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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
DROI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsMounir Satouri
Je vais donc donner la parole aux shadow rapporteurs ou à leurs représentants. Et j'imagine que c'est toi Isabelle qui parle au nom du shadow PPE.
Isabel Wiseler-Lima
Tout à fait. Je me fais tout simplement sa voix. Donc Adrián Vázquez m'a demandé si je pouvais lire ces quelques lignes. Good morning. Thank you to the rapporteur, my fellow countryman Nacho Sánchez Amor, for this draft report.
My team and I have read it. There are elements we welcome and others we want to refine. Our approach to this file is simple: balance rights with technological development and safeguards with the needs of the 21st-century digital economy where the EU must move forward. We cannot ignore the new world of AI, but we cannot ignore its clear risks either. We will be tabling amendments accordingly.
Thank you and have a good summer for all of you. From my side, I want only to add that I'm really looking forward to this report on a subject I consider of the utmost importance.
So thank you very much Nacho for the work you have done and will be doing and to all the shadow rapporteurs. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci Isabelle. Je n'ai pas vu le groupe ECR représenté, ni même le groupe Renew, je crois qu'il n'y a personne. Et bien je vais donner la parole à Katarina Vieira pour le groupe Verts.
Catarina Vieira
Thank you very much and thank you to the rapporteur for presenting the draft report and for the work that has gone into it. We are very welcoming the report as the Greens group and we look forward to discussions with the political groups. Obviously it's a timely contribution that wants to ensure that the technological innovation remains firmly grounded in the protection of fundamental rights as it should be. And for us AI must remain human-centered, transparent and accountable with human rights serving as the guiding principles to how the technologies are developed and then later used. From our perspective, I'd also like to point out that the environmental impact of AI deserves greater attention.
The rapid expansion of AI infrastructure can bring increasingly energy and water consumption as well as growing demand for critical raw materials. This is something we cannot ignore if we want to fuel the digital transition in a sustainable manner consistent to Europe's climate environmental objectives. Looking at the report, I really would like to highlight the importance of AI's impact on mental health, particularly for children and young people. It can bring real benefits but also it can amplify misinformation, encourage harmful online behavior and contribute to social isolation.
And as the rapporteur said, there's also an angle to the impact that it can have on our democracies. Also another important point that I think will be well covered in the report is the fact that it is creating new forms of gender-based violence with deepfakes, image-based abuse, and online harassment. And it is increasingly being used to target women and girls. So we need stronger safeguards. Finally, I'd like to add that I really appreciate the trade angle also present in the report, the call for an export ban for AI-assisted mass surveillance to countries where they are likely to use this technology to violate human rights, but also the call to include AI in the dual-use regulation in the future.
So I'm very excited to work on this after the summer and to work with the rapporteur and all the shadow rapporteurs to further strengthen the report. Thank you.
Isabel Serra Sánchez
Gracias, presidente.
Bueno, con respecto al informe, en primer lugar agradecemos pues el enfoque, pero pensamos también que es importante en un contexto como en el que estamos, en una situación internacional como en la que estamos, de avance hacia régimen de guerra, de avance hacia, bueno, pues una incertidumbre cada vez mayor, entre otras cosas porque Estados Unidos e Israel pues están siendo una amenaza al conjunto de la humanidad, poner nombre, ¿no? Cuando hablamos de inteligencia artificial, yo creo que es evidente, ¿no?, que la inteligencia artificial podría servir para garantizar los derechos humanos, para hacernos vivir mejor, para reducir, bueno, pues el tiempo de trabajo, para, bueno, en todo todo lo que tiene que ver con con el bienestar de las personas, pero en este momento concreto estamos viendo situaciones tremendamente horrorosas. Quiero hablar concretamente de un sistema de inteligencia artificial que está poniendo en marcha, que lleva poniendo en marcha Israel en los últimos años, que es el Lavender. Es un sistema que, según un estudio que ha salido, en el que han entrevistado propiamente a los oficiales del ejército, permite seleccionar de forma instantánea hasta 37.000 objetivos, 37.000 objetivos en apenas 20 segundos de revisión por parte de las personas, ¿no?, de los oficiales del ejército de Israel, y que ese sistema tiene, bueno, pues una identificación de hasta 20 víctimas civiles como daños colaterales.
Este es el sistema que está utilizando Israel en este momento para generar destrucción y masacre en Gaza, supongo que también en este contexto en Líbano. Y en ese, en tanto, bueno, pues que esto es lo que está sucediendo y cómo se está utilizando la inteligencia artificial pensamos que hay que poner nombre también a la gravedad y a quién está utilizando esto. Por tanto, bueno, pues haremos nuestras enmiendas, pero pensamos que es fundamental en un contexto como este abordarlo poniendo nombre a quién y qué países y qué estados, en concreto Israel, está utilizando de esta forma. Y quiero aprovechar los últimos segundos simplemente para denunciar que Abu Safiya, que es un médico palestino, está secuestrado, está encarcelado por salvar vidas por parte del Estado de Israel. Y quiero aprovechar mi intervención en esta comisión para decir que la Unión Europea no puede callar ante este silencio, ante este secuestro por parte de Israel, ante este encarcelamiento injusto y exigir su libertad y decir que no en nuestro nombre y no con nuestro silencio.
Muchas gracias.
Mounir Satouri
Merci chère collègue, je crois que le groupe ESN n'est pas représenté. Très bien. Et ben je vais donner maintenant la parole à Monsieur Ikkala pour la Commission européenne. Vous avez la parole.
Ikkala
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you chair. So I would like to thank you for this draft and it's a very broad draft covering many bases and many important aspects and it is comprehensive work. I would like to make some general comments first which explain the role of the European Commission and the AI office in particular and the activities we're doing and then I will make some references to specific sections in the report. Obviously I cannot go through all of it because of lack of time. First of all, just a minor point on the definitions or use of terms.
It talks about AI systems, just a terminological point. In many cases it would be better to talk about AI systems and models or just AI because we make this distinction in the AI Act between AI systems and general purpose AI models and often what is referred to concerns models just as well or even more.
That's just a minor terminological point. Now as regards then our international engagement, so we have very active international involvement, which is the external dimension of our internal policy where we have Union legislation, and that Union legislation is an important element in our international engagement also based on the fact that it is based on our values and based on our principles that are dear to us. We are part of all the international AI governance discussions that matter. We have been doing this for years now, so the Commission and the AI Office has a role and a seat in all these key discussions that are going on worldwide. In some cases in the UN system, of course, our coordination is done by the EU delegations run by the External Action Service, and there the coordination often goes also beyond the EU Member States, extending to like-minded countries.
