for Parliament and NGOs, so as to ensure that they are able to make a contribution;

34.

Believes that, in the interests of effectiveness, the selection of dialogue and consultation topics on the agenda should be more clear-cut and substance-oriented, involving both sides in their formulation; reminds the Commission and the Council that the development of the dialogues and consultations is based on reciprocity and within the framework of mutual respect;

35.

Urges the Council and the Commission to press third-country authorities to allow the participation of representatives of the ministries and other public institutions concerned by the topics selected for the agenda of the human rights dialogue or consultation;

36.

Calls on the Council and the Commission, with the involvement of Parliament and NGOs, to draw up indicators for each given objective/benchmark; considers that such indicators must be realistic and aimed at achieving practical results that could be supported through other EU foreign policy tools; strongly believes that it is important to recognise that results of dialogues and consultations should be evaluated in the long term;

37.

Takes note of the efforts made by the Council to harmonise key areas of concern regarding EU human rights dialogues and consultations so that those areas of concern may be used as a basis for setting up benchmarks to measure progress, with the aim of enhancing coherence and consistency between human rights dialogues and consultations and all instruments of EU human rights policy;

38.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to publish the objectives and benchmarks laid down in the dialogues and consultations, in order to enable them to be analysed not just by the institutions organising the dialogue and consultation but also by actors — whether institutional or non-governmental — not taking part, thus ensuring that the EU can be made publicly accountable for the outcome of, and developments in, the dialogues and consultations;

39.

Stresses the need to establish effective follow-up mechanisms to deal with the points raised in the dialogues and consultations and in the final recommendations; calls on the Council and the Commission to follow up the outcome of the dialogues and consultations by devising and implementing programmes and projects designed to improve the human rights situation on the ground;

40.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to publish the conclusions of each dialogue and consultation, or at any rate a summary thereof if certain procedures have to be treated as confidential in the interests of effectiveness;

41.

Believes that joint public communiqués, applying to both partners, should be issued after every round of dialogue or consultation in order to ensure that there is a greater impact and increased coherence;

42.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to increase the transparency and visibility of, and thus to improve, the EU's communications in the field of human rights actions, and in this regard to broaden the scope of the information on COHOM's work that can be accessed via the European Union's website;

43.

Calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure the active participation of civil society in the various phases involved in preparing, following up and assessing the human rights dialogues and consultations; supports, in this respect, the decision of the Council to involve human rights defenders in the preparation of dialogue and consultation meetings and to consult local human rights defenders and NGOs when establishing human rights priorities in the context of political dialogues and consultations; recommends that experts' seminars, an arrangement employed for structured dialogues and consultations, should likewise be organised for other forms and types of dialogue and consultation;

44.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to promote cooperation by the human rights defenders of the country concerned by the human rights dialogue or consultations, in order to allow them a place and a voice in the procedure, in application of the Council guidelines and following the campaign to promote women who defend human rights;

45.

Stresses that, in order to guarantee their freedom of expression, participating NGOs should not be chosen by the authorities of the country concerned;

46.

Calls on the Commission to provide, within the framework of the EIDHR, for the financing of the costs of participants from civil society, including NGOs, in experts' seminars;

47.

Calls on the Council to conduct and forward to Parliament and its competent committee the human rights fact sheets regarding third countries, as well as bi-annual assessments of each dialogue and consultation; calls on the Council to clarify the evaluation by explaining how the benchmarks are to be applied, setting time limits for attaining them and placing the emphasis on trends rather than on isolated results; stresses that, should this information include confidential material, it should be forwarded to Parliament in accordance with the system described in paragraph 26 of this resolution;

48.

Calls on the Commission to forward to Parliament periodic assessments of the human rights situation in respect of third countries and regular information on the situation regarding political dialogues and consultations on human rights with third countries or regions, including their timetable and the points raised in the negotiations, and agrees that, if this information includes confidential material, it should be forwarded to Parliament in accordance with the system described in paragraph 26 of this resolution;

49.

Calls on the Council and the Commission, as a matter of course whenever a round of dialogue or consultation has taken place, to hold a consultation session and a debriefing with Members of Parliament, and repeats its call for Parliament to be involved in decisions to continue or suspend a dialogue and consultation;

50.

Points to the need for Parliament to be involved in the decision to start a new dialogue and consultation and to be provided with all the information required for that purpose; calls for its opinion to be taken into account as regards the mandate, objectives, format, procedures, etc. of the projected dialogue and consultation;

51.

Urges the Council and the Commission to allow Members of Parliament to attend the experts' seminars held in connection with structured dialogues and consultations;

52.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to use their influence to ensure that members of the national parliament of the third country concerned are involved in the official dialogue or consultation; believes that this would confer greater legitimacy on the dialogue or consultation as such and enable Members of Parliament to take part in it more readily;

53.

Considers it essential to increase the role of interparliamentary assemblies and interparliamentary delegations in the human rights dialogues and consultations;

54.

Recommends that Parliament's specific guidelines for human rights and democracy actions of MEPs in their visits to third countries be fully applied; accordingly calls for briefings to be held as a matter of routine with the members of the parliamentary delegations, standing and ad hoc, on the human rights dialogue and consultation being conducted with the third country in question, so as to reduce cases of interinstitutional incoherence and increase the impact of the negotiations; believes that Members of Parliament should be invited to take part in the visits on the ground organised in conjunction with certain official dialogues and consultations;

55.

