HOC ON THE EUROPEAN ‘NO’ TOWARDS A UN MORATORIUM: “PREDICTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE”

Sources within the Presidency stated that the proposal had been brought up by Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini during a working breakfast with fellow Foreign Ministers. The sources added that a consensus was not met due to reservations brought up by a few member states. Amongst those particularly against the proposal was the United Kingdom.
Various countries expressed the opinion that a European resolution for a universal moratorium would not have majority support within the UN, and would thus be counterproductive. According to sources within the Presidency, Italy nevertheless intends to make reference to the project for a universal moratorium on executions during its intervention, as holders of the EU Presidency, at the UN General Assembly in September.

On the EU ‘no’ to the UN moratorium on capital executions, Hands Off Cain Secretary Sergio D’Elia has declared: “We thank (Italian Foreign) Minister Franco Frattini who, as promised, brought up the issue to his EU colleagues regarding the proposal for a universal moratorium on capital executions at the next UN General Assembly.
Considering the events of the past we had no doubts as to how the proposal would be received at EU level, in 1994 the European hardliners abstained on a resolution presented by the Italian government contributing to its defeat by just eight votes, and in 1999 they first presented then withdrew the moratorium resolution.
Out of fear of loosing, the Fifteen gave up without a fight, with the exception of Ambassador Paolo Fulci. We are now in the same situation, only we are asking more from the Italian government. The reply that ‘the support isn’t there’ cannot be considered satisfactory. It is necessary to ask our European partners what their statistics are, their list of those in favour and those against, in order to count the totals. For us the numbers in favour of a moratorium are there and are the following: there are 191 UN member states; 89 are those which since 1997 have cosponsored a moratorium resolution, 72 of which have already done so at the General Assembly in ’99 (when the EU first presented then revoked the resolution and when the situation was less favourable than it is now); to these 89 states we can add the at least six states which have already repeatedly voted at the UN (Commission on human Rights) in favour of a moratorium, which brings us to 95; a further 5 states, based on recent political changes, could vote in favour: which would bring us to 100, an absolute majority of UN member states, a majority which could never be attacked by the ‘no’ front if we consider that there will be at least 20 undecided states which will abstain from voting.
It must be remembered that in ’94 we lost by eight votes, but this was in ’94 when there were 33 more states which retained the death penalty than there are today. The battles for human rights are also taken up when one is unsure of victory. This one is not a probable defeat, but a sure victory that can only be thrown away through defeatism.
Unless of course, due to third parties, there is the intention of bringing failure to the only pragmatic, and thus rigorous anti-death penalty initiative: a moratorium on executions with view to abolishment.”