We want to advocate our values, our human-centric trustworthy AI approach. This is a key aspect of our international engagement. And we want to ensure that any international outcome statements, documents, whatever, are aligned with our values and our AI approach. And we position ourselves as a proactive, cooperative, and reliable partner that wants to lead by example and collaborate internationally, protecting our interests, security, and values. And we advocate the responsible stewardship of AI based on values and rights.
We have both bilateral and multilateral cooperation in all those forums where it matters. And we have noticed that we are a strong voice in the international discussions. We do get listened to. Other countries actively seek our views, want to hear our positions, want to know what we do, what position the EU is taking in this regard. I would just maybe highlight a couple of things.
We do coordinate, of course, our positions also between the institutions. And as I said, the coordination also extends to countries, like-minded countries like Canada and Japan and so on. We are actively supporting the UN processes, the Global Digital Compact, the Global Dialogue on AI Governance which took place last year, and the scientific panel. And we fought very hard to have our values represented in those texts. And that was not very easy in the UN context because, of course, most of the UN countries do not necessarily share our values, unfortunately.
There was a reference to open source. I would just like to highlight that the Commission just published an open source strategy at the beginning of June, and that also includes a reference to using the EU tech business offer as a way of propagating that, promoting open source, because that was quite strongly highlighted in the text. I would also like to mention that in all these interactions, the rights aspect is important. Just last week at the Global Dialogue, the EU statement made on behalf of the EU by the Director-General of DG CONNECT in the Commission highlighted also the human rights aspect, which is, of course, the point of the report. Now, another thing that was highlighted in the report was the potential competitive advantage that trustworthy AI based on guardrails can bring.
And we fully agree with that. In fact, there is this misconception, misguided notion that regulation hampers innovation. We reject that firmly.
We think it is actually an advantage and I think there is a growing consensus or growing voices, number of voices which show that some guardrails are necessary. And our third way, which is between the totalitarian approach of China and the no regulation approach of the US, has attracted a lot of attention and has been actively followed and adopted by South Korea, for example, whose legislation is very similar to ours. Brazil is basing its bill very closely to our regulation. So we have certainly a lot of goodwill and following and influence worldwide. So these are maybe the most important points that I wanted to make.
I could go on much longer, but I think I've already exceeded my time. So just want to emphasize that we have very active international engagement. It is being followed. It is getting a lot of attention. Other countries actively seek our positions, want to know what we do and want to coordinate with us.
So we have a very significant voice in the world in the area of AI. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Bien, nous avons parmi nous la responsable pour les questions liées à l'intelligence artificielle à la division des droits de l'homme au SEAE. Madame Kümmerkuul, je vous donne la parole.
Kümmerkuul
Merci. Mr. Chair, honorable members of the European Parliament and dear colleagues, thank you. It's a privilege to be here on behalf of the European External Action Service.
First of all, allow me to thank the rapporteur, Mr. Nacho Sánchez Amor, for this report. I welcome the European Parliament's continued attention to the opportunities and risks for human rights that arise from artificial intelligence. This is an issue that has become central to the European Union's internal policies, external action and multilateral engagement. And last week precisely, the representatives of all United Nations member states gathered in Geneva for the first global dialogue on artificial intelligence governance. We welcome the establishment of the global dialogue on AI governance at the UN level, as envisaged by the UN Global Digital Compact.
This mechanism can help develop an inclusive approach to AI governance globally, amplifying the voices of the global South in a discussion dominated by a few global powers.
In this vein, the landmark meeting last week demonstrated that the governance of AI requires international cooperation grounded in international law and universal human rights, which we heard in the previous session indeed quite a lot. In Geneva, we promoted a multi-stakeholder approach to AI governance and we reaffirmed EU's commitment to a trustworthy AI that is, I quote, both human-centric and grounded in international human rights law, placing individuals, their dignity, rights, freedoms, and well-being at the center of AI development and deployment. Against this backdrop, the European Parliament's discussion could not be more timely. The report rightly stresses that human rights must remain at the center of artificial intelligence and that existing international human rights obligations continue to apply fully in the context of AI. It also rightly recognizes the broad spectrum of risks that AI systems may pose to fundamental rights, including risks to, indeed like Mr. Rapporteur you precisely reminded, some of them are privacy, data protection, the rights of the child, democracy, the rule of law, as well as algorithmic discrimination, mass surveillance, the suppression of dissent, gender-based violence, and transnational repression.
These in fact are all concerns that we continue to raise during our diplomatic engagements. Through our international digital strategy, digital partnerships, digital dialogues, human rights dialogues at bilateral level, but also in multilateral fora like Geneva last week, we continue to reaffirm that human rights apply both offline and online.
Artificial intelligence must be human-centric, grounded in international human rights law, and designed to serve people, not the other way around. Thank you.
Nacho Sánchez Amor
Very briefly, to thank my shadow rapporteurs fellows for the improvement they are announcing in their amendments. I'm fully open to examine every of them, including what Isabel said about the mention of particular cases, even if the normal practice in DROI is in the horizontal report is not particularly point out or mention cases, but I'm open to examine the things in the process of negotiation. Thank you to the Commission and the External Service, thank you for your very precise improvement, including the terminology precision, and the closeness of the approach between the Parliament and your institutions in the risk and the challenges, but also in the advantages of having AI on our side in a world in which our principles and values approach sometimes could be of help to try to create a global governance that has been started to be discussed under the umbrella of United Nations.
Thank you everyone for the contributions.
Mounir Satouri
Très bien. Et bah à suivre, je suis persuadé que vous aurez un travail de synthèse et de négociation passionnant sur un sujet important. Et bah on est pile-poil à l'heure pour le point d'après, juste quelques minutes pour accueillir nos invités au podium et Monsieur Assis Francisco est déjà présent. Il a pris de l'avance.