Emphasises the need to considerably strengthen and improve the EU-China human rights dialogue; stresses that China's human rights record remains a matter of serious concern;

56.

Considers that the matters discussed in the successive rounds of dialogue with China, such as ratification of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reform of the criminal justice system, including the death penalty and the system of re-education through work, freedom of expression, particularly on the Internet, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, thought and religion, the situation of minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang and in Mongolia, the release of detainees following the events in Tiananmen Square, and workers' and other rights, must continue to be raised in the context of the dialogue, in particular with regard to the application of the recommendations resulting from previous dialogues and seminars on legal affairs; to this end, calls on the Council to consider extending the time period of the dialogue and to allow more time for discussion of the issues raised;

57.

Calls on China and the EU to increase the opportunities for two-way exchanges of information and strategies on the protection and promotion of human rights; considers that China is today facing an ever growing demand for democracy and human rights from among its own people, and stresses that slight progress has been made in some fields, although it is difficult to gauge precisely what impact the EUChina human rights dialogue has had on the changes that have taken place; emphasises the need to reframe the dialogue so as to make it more results-oriented and to focus on implementation of China's obligations under international law;

58.

Stresses the need for the Council to identify and use specific indicators for each of the eight broader benchmarks in order to measure and assess progress;

59.

Recommends that the human rights dialogue should not be treated as separate from the rest of Sino- European relations; to that end, urges the Commission to ensure that its trading relationship with China is linked to human rights reforms, and calls in this regard on the Council to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the human rights situation before finalising any new partnership and cooperation framework agreement;

60.

Deplores the fact that the experts' seminar that was to take place in Berlin on 10 May 2007 was postponed because the Chinese authorities did not agree to the participation of two independent NGOs invited by the EU; applauds the insistence of the Commission and the German Council Presidency that these representatives should be allowed to participate fully in the seminar, inasmuch as the representation of NGOs and other civil actors should be regarded as a valuable resource for all the parties involved in the dialogue;

61.

Is very concerned that the human rights dialogue with Iran has been interrupted since 2004 due to Iran's lack of cooperation; regrets that, according to the Council, no progress had been made and calls on the Council to report back to Parliament on the assessment of the human rights dialogue and the further steps that could be taken as regards the promotion of democracy and human rights in Iran;

62.

Encourages the Commission to continue financing projects aimed at supporting good governance, including the protection of human rights defenders, reform of the judiciary and educational programmes for children and women; in the same spirit, calls on the Commission to implement all actions required within the framework of the EIDHR, so as to promote contacts and cooperation with Iranian civil society and to further support democracy and human rights, focusing mainly on the protection and promotion of women's and children's human rights;

63.

Notes the continuation of the EU human rights consultations with Russia; supports the Council in its aim of developing those consultations into a frank and genuine EU-Russia human rights dialogue, and calls for the involvement of Parliament and of European and Russian NGOs in such a process; calls, with that end in view, for the NGOs to be consulted beforehand, while the consultations are still in preparation, so as to enable them to assess the progress achieved and to ascertain the practical results produced on the ground;

64.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to request the participation in the consultations of Russian ministry officials whose fields of expertise are related to the topics on the agenda, to insist on the consultations being organised in Moscow and the regions, and to request the participation of their Russian counterparts in a public meeting with NGOs;

65.

Deplores that fact that Russia, as a partner, at the end of the consultations, usually issues its own separate communiqué, and renews the call for the communiqués to be drawn up jointly by both delegations;

66.

Calls on the Commission to improve communication with independent Russian civil society and to help boost its ability to act within the extremely narrow framework afforded by Russian law by involving the Russian regions and organising a rotation system for NGO participation;

67.

Reiterates the need to integrate the consultations on human rights observance with the rest of the issues falling within the sphere of Russo-European relations; calls for the consultations to be integrated with the other political dialogues, negotiations and documents resulting from EU-Russia relations and stresses that the realisation of human rights in Russia has a crucial effect, especially in connection with the four ‘common spaces’ for cooperation or under a future partnership and cooperation agreement; is convinced that a common space of freedom, security and justice cannot be built while human rights issues do not present an essential part of that work, including a consultation mechanism;

68.

Urges the Council and the Commission to lay down concrete obligations and establish efficient mechanisms for monitoring and checking the fulfilment of the obligations Russia has taken on, in addition to the human rights clause, in order to achieve a real improvement in the worrisome human rights situation in Russia, such as that relating to freedom of association, freedom of speech and the freedom of the press and the media; urges that the recommendations and conclusions put forward by international and regional institutions, and NGOs' assessments regarding Russia's observance of the main international human rights agreements that it has signed, be followed;

69.

Stresses the need to systematically consider issues of human rights and democracy in the political dialogue pursuant to Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement; points out, in this regard, the need to set up a clear and transparent mechanism and benchmarks for a political dialogue under Article 8; expresses its concern that, in the absence of such a mechanism, the risk of circumvention of Article 96, in the event of a special human rights emergency, is real;

70.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to respect their commitments under Article 8 (on political dialogue), Article 9 (regarding human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance) and Articles 96 and 97 (on consultations) of the Cotonou Agreement; calls for the participation of civil society in the dialogues under Article 8, and for the informal involvement of civil society in the preparation of the consultations under Article 96, which should lead to an improvement as regards transparency and democratic control;

71.

