Subcommittee on Human Rights Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
DROI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsŞerban Dimitrie Sturdza
As Bangladesh moves towards the future, there is an opportunity to engage in transparent and credible processes. Reinforcing transparency and responsibility on the international stage would make a positive step towards building public trust, institutional resilience, and political stability. One priority we have is continuing to develop strong, independent institutions. The efficiency and democratic governance would create trust in public institutions as well as judicial powers, electoral authorities, and
Police.
Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza
It's important to guarantee the rule of law and equal treatment for all citizens. Political pluralism is a key cornerstone of democracy, and the Bangladeshi political system must reflect this. Political competition has sometimes created tensions. Creating inclusive political dialogue can create an environment in which differences are explored in a constructive and peaceful way. Freedom of expression and a dynamic media environment are essential components of a healthy democracy.
Journalists and civil society stakeholders play an important role in creating public debate, accountability, and transparency. Efforts must continue to ensure that these people can express these discussions in a safe environment, creating a democratic environment within Bangladesh. The treatment of minorities is also an important aspect. In Bangladesh, there are cultural and religious minorities that are important to take into account. These particular marginalized peoples must be included, particularly in this transition, to create social cohesion.
It's important to respond to any allegations to avoid distrust. The protection of women and children is also a key part of the human rights global agenda. Bangladesh has taken key steps in protecting women, but there are still challenges to be addressed. Ensuring that there is access to justice and awareness being raised of these issues are important steps to make progress. There are still key issues in human rights issues in Bangladesh.
The country has taken impressive steps, but it must be ensured that the growth the country is seeing is just and fair, and that there is fair economic development. Fair working conditions, social protections, and creating a more equitable society in terms of who benefits from its economic development. Bangladesh has played a key humanitarian role by welcoming many Rohingya refugees. This is a responsibility that it has taken on in very difficult conditions and has been recognized by the international community. The ability to engage on a regional level, as well as pursuing sustainable development, is a key part of responding to the immediate need and also finding a more long-term solution.
Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, the years to come will give the Bangladeshi government and key political players an opportunity to consolidate and make progress in this regard. The challenges Bangladesh is facing are not unique, and other countries have pursued similar transitions with positive results. The important thing is political progress and continuing to make improvements. The EU continues to be a long-term partner of Bangladesh. We've had structural dialogue and constructive interaction with civil society and the institutions.
There is important key and potential to strengthen human rights in the country, as well as democratic governments' governance. The most efficient, effective way is to have mutual respect of values toward a common goal. In conclusion, Bangladesh's trajectory will be determined by its progress in this transition period. Taking into account challenges relating to inclusivity, the country has much potential to make progress towards human rights and the protection of its population. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you, Chairman. I'm going to give the floor to Ms. Stosser. Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
Excuse me. Monica, I'm going to hand the floor to you. Thank you.
Speaker 5
We call the chair, but honorable chairs, Chair Sattori, Chair Sourza, honorable members, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. Big pleasure for me to be today here to discuss Bangladesh. These were indeed quite a few seminal years for Bangladesh since mid 2024. The country really has gone through a very serious transformation, led first by its youth and then by the interim government, which now, of course, culminated, as we have heard and we know, on February 12 in the democratic elections where the Bangladesh Nationals Party, the BNP, had won an overwhelming victory, winning two thirds majority in the parliament, 212 out of 300 seats with the BNP leader, Tariq Rahman, who is also a son of a former prime minister and a former president, being sworn as a prime minister already five days after the election on the seventeenth February. The EU had deployed a substantial electoral observation mission, 200 people strong in the country, which in its findings had noted that the elections were credible and competently managed.
And many people, many of the civil society representatives in the country had noted that indeed these were the first truly free elections in Bangladesh since 2008, and first, largely nonviolent election as well. So, as the chair mentioned already, this is truly a new era for Bangladesh. But now we need, of course, to see what the BNP does with its big victory, which carries, in principle, both opportunities as well as risks. And it, of course, all rests on the political will of the BNP to deliver on the reforms called for by its youth, called by the student population, and delivered by the interim government during its tenure in office. So if BNP wants to demonstrate that it truly presents the modern and democratic change after the decades of the Awami League rule, it should, as a first signal, we think, pass the reform package that was put together by professor Yunus' government over the last 18 months and that was signed up by all the political parties at the July charter last year.
So the parliament has thirty days to deliver on this, and it is a little bit of the litmus test for the new government, how it is gonna wanna go about that. We already hear signs that they start treating the thirty days not as pure thirty days, but rather as the thirty days of the parliamentary sitting. We already hear that BNP does not agree to the formation of an upper house with a proportional representation system, which, if implemented, would reduce their majority to just 50%. We also see that they have already changed the chairman governor of the Central Bank appointed by the UNUS government, who was a very competent finance person, currently being replaced by wealthy businessmen. So we do see some signs of maybe rolling back of what had been done by the interim government.
But, of course, at this point in their tenure, it's still a bit too early to draw the conclusions, and we very much hope that they will use the opportunity to show that their return to power, it's really not just, once again the change of guard between BNP and Avami League, which had been for very many decades, but rather a possibility for the country to move forward in a more democratic fashion. In the wake of the uprising of July and August of 2024, we saw a somewhat revitalized civic space in Bangladesh. There were numerous grassroots organizations, which in the run up to the election were launching a number of election-related initiatives, such as vote information campaigns, monitoring of political violence and disinformation, initiatives to close digital literacy gaps, election observation during the elections themselves, which altogether added to transparency and for better advocating for human rights in the country, and making an important contribution to also restoring public trust in the electoral process. Nevertheless, of course, more efforts to foster electoral inclusion are needed. And indigenous communities and religious minorities, they have their hopes for greater representation and respect for their political rights during the elections, somewhat dashed by the absence of any affirmative action, either in the present law or in the July national charter in the reform package.
So despite sustained advocacy efforts, persons with disabilities often did not have the opportunity for dignified and independent voting, and nearly half of the polling booths were not accessible to persons with reduced mobility. Women, as we already had mentioned by Chies Torza, still make up a meager part of the elected MEPs, and their rights are not always what they should be. Also, according to civil society organizations, while the elections themselves were largely peaceful, the period immediately before and after the parliamentary elections saw alarming levels of political and electoral violence, attacks on minorities, sexual violence against women and girls, and targeted reprisals against political opponents, journalists, and human rights defenders. So in February 2026, around the elections, we saw at least 346 incidents of political and electoral violence, leaving ten people dead and approximately two thousand injured. So this, of course, leads us all to continue to encourage Bangladesh to proceed with the reform process that began during the interim government and to embed good governance, including for the reform of key institutions.
And the EOM recommendations will be very important and useful in that respect. This also, of course, makes us call for justice and accountability for all crimes and human rights violations committed before, during, and after the July and August uprising of 2024, including accountability through independent investigations into unlawful killings, torture, sexual violence, attacks on minorities, and other crimes of which there were many. The EU will closely continue following the new government's progress, in particular, on the implementation of the July charter, on the passage of the key legislation, which come right now in the form of ordinances, for instance, the enforced disappearance, prevention and remedy ordinance, the July uprising protection and liability assessment ordinance. The comprehensive police and security sector reform, a very important one because after the uprising, I mean, it's really the security and policing situation in the country has reached very low levels. The establishment of the Truth and Healing Commission, a road map by the government and the civil society organizations, and strengthening, of course, of the judicial independence through transparent appointment procedures and institutional safeguards against political interference.
Allow me to say, of course, also a few words about the situation of the Rohingya refugees. According to media reports, so here are the positive signals that we hear according to media reports. The new foreign minister, Dr. Kaleel Rahman, has said that Bangladesh's engagement on the Rohingya situation would intensify with the new government rather than diminish, adding that the channels established by the interim government with both the Arakan Army and Myanmar authorities would remain open in pursuit of an early resolution. The EU is a major donor to the Rohingya crisis, the largest at present in light of the US withdrawals. The EU's humanitarian and development support amounts to over €1,000,000,000 for the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, Bangladesh, and the broader region since 2007, 2017.