Bien, chers collègues, je vous propose qu'on reprenne nos travaux avec ce septième point de l'ordre du jour qui est à l'agenda et consacré à la situation des droits humains et le rétrécissement de l'espace civique et démocratique en Guinée-Bissau depuis le coup d'État de novembre 2025. Il est organisé en association avec la délégation du Parlement européen à l'Assemblée parlementaire paritaire ACP-UE et je salue notre cher collègue que nous connaissons bien à cette commission, Francisco Assis, qui préside cette délégation et qui est à mes côtés sur le podium. Je vous rappelle que le 22 novembre 2025, la Guinée-Bissau a été frappée par un coup d'État militaire à la veille de l'annonce des résultats d'élections présidentielles. Le Parlement européen a adopté le 18 décembre dernier une résolution qui condamne notamment la prise de pouvoir par les militaires, l'interruption du programme du processus électoral et le changement anticonstitutionnel du gouvernement. La résolution exige également la libération immédiate et inconditionnelle des dirigeants de l'opposition politique et de toutes les autres personnes détenues arbitrairement depuis le coup d'État.
Comme l'exige le mandat de notre sous-commission, nous avons assuré le suivi des demandes exprimées dans cette résolution lors d'un échange de vues en droit en janvier dernier. Mais depuis, la situation dans le pays ne s'est pas améliorée, bien au contraire. Dernier épisode en date, vendredi dernier, 10 juillet, l'ancien Premier ministre Domingos Pereira a été de nouveau placé en détention. C'est à la lumière de cette dégradation de la situation que nous tenions à faire un état des lieux en se focalisant en particulier sur le rétrécissement de l'espace civique et démocratique que connaît la Guinée-Bissau depuis le coup d'État.
Merci beaucoup par avance à nos invités pour leur éclairage sur la situation. Bienvenue à Madame Montero, directrice du bureau du président de l'Assemblée nationale populaire et ancienne ministre de la Justice et des Droits de l'homme qui est avec nous sur le podium. Nous sommes par ailleurs connectés avec Monsieur Victorino Indeque, coordinateur national du réseau des défenseurs des droits de l'homme de Guinée-Bissau, association membre du réseau d'ONG CIVICUS. Et nous entendrons enfin Madame Jolita Pons, chef de la division de l'Afrique occidentale pour le Service européen de l'action extérieure. Mais avant tout cela, je donne la parole à Francisco pour des propos préliminaires.
Francisco Assis
Merci beaucoup Monsieur le Président, j'irai comme d'habitude parler en portugais et en ce cas c'est particulièrement important parce que nous parlons de la situation d'un pays où la langue officielle c'est justement le portugais, la Guinée-Bissau. Bom, eu queria naturalmente saudar todas e todos os presentes e salientar, como já aqui foi referido, que esta troca de pontos de vista ocorre num momento muito crítico da vida da Guiné-Bissau.
Como aqui já foi referido, há poucos dias ocorreu de novo a prisão de uma importantíssima figura da vida cívica e política da Guiné-Bissau, o antigo primeiro-ministro Domingos Simões Pereira. Olhamos, aliás, com profunda preocupação para a situação política e a segurança na Guiné-Bissau. O que se está a passar e muito concretamente o caso Domingos Simões Pereira interpela profundamente a nossa consciência humanista internacional e creio que nós não podemos permanecer em silêncio perante uma situação desta natureza. Temos, como é óbvio, uma obrigação moral e política de denunciar o que está a acontecer e não apenas denunciar como reagir perante esta situação. A comunidade internacional não deve, ou o que resta da comunidade internacional não deve assistir passivamente aos ataques à democracia e aos direitos humanos, que é o que se está hoje a verificar de forma muito clara na Guiné-Bissau.
Nesse sentido, procurando passar enfim das palavras a alguns atos, embora sejam atos também constituídos por palavras, dirigi na semana passada um apelo ao Secretário-Geral das Nações Unidas, António Guterres, que conhece muito bem a situação na Guiné-Bissau por variadíssimas razões, apelando a uma intervenção firme e consequente das Nações Unidas que ponha fim a este silêncio institucional, que aliás é uma das questões que nos tem vindo a ser colocada a partir da Guiné-Bissau, que é o silêncio das Nações Unidas em relação a este assunto. Dirigi também já uma pergunta prioritária à Comissão Europeia com o objetivo de aferir com precisão o grau de empenhamento da Comissão na defesa do pluralismo e da democracia na Guiné-Bissau e acima de tudo quais as consequências que estes atropelos graves poderão ter nas relações diplomáticas e sobretudo na cooperação entre a União Europeia e a Guiné-Bissau. Apelamos ainda à CPLP e à CEDEAO para que de acordo com os seus princípios e valores atuem com urgência no restabelecimento da ordem democrática e constitucional na Guiné-Bissau. Não poderemos também deixar obviamente de apelar ao Parlamento Europeu para que continue a ser a voz, como tem sido, dos que são silenciados na Guiné-Bissau. A nossa passividade, que estou certo não vai acontecer, seria obviamente inaceitável.
Quero também declarar em meu nome e em nome da delegação à Assembleia Parlamentar Paritária OEACP-UE a nossa solidariedade a todo o povo da Guiné-Bissau. Estamos ao lado dos cidadãos guineenses na sua luta pela paz, pelo desenvolvimento e pelas regras democráticas.
É nossa responsabilidade garantir que as suas aspirações a um futuro livre e digno nunca sejam esquecidos da nossa parte. Por fim, dizer, e faço sempre questão de dizer isso até enquanto português, antiga potência colonial da Guiné, que evidentemente não há aqui nenhuma intenção sobranceira de intervir num Estado soberano que alcançou a sua independência na sequência de uma luta armada trágica para grande parte desse povo guineense. Nunca esqueço que a Guiné é a pátria de Amílcar Cabral, que é uma das maiores figuras dos movimentos de libertação nacional africanos. Não há aqui nenhuma interferência nesse sentido. A nossa solidariedade, pelo contrário, é uma solidariedade direta com o povo guineense, com as mulheres e os homens da Guiné-Bissau que ao longo das suas vidas passaram por circunstâncias extremamente difíceis e que neste momento estão novamente confrontados com uma situação intolerável.
E seria isto que eu teria a dizer, senhor presidente, nesta fase.
Mounir Satouri
Merci, monsieur le président. Je donne maintenant la parole à madame Montero pour une intervention de sept minutes. Vous avez la parole et bienvenue.
Ruth Montero
Bom dia a todos. Eu começo por perguntar como morre uma democracia?