Calls on the Commission to present to Parliament and to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly a report defining a clear and transparent mechanism in order to enable the positive results and shortcomings of the political dialogue with ACP countries to be assessed;

72.

Notes the positive results of the process of consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, which are due in part to its institutionalised and transparent nature, and also to its direct link with EU development aid, and notes that they are particularly evident when constructive steps, stemming from the dialogue, are taken to help the ACP countries comply with democratic standards and to respect human rights; repeats its call for this example to be likewise applied to the other dialogues;

73.

Welcomes the strengthening of political dialogue with the Central Asian countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and calls on the Commission to ensure that social and human rights issues do not take second place to the economic and financial interests of the countries of Central Asia and the European Union in the fields of energy, construction and commerce;

74.

Welcomes the adoption of the draft EU-Central Asia strategy by the European Council in June 2007, which includes a strategy on human rights and democratisation that can be used as a framework for political dialogue;

75.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to establish a comprehensive and coherent short- and medium-term approach towards the Central Asian region as a whole, but also towards individual countries separately, that includes the above mentioned strategy on human rights and democratisation;

76.

Welcomes the Council's request to the authorities of Uzbekistan to institute a regular dialogue on human rights, and notes that a first round was held in Tashkent on 8 and 9 May 2007, and that two meetings of experts were held on the Andijan massacre; considers that the establishment of a regular dialogue should not in itself constitute sufficient justification for lifting the sanctions;

77.

Calls for Parliament to be involved in the decision to initiate this dialogue, and for the other proposals contained in this resolution to be taken into account as this dialogue continues;

78.

Calls on the Council to establish specific indicators directed towards attaining the objectives sought in the dialogue with Uzbekistan, paying particular attention to the situation of human rights defenders;

79.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to take advantage of the present situation whereby Partnership and Cooperation Agreements with several neighbourhood countries have expired, and to negotiate new agreements, in order to mainstream human rights and effective dialogue on them into future agreements, including a follow-up mechanism;

80.

Points out that the main purpose of the ENP is to establish a privileged relationship with the EU's eastern and southern neighbours on the basis of a mutual commitment to common values, principally in the fields of the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights; believes that the EU dialogues could have a greater impact on reform in the ENP neighbours, taking into account the existence of a human rights subcommittee and the outcome of the dialogue within that Subcommittee; points out that, in the case of non-democratic regimes or serious human rights violations, dialogue on human rights should be combined with a stronger reaction, such as public criticism and other appropriate measures;

81.

Calls on the Commission to use clearer language and to introduce specific and measurable commitments made by the neighbourhood partners in the Action Plans and in the mandate of the human rights subcommittees, and underlines the need for the Council and the Commission to seek greater active participation by civil society, both in Europe and in the neighbourhood partner countries, in the production and monitoring of ENP Action Plans and in the application of the human rights and democracy clause; welcomes the possibility, under the EIDHR, of providing financial support to projects aimed at the monitoring of ENP Action Plans;

82.

Requests the Commission to make greater efforts to set up human rights subcommittees for all ENP countries that do not have them, and to put into operation those that are not yet active in order to ensure an effective and sophisticated monitoring procedure as regards the implementation of the human rights and democracy objectives drawn up in the Action Plans;

83.

Takes note of the fact that human rights issues have been examined within the Justice, Freedom and Security Subcommittees set up with Moldova and Ukraine; reiterates, none the less, the final objective, consisting in the establishment of stand-alone human rights subcommittees for all ENP countries, including those of the South Caucasus; draws attention to the continual deterioration of the human rights situation in Azerbaijan and therefore underlines the particular need to establish a human rights subcommittee as soon as possible with that country;

84.

Calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure genuine cooperation among subcommittees on human rights and those involved in the field of justice and home affairs, all these issues being closely connected; calls, in this respect, for Parliament to be kept fully informed of the preparation and the follow-up process in this matter;

85.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to consider the possibility of establishing a human rights dialogue or consultation mechanisms with Libya;

86.

Calls on the Council, pending the signing of an association agreement, to consider the possibility of establishing a human rights dialogue mechanism with Syria;

87.

Stresses the need to set up an institutionalised human rights subcommittee with Israel, replacing the current provisional mechanism;

88.

Calls on the Council to inform and involve the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly and Parliament's Delegations to the Parliamentary Cooperation Committees existing between the EU and the countries of the eastern neighbourhood;

89.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to consider introducing some form of specific mechanism to monitor the human rights clause in the EU's agreements with Latin America and Central America, for instance by supplementing human rights clauses with operational action plans (similar to ENP action plans) and by setting up human rights subcommittees, and stresses in this respect the need to fully inform the relevant Joint Committees and Joint Councils of the outcome of these dialogues, so as to enhance the integration of human rights into the EU's political dialogues with countries in those regions;

90.

Calls therefore on the Commission to make an annual evaluation of the human rights situation in the Latin American countries on the basis of the action plans and the human rights subcommittees to be set up;

91.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to involve civil society in the conduct of the human rights dialogues, with adequate participation by the non-profit sector, and considers that the dialogue with Mexico needs to be enhanced and restructured and could provide a reference point for other Latin American countries;

92.

Calls on the Commission and the Council to include human rights in the ongoing negotiations on the association agreements with the Andean Community, Central America and Mercosur, and to brief the EP on the progress made in this area;

93.

Calls on the Council to inform the EU-Latin America Parliamentary Assembly of, , and to involve it in, the human rights dialogues and consultations;

94.