The EU has always expressed its appreciation to Bangladesh for hosting over 1,000,000 Rohingya refugees and for Bangladesh's clear and repeated commitment to guarantee that any repatriation would be safe, voluntary, dignified, and sustainable. At the same time, in all our engagement with the Bangladeshi government, the EU has also argued for economic opportunities, including employment opportunities for the refugees to keep the population active, to benefit the economy of the host country, and also to alleviate the growing security concerns given the big young population in the camps that is currently idle, hungry, angry, and restless. The EU is concerned over reports that proxies of the Myanmar military are still allowed to recruit, also by force, in Rohingya camps in Bangladesh and bring the recruits back to Myanmar to fight. Also concerned, very concerned about reports that children are being recruited as well, which, obviously, would be crossing very serious red lines in that regard. In response to the serious human rights violations committed against the Rohingya in Myanmar, the following action has been taken so far.
The EU adopted nine rounds of restrictive measures, listing 106 individuals and 22 entities, and targeting the entire military redish leadership in Myanmar and the main military-owned conglomerates. The EU has also supported international accountability mechanisms and judicial processes seeking justice for Rohingya. The EU is providing support for the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar, notably to the financial investigation's capacity to support the fight against impunity in Myanmar. Why? Okay.
So in short, we do indeed have quite a few actions to support both human rights and the Rohingya situation in particular, and we'll continue raising these issues also with the Bangladeshi government. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Very much. I'm going to give the floor now to the resident coordinator of the United Nations in Bangladesh who's with us online, mister Stefan. You have the floor, mister Stefan Dille.
Speaker 7
You need to click on that. Oh. Okay. Honorable chair, I think my camera is not working very well. I'm just up here.
So but I'll slow start. Honorable chair, distinguished members of the subcommittee, excellency, warm greetings from DACA. First of all, it's a privilege for me to join this discussion convened by the European Parliament Committee on Human Rights. And let me also take a couple of minutes to speak a little bit about the reform agenda, the initiative reform agenda by the interim government, about the accession to some international conventions and instruments, about some opportunities following the recent election, and also focusing a little bit on the situation of the Rohingya. So as was also alluded to by previous speakers, after the July, August uprising, the interim government set up 11 reform commissions, essentially focused on key governance reform areas, police, anti-corruption, constitution, election, and justice in direct response to the demands of the uprising.
The government also reached out to the UN to request specific support. One was a fact-finding mission that they requested the office of the high commissioner for human rights to look into what happened during the July events. Also, in December 2024, the government of Bangladesh reached out to the UN to request support for the upcoming elections. Following that, the UN fielded a needs assessment mission in January 2025 that define, so to say, the mandate of UN engagement in and around in support of the upcoming elections. So a fairly comprehensive technical assistance package was put together for UN agency participated directly in that, focusing on everything from voter registration because the voter lists haven't been updated appropriately since 2008, but also on voter education, addressing issues as mis- and disinformation, and also some work with the security sector.
So we've had continuing engagement, I would say, in and around elections with advisers on the ground since October 24 all the way through the elections. The Indian government also acceded to a number of important international conventions and treaties. We have the accession to the optional protocol to the convention against torture in July 2025. We had them also sign the convention and enforced disappearances in August 2024. They also ratified three important ILO conventions on occupational safety and health, a promotional framework for occupational safety and health, and violence and harassment in the world of work.
A number of areas where there was a lot of hope in terms of reforms would say around security sector reform, particularly around police reform, but also in areas around anti-corruption and public service reform, did probably not go as far or reach as far as many of us had hoped. At the same time, as was alluded to by previous speakers, there was a very good advance, particularly in judicial reform and some reforms around the national human rights framework. In terms of the judicial reform, the previous chief justice of Bangladesh was driving a quite ambitious and far-reaching reform agenda in terms of focusing on judicial independence. And I would say that some of the advances are among the largest or most significant in terms of judicial independence in the last 30 years, focusing a lot on trying to rebuild that trust in a very battered justice system. Among those has particularly been the setting up of a judicial secretariat established by the supreme court and also a supreme court appointment ordinance ensuring merit based appointment, but also essentially passing the appointments of judges in the lower judiciary under the auspices of the supreme court.
In terms of the National Human Rights Commission, that's another piece in the governance puzzle that's very important. The United Nations supported, I would say, one of the largest consultations that has ever been done in Bangladesh on the National Human Rights Commission. More than 600 people across the country were consulted, representing human rights organizations, victims of forced disappearances, to try and develop an ordinance or a law that would ensure that the National Human Rights Commission setup would be in line with the Paris principles, ensuring independence, pluralism, and a broad mandate in a merit-based selection process with meaningful civil society participation. A new commission was actually appointed according to this new procedure in February, and it also has a good lineup and also representation from civil society and minority organizations. The National Human Rights Commission also has a designation as the National Preventive Mechanism under the protocol of the convention against torture.
So these are some very important steps we think both on the National Human Rights Commission, but also the work that has been initiated both from inside the judiciary, but also from the executive in terms of supporting the judicial reform. Of course, a new government has come in, was elected only a month ago with Bangladesh's first agenda with a lot of focus on restoring the rule of law and rebuilding trust in institutions, and also trying to deliver visible socioeconomic relief. So they have a 9 point manifesto covering a lot of these different areas. And it was also alluded to the new parliament opened on March 12, and they have basically now 30 days depending on that's counted as sitting, was as working days or as calendar days to basically sift through these 133 ordinances that the interim government has passed during their tenure to see what of these ordinances can be passed and in what way or form. If no action is taken, then these automatically expire.
There's also some challenges right now for the country in terms of fiscal and administrative constraints with debt exposure, subsidy pressures, and a lot of shocks from the recent escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, which I think everybody is worried about. But important to continue the reform path that the interim government has set the country on, focusing on these key governance institutions, helping to establish a trusted judiciary, stronger human rights institutions. And it will be important for the international community to continue supporting these efforts going forward. Another piece I wanted to touch on briefly is the LDC graduation. As most of you know, Bangladesh is set to graduate from the LDC status in November 2026.
The transition is expected to strengthen economic resilience, but also enhance diversification of the economy, enhance competitiveness, and expand market access, while at the same time that carries important implications for economic, social, and cultural rights. The government, there was a lot of discussions over the past year or so whether Bangladesh was ready or not for LDC graduation. And at the invitation of the government, the office of the high representative for the LDCs, landlocked developing countries and small island states has supported the government in terms of undertaking a graduation readiness assessment. It is clear that Bangladesh has already met the requirements of graduation several times, but there are possibilities to reconsider the graduation date based on other issues as well. So the office of the high representative is also planning to field a mission here from April, which will, among other things, include consultations with high level representatives of the government, including the foreign minister and the prime minister, but there will also be a stakeholder consultation probably on April 5, where EU and other partners will be invited to join.
But as you know, formally, Bangladesh has requested a three-year deferral of graduation until November 2029, citing issues around domestic pressures, post-pandemic economic shocks, geopolitical disruptions, but also the national political transition. The UN is currently reviewing this request. And in the coming months, we'll be making a recommendation to ECOSOC for the request of whether this should be considered at the upcoming general assembly. I believe for the EU, this is quite an important thing as you are a main trade partner of Bangladesh. I also want to express the United Nations' strong appreciation for the generosity of Bangladesh in terms of hosting more than 1,000,000 Rohingya refugees.
We work very, very closely with the government of Bangladesh to try and strengthen protection, human rights, and durable solutions for the Rohingya refugees. We all know and previous colleagues have also elaborated on that. Many of you were here in September, not so much has changed since then. There are, of course, the structural drivers and issues in Myanmar with systematic discrimination, the issue around the statelessness which continues to deny Rohingya access to citizenship, freedom of movement, and basic rights in Myanmar. At the same time, we have a challenging protection environment here in Bangladesh, with the situation in the camp that is increasingly fragile and protracted.
There's no official access to livelihoods, and the conditions in the camps that you have seen yourself are overcrowded, with limited services and restricted opportunities. There are also.
Speaker 7
So there are some key issues there that you're also well aware of in terms of the situation with the Rohingya. In terms of the funding situation, about 63% of the appeal last year was funded, but at the same time, 90% of priority one areas, life-saving areas. We do foresee a more challenging funding landscape for 2026. The new appeal for 2026 is around $710,000,000. That is fairly well funded already because of this global support by The United States of $2,000,000,000 to OCHA. 150,000,000 of those will be going to Bangladesh. 14 organizations have been to implement this, and the first agreements have been signed today.