Morre num único dia? Morre quando se interrompe a ordem constitucional ou começa a morrer muito antes, quando aqueles que exercem o poder deixam de aceitar um princípio simples, mas absoluto, que a soberania pertence ao povo e que a vontade popular livremente expressa nas urnas constitui o único fundamento legítimo do exercício do poder? Creio que é esta a pergunta que deve orientar a nossa reflexão sobre a situação na Guiné-Bissau. O golpe de Estado de novembro de 2025 não marcou a crise, o início da crise dos direitos humanos no meu país. Foi o momento em que um processo de degradação institucional iniciado anos antes atingiu o seu ponto culminante.
Importa, porém, esclarecer um aspecto essencial. A erosão da democracia não começa de forma silenciosa. A violência política esteve presente desde o início.
O que se agravou ao longo do tempo foi a sua banalização, a sua generalização e a captura progressiva das instituições que tinham precisamente a missão de a impedir. Desde 2020, assistimos ao enfraquecimento dos mecanismos de fiscalização do poder, à instrumentalização da justiça, à perseguição de opositores políticos, jornalistas, magistrados e membros da sociedade civil, à limitação da liberdade de imprensa e à utilização da intimidação e da violência como instrumento de governação. Nenhum destes acontecimentos isoladamente destrói uma democracia, mas todos eles, quando persistem e se acumulam, acabam por transformá-la profundamente. Tudo isto foi sucessivamente documentado. Organizações da sociedade civil, partidos políticos, jornalistas, activistas e cidadãos denunciaram repetidamente graves violações dos direitos humanos.
Foram elaborados relatórios. Foram enviados apelos à CEDEAO, à União Africana, às Nações Unidas, à União Interparlamentar e a diversas outras instituições internacionais. Os sinais estavam todos presentes. Eram públicos, eram conhecidos. O golpe militar de Novembro de 2025 não surgiu num vazio institucional.
Representou apenas a manifestação mais visível de uma crise que vinha sendo construída ao longo dos anos.
Depois dele, a situação agravou-se dramaticamente. A ordem constitucional foi interrompida, os resultados eleitorais deixaram de produzir os seus efeitos democráticos, a liberdade de imprensa sofreu novas restrições, o espaço cívico reduziu-se ainda mais. A independência da justiça ficou profundamente comprometida. E o medo tornou-se uma presença constante na vida de muitos cidadãos. Permitam-me sublinhar um aspecto que considero essencial.
A redução do espaço cívico não começa quando os opositores são presos, começa antes. Começa quando um jornalista deixa de publicar por receio de represálias, quando um juiz hesita em aplicar a lei, quando um cidadão deixa de expressar livremente a sua opinião, quando a crítica deixa de ser considerada um direito e passa a ser tratada como uma ameaça. É neste momento que a democracia começa verdadeiramente a morrer. Porque as constituições podem continuar escritas, os tribunais podem continuar formalmente abertos, os parlamentos podem continuar a existir.
Mas quando os cidadãos deixam de acreditar que essas instituições existem para proteger os seus direitos, a democracia transforma-se numa aparência desprovida de substância. Falo hoje perante vós como jurista, como antiga ministra da Justiça e dos Direitos Humanos da Guiné-Bissau, como cidadã guineense e como alguém que viveu este processo por dentro. Também eu conheci o preço que muitas vezes se paga por defender a Constituição, o Estado de direito e os direitos humanos. Mas não partilho este testemunho por razões pessoais. Partilho porque acredito profundamente que o silêncio é sempre o primeiro aliado da impunidade.
Elie Wiesel escreveu que quem escuta uma testemunha torna-se também uma testemunha. Depois de conhecermos a verdade sobre graves violações dos direitos humanos, deixamos de poder afirmar que não sabíamos. E quando já não podemos dizer que não sabíamos, cada um de nós é chamado a decidir de que lado da história pretende permanecer. A Guiné-Bissau é parte da Carta Africana dos Direitos Humanos e dos Povos, do Pacto Internacional sobre os Direitos Civis e Políticos e de numerosos outros instrumentos de proteção dos direitos humanos.
Ao aderir livremente a esses instrumentos, assumiu obrigações jurídicas vinculativas perante o seu povo e perante a comunidade internacional. Por isso, o princípio da soberania não pode ser invocado para justificar violações dos direitos humanos, nem para afastar o escrutínio internacional relativamente a compromissos que o próprio Estado aceitou de forma livre e soberana. Soberania confere aos Estados o direito de escolher os compromissos internacionais que pretende assumir. Mas uma vez assumidos esses compromissos, a própria soberania exige que sejam cumpridos de boa-fé. Soberania e responsabilidade não são conceitos incompatíveis.
Complementam-se. Tal como se complementam o princípio da não ingerência e o princípio da não indiferença. A defesa dos direitos humanos nunca constitui uma ingerência ilegítima quando um Estado viola obrigações internacionais que livremente assumiu. É precisamente esse o princípio do sistema internacional da proteção dos direitos humanos. Permitam-me ilustrar esta realidade através de um caso que simboliza hoje a degradação do Estado de direito na Guiné-Bissau.
O presidente da Assembleia Nacional Popular, Domingos Simões Pereira, encontra-se atualmente privado da liberdade na sequência de um processo que suscita dúvidas quanto ao respeito pelas garantias fundamentais do processo equitativo.
Eu devo dizer que eu não tenho dúvidas. Ah, para ser politicamente correto, eu coloco essa palavra. A sua situação reúne praticamente todas as preocupações que o direito internacional procura prevenir: privação arbitrária da liberdade, julgamento perante um tribunal cuja independência e imparcialidade são seriamente questionados, limitações ao exercício do direito de defesa e validação da constitucionalidade desse tribunal por magistrados que participaram na sua própria criação. Mais do que a situação de um homem, está em causa a credibilidade das instituições encarregadas de proteger os direitos de todos os cidadãos. Quando aqueles que têm a missão de garantir a independência e a justiça deixam de assegurar a sua própria imparcialidade, deixa de existir para qualquer cidadão a certeza de que será julgado por um tribunal verdadeiramente independente.
Também outros representantes democraticamente eleitos têm sido alvo de restrições arbitrárias.