Points out that EU trade and cooperation agreements with third countries provide that implementation should be regularly monitored by joint committees; notes that specific joint committee working groups on human rights, good governance, the rule of law and administrative reform were set up in 2003, on an experimental basis, with Bangladesh, Vietnam and Laos;

95.

Considers that these dialogues should be initiated by the Council on the basis of the same criteria and that their outcome should be discussed within the political dialogue so as to enhance the coherence and consistency of the EU's human rights policy with third countries; in this regard, calls on the Council and the Commission to debrief Parliament on the outcome of these dialogues;

96.

Calls once again for the human rights and democracy clause to be extended to all new agreements between the EU and third countries, both industrialised and developing, including sectoral agreements such as those on fisheries, agriculture, textiles, trade and technical or financial aid, along the lines of what has been done with the ACP States;

97.

Calls on the Council, and especially the Troika, to apply the recommendations set out in this resolution to all ad hoc human rights dialogues, so as to ensure that they are conducted more transparently and more consistently with other EU external policies, and, before and after such dialogues take place, to provide information to the other institutions and to Parliament and NGOs in particular;

98.

Calls on the Commission to apply the recommendations set out in this resolution to the dialogues established as part of the external dimension of the area of freedom, security and justice, and, in the interests of interinstitutional coherence, to keep the other institutions, especially the Parliament, and NGOs informed regarding developments in, and the substance and outcome of, those dialogues;

99.

Calls on the Council to apply the above proposals also to the Troika consultations with like-minded partners, and to augment transparency and coherence with other EU policies, and recommends that those consultations on human rights issues be used to seek synergies and share experiences, while addressing human rights concerns, with regard to like-minded countries;

100.

Welcomes the recent moves to inform civil society of the agenda for these dialogues and requests the Council to adopt the same attitude vis-à-vis Parliament; calls for regular debriefings with Parliament on their substance and outcome to be established on a formal footing;

101.

Calls on the Council to apply the above proposals also to all political dialogues with third countries, especially as regards the agenda and content of the dialogue;

102.

Calls on Parliament's departments to intensify internal coordination among parliamentary bodies by supplying updated information on the human rights situation in third countries, and to that end calls for Parliament's Human Rights Unit to be provided with more substantial financial and human resources in order to enable it to perform this task;

103.

Requests the Council and the Commission to mainstream, in the agenda of human rights dialogues and consultations, the recommendations and conclusions contained in Parliament's resolutions, especially those concerning human rights, and the reports of European Parliament delegations;

104.

Insists that women's rights are an integral part of human rights and urges the Commission to include the promotion and protection of women's rights explicitly and systematically in all EU human rights dialogues and consultations on human rights with third countries; emphasises, in this regard, the need to set up a transparent mechanism specifically concerning women's rights for the monitoring of the human rights clause in the EU's external agreements and to take appropriate action should that clause be breached;

105.

Draws attention to the importance of civil society, particularly NGOs working to promote women's rights, and recommends that it be fully involved in human rights dialogues between the EU and third countries;

106.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to improve interaction between gender and civil society initiatives under the existing European human rights instruments and to encourage third countries to ensure the collaboration and coordination of the work of all human rights bodies and mechanisms;

107.

Calls on the Commission to monitor systematically the ratification and implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the optional protocol thereto within the framework of the human rights dialogue with third countries and to report on this in regular briefings to its Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality; calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure that the rights guaranteed by the Convention are respected in those third countries, in order to close the gap between the existence of women's rights and the effective exercise of those rights;

108.

Recommends that the Commission list gender-specific discrimination in accordance with the CEDAW and the Human Rights Pacts as production and process methods (PPMs), as defined in the framework of the World Trade Organization, in order to set up a database of products and brands that could eventually be banned from importation into the EU;

109.

Insists that women's rights be explicitly addressed in the human rights dialogues, and in particular the combating and elimination of all forms of discrimination and violence against women and girls, including all forms of harmful traditional or customary practices, for example female genital mutilation and early or forced marriage, all forms of trafficking in human beings, domestic violence and feminicide, exploitation at work and economic exploitation;

110.

Insists on the explicit inclusion of women's rights in, and a gender-based approach to, the fight against trafficking in human beings and particularly trafficking in women and children for sexual and labour exploitation and organ removal;

111.

Stresses that specific measures should be taken to encourage more vigorous participation of women in the labour market, in economic and social affairs, political life and decision-making and in conflict prevention and resolution, peace-building and reconstruction; recommends the broad, gender-balanced participation of Members of Parliament in the evaluation of EC-funded human rights projects and greater involvement of the European Parliament in human rights dialogues with third countries;

112.

Urges the Commission to provide training in order to educate Commission delegation personnel and officials, especially those involved in human rights and humanitarian relief activities, about the human rights of women;

113.

Urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a code of conduct for officials of the Community institutions and bodies, particularly while on EU missions to third countries, similar to the code of conduct issued by the UN; considers that the code should express clear disapproval of the purchase of sexual services, other forms of sexual exploitation and gender-based violence and should contain necessary sanctions in the event of misconduct, and that officials should be given detailed information on the content of the code of conduct before being sent on a mission;

114.

Recommends the adoption of measures to enhance the physical security of women and girls in refugee camps and to safeguard and protect the human rights of displaced persons;

115.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to ensure the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action; urges the Council and the Commission to encourage third countries to incorporate a gender perspective into national programmes of action and to integrate human rights and gender mainstreaming in national policies;

116.