So this is a big relief in terms of the funding of the joint response plan. So we will be raising in the coming weeks to make sure that the disbursements are made so that both UN agencies, international NGOs, and national NGOs can start delivering on some of this lifesaving assistance. And just to reiterate that it is important, and we continue to stress the sustained international attention to address the root causes of displacement and the right situation in Myanmar, but also to advocate for protection, security, and freedom in Bangladesh. And because, yes. So again, we also want to express our deep gratitude to the European Union and to ECO for your very strong support of the work of the United Nations and many others in the Rohingya response.
So I will stop here. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much. I'll give the floor now to Professor Darajan. You'll be winding up this round of presentations. Thank you very much, chairman, ladies and gentlemen, honorable members. I'm, I feel it is a great honor to be with you this morning.
Just a little warning before I start my presentation. I'm speaking as a professor in international law, but also as a counselor adviser to The Gambia who has brought this case against Myanmar in the International Court of Justice. That's the reason I'm invited here today. But I would like to issue a little caveat. The legal office that I belong to, I have given advice to Bangladesh in a dispute against Myanmar and India about the territory in the Gulf of Bengal.
So that was the subject of litigation. And we're also advising the state of Bangladesh, not the government as such, but in international investment disputes. So I thought it was important to tell you something about my other professional commitments. But anyway, in the case before the ICJ, well, sorry, the International Court of Justice should not be confused with the International Criminal Court. I won't be talking to you about that, but that was a case brought by Bangladesh.
Of course, you know the difference between the International Court of Justice, which judges disputes between states, and the International Criminal Court, which is about the criminal responsibility of individuals, not states. And in the case concerning Myanmar, this concerns the members of Myanmar. This was a case brought by Bangladesh, and this argument is that there was ethnic cleansing. Bangladesh is a party to the International Criminal Court. Myanmar isn't. But the crimes, although they were committed in Myanmar, there was a part of the crime that was committed in Bangladesh, which is the fact that the border was violated, was crossed, and a refugee camp hosting more than a million people is still currently present in Cox's Bazaar.
And so that it was on that basis that we counselled Bangladesh to bring this case to the criminal court. I won't go into any more detail on the International Criminal Court, but the International Court of Justice case was brought in 2019, when Aung San Suu Kyi was still Prime Minister. And we brought this case following reports from the United Nations Committee of Inquiry report, a report that was approved by the General Assembly, a voluminous report that clearly established that the clearance operations, the military operations carried out in 2016 and 2017 in Myanmar, were characterized by every possible indication of genocide. And this case was brought in November 2019. And in its proceedings, The Gambia maintained that Myanmar, during these military operations, had committed genocide against the Rohingya as a group.
And The Gambia also called for interim measures, an injunction really, at the International Court of Justice to save those still in Bangladesh. So the aim of this urgent injunction was to protect people who were still alive, and that's what we pleaded in December 2019, calling for interim measures from the International Court of Justice, which came through the following year. To protect around 60,000 Rohingya that remained in Myanmar, essentially in this internal displacement camp. So Myanmar was ordered to report within four months of the injunction, and then every six months after that. And The Gambia had an opportunity to respond to these interim reports on Myanmar.
The International Court of Justice was serving as a supervisor, really, of how these interim measures were being implemented. So following that first procedural step, which was a unanimous victory in favor of the Gambia, because all the judges of the ICJ voted in favor of the order of these provisional measures. Gambia also talked about Myanmar challenged the admissibility of the case and the jurisdiction of the court, but we won in July 2022. I won't go into all the details. The court declared itself competent.
It said that it had jurisdiction, and it also declared, and this is an all-time first, and this was a point I argued about the standing of The Gambia as a plaintiff, and that was an all-time first in international law. So as a state that wasn't personally affected, I mean, they are thousands of kilometers away from Myanmar. So a state where none of the nationals was affected was recognized as having the right to challenge the actions of Myanmar under the terms of the Genocide Convention because the Genocide Convention contains obligations. In other words, a common interest is to be protected in such a way as you have this erga omnes partis provision, which means that any state can protect the interests of people in any other state. So that principle was recognized by the International Court of Justice clearly for the first time in this case.
So that's why South Africa, by the way, was able later to bring a case against Israel before the same court. I'm not going to discuss that case, but it's the same reasoning, the standing of member states not actually injured by the acts in question. Of course, there was the coup in Myanmar. The Court of Justice continued to consider the judge still represented Myanmar. The opposition wrote to the court saying that Myanmar was withdrawing its preliminary objections, but the court of justice considered that the military junta was still responsible.
So the case will continue against Myanmar, represented by the Junta. And the Junta lost in July 2022 on this question of admissibility and jurisdiction. 11 member states, including seven member states of the EU, intervened to support The Gambia. Of course, there were disputes about admissibility as well of these member states acting as interveners. But once again, we got the court to recognize the validity of their interventions.
And in January, we presented pleadings over three weeks in the Palace of Peace in The Hague. There were intense hearings in The Hague, historic and actually very moving hearings, because we heard testimony from the situation in Cox's Bazar, thanks to NGO representatives. There were some people who had never seen a tarmac road or had taken a plane, and then they appear in this magnificent court building of glass and marble and everything. And the witnesses were heard in camera with examination, cross-examination questions by the judges, and so on. So these were very intense hearings.
As I say, the victims had testimony that was unbearably human to hear. And I think they left a deep mark on the court and helped shore up our case, because we were not able, of course, to investigate the acts on the spot. Yes. We could go to Cox's Bazar, but we couldn't go to Myanmar. And the United Nations Court of the United Nations report, sorry, was our main source of evidence.
So I think this case will be decided in July or August, or at the beginning of the autumn. I know that these things take time. It takes about 6 months, from my experience, for such a complex case to be judged by the court. But what is at stake? First, is the court convinced that the genocidal acts were committed or not?
What are we talking about? About 10,000 people who were killed, who were buried alive, women holding children in their arms, being attacked in their villages by the military, had their children seized from their arms. Myanmar having to see these babies being stabbed and thrown into the flames. Military operations have an absolute cruelty. Are these facts established or not?
The whole villages razed to the ground, and the satellite imagery following the clearance operations, more than 300 villages were razed to the ground, first set on fire and then razed to the ground by bulldozers. And then Myanmar even built some control points in those villages. So all of this is confirmed by satellite imagery. But what actually happened during the clearance operations reported on in the investigative report established by the UN? So if the court upholds what, sorry, if the court doesn't uphold what the UN investigative mission carried out, of course, that raises very serious questions about the UN's competence and also about whether if the court recognizes that these acts took place, the question is, what did this take place with the specific aim of destroying the Rohingya group, the intent, which is a key part of proving genocide?
And of course, this is going to be important. We argued that the specific circumstances in three of the villages proved this intent, as well as if you look at what happened in other villages. The only reasonable conclusion on the basis of the court's case law in other cases, such as that brought by Croatia. The only reasonable conclusion in such a case is that there was the state's intention to commit genocide. And if that happens, it will be the first time in history that a state will be considered guilty of genocide.
So if we win, if the case if the court condemns Myanmar for genocide, there'll be another phase where I've already presented pleadings with the department sending to Bangladesh. There's the question of reparation and restitution in the form of a right to return for the millions of refugees who are in Bangladesh. And we have also asked the court to order this would also be an all time first, to order Myanmar to grant guarantees of not doing this again, grant all members of the Rohingya community full Myanmar citizenship, which they still haven't done because one of the elements we think that explains the genocide is the systematic discrimination that the Rohingya have been suffering since 1962. Thank you. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you for that precious information. This is absolutely fascinating, but we will continue the discussion with our colleagues, and I'll give the floor now to Isabelle. Want to say thank you for this very insightful. I just wanted to thank all of the speakers on the panel. We've seen a great deal of passion in your words.
For an hour now, we've been hearing your very valuable contributions. So thank you so much for that. And on the basis of what you said, mister chairman, I think we should have another session before the end of the year on this because it's been rightly pointed out that this meeting comes very soon after the elections, and we're not sure yet how things will develop. But with everything that we've heard, it seems to me that it's extremely important that we follow-up what happens in Bangladesh very closely because both as regards human rights and the democratic process, we are going to have to keep a close eye on developments. And even though the country is trying to give women more rights, this is not a reality on the ground.
If you just look at the figures in terms of election participation, that is evidence. And also the reform of the judiciary, the judicial system, that's work in progress. So I think, especially after everything that we've heard, we need to be sure that we follow this up. On the Rohingya specifically, there too, I think we have to wait and see what the government's attitude will be in practice, and also how the real situation on the ground develops. It's reassuring to hear that financing shouldn't pose a major problem for now.