O deputado Otávio Lopes, presidente da Comissão dos Assuntos Jurídicos, Direitos Humanos e Comunicação Social da Assembleia Nacional Popular, foi impedido de abandonar o país. Marciano Indi, igualmente deputado da CEDEAO, foi também sequestrado, mantido nos calabouços do Ministério do Interior e impedido de viajar para participar em reuniões internacionais do Parlamento da CEDEAO. Estes episódios ilustram uma prática crescente de limitação arbitrária da liberdade de circulação de representantes eleitos e demonstram a contínua redução do espaço democrático na Guiné-Bissau. Não podemos permitir que situações desta natureza sejam normalizadas, porque cada violação dos direitos fundamentais que permanece sem resposta enfraquece não apenas um Estado, mas a própria credibilidade do sistema internacional de proteção dos direitos humanos. Gostaria de terminar regressando à pergunta que iniciei com esta intervenção: como morre uma democracia?
Morre quando o medo substitui a liberdade. Morre quando as instituições deixam de servir os cidadãos e passam a servir o poder. Morre quando os cidadãos deixam de acreditar que a lei os protege. Mas as democracias também renascem. Renascem quando os cidadãos recusam o silêncio, quando a verdade prevalece sobre o medo, quando a justiça recupera a sua independência.
Renascem quando a comunidade internacional recusa ser cúmplice pela inação. A Guiné-Bissau não pede privilégios. Pede apenas aquilo que o direito internacional promete a todos os povos: que os direitos humanos sejam protegidos, que a vontade democrática seja respeitada, que quem viola gravemente esses princípios responda pelos seus atos. Porque defender os direitos humanos nunca é um ato de ingerência, é o cumprimento de uma responsabilidade comum. Porque a liberdade nunca pertence apenas a um povo.
Quando ela é perdida em qualquer parte do mundo, todos nós perdemos um pouco dela. Muito obrigada.
Mounir Satouri
Merci beaucoup Madame Monterra. Je vais donner la parole en ligne à Monsieur Indec. Vous avez la parole pour sept minutes. Je précise qu'il n'y aura pas d'interprétation de Monsieur Indec, mais vous avez la parole. Allez-y.
Victorino Indeque
Okay, good morning everyone. I would like also to have the opportunity as Dr. Ruth has and Francisco to speak in Portuguese because our official language is Portuguese, but for technical reason I will speak in English. But it is an honor to be here, part of this debate about situation of human right and shrinking civic and democratic space in Guinea-Bissau. New slide. Next.
Next. Guinea-Bissau is experiencing a period of severe political instability and economic fragility, marked by institutional crisis, public discontent and tension between political parties and armed force. This tension stem from a long tradition of military intervention in politics, institutional weakness and power struggles, particularly during election periods. The general election on November 23, 2025 took place under unusual circumstances that culminate in military coup of state on November 26, perpetrated by the high military command for the restoration of security and public order.
These elections were held against a backdrop of institutional breakdown, as the parliament had not met since December 2023, when it was dissolved by then-President Umaro Sissoco Embaló, leaving the country without effective legislative oversight. Next. Next. Let me do a diagnosis of the current situation. Civic space in Guinea-Bissau has been severely restricted, and civil society participation in the country's development process has been tightly controlled, limiting freedoms of expression, assembly, and demonstration.
Authorities, both before and after the 2025 coup d'état, have imposed sweeping bans on protests. For instance, when Poditer Revolutionary Movement attempted to organize demonstrations in Bissau ahead of a high-level ECOWAS visit on January 11, its leader, Vigário Luís Balanta, was repeatedly threatened and persecuted by the military regime.
These restrictions have been accompanied by the frequent and excessive use of force against protesters, including the massive deployment of security forces to disperse crowds and by tactics designed to intimidate activists protesting against the imposed military regime. Next slide, please. Next. Okay. Interaction between civil society and the country's ruling regime has drastically diminished.
On January 15, 2024, protests were banned indefinitely via a simple oral statement from the Minister of the Interior, citing ongoing operations to search for and seize firearms. This ban remains in effect. Furthermore, during a vigil held by Liga Guineense dos Direitos Humanos on December 22, 2025, security forces raided and blocked Casa dos Direitos for three days and physically assaulted two of the institution's staff members at the Ministry of the Interior. Next slide. This restriction on freedom was compounded in January 2026, when the military high command banned press conferences and unauthorized public statements, severely restricting civic space.
Amid the government's recurrent failure to meet citizens' basic needs, expressions of dissatisfaction grew within civil society. On December 27, 2025, a social activist, Abubakar Martins Sambu, coordinator of Movimento para Democracia e Desenvolvimento, was brutally attacked by ten armed hooded men at his home in Bissau, following his criticism of the country's current situation during a press conference on December 12, 2025. On December 28, lawyer Augusto Nasambe was abducted from his home in Bissau and held in detention for an extended period in a cell of Segunda Esquadra in Bissau, after criticizing his own ethnic group on his Facebook account on December 27 for contributing to the country's instability. Next slide. Guinea media professionals have been monitoring and publicizing the work of civil society as a way to strengthen the social impact of their actions.
As a result of this coverage, some radio stations have faced attacks and discrimination. For instance, on March 31, 2026, following a wave of condemnation by human rights organizations regarding the murder of leader of Paterra movement, Vigário Luís Balanta, the Minister of Social Communication suspended the broadcast of 10 radio stations citing no payment of license fee. Next slide. The internet plays a crucial role in mobilization of civil society, enabling coordination, the public exposure of human rights violations, and building of solidarity networks, both national and international, amidst restrictions on fundamental freedoms. On May 20, 2026, the National Transitional Council approved the law on the dissemination of false information on the internet.
For many civil society actors, this law is nothing more than an attempt to restrict civic space and silence voices using digital platforms to denounce systematic human rights violations in Guinea-Bissau. Next slide. Regarding the impact of this action on the shrinking of civic space. The interruption of the democratic process in Guinea-Bissau caused by the coup d'état represents a milestone of political and institutional regression. By suspending the announcement of election results, the military broke the continuity of democracy and undermined the legitimacy of the institutions.
The coup ushered in an environment of repression in which political opponents, journalists, activists, and human rights defenders were persecuted, drastically shrinking civic space. The exclusion of political parties and censorship of the press limited the plurality of voices, stifling citizen participation. Next slide. On the international stage, country suspension from international bodies, external partners froze financial support and cooperation projects. African Union and ECOWAS condemned the constitutional breach and demand an immediate return to democratic order.