Urges the Commission to ensure, in its human rights dialogues with third countries, the development of a comprehensive human rights education programme to raise awareness among women of their human rights and to raise awareness generally of the human rights of women;

117.

Urges the Council and the Commission to encourage third countries to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women into their legislation, to ensure, through law and other appropriate instruments, that this is achieved and to guarantee respect for these rights in all areas;

118.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council (including its Secretary-General/High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Mr Javier Solana, and his Permanent representative for Human Rights, Ms Riina Kionka, and the members of COHOM) and the Commission (including the heads of its delegations to third countries), to the governments and parliaments of the Member States, and to the Co-Presidents of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, the President of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly and the Co-Presidents of the EU-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly, as well as to the Co-Presidents of the Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and of the Interparliamentary Delegations between the EU and the countries concerned.

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1),

—

having regard to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982,

—

having regard to the Declaration made at the World Summit on Sustainable Development of 26 August to 4 September 2002 in Johannesburg,

—

having regard to the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield (COM(2006)0360),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2) on the Commission communication,

—

having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0298/2007),

A.

whereas most of the Community's fisheries resources of significant commercial value are being overfished or are almost in that situation,

B.

whereas the sustainability of fishery resources is essential for guaranteeing fishing activity and the viability of the fishing industry in the long term,

C.

whereas the Community system of conservation and management based on total allowable catch (TAC) and quotas has not led to the rational exploitation of stocks; whereas, on the contrary, the rigidity of the system and its dependence on political rather than biological guidelines have proved obstacles to rational management, making controls difficult and encouraging discards,

D.

whereas the Community system of conservation and management must be based on scientific fisheries research and have at its disposal reliable and detailed statistical information covering many years,

E.

having regard to the various successive modifications and adaptations of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) management system superimposing the TAC and quota regime and the fishing effort regime, introducing various recovery plans which have had highly diverse results and establishing successive measures for vessel scrapping which, in their turn, have not had the hoped-for results and have had negative economic and social repercussions,

F.

whereas the above adaptations have, for the most part, merely reduced the profitability and competitiveness of the Community fleet, both within the EU and internationally, posing increasing obstacles to the application of fisheries legislation to a sector which has to deal with ever more complex and endlessly changing rules with no possibility whatsoever of planning its activity in the medium and long term, and have not had any significant impact in terms of resource improvement,

G.

whereas at the World Summit on Sustainable Development the EU undertook to make all efforts to ensure that Community fish stocks meet the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) limits by 2015,

H.

whereas the scientific community at large considers that the original formulation of the MSY model is now outmoded because of the problems involved in transferring to the management field a theoretical, mathematical model whose precise formulation requires detailed knowledge of the population dynamics of the stock and long historical strings of data, and whereas any mistake, error or uncertainty in the model will inevitably push fishing over the MSY limit,

I.

whereas, on the contrary, any fisheries management system must take account of a degree of scientific uncertainty, as well as deviations and errors in the definition of a model, since there may, for example, be errors in species recruitment or environmental variations, and this will inevitably lead to incorrect definitions of MSY and failure to reach the target set,

J.

whereas ever since the earliest formulations of MSY scientists have presented new approaches to the model, attempting to correct its defects and fill its gaps,

K.

whereas applying MSY is an enormously complex task in the management of multispecies fisheries, which make up the majority of those exploited by the Community fleet, and moreover the model cannot be applied to pelagic fisheries,

L.

whereas the strict application of MSY would result in the short term in a considerable, and in some cases drastic, reduction in activity and income for the Community fleet,

M.

whereas fisheries management must take account of more comprehensive analyses of natural effects and other effects linked to interrelationships among species which contribute to marine pollution and the destruction of marine ecosystems, in addition to the impact of human activity,

N.

whereas, nonetheless, the Community fleet urgently needs a management system which can both strike a balance between fishing effort and resource levels and improve its commercial stability while enabling it to plan its actions more smoothly; whereas any period of transition to a new model will necessitate financial support measures,

1.

Welcomes, with great interest, the Commission's communication, in particular its recognition that the existing fisheries' management policy has failed and its objective of creating a new management model making it possible to ensure stock recovery, adapt the fishing effort to fisheries' real circumstances, and improve the reliability and stability of the fishing fleet;

2.

Stresses the need for all future measures altering the current Community system of conservation and management to be taken with the full involvement of fishermen and to be based on scientific fisheries research;

3.

Highlights the need to increase the appropriations earmarked for scientific fisheries research in the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development so that that programme can contribute to improving the Community fisheries conservation system through the development of theoretical fisheries' management models, their application, improved analysis of the state of stocks, natural effects and other inter-species relationships, and improved fishing gear;

4.

Notes the Commission's intention to achieve the above objectives by making MSY the yardstick for fisheries management, but warns that, for a large majority of scientists and also for the FAO, the traditional MSY model has been superseded by new cutting-edge approaches which consider the ecosystem in its entirety and incorporate, inter alia, aspects relating to the environment and species interrelation, and economic and social factors;

5.

Notes that, in recent years, leading scientists havedeveloped new methods, based on computer simulations of fisheries, which emulate the MSY approach while not taking it as an explicit target, and take due account of uncertainties, environmental factors, and possible interactions between species, which could, in principle, be extended to take into account specified social and economic factors;

6.