That was reassuring. But we saw on the spot the risk of this situation becoming critical. So even if funds have been promised, I don't think they're on the ground at the moment. And even if they are delivered, it's still an absolute minimum that is given to these refugees. So even if I've received a lot of information today, I have concerns.
Well, they may not be going to starve, but I think what is essential is the education provided, access to education for the refugees, particularly for girls in the camp. So I'd like to stress the importance of that and ask about that, and I hope it will be possible for you to answer. And once again, thank you very much for all of this very useful information.
Thank you, Isabelle, for the suggestion to have another meeting before the end of the year. The president has no problem, but I have to turn to the coordinators and their wisdom because they would have the ability to decide the agenda. But I just want you to know that I wouldn't oppose that. On the contrary, miss Nacho, for the socialists on this, I thought you were probably here for the next point, but I wanted to check. Mister Mariani, same thing?
Well, then I'll go through the coordinators, and then I would give you the floor. Caterina, for the Greens, and then vice-president of the delegation.
Catarina Vieira
Chair, I want to start by saying that it was a pleasure to be able to attend both the mission of this committee of Trois in September and the electoral observation mission in February. And on both of those missions, I want to give a big thank you to the teams in the European Parliament, the delegations in the EU delegation in Dhaka, the electoral observation mission, everybody who made this possible, because everyone really did a fantastic job. And, of course, a thank you to the panelists. And it's a lot to cover Bangladesh and the Rohingya crisis, but I'm glad we're having this discussion, and full support to my colleague Isabelle on the opportunity to discuss this again in the future once we have more developments. So if we first turn to Bangladesh, I think we cannot start, I could not start anywhere at the beginning, and to me, the beginning is the youth, the students protest, the movement, the uprising that led to the toppling of the authoritarian regime and made these elections possible.
So now that the elections have taken place, it's really time for the Bangladeshi government to act and deliver on the future that this youth, this brave youth, deserves. In Dhaka, we observe an election that was not just peaceful. It was really joyful. It was really a celebration, and that's not something to take for granted. So it really must be congratulated to the authorities who made it possible, and to the people of Bangladesh.
As it was mentioned by one of our panelists, it was still not without violence, especially in the campaign period and several lives were lost, and that is something we should never pass as normal because that's not normal in democracy. And what's also not normal in democracy is that half of the population is sort of left behind. So I really wanted to mention that a huge part of the puzzle was missing when women were at the forefront of the protest, but they were not in the public discourse during the campaign, not only as candidates, but also as speakers. As candidates, of course, they were very much missed. And when it comes to elections, they elected directly seven women out of 300 total seats.
And this is not only, you know, this is really something that needs to be fought, that needs to be changed, and it is important to mention that this doesn't happen in a vacuum. It also happens due to harassment, through coordinated online and offline abuse, and through AI-generated disinformation. So it's very important that Bangladesh and all of the countries fairly, because also in Europe, we see similar challenges work on these matters. And another point I would like to make would be on journalists. I saw many journalists during the election.
I saw many cameras and live feeds for Facebook and so on. But I also saw that there was a difficulty to hold open debates, to ask critical questions, to ask difficult questions, and fear of reprisals, also for the fact that there are still journalists in Bangladesh in jail right now. So it's really important that also, the government takes concrete steps into protection of minorities, of religious minorities, in the protection of women, in the protection of free press. Because I really believe that the new government in Bangladesh has an opportunity to write a new chapter in the history of the country. I hope they remain committed to the July charter to improve human rights conditions, to support sustainable development of the country, and to find new opportunities for young people.
And I really sincerely believe the European Union will be there at their side in that journey. And then, to move on to the Rohingya situation, I think what my colleagues and I saw when we visited that camp is absolutely dramatic and should not be overlooked. We're talking about more than 1,000,000 refugees that are facing worsening conditions when it comes to sexual violence, recruitment of or forced armed groups, and cuts to food, health care, and education, many of them related to the cut of aid from the US. The EU plays a key humanitarian role. I really praise that.
I acknowledge that, and I hope we continue strong on that. And similarly goes for the accountability of Myanmar in crimes that are being investigated in both the ICJ and the ICC, including the investigation on whether or not genocide claims can be confirmed. And as we've heard from this panelist, these were horrendous crimes that are being described there. They must be taken with the utmost seriousness, and they demand accountability, of course. So I really, again, praise the role of the EU, in financially backing, but not only financially, but also politically backing international justice mechanisms.
And finally, a word to say that what is happening in the Rohingya crisis is very big, and it's maybe too much for the EU alone. So I call on our partners to join us in supporting humanitarian aid and accountability efforts. And I also urge all countries that host Rohingya refugees, not just Bangladesh, but Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and others, to uphold their human rights, including their access to education and livelihoods, and make sure that they're not threatened with forced returns to Myanmar. And finally, as a last word, let's make sure that the Rohingya voices are included in all of the discussions about the Rohingya future and that we bring them to these decision-making tables. Thank you very much.
Mounir Satouri
Katarina. Thank you very much, Katarina. So it will be you, vice-chair. That will conclude the speeches. Thank you.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Speech also. I will be not long, and I will not repeat all the things, but I would like to thank all my colleagues who participated in the observation election mission. I think it was one of the best or I can say the best mission that I really saw from European Union. Very successful mission. We were very well organized.
We had a very open dialogue with everyone. Also, Katharina was included in all the meetings, and I like people like her. She was very well prepared. Mister Storza also, we were very active to ask the question and to really establish very good mood and atmosphere in Bangladesh. It was very important because after all the things what's really in Bangladesh were present here, and what we saw there last 3 years, it was the most important election, and I'm very happy and proud that I can be a representative of the European Union.
We had the biggest mission. Our mission included all the staff of embassies and ambassadors, headed by around 300 people. We include the European Union also the mission of Norway, Switzerland, and Canada. Also, they were the partners for us, and we work very closely together. We work together with the International Republican Institute, which headed their small mission, Commonwealth, and other organizations which were present in Bangladesh.
Also, I have to say that, really, it was very well organized. What will be the future? It's under discussion. Katharina mentioned many things. I think you mentioned many things here, and we have to be very open and really be partner for the dialogue.
But I have to say that all the parties which are present there, they have the same opinion as us that we have to speak together. Also, thank you very much, chair, for giving me the floor. Thank you, mister Sturza, for his amazing work in South Asia delegation because he's really a very good chair of delegation, very open, and all of you would participate in this meeting. As the European Union, we can be proud of how we work together.
Merci. Thank.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much. Now I'd like to give the floor back to our speakers. I was very generous with your speaking time previously. I don't regret that, but I'm only going to give you two minutes, no more, because there are a lot of speakers on the next item, and we're already behind schedule by ten minutes. Go ahead.
Speaker 5
Very much. I think I might be even shorter. So first, thank you very much indeed, as mister Zekhovsky concluded to all parties and all stakeholders working together on Bangladesh. It's together that we make a difference, and the Rohingya is really a case in point. Thank you very much to Mr.
D'Argent for very passionate, very informative for us as well, presentation and all the work done on this. Just one last word, looking ahead from our side. While all these transitions have been taking place, we have also been negotiating a partnership and cooperation agreement with Bangladesh, and we hope to be the signature that Bangladesh will put on the paper this year with an international partner on the political agreement. As ever, obviously, we will seek parliament's consent before the signature of this agreement by the end of the year. And we have, I can assure you, we have a very solid human rights chapter and human rights essential elements covered in the agreement.
So, politically, it's very important, but it's also important for our future work with Bangladesh on a very solid legal basis. So I'll finish with that. Thank you very much.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much. Mister Liddler, online. Two minutes, sir. Thank you very much. We can't hear you right now.
The sound is off. Mister Lillard, I'll ask professor Darjean to speak for two minutes, and in the meantime, we will resolve the technical issue. Go ahead, sir. Thank you very much. No questions were asked of me directly.
Speaker 9
Perhaps what I could do is give a little bit of background, and it's a question that you as members might wonder why The Gambia. Why? I told you the legal issues, but why would they be interested in this? Bubba Gartenbatu, who was the minister of justice. It was one person really who was focal here, a legal expert that was mass minister of justice.