European Parliament resolution on December 18, 2025, condemned the military takeover and the interruption of the electoral process, reject the unconstitutional change of government and demand the immediate restoration of constitutional order and electoral process in Guinea-Bissau. It went further by urging the EU to immediately review its funding agreement, ensure that cooperation funds do not strengthen the military command or other authoritarian structures, and prioritize support for democratic civil society. This estrangement exacerbated the country's economic vulnerability, jeopardizing essential sectors such as health, education, and infrastructure. Interruption of democratic process was not limited to an isolated political event, but triggered a multidimensional crisis. Next slide.
Let me do a proposed solution and path for the future. Strengthening democratic institutional and judicial independence, ensure political power does not interfere with the functioning of the court and those electoral process are conducted with transparency. Guarantee of freedom of the press and legal protection for activists and human rights defenders.
Foster dialogue between the government and civil society by the promotion of the civil education and human rights must be viewed as a strategic investment. In summary, human rights and democratic space are fundamental pillar for peace, sustainable development. Without them, Guinea-Bissau will remain vulnerable to political and social crisis. I thank you very much for this opportunity once again.
Mounir Satouri
Merci à vous. Madame Pons, je vous donne la parole. Ah oui, elle est là. Excusez-moi. Je vous donne la parole pour sept minutes.
Beata Pons
Très bien. Good morning everyone. I will probably not repeat what has been already said. I mean, I think the diagnosis of the civil society, shrinking space for the civil society and the human rights have been very clearly and very eloquently already described by preceding speakers and we all agree that the situation is very dire and of concern. Everything from the rule of law to the political repression, arbitrary detentions, pressure on the freedom of expression, media and so on.
But I would add also broader and as Mrs. Montero said, the problem started earlier and they also not exclusively linked to political rights. There is also a broader issue with the human rights starting from the violence against girls and women, FGM and access to justice in general, not only in case of political rights. But I will maybe then focus my intervention on two things, also answering what Mr. Assis has asked us to do. So how did European Union react to the constitutional, to the military coup and the disruption of constitutional order and how do we support the civil society and human rights in Guinea-Bissau? So firstly, let me start by recalling the statement by the spokesperson for the European Union External Action Service, which was made immediately after the coup on the 27th of November, where we noted with concern the developments in Guinea-Bissau and called for a swift return to the constitutional order and resumption of the electoral process and also urged to abstain from all violent action and called to free all extrajudicially detained persons and to respect human rights and freedoms.
So that's a statement.
This was later followed up on by an intense diplomatic engagement, firstly by our ambassador on the ground, but also here we have engaged with the Guinea-Bissau representatives to call them really to return to the constitutional order as soon as possible. Regarding the specific situation of Domingos Simões Pereira, which we all regret, as I mentioned, we first included in the call to release him along the other extrajudicially detained people. Now the regrettable situation that developed on Friday will call for extra actions. But when Domingos Simões Pereira was under the house arrest, we have sent a couple of notes verbales to the authorities of Guinea-Bissau asking to see Mr. Domingos Pereira. Unfortunately, we were not able to get access to see him.
However, we were of course obviously monitoring the situation very closely.
And now that the situation changed, now that there is he's been moved from the house arrest to the detention center, we will restart the process again. We will we will seek to see him under the new circumstances and conditions. And it is our wish to see him released as soon as possible. The other point that will be of course particular attention to us is the announced referendum on the constitution on the 30th of August. And then the the promise so far of the authorities to hold the elections on the 6th of of December.
So nobody can tell for now whether these elections will be held and will what kind of elections will they be. Of course, that will be a particular point for attention because when we call to return to the constitutional order, we do not mean it only in some kind of formal and nominal sense. We really call for a return of political inclusivity and fair and transparent elections that would hopefully give a new start to Guinea-Bissau to to to take a new direction on the governance and the rule of law in the country. Let me finish by a couple of a couple of remarks on what is it we do. We do a lot in in Guinea-Bissau and have always done on on the human rights and civil society.
And actually we have been able to continue doing our projects despite the the military takeover, the latest military takeover. And I would highlight maybe projects important such as project regarding freedom of the media, to promote freedom of expression, media freedom and safety of journalists, as well as combatting misinformation and hate speech. There is a very big EU project regarding access to the right to health, which is also one of the human rights and and remains an important right. And we do have a range of very very important projects related to the access to justice, transparent and accountable governance, and as well as gender equality, women empowerment, gender-based violence, and all these very very important things that underpin the the civil society and the human rights. Now, the question was asked also how does this all affect the the current situation and the fact that we are in a in a military coup situation, how does that affect the EU-Guinea-Bissau relations?
We have decided for now to pursue a calibrated and strategic approach as regards the engagement in the country based on pragmatic approach and focused on protecting our key interests and underpinned by our core values. So currently we are continuing the cooperation projects that we have done, but I have to emphasize really these cooperation projects, it can be about, you know, cashew nuts, so agricultural project, you know, cashews are very important in Guinea-Bissau, empowering women to create, for example, I'm just giving an example, empowering women to start an agricultural activity and things like that. The way the cooperation works is not channeled through authorities. So we have thought that it is in the interest of the Guinea-Bissau people that the European Union does not abandon them and continues to support their resilience, their socio-economic opportunities, and that hopefully gives space later for to have a better-rooted governance and development in the country. So our position is by no means to endorse the authorities on the spot.
We have been very clear about that, but we we think that at this moment it is important to remain cautiously engaged with them so that we can do the things that we are doing in the country, which we believe really are is beneficial for the population. And I mentioned the the civil society and human rights projects, but also some broader other cooperation projects in terms of economic development. I'll stop here. Thank you.
Nacho Sánchez Amor
Oui, oui. I'm not daring to talk in Portuguese. I'm doing it in Spanish. Gracias, gracias a los intervinientes. Guinea-Bisáu ya era una democracia frágil con una larga tradición de intervenciones militares, quizá producto del papel de la guerra en la independencia del país.
Pero como ha dicho la señora Monteiro, las señales estaban ahí antes del golpe militar.
Y como siempre, como siempre, no fuimos capaces de reaccionar. Ni aquí, ni en Georgia, ni en ningún sitio. Porque a pesar de que este Parlamento ha insistido hasta la saciedad de que hay que desarrollar un sistema de early warning system ante el democratic backsliding, seguimos el business as usual. Y ese es el problema de que esas señales que estaban ahí a la vista de cualquiera, no sé si fueron transmitidas por la embajada a Bruselas con el sentido de urgencia y nos ponemos siempre a trabajar cuando ya ha pasado algo que es difícilmente reparable como es el golpe. Yo entiendo la preocupación de Francisco, especialmente por ser el portugués, sobre que nuestras intervenciones desde la Unión Europea en un país como Guinea o cualquier otro puedan ser leídas como algún tipo de cosa poscolonial o influencia indebida.