Cautions that it will be difficult to apply the MSY model to multispecies fisheries (the majority of those in the EU), since if the MSY applied were that of the main species the others could be overfished, while if, as would seem logical, the MSY applied were that of the most vulnerable species it would be necessary to stop catching those species in a good biological state, with adverse effects in economic, employment and competitiveness terms, a situation which would be in total contradiction with the underlying aim of MSY;

7.

Can, therefore, only lament, in particular, the deficient analysis and inadequate solutions offered by the Commission's communication with regard to the above aspects, and, in general terms, the absence of any in-depth evaluation of the implications of applying an MSY model, in terms of its shortcomings, the particularities of its application, and the potential risks of errors in the model; also regretsthe lack of any analysis of the evolution of the MSY concept and the potential advantages of the different approaches;

8.

Considers, therefore, that the time is not ripe to propose the introduction of an MSY system, and that a deeper and more rigorous analysis of the problems, shortcomings and objectives of the Community's conservation and management policy is needed, with a view to deciding, with all political courage, the most suitable measures for introducing the most vital changes to the present CFP;

9.

Is perplexed, given the above, at the recent measures announced by the Commission for the purpose of complying with the MSY model, such as the regulation laying down the TACs and quotas for 2007 (3), since the Commission itself has recognised, in various debates and institutional contexts, that numerous studies are still needed on different aspects of the application of MSY;

10.

Is concerned that, in the context of the ambitious objective of changing the approach of the CFP conservation and management system, advantage is not being taken of the opportunity to provide a clear definition of the system of access to resources, and that the TAC/quota system and the fishing effort system continue to overlap; believes that the Commission must seize this opportunity to devise a system of access to resources that puts the accent on sustainability, discourages discards, simplifies the technical measures, eliminates discrimination and excessive competition for stocks, introduces the necessary flexibility, and boosts the sector's competitiveness;

11.

Stresses that any change to the management system must necessarily include suitable and financially acceptable compensation mechanisms, and that this will require an assessment of the social and economic impact of the final proposal, and calls on the Commission to develop these measures at the same time as the new management system and, if possible, to integrate the two;

12.

Insists that given the poor state of the fish stocks in European waters and the difficulties faced by the EU fishing industry, action must be taken as soon as possible, and further delays will only lead to further hardship to the industry and delay its return to profitability;

13.

Calls for the above steps to be taken prior to any decision; requests, accordingly, an open-ended debate involving most parties in order to examine other possible management approaches, with a view to achieving the broadest possible consensus for the necessary changes to the Community management policy;

14.

Calls, in sum, for the phasing-in of a system which would, ultimately, result in a fisheries policy that is ever more in line with the biological capacity of stocks in recovery so as to ensure that the sustainability of the Community's fisheries becomes more of a given than a cause for concern and is perceived as such wherever Community fisheries' products are to be found in the world, which would provide the fleet with the necessary stability and allow for sound and ever more long-term planning, and which would, ultimately, result in a stable system of access to resources in which TACs and quotas need only be modified in specific circumstances and using semi-automatic mechanisms, instead of being altered every year on grounds that are not purely scientific;

15.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.

—

having regard to the Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis (COM(2006)0744) and the EU Consumer Law Compendium — comparative analysis (1),

—

having regard to Community law on consumer protection, electronic commerce and the development of the information society,

—

having regard to its resolutions of 23 March 2006 on European contract law and the revision of the acquis: the way forward (2), of 7 September 2006 on European contract law (3) and of 21 June 2007 on consumer confidence in the digital environment (4),

—

having regard to the public hearing on the review of the European consumer acquis held at the European Parliament on 10 April 2007,

—

having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0281/2007),

A.

whereas 48 % of retailers are prepared to trade cross-border, but only 29 % actually do so; whereas 43 % of retailers believe that their cross-border sales would increase if the provisions of the laws regulating transactions with consumers were the same throughout the European Union (5),

B.

whereas half of all Europeans (50 %) are warier of making cross-border purchases than domestic purchases; whereas over two-thirds (71 %) think it is harder to resolve certain problems such as complaints, returns, price reductions and guarantees when shopping cross-border (6),

C.

whereas the overarching aim of the review is to achieve a real consumer internal market while striking a balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises,

D.

whereas 90 % of enterprises in Europe are very small enterprises, which by their nature establish a direct relationship of trust with the consumer, and are generally very local, and whereas account should be taken of these specific characteristics in the context of the review,

E.

whereas the minimum harmonisation approach does not achieve the aim of harmonisation and in 20 years of evolving consumer law has not been able to create an integrated internal retail market that benefits the public,

F.

whereas the eight consumer protection directives (7) named in the Green Paper need to be simplified and made consistent to avoid fragmentation and to achieve the modernisation of Community consumer law,

G.

whereas it is determined to complete the European internal market, for the benefit of the Community's 493 million consumers, and to remove remaining restrictions on competition in contract and commercial law,

H.

whereas, in order to enhance European citizens' confidence in the internal market, legal certainty, both for consumers and economic operators, needs to be increased and the legislation in force needs to be effectively applied,

I.

whereas the review, which will deal with consumer contract law, should utilise the current work on contract law and the creation of a common frame of reference (CFR) for European contract law, and should be integrated coherently therewith,

1.

Welcomes the Commission's Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis, particularly the stated goal of modernising, simplifying and improving the regulatory regime for professionals and consumers, thus facilitating cross-border trade and strengthening consumer confidence;

2.