He was trained in London, and he worked for a very long time for the international prosecutor at the international Tribunal for Rwanda. And during a trip to Cox's Bazar, he heard via the interpreters the stories of the refugees. And he said, this is exactly, factually what we saw when I was looking at the Rwanda file. And, therefore, he said this is to have to do something. When he inaugurated the hearings at the International Court of Justice in December 2019, Edmund Burke was quoted.
For the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. That's.
The substance of what this legal battle is in Bhutan. And I think that's precisely the importance of institutions in international law. International law is rules and institutions, and the heritage of the International Tribunal for Rwanda is one individual who worked and had a vision, who endeavored. And if there hadn't been the tribunal, he wouldn't have had this knee jerk reaction to say we have to do something, and we have to move the lines. Many other states could have done this.
You can see a small African country takes a convention seriously, a convention that was born out of the genocide of Jews in Europe. It is remarkable both in terms of acceptance of international around the world. This convention of 48 is of our European heritage. And then during decolonization, this was taken more seriously even than any individual European member state had.
Thank.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much. We will now see if Mr. Lillet's connection is up and working. It seems that it is not the case. I apologize, and I'm sorry that we can't hear you to conclude this point. But, hopefully, in the upcoming months, we will have the chance to address the issue of Bangladesh and Cox's Bazar yet again.
And, hopefully, under those circumstances, we will be able to exchange with you at that time. This point has concluded, and we will move immediately to the next item. And I'd like to welcome all of the colleagues who have joined us in the meantime. Let us move to the next and final item on our agenda for this session. We will be looking at the follow-up to the mission to Georgia 26, 28 May 2025.
It was to look at human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country, and to show our support to members of civil society, independent journalists, and other groups as well. Now since then, the human rights situation has further deteriorated, including the extension of restrictions on rallies and demonstrations and to other public spaces, an uptick in police violence, and the arrest of new opposition leaders, including Ellen Kostaria and Levin Kabishvili. I should like to remind you that last week during our plenary sitting, this parliament adopted a resolution on the case of Miss Kostariat to support her and on political prisoners under the Georgian Dream party regime. It is also worth recalling that the current situation of miss Amaglaubeli, winner of the 2025 sacrifice, and Georgian journalist and director of several online media outlets was arrested in January 2025, mister Amaglaubeli, for participating in inter government protests amongst other things. In August 2025, she was arrested and put into prison.
So our Sakharov Prize laureate, who is considered the first female political prisoner of the country, she's still in prison today and has reported degrading and inhumane treatment that is inflicted on her. Now in this context, it is therefore crucial for us to examine the latest developments considering the human rights situation in Georgia, in particular, the situation of political prisoners, the independence of the judiciary, and threats to the independence of the media, but also police repression of demonstrators. We will thus have the privilege to hear the testimony of Guram Rogava, journalist, who himself was physically assaulted by a member of the special forces during the demonstration in November 24. Very happily, he survived. Mister Rogava will participate remotely during our discussions.
Moreover, and your timing is impeccable, madam, we have Tinatin Akydiani, who is a CEPS researcher and a visiting professor at the College of Europe. Recently, she published a report on the mobilization of civil society in Georgia and Serbia and what these reports have to say about the EU enlargement process. And very shortly, because he is on his way, we will be welcoming mister Eric Dupont, who is the deputy head of division Moldova, Georgia, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan from the EAS to take stock of the US's response to this dig deterioration. Without further ado, I'd like to give the floor to Mister Rogava for seven minutes. He is online, and we are pleased to have you with us, sir.
Go ahead.
Speaker 15
Thank you. Thank you, dear members of the European Parliament. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. From Chile, I want to support political prisoners in Georgia and say hello to my colleague, Muziama Lobeli, the Virgin journalist who is still in jail. My name is Guram Rogava.
I'm a Georgian journalist. For many years, I have reported from protests, political crises, conflicts, wars in my country and from around the world. Ma, as I always believe that journalism's role is important to show the truth, even when it is uncomfortable for those who are in power. But today, in Georgia, doing this job has become extremely dangerous. My case is already used internationally as an example of violence against journalists in Georgia.
During protests in November 2024, I was attacked by riot police while protesting the life from a protest in Pilesi. A riot police officer suddenly attacked me from behind. Before that, I had been receiving death threats for years. That night, I wasn't hit there because I believe in the law. I was attacked because I was holding a microphone.
I was holding a microphone, not a Molotov cocktail. I was reporting, doing my job as a journalist. I, along with the cameraman, was livestreaming how peaceful protesters were brutally beaten by masked special forces officers who had no identification numbers or inscriptions. They looked like criminals and acted like criminals. I was showing to my audience exactly their local behavior when one of them.
I was hit in the net and thrown on the ground. My facial bones and my neck were fractured. For several days, I was hospitalized, had serious injuries, and had long-term rehabilitation. Doctors told me I was lucky not to be paralyzed. The attack went live on television.
Cameron has captured everything, but Georgian Dream doesn't feel responsibility. They say it was a little accident. At the same time, doctors say it is a miracle that I'm still alive. What is important after the attack? There is no investigation.
Of course, if we really, I have victim status, but in reality, it doesn't mean anything. It is just formal status for or gives me, for example, permission for asking about documents from my case. And I asked. If you see documents about my case, it is really a lot of heavy papers, but inside, it is empty. Nothing makes sense there.
It is waste paper just to show the international society that they are working, but this is fake. Freak. They don't do anything to investigate. I also asked about CTV camera recordings. They told me hundreds of cameras, all at the same time, had technical issues during the attack.
Do you believe it? Of course, immigrant knows who attacked me, who is hiding under the mask, because I truly believe police officers receive orders from George and Dream. My story is not unique. During these protests, more than 70, not 17. No.
70 journalists were injured, detained, or prevented from doing their work. Numbers were destroyed. Reporters were beaten. Can you imagine? 70 journalists in such a short period.
It is worse than a war. What is important? All cases remain unpunished. This is not accidental violence. It is a message to us, to Georgian journalists, if we show reality, we are not safe anymore in our country.
Georgia is a country where the majority of citizens want to live in Europe. The European Union is not just a geopolitical choice for us. It is a choice of values, freedom, rule of law, and human dignity. But today, we see worrying trends, attacks on journalists, intimidation of civil society, violence against peaceful demonstrators, and investigations that never lead to justice for us. I'm here today not only as one victim of police violence, but as a voice of all Jordanian journalists who believe that transparency is essential for democracy.
I truly believe Georgian and Georgia's future is European, but democracy cannot survive if journalists are beaten in the streets. And protecting journalists in Georgia means protecting democracy on Europe's borders. And Europe has an important role to play. Your support for democracy, institutions, media freedom, and human rights in Georgia is more important today than ever before. Because when journalists are attacked, it's not only an attack on one person.
It is an attack on the public's rights. So we hope you can be more loud, more clear, and offer concrete steps for saving media in Georgia and freedom in Georgia. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much indeed for your testimonial. You have the floor for 7 minutes. Go ahead, madam.
Speaker 16
Mexico. A lot, mister chair, for organizing this very timely and insightful event, and it's absolutely my pleasure to be here. Dear members of the parliament, dear participants of this public hearing, as we heard from mister Rogava, the personal story of a journalist, which speaks, I hope you can hear me. Which speaks really about the state where the Georgian civil society is unfortunately today. And this is really staggering.
The draconian legislation and the measures adopted by the Georgian Dream violate Georgians' human rights. Freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, as well as equality and non-discrimination. The rule of law is being dismantled in the country. Civil society is being curbed, as described by Mister Rogava. Independent media, human rights defenders, experts, or any related service providers to human rights are under pressure.
Peaceful protesters are met with force. Participants in public debate are detained and imprisoned simply for exercising their freedom of expression. Political pluralism is targeted. Most of the opposition leaders remain imprisoned. There is growing evidence of political persecution, torture, and inhuman acts.
The judiciary is no longer independent, and free and fair trials do not currently exist in the country. So let us be very clear. It is my job as an expert, as an independent expert, to be clear here. What we see in Georgia is no longer democratic backsliding. It is a state capture, and this didn't happen overnight.
Democratic backsliding and the growth of informal governance began already during the first term of the Georgian term government. It was gradual but very systemic and steady. So over more than a decade, the government has dismantled the core pillars of democracy. And this slow erosion is what has brought us here to a captured state, as we see Georgia today. And this director is just fundamentally incompatible with the European path that Georgian people overwhelmingly have been choosing and are choosing today.