No, no. Nosotros no queremos devolver la palabra a Lisboa, queremos devolver la palabra a los ciudadanos de Guinea-Bisáu. Es el colonialismo interior del poder autocrático militar el que está silenciando a los ciudadanos. No es ninguna fantasma colonial que alguien siempre suele utilizar en África para justificar las cosas que están haciendo.
Y el silencio de Naciones Unidas y no el silencio del Parlamento que habló y las políticas que ha adoptado el Servicio Exterior, en mi opinión siempre tímidas, han conducido a una situación en que ya es difícilmente reversible. Todos pedimos la liberación de Domingos, la liberación de los otros prisioneros políticos, el que no se aprueben las leyes que impedirán a las organizaciones no gubernamentales implementar libremente los proyectos con dinero europeo. Y estamos en una situación, como en tantas otras, en la que revertir un momento de pura autocracia queriendo ser consagrada en una Constitución redactada sin Parlamento es la consecuencia de nuestra incapacidad para detectar las primeras señales de movimientos autocráticos.
Lo que tenemos que hacernos mirar, no solo en el caso de Guinea, que yo estoy utilizando para hacer esta reflexión general, pero no quiero olvidar que el centro está en un país que disfrutó de una democracia frágil, pero con un juego electoral razonable y que ahora se ve sometido, como otros países de la zona, a un sistema de junta militar ante el que la Unión Europea, en mi opinión, tiene que ejercer algo más que declaraciones de preocupación o lo que usted ha llamado calibrated and practical approach. Yo no digo que no haya que mantener relaciones con las autoridades del país, pero las autoridades del país tienen que sentir que la Unión Europea emite algo más que declaraciones políticas y que emite una señal clara con seguramente algunos otros palancas que tenemos, pero la financiera desde luego. Yo no le pido que dejen de hacer proyectos en materia de agricultura, pero también tenemos proyectos en materia de judicatura y en materia de fuerzas de seguridad, las fuerzas de seguridad que ahora restringen los derechos de los ciudadanos. Y yo creo que nuestra revisión de las relaciones con Guinea-Bisáu tiene que incluir algo más que declaraciones, algo más que calibrated practical approach, tiene que incluir una severa advertencia a las autoridades militares del país que Unión Europea procurará por todos los medios aislarlas diplomáticamente de cualquier tipo de relación que no sean las otras juntas militares que hay en el Sahel y que seguramente eso incluye un examen mucho más cuidadoso de de qué modo podemos estar financiando cosas que al final ayuden a legitimarse a estas autoridades antidemocráticas.
Y que seguramente eso incluye un examen mucho más cuidadoso de de qué modo podemos estar financiando cosas que al final ayuden a legitimarse a estas autoridades antidemocráticas. Por tanto, liberación para los prisioneros, liberación para Domingos Pereira, una vuelta al retorno, mucho cuidado con esa constitución redactada por una junta militar y propuesta directamente en un referéndum sin condiciones para que haya una campaña electoral medianamente libre. Y seguramente mayor consecuencia por parte de todas las instituciones europeas, al menos este Parlamento eleva la voz cuando advierte estas señales y procura que el silencio del que hablaba la señora Monteiro no se convierta en impunidad. Gracias.
Mounir Satouri
Merci Nacho, je suis d'accord avec toi, il faut se méfier de ce processus de ratification dans l'urgence sous la terreur de ce nouvel ordre constitutionnel. Il faut pas que ces éléments de langage fassent entendre au reste du monde qu'il y a un processus démocratique. La vérité c'est qu'un processus démocratique a été interrompu. Et donc nous ce qu'on demande, et c'est pas de l'ingérence, c'est un retour à l'ordre constitutionnel d'avant et un respect du processus démocratique tel qu'il était entamé pour qu'il aille jusqu'au bout.
Toute position autre ne serait céder à la junte militaire et à la déstabilisation du pays. Moi j'ai interpellé l'ambassadeur de l'UE sur place sur la situation de Monsieur Pereira et j'ai demandé que des actions concrètes et des signes clairs. Je pense qu'il y a des fois où la diplomatie brouille le message. Moi je pense que j'ai beaucoup de respect pour le dialogue et pour la démocratie, et on est une maison où le dialogue est la règle, mais parfois il faut être clair pour pas qu'il y ait de doute dans la tête de nos interlocuteurs. Donc je nous reproche parfois, au-delà des actes que réclame Nacho et je suis d'accord, parfois de ne pas être suffisamment clair, sans doute parce que notre parole est complexe sur ces sujets puisqu'il y a les différents États membres et le SEAE et nos ambassadeurs doivent refléter une opinion très majoritaire voire unanime, mais parfois il faut de la clarté.
Sinon les messages ne sont pas compris. J'ai entendu ce que vous avez dit Madame Pons, mais comme on a la chance d'avoir deux personnalités guinéennes ici et en ligne, moi la seule question que j'ai c'est qu'est-ce que nos invités guinéens pensent et quelle évaluation ils font de ce que fait l'Union européenne ?
Est-ce qu'il y a des choses à préciser, à accélérer, à renforcer ? Dites-nous un peu ce que vous en pensez. Je pense que c'est important pour nous d'avoir votre point de vue à vous. Et avant que vous répondiez les unes et les autres, si Monsieur Assis, si Francisco souhaitait rajouter un élément ou poser des questions, évidemment tu as la parole.
Francisco Assis
Merci beaucoup cher collègue. Bom, eu acompanho quanto aqui foi dito, quer pelo Deputado Nacho, quer pelo Presidente da Subcomissão, sobre esta questão, na verdade, que é importante salientar. Evidentemente que nós temos toda a legitimidade e temos o dever, mais do que a legitimidade, temos o dever de estar com aqueles que em qualquer continente do mundo, seja qual for o seu passado, o passado histórico do seu país, estão neste momento a lutar pela democracia, pelos direitos humanos, pelos valores que nós consideramos valores estruturantes de uma sociedade contemporânea. Eu fiz aquela referência por uma razão que tem que ver justamente com esse passado, mas o Nacho encontrou a fórmula perfeita.