Recommends that the scope of the review concentrate on updating and creating coherence between the eight consumer protection directives named in the Green Paper; calls on the Commission to present, to Parliament and the Council, a report on the implementation of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘e-commerce Directive’) (8), identifying questions relating to consumer confidence;

3.

Believes that it is essential for the Community legislature to take action to eradicate any inconsistencies that exist between the consumer directives under review;

4.

Believes that it is essential to have a clear overall vision of how the various legal and regulatory regimes affecting consumer and commercial law activities at EU level interact and function together, especially the relationship between any instrument produced by the review and those dealing with conflict of law rules (9) and those based on the country of origin principle (such as the e-commerce Directive);

5.

Expresses its preference for the adoption of a mixed or combined approach, i.e. a horizontal instrument with the primary goal of ensuring the coherence of the existing legislation and enabling loopholes to be closed by grouping together, in consistent law, cross-cutting issues common to all the directives; considers that specific questions which are outside the scope of the horizontal instrument should continue to be considered separately in the sectoral directives;

6.

Considers that the horizontal instrument should be regularly reviewed and its effectiveness and impact evaluated, with a view to a revision if necessary;

7.

Is against the review of the Community acquis being used as a pretext to extend the scope of the legislation in the existing sectoral directives or to bring in additional directives;

8.

Considers that the horizontal instrument should be applied as widely as possible to all consumer contracts, whether for national or cross-border transactions, in order to avoid introducing a further element of complexity by imposing different legal regimes on consumers depending on the nature of the transaction;

9.

Points out that harmonisation must not lead to a decline in the level of consumer protection as achieved under certain national laws, but should lead to a comparable level of consumer protection in all Member States;

10.

Welcomes the Commission's proposal for a horizontal instrument and acknowledges the possible advantages of what some have termed a basic ‘consumer rights’ directive; suggests that the horizontal instrument with cross-cutting policy areas, which should help to increase the coherence of terminology and remove loopholes and inconsistencies, should start from the principle of full targeted harmonisation;

11.

Suggests that sectoral tools that are being reviewed should be based on the principle of minimum harmonisation, combined with the principle of mutual recognition where the coordinated area is concerned; notes, however, that this does not exclude full targeted harmonisation where this proves necessary in the interests of consumers and professionals;

12.

Points out that as the law stands at present as regards the non-coordinated areas, the applicable law is determined by the rules of international private law, in particular the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I); in this regard it will be important, during the current discussions, to avoid divergences between this Convention and specific Community legal acts;

13.

Recommends the inclusion, in the sectoral instruments, of an internal market clause to allow consumers to benefit fully from the internal market;

14.

Notes that Annex 1 to the Green Paper contains at points 4 and 5 an extensive list of contractual issues relevant to consumer contracts, that some of those issues have already formed part of the work on the CFR and that many are of a highly political nature where, were any general rule to form part of a harmonised instrument at EU level, there would need to be extensive (including public) debate and consideration;

15.

Is in favour of certain cross-cutting principles, applicable to all consumer contracts, being included in the horizontal instrument if they make that instrument more coherent, e.g. common definitions and general rules covering information requirements and the way the law on termination and withdrawal operates;

16.

Considers that the definitions of ‘consumer’ and ‘professional’ are not consistent either in Community legislation or in national legislation, and that it is essential to clarify these concepts in the horizontal instrument given that they determine the scope of consumer law;

17.

Considers that a consumer should be defined as any natural person acting for purposes which are outside their trade, business or profession; and considers that a professional should be defined as any person acting for purposes relating to their trade, business and profession;

18.

Furthermore, supports the inclusion in the horizontal instrument of further definitions such as ‘written form’ and ‘durable media’;

19.

Opposes the insertion in the horizontal instrument of a general clause of good faith and fair dealing applicable to consumer contracts;

20.

Does not consider it appropriate to apply the rules on unfair terms to individually negotiated terms so as to restrict the freedom of the contracting parties to conclude contracts;

21.

Considers that, in order to boost consumer confidence in the internal market, arrangements affording more protection should be introduced, while retaining a degree of flexibility; requests the Commission to carry out further examination of the use of a combination of a black list of banned terms and a grey list of terms presumed to be unfair and other terms which consumers could demonstrate to be unfair by means of legal action, on the basis of previously determined and uniform criteria;

22.

Rejects the idea of extending the unfairness test to all the core terms of a contract, including the main subject matter of the contract and the assessment of the price, having regard to the principle of contractual freedom;

23.

Considers that at this stage it is very difficult to determine general rules on the contractual effects of failure to provide information which take into account the characteristics of each contract;

24.

Underlines the need to standardise the methods for triggering and calculating the withdrawal period by giving priority to calculation according to calendar days in order to enhance the legal certainty of transactions;

25.

Considers that the length of the period should be harmonised where this is justified by the circumstances;

26.

Emphasises that consumer confidence in the internal market will be enhanced if the horizontal instrument provides for the consumer to be able to withdraw from the contract; considers that the means of withdrawal should be harmonised to improve legal certainty for both consumers and economic operators; considers also that the horizontal instrument should provide that consumers should not bear any costs other than the direct cost of returning the goods;

27.

Takes the view that in the case of a horizontal instrument, Member States could provide for exceptions to the right of withdrawal, if the contract is drawn up in the form of an authentic act;

28.