And let's be precise. Georgia is not just an EU neighbor. It is a candidate country. So which means that we are speaking about violation of the human rights in the candidate country of the European Union, and therefore, the EU's enlargement policy is also at stake. Now after all the political and financial investment that the EU has been into the country, not only since the country became a candidate country, but since the launch of the eastern partnership policy back in 2009, if a candidate country can dismantle democratic institutions like that and the EU has no effective tools or strategy to steer it back onto the European path, then both the EU's neighborhood policies and the EU's enlargement policies risk losing their credibility, which this basically, having this in mind, I need to very briefly review what has been the EU's action to respond to the situation in Georgia very, very briefly.
So starting with the European Council, that has taken an important step. Georgia's European integration has been de facto halted in the Council conclusions as of 2024. Negative conditionality has been implied. Georgia's financial support that was earmarked for Georgia has been frozen, and sanctions have been introduced against diplomatic passport holders and selected officials. And the latest enlargement reports have been very comprehensive, comprehensively providing the overview of the country.
It says very clearly and very fairly that Georgia is the candidate country in name only. So, yes, I mean, the EU has acted. But the real question is, was this action enough? The real question is, has this action led to meeting the objective? And let's also be clear.
What is the objective of the EU's action, right, to address the situation in Georgia? If the objective was to steer back country on its European path, then the answer is clearly not, because country has not been back on its EU trajectory. It has been moving forward and farther away from conducting its homework as the candidate country and from upholding the European values that are the foundation for the EU accession. So what the EU has done so far has not changed the curves of the country, neither the calculus of the policy. And the question is, why.
Right? Very first thing I wanna mention, it's because the EU has not targeted the person at the very center of the system, an oligarch who has amassed his fortune in Russia and who dictates political life in Georgia from behind the democratic facade. And we know what oligarchs respond to and what they're afraid of: sanctions. And this is where you must go further and do more. It should impose targeted individual sanctions against this oligarch, his family members, and his circle.
Georgian Dream officials, political actors, judges, law enforcement officials, and business figures are responsible for state capture and democratic backsliding of the country. Democratic erosion and state capture, as I said. If anonymity at the EU level is not possible, I am afraid we will not see anonymity at least for one member state, which would not accept imposing sanctions on the Georgian government, then member states should move forward with coordinated bilateral sanctions. That is very possible. Second, given the focus of today's hearing on human rights, and as suggested in the recent IOC report, states parties to the Rome Statute should consider referring the situation in Georgia to the International Criminal Court in light of growing evidence of political persecution, torture, and other inhumane acts.
Third, while we speak about negative conditionality, and it has been applied to the country and support has been frozen, support to civil society, independent media, and democratic exert must continue and increase. The European Commission has announced that part of the frozen funds would be redirected to civil society and free media, but so far, the mechanisms to do this are not in place, and this must change. The EU has experience in Belarus and elsewhere in supporting societies under the conditions of state capture, and it must now use this experience to support the backbone of Georgia's democracy, which is civil society. And you must do so quickly. I think we've been waiting long enough.
Fourthly, you must continue to clearly distinguish between the government and the people. EU has been distinguishing between the two in the speeches, and it should continue. The Georgian people remain overwhelmingly pro-European. They're on the streets defending democratic values at a very high personal cost. We have seen the violence.
We've just listened to Mr. Rogava. We have seen people beaten, detained, imprisoned, including journalists like mister Rogava himself, and like Ziyama Lobeli who was awarded by Sakharov Prize last year, and including opposition leaders who up to date remain in prison, and students and peaceful protesters, citizens. As Mr. O'Govor mentions, today, citizens of Georgia do not feel safe in their own country. After all the sacrifices, the Georgian people do not deserve to be forgotten, and Georgia shall not be forgotten. Because after all, this is not just about Georgia.
It's about upholding the values that the union is built on. It's about the EU's enlargement vision. It's about the EU's interests in the South Caucasus. And it would learn if we could learn anything from extreme geopolitical tensions, it is that if the EU is not exporting democracy, European values, and stability, it is importing instability and the chaos. And if we lose Georgia, that will be the next case.
It already is the next case. Into this extremely turbulent world, with Russia's ongoing full-scale war in Ukraine entering now the fifth year, the EU cannot afford to lose Georgia to Russian influence. It cannot afford to have a captured autocratic state on its doorstep. This is why the EU must do everything it can to steer Georgia back on the European path. Otherwise, the measures taken so far look like an action of disengagement, like washing hands of Georgia, and that is not what the European Union stands for.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 17
Thank you very much. Mr. DuPont, over to you for 7 minutes. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to speak English.
Speaker 18
Bring you to the floor and, again, bringing the attention to the human rights situation in Georgia. First, I would like to thank the two panelists for their testimony. And to a large extent, I think these statements I've made echo with our assessment of the dire human rights situation in the country. I would like to focus on three main points today, mindful that this house is well aware of the EU's product policy towards Georgia, speak about the overall political situation, new legislation, but also the international attention to the issue. Last week, on March 12, parliament adopted a resolution on the detained politicians, and our message remains very consistent.
It was delivered by Commissioner Ochsson on behalf of the HR VP. The EU continues to express solidarity with the people detained. We condemn the particular oppression, including against opposition leader, against the journalists, and the civic activists. We call on the authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all arbitrarily detained persons. Our concern indeed, when you look at the broader picture, is that there is now a systematic assault on democratic institutions in Georgia, which translates into opposition leaders facing violence, arrest.
And we also know that the constitutional ban, which could affect the entire opposition, is looming in the background and may just be a question of time. It's very sad to say, but these tactics are reminiscent of those that we see in authoritarian countries when they want to silence dissenting voices and political opponents. And this is why we've been consistent in urging the Georgian authorities to uphold the basic principles of democracy, including political pluralism. I would like to focus now on the recently adopted legislation and the latest law adopted on March 4, which restrict wind funding and political activities. Again, these laws have shown the clear disregard of the authorities for the rule of law, for democracy, and for fundamental freedoms.
When they were approved, the high representative and commissioner have issued a very clear statement, which qualifies the new legislation. We see this extensive system of state control of our particular activity in the country, the potential criminal liability for the individual entities which receive support from abroad. And our assessment is that the very provisions of this law are the source of profound legal uncertainty, leading to a major risk of arbitrary or selective enforcement. And when you see this piece of legislation combined with the laws which have been adopted over the last years, the foreign influence laws, the foreign agents registration act, the law on broadcasting, it's unfortunate to say, but Georgia has now one of the most restrictive and dangerous spaces for civic and media actors in our entire neighborhood. At the EU level, our concern, again, has been made very clear.
Just in January, the council conclusions on EU priorities in human rights for our made our expectations to Georgia extremely clear. We urge Georgia to repeal our substantially revised legislation running counter to Georgia's obligations under international human rights law, and which unduly restricts or violates freedom of assembly, association, expression, or the freedom and pluralism of the media. We have expressed, again, in these conclusions, our concerns over the politically motivated use of the justice system, the criminal investigations against civil society organizations. And we have also made a very strong point on the need to end impunity when violations are committed.
Speaker 18
Enforcement. Mister chair, the Georgian authorities have done their best effort to portray this criticism as coming from the EU deep states, end of quote. But actually, I think we are not the only ones, and that brings me to my third point, the international attention which keeps being given to the human rights situation in Georgia. Yeah. I would like to make two references.
First, to the, and this was done by the previous speaker. The recommendations of the OSC Moscow mechanism just issued a week ago, which largely echo the concern that we've raised, and I'm not going to go into detail. I mean, this report is public. But I wanted to flag, as the previous speaker did, the report even notes that state parties to the Rome Statute should may consider referral of the situation in Georgia to the ICC, given the growing number of examples of political persecution, torture and other inhuman acts. I also wanted to point out to the European Court of Human Rights ruling on Georgia, which was issued just in January, a bit less than two months, finding Georgia in violation of Article 11 and Article six of the convention regarding acts which took place in crackdown against protesters in 2023.
Unfortunately, in spite of these consistent calls, not only coming from the EU but also from the international community to change its course, Georgian authorities continue to deny any wrongdoing, and this is a way to dismiss the recent OSCE reports as politically biased. And that really reflects a broader pattern of total rejection of international criticism, which we saw at the time of the release of the enlargement report, or the legal opinions of the Venice Commission. By means of conclusion, mister chair, and all members, I would like to stress the importance of supporting human rights defenders in that context, supporting journalists so that they can continue to do their work to document the violations of Georgia's international human rights obligation, but also to preserve the evidence of the abuses which are currently committed so as to build a case for future accountability efforts. My colleague from the commission who is present in the room will be able to elaborate more on the aspects of support to civil society, independent media, human rights organizations. But without going into the details, I just wanted to reassure as a panelist and the members that support to civil society and more broadly support to the European aspirations of the Georgian people, which we know are still very vivid in the country, remains a very strong pillar of our policy in this time.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mounir Satouri
Let's move on to the interventions of the representatives. Who's going to take the floor? You the rapporteur for Georgia. You have two minutes.
Rasa Juknevičienė
Thank you very much. You know, I would like to be as brief as possible because everything almost was set, and the situation is very clear, including chair of Droha subcommittee and our speakers, all three of them. So I just maybe some remarks related to what was already mentioned. The answer on why it happened so in Georgia is important because lessons learned for us also are utmost important. Georgia is not the only country which can become captured as it happened unfortunately there.
You know, my evaluation is like this. Bidzina Ivanishvili never wanted Georgia's membership in the EU since the first election when his party won them in 2012. That's why he returned from Russia with the billions he earned there to change Georgia's Euro-Atlantic direction. His goals and the goals of Russia of the Kremlin coincide, a capture of state, autocratic government. The kind we see in Belarus and Russia.
This is really not only the Kremlin's success in the Eastern partnership countries. And he manipulated and his party, they manipulated the Georgian nation, saying publicly that he is in favor of his party of EU. But, practically, they were doing everything their best, which was opposite direction. And by the way, they manipulated very well here in the European Parliament and Commission everywhere. His people, when they were coming here, they were manipulated as well.
So the EU's policy until the 2024 elections to try to cooperate with the Georgia dream, was maybe necessary, but it was wrong as we see now backwards, just as it was wrong with Putin before 2022. But now the European Commission sees the real situation is good. This is reflected in the progress report. The 2025 commission report, Georgia is described as the worst ever prepared for a candidate country, unfortunately. It's I am so sad because of that, what happened there.
So I have a lot of criticism, by the way, for the member states, especially those the largest member states, they have power enough to change this. So I mean, policy, EU policy. This was already a question in the council this week of foreign ministers of foreign affairs. It's a good message. Maybe, I expect some results at least to change the attitude, and maybe sanctions will be implemented, especially for those who are responsible.
So my everything will be put into our report. We just started to elaborate. Now it's time for amendments. It was introduced in AFET, and we will put there everything we can about the real situation. But, what could be helpful for Georgian people fighting not to be forgotten, and what drew this item on the agenda is very helpful.
Thank you for that.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much. I think Nacho Sanchez is going to take the floor. And then so you presented with the mission in Georgia.
Nacho Sánchez Amor
As Rasha said, everything has been said. I don't want to insist. It was a year ago. Nothing improved. Let's talk about what we have on the table now.
I'm not sure about this rationale, Rasha, about when Ivan Ispili decided that the business driving attitude changed in our Russia. But as a fact, now it is as it is, at a certain moment, Ivan really decided, I don't want to be part of the Western world. I prefer for my business interest to stay with Russia. And one key element that I always repeat, Georgian Dream carefully hide the hidden agenda of abandoning the European path. This is a key question because probably if Georgian Dream had said publicly, we want to abandon the European path, the results even with the rig election could have been completely different.
And then we have to say, madam, Ahbrediani, you have been very kind. You have been very kind. We are doing nothing. The European Union is doing nothing serious with Georgia. And then this joke about the diplomatic passport is a joke.
Everybody has a second passport. And I don't know what could be the real measures to impede the people using the other passport, not using the democratic passport, to continue coming to the fashion week in Paris or visiting their kids in very expensive colleges and educational institutes in France. I went to Georgia one year ago, and we said to the public opinion, Russia, the European Union is ready to impose a real huge lease on people sanctioned not being able to enter the European Union. And we were the people communicating this, and then later, apparently, there was a legal problem not having been foreseen before, and we put our faces before the public opinion in Georgia, say this is going to happen. It didn't happen.
Not only did it not happen, the question for the heirs is why the hell are you not proposing the council a human rights sanction regime? Please don't tell me. We don't have unanimity. I know you are not having unanimity. You are not having Hungary, but at least you are sending the political message that Georgia is completely isolated and only has the shield of Hungary.
Please do it. And we told to missus Kalas and always the same. We don't have unanimity. We have to act. We have to react.
We have to show the world that we are not less than the United Kingdom, and they did it. They don't need unanimity, for sure. But you send the package of the sanctions to the council because the only person able to do is the high representative, and then you will come out and say, this is our stance, and we have been blocked by the veto of Hungary. This is better than not act. Thank you.
Thierry Mariani
Thank you. So I'm just going to say I'm upset by this situation. We are completely blocked. Excuse me. This parliament is completely blocked, and it says, Nacho,
Thierry Mariani
Have had many missions together at the council. Now there have been elections in Georgia where we had Georgian Dream reelected with 74%. We had the BBEDDH report in December 24. What do we read in that? There was no reference to irregularities in elections.
So Georgian Dream won the elections for a year and a half. We are focusing on working against this government. We're in a vicious circle. The Georgian presidency is being attacked, and they're being sanctioned, and the EU is saying, Oh, what a scandal. So I'm just saying, how can we have this fake dialogue when we're talking about sanctions?
We're saying that they've put their assets elsewhere, so what sanctions can we put against them? They're not going to be effective at all. They're going to be as effective as the ones against Belarus or Russia. So they want to be European, but they also want to be respected. They want that not to be treated like a colony.
I'm just going to finish with one phrase. Mister Dupont, a few weeks ago, we invited you to a conference, oh, there we invited people to a conference in Europe, but we invited Turkmenistan but excluded Georgia. Are we being serious here? So Bernard isn't here, but I think there is someone from the renewed group. Would you like to take the floor?
Mounir Satouri
No. Any other requests for the floor? Very good. So Nacho, over to you. Of course.
Keep it brief.
Nacho Sánchez Amor
Sorry. I'm just thinking. I'm closer to some of your expression than you think, but we can talk about it later. We're sitting. No sanctions on human rights.
No real sanctions to the people crushing the opposition and putting in jail the opposition leaders. And in this way, it's difficult to win the elections, Thierry. But immediately, when one fleet of a shadow fleet of Russia approach support, then only then the world sanctions appear. This is double standard. This is the double standard.
We are in a complete anti-Putin orgy, and we are only reacting when Russia is appearing somewhere. But when people is crashed, when the people is used chemical weapons to crash the people in Rustaveli Avenue, we didn't react. Only when the fleet, shadow fleet, vessel approach one port of Georgia, and even later, we withdraw the threat of ascension. This is the double standard we have to examine. Thank you.
Okay.
Rasa Juknevičienė
It was mentioned 2024 election. Look. Of course, manipulations were high. And just after the election, as very rightly, Nacho mentioned, if Georgia Dream would be fair enough to say before election that they will postpone or delay the European path or their membership negotiations or start negotiations and everything, it's the evidence on the table that those elections were not fair enough, at all, not fair at all. So that's why our request in the very beginning to have new election with these new circumstances was very important and still important because we have to know the real opinion of the people.
Are they in favor of the current Georgia Dream path, or are they still in favor of the European path? So this is about the situation. So I don't want us, members of European parliament, to become advocates of those who are manipulating, of those who are capturing, of those who are trying to crush democracy in the country.
Mounir Satouri
I'm just going to move on. For me, the terms that you used were problematic. You were talking about attacking this government, and I think that has a particular meaning. I think having discourse, having discussions can be difficult for the government, but the terms that you used were problematic for me. I'm just going to take 30 seconds.
Thierry Mariani
When we find when we vote for 9 resolutions against a country in six months, I think we can talk about attacking a country. If we were to do redo elections every time a country broke its promises, we would have a lot of work to do. Great. So I'm going to give the floor back to the panelists. This is hopefully, we can have a respectful, we are having a respectful but lively debate.
Mounir Satouri
Of course, I'm going to give the floor back to the three, the three speakers. We have three minutes per person, and I'm going to start with the online speaker.
Speaker 15
Thank you. Thank you. I just want to remind you that, for example, when I was reporting from the protest in Tbilisi, at the moment when the attack happened, I was showing a protester who was coming to the street and showing open hands like this as a symbol that he was unarmed, as a symbol that he was a peaceful protester. And do you know what happened? A lot of these police officers without identification numbers, with black masks.