Believes that the introduction of a standard withdrawal form in all Community languages would simplify procedures, reduce costs, and increase transparency and consumer confidence;

29.

Considers that the introduction of general contractual remedies goes beyond the scope of the review as it is something to be determined by national contract law;

30.

Recalls the discussion on collective redress and believes it deserves further consideration;

31.

Considers that it is appropriate to examine issues relating to the protection of consumers when they conclude contracts providing digital content, software and data, in the light of the protection afforded by Directive 1999/44/EC on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees; asks the Commission to examine this matter in detail so as to determine whether it is appropriate to propose one or more specific rules or to extend the rules set out in that Directive to this type of contract;

32.

Proposes excluding this issue from the scope of the horizontal instrument and maintaining the possibility for Member States to provide that the definition of consumer goods does not cover secondhand goods sold at public auctions; recommends, however, the adoption of specific rules for on-line auctions;

33.

Considers that the definition of delivery is closely linked to the rules on passing of risk; proposes, therefore, the inclusion in the horizontal instrument of a common definition of delivery under which, in principle, priority should be given to contractual agreements;

34.

Considers that the horizontal instrument could, to good effect, extend the length of the statutory guarantee to include the period when the goods are unable to be repaired;

35.

Stresses, however, that the horizontal instrument should not include specific rules for second-hand goods, in order to respect rules adopted by Member States in accordance with their own legal traditions;

36.

Proposes to maintain the principle of rebuttable presumption in its present form;

37.

Considers that the horizontal instrument could establish an order of available remedies in the case of wrong performance, with termination of the contract being reserved for total non-performance or particularly serious breaches of contract;

38.

Considers it appropriate for the horizontal instrument to eliminate existing divergences concerning the notification of lack of conformity, which are currently a source of confusion;

39.

Considers that it is not appropriate to introduce direct producers' liability for non-conformity;

40.

Points out that the issues relating to commercial guarantees (content, transfer, limitation) are not to be determined by a legal framework but are subject to the principle of contractual freedom; considers, therefore, that these issues should not be part of the horizontal instrument;

41.

Insists that the review, which will deal with consumer contracts, should be coherently integrated with the work being carried out on contract law in general within the continuing process of achieving a CFR; emphasises, therefore, that the review and the work on the CFR need to progress in a complementary way, whilst acknowledging that achieving this coherence should not impede or delay the current review process;

42.

Emphasises the need to ensure the effectiveness of consumer law in order to strengthen consumer confidence in the internal market;

43.

Urges the Commission to improve existing consumer protection and information mechanisms, including ensuring proper application of and compliance with the rules in force;

44.

Urges the Commission to thoroughly assess the impact of any measures proposed within the framework of the review to ensure that they increase consumer confidence without imposing unnecessary burdens on businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and that they contribute to the completion of the internal market;

45.

Urges the Commission to coordinate its action internally and to promote the coherent development of sectoral legislation;

46.

Recommends scrupulous application of the principles of better regulation;

47.

Urges the Member States to strengthen cooperation between their authorities responsible for the application of consumer law and to promote judicial or extrajudicial remedies enabling consumers to enforce their rights at European level;

48.

Calls on the Member States to take up their responsibility to complete the internal market for goods and services and to refrain from gold-plating European consumer legislation; calls on the Member States to agree instead on a coherent strategy for targeted harmonisation of consumer legislation combined with an internal market clause that would enhance consumer confidence in the functioning of the internal market;

49.

Supports the Commission's current and planned initiatives concerning the education of consumers; takes the view that more could be done through cooperation between governments and industry in order to promote the provision of high-quality training in the financial sector so as to increase financial literacy and improve the quality of products and the legitimacy of the sector as a whole; welcomes the study commissioned on initiatives for general financial literacy in the European Union, the results of which are due to be available at the end of 2007;

50.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

—

having regard to the first formal session of the United Nations Security Council on Burma, held on 29 September 2006,

—

having regard to the statement of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of 18 July 2007 and to the letter addressed to him signed by 92 Burmese MPs-Elect, of 1 August 2007, which included a proposal for national reconciliation and democratisation in Burma,

—

having regard to the unprecedented denunciation by the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross Jakob Kellenberger, of 28 June 2007, of violations of international humanitarian law committed against civilians and detainees by the Government of Burma, and his demand that the Government of Burma take urgent action to end these violations and prevent them from recurring,

—

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 481/2007 of 27 April 2007 (1), renewing restrictive measures against Burma,

—

having regard to the US Government's decision of 1 August 2007 to renew import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003,

—

having regard to the public request of 23 August 2007 by the Head of the Inter-Parliamentary Caucus of the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN), Zaid Ibrahim, that China use its influence to resolve the crisis in Burma,

—

having regard to the eighth Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) Foreign Ministers' meeting held in Germany on 28 to 29 May 2007,

—

having regard to the 88 Generation Students' Announcement of 8 August 2007, to mark the 17th anniversary of the victory of the National League for Democracy (NLD) in the parliamentary elections of 27 May 1990, condemning the constitutional proposals being made by the National Convention, which entered its last phase on 18 July 2007,

—

having regard to the earlier report of 18 July 2007 by Human Rights Watch that the proposed new constitution for Burma would maintain a repressive system of military rule,

—

having regard to its resolutions of 12 May 2005 (2), 17 November 2005 (3), 14 December 2006 (4) and 21 June 2007 on Burma (5),