They hit him really badly. Ten, fifteen police officers together, and only one peaceful protester was showing this picture online. I was always reporting that picture. During that moment, I was telling my audience, my viewers from my TV station, that look how they react, how they act. They look like criminals, and they act like criminals.
And one of them sued me, and he attacked me. So how can you speak now about aggression from the demonstrations? It is fake. You can watch this video about my report, and you can be sure that before the demonstration the situation was really hard in Rustaveli, in Tbilisi, in the middle of Tbilisi. Protesters were peaceful.
But police officers, they tried to, don't know how to say it correctly, they tried to provoke them. Yeah. This is the correct word. They tried to provoke them, and they did it. Yes.
That was the mission of Ivanishvili, to provoke peaceful people who were fighting for their European future. So please say the whole picture, not the picture which is offered to you from propaganda channels from Imagi TV, for example, which is sanctioned from Great Britain now. And, you know, after two years, Imagi TV didn't show to their viewers what happened to me. They hide this story. There are twenty years.
TV didn't show the picture of me. Viewers, the propaganda channel viewers, didn't know what happened to me. This is how they work. They hide the news, what is not comfortable for even Australia. So please look at the whole picture.
Thank you.
Speaker 16
I will, how much time do I have? Two minutes. Two minutes. Thank you so much for all the comments. I just want to start with the comments about the elections just to reiterate that it was indeed, according to the international reports, the elections were rigged.
Right? And we're not talking about every country. Georgia is not in every country. Georgia is the EU's candidate country where the citizens and the majority of the population chose a European future, and they paid for this. There was already a war in 2008 for this choice that it cost, you know, country the Russian invasion and all the commitments that EU has invested in it.
Right? EU could have offered with other international organizations to at least mandate to have a mandate to observe the new elections that should, you know, uphold the international standards. At least it could have offered this, but you just didn't do it. It's about shaping the situation. Right?
About what needs to be done with sanctions. Yes. The oligarch has passed the offshore law, indeed, to move his fortunes to the country. However, that very action shows how much he is really afraid of the international sanctions. And we also see what has happened by the other countries who have been much bolder than the EU in imposing sanctions, and I have the United States in mind.
Also, as Mister Sanchez Amor has mentioned, these people are still keep coming to the EU. They have families who are benefiting from the open borders quite broadly and quite generously, and there is plenty to do here. These are not only those officials. It's their family members. Let us not forget that Bizenay Venice really still holds the honorary citizenship of France and owns several properties in France.
Let's start with this. Right? So there's plenty, and there's a lot to learn from the United States, I'm afraid, because as of now, they cannot really cross the border in the US. US could do it. They still keep coming to the EU.
So there is much to do here, and it's very possible. Now, the other things, just to sum up very briefly, EU's reaction, I mean, what we saw, EU's address, the way you address the situation in Georgia, we saw negative conditionality really applied. And, as an expert, I was you know, it's fair. It's objective to see it. But it's been far too late.
If the EU didn't turn a blind eye on this building, you know, informal governance and building blocks of not respecting the human rights, be it not the last term of the Georgian dream, but earlier terms, we would not be here. And as it was mentioned, it was really the strategy that, believing that you could cooperate with this government was a mistake, like the strategy cooperating with Putin. So that's just really a mistake, and it should not really repeat it.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you to the members for their comments. It's good to see that we can have vivid discussions and still a lot of interest in Georgia, and we are all struggling to look for the best solution to bring Georgia back on track.
But I would like to highlight one thing. I mean, responsibility to change the course lies first and foremost with the Georgian authorities. I mean we didn't push Georgia in that corner, and that should be clear from the beginning. On the assessment that the EU has done little, too little, nothing, I think we agree to disagree. But I mean, the support to civil society and to independent media is an important pillar of what we do, and this has been part of our response.
The fact that we downgraded political contacts indeed, I mean, can see that, I mean, it created some unease and some pain from the Georgian side not to be invited to some international event. But, again, that was a decision taken by member states to, I mean, to isolate ministerial level context. And the fact that we suspended the assistance with direct benefits as a government was also, I think, a fairly strong point. In that context, member states and the ES are looking for ways to address the situation. I mean, as referred to, Mr.
Sanchez Amor, I mean, this was discussed in the FAC just a few days ago. This may come up again in the coming weeks. The only thing I can say with regards to sanctions is that, you know, and as you pointed out, I mean, we discussions on sanctioning those responsible for democratic backsliding and human rights violations have started, and will continue. But the rules of the council abide, and that means unanimity is required. The last point I would like to make in this subcommittee, which is familiar with the mechanism, but regarding calls for dialogue.
Human right dialogues are tools that we have in our human right toolbox. And you are aware that we made some efforts last year to be able to reconvene as is. Unfortunately, the Georgian authorities didn't make it possible to have this conversation. But it's not to say that we have not tried. I don't think that would be a fair assessment of what you've done.
Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Jean Baptiste Lebrun for DG Ernest. You have the floor for 3 minutes.
Speaker 28
See, Monsieur President. Hon. Mendez, I would like to thank the European Parliament Subcommittee for Human Rights for this important discussion and for the opportunity to contribute. Many of the concerns that were raised are actually reflected in the assessment provided by the commission in its 2023 report on Georgia, which was issued last November and which was already referred to. The commission's report reflected a rapidly deteriorating political situation with serious backsliding on the fundamentals of the EU accession process, which include democracy, rule of law, and fundamental rights.
Speaker 31
The report noted the adoption of repressive legislation contradicting Georgia's human rights obligations, a lack of accountability for excessive use of force, political instrumentalization of the judiciary, as well as the persecution of opposition leaders and arbitrary arrests of protesters and journalists. The commission, as was mentioned before, concluded that it considers Georgia a candidate country in name only. Regretfully, since the publication of the report, Georgian authorities have continued to take measures that further restrict human rights and democratic principles. As the European External Action Service mentioned before, earlier this month, the adoption of legislative amendments on foreign funding and political activity has marked further escalation in the authorities' systematic efforts to restrict the country's civic and democratic space. The commission and other EU institutions have consistently condemned the rapid deterioration of fundamental rights and democracy in Georgia.
Speaker 29
Let me briefly recall the measures that were taken in response to the Georgia's authorities' political course. It was already mentioned. I apologize for repeating. Political contacts were downgraded. Meetings of association agreement bodies were paused, and bilateral assistance directly benefiting the authorities were suspended and refocused the assistance on support to civil society and independent media.
And more recently, considering that Georgian authorities have continued to undermine the core principles on which visa liberalization is based, on March 6, the commission has suspended visa-free travel for Georgian holders of diplomatic, service, and official passports under the revised visa suspension mechanism for an initial period of twelve months. To conclude, through their actions, the Georgian authorities are putting the long-standing partnership between the EU and Georgia at very serious risk and are regrettably moving Georgia further away from the EU path, a goal enjoying the support of the vast majority of Georgian people. Thank you for your attention.
Mounir Satouri
Well, this brings us to the end of this follow-up to our mission. Thank you very much. I think in the next few months, we'll have an opportunity to continue the discussion. And I welcome the debate that we had among ourselves. It's unusual in the way we organize our work to have the opportunity of saying what we felt we had to say with respect.
So don't go just yet, because before you leave, I want to make a personal announcement to close this meeting. I would like to thank one of the members of the Secretariat, Santiago Monteregonde, who will soon be leaving us to work in another department. For Santiago, this is the last time he'll be present at one of our subcommittee meetings. He's not going straight away, but we won't see him at the next sub-committee. Santiago, in the course of the last few years, you've supported members of Droit on all sorts of files, Latin America and North America, business and human rights, equality, nondiscrimination, the rights of indigenous people and all the two annual reports, and so on.
I'd like to really sincerely thank you for your work and for the support you have given to our subcommittee, for your professionalism. And I would like to wish you all the best in your next post. I know it wasn't an easy choice for you to make, but the post that you're going to, I think, was something you couldn't refuse. I'm sure we will continue to stay in touch and see one another. And not to let you leave empty-handed, I've got something for a sweet tooth.
Speaker 32
So if ever you miss us, can have a piece of chocolate, you'll feel better. Could the secretariat recall the rules? All of our sittings are public. They are web-streamed. You find all the records.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.