Nós não pugnamos pelo regresso de Lisboa. Nós queremos é que o povo da Guiné-Bissau, que lutou em circunstâncias absolutamente trágicas pela sua independência contra o colonialismo português, possa hoje ser absolutamente soberano, como foi aqui muito bem dito pela antiga Ministra da Justiça da Guiné-Bissau, que fez uma extraordinária declaração e que nos fez lembrar que as democracias não morrem de um momento para o outro. A morte das democracias é anunciada e nós temos que estar atentos a esses processos e temos que ter mecanismos justamente para apoiar os regimes democráticos quando eles revelam estar numa fase de declínio. Eu creio que o que é importante, o que é importante perceber o que é que os guineenses que aqui estão presentes consideram ser uma atitude correta da parte da União Europeia do ponto de vista do apoio às suas causas, que no fundo são as nossas causas, que é a promoção da democracia pluralista, o respeito pelos direitos humanos. Para além da questão imediata da libertação de Domingos Simões Pereira, que evidentemente é uma situação de emergência absoluta e na qual temos que estar totalmente empenhados, procurar perceber o que é que esperam da União Europeia, o que é que acham que a União Europeia deve fazer nesta fase, tendo em vista uma alteração da situação política na Guiné-Bissau.
Muito obrigado.
Speaker 17
Oui, oui, Madame Monteros, c'est à vous de commencer, on fait dans l'ordre de vos prises de parole de tout à l'heure.
Ruth Montero
Vou continuar a falar em português. Eu queria lembrar uma premissa em relação muito negativa em relação à situação em que nos encontramos. O país está refém do tráfico de droga e de várias células, ou pelo menos de células que eu conheço, de terrorismo no interior do país, de que nem se conhece a dimensão total. O perigo não é só para a Guiné-Bissau. E esse é o nosso inimigo.
Ruth Montero
Quem mantém todas as instituições e todas as entidades que dão e deixam de dar o golpe de Estado, por detrás está o crime transnacional, tráfico de cocaína e de outros e também de de outros produtos estupefacientes. Tendo isto em conta, eu pedia da por parte da União Europeia, o que disse o deputado Amor, mais do que palavras, disse aqui o deputado Assis, todas as pessoas que falaram, a União Europeia quer ir para além de simples declarações e nós saudamos essa essa esse apoio e queremos contar com ele de uma forma... Eu penso que há duas há duas formas muito importantes que a a União Europeia pode ajudar.
Pode encorajar a CEDEAO a fazer caso das suas palavras, a dizer e a cumprir o que diz. Estamos a falar de chefes de Estado que em dezembro de 2025 tomaram deliberações importantes e sérias para o retorno à legalidade constitucional. Passados oito meses, nem uma das deliberações, nenhuma, absolutamente zero das deliberações foram cumpridas e a CEDEAO não faz nada. Nós verificamos que saudaram a ideia da Constituição e do referendo, numa situação em que a atividade política está completamente proibida na Guiné-Bissau, sedes dos partidos políticos encerradas. Que debate político, que esclarecimento o povo vai ter de uma Constituição criada por quem deu o golpe e que por falta de legitimidade para alterar a Constituição existente vem pedir ao povo, venham referendá-lo.
Que liberdade de decisão, que liberdade, que conhecimento é que se tem dessa Constituição para em liberdade se votar sim ou não à Constituição que fizeram os militares que deram o golpe de Estado. Encorajar a CEDEAO a cumprir com a sua palavra. Estamos a falar de chefes de Estado que deliberaram e nada foi feito e eles têm que ser respeitados.
E encorajar a aplicação das sanções. Quando se é refém do tráfico de droga não é o diálogo simples e duro que vai fazer as pessoas voltarem para as casernas e os políticos que estão por detrás e a beneficiar de toda esta situação voltem para casa. A instabilidade política na Guiné-Bissau é recorrente porque compensa. Quem dá um golpe de estado assume o poder, ganha dinheiro, ganha prestígio, tem como interlocutores altas figuras internacionais e nunca os seus atos têm consequências. Portanto, na Guiné-Bissau vale a pena dar golpe de estado até que alguém nos ajude a dizer não.
Tem que se respeitar a lei, tem que se respeitar os direitos humanos, tem que se aceitar e respeitar os compromissos que o próprio país, como eu disse, assinou e subscreveu livremente. Tratados que protegem os direitos humanos, que protegem o estado de direito e que não são respeitados sem nenhumas consequências. Antes pelo contrário, os autores têm benefícios, benefícios familiares e pessoais.
Os seus filhos têm acesso às escolas na Europa porque têm dinheiro. Eles e as famílias têm acesso à saúde na Europa e fora da Europa, fora da Guiné-Bissau, porque têm recursos financeiros para o efeito. O povo morre. Morre de ignorância e morre de fome e morre sem saúde e morre sem dignidade, sem respeito de ninguém. Eu penso que é o que eu tenho a dizer sobre a pergunta que me foi colocada.
Mounir Satouri
Merci, Monsieur Handem Condé, pour des éléments de réponse ou de précision.
Victorino Indeque
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, in my point of view, the international community has to correlate their action, to articulate very well in matter of supporting the country to overcome this situation.
Because the living condition of people is so horrible. People are living in a difficulty that we cannot measure. I mean that if we don't react in to help Guinea-Bissau to get to overcome this situation by coordinator of action of international community is important. Regarding the evaluation of EU performance in Guinea-Bissau, I think EU is delegation of EU is helping with the project, but they have to reinforce more because we have many civil society organization who don't have condition to implement their activity on the ground. We need more, more, more support.
We need more solidarity because it's not easy to working in this condition in a country that nobody feels safe. This is our we are monitoring this the project with EU Net-C network and then we see how it's difficult to work in this kind of environment.
It's not to get this information at our level, but the people in the region, in the side that they don't feel the presence of the government. They need more support to overcome the situation of poverty. The situation is so horrible. Thank you.
Beata Pons
Yes, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions and sometimes difficult questions. I will comment maybe on ECOWAS. It's a very good point and it's something that we can strengthen the engagement with ECOWAS on it, but we are not starting from zero. We have always asked our ECOWAS partners to address seriously the question of the military coups, the democratic backsliding. So I cover 16 countries in West Africa and at one point in December I had five military coup countries.
And so in all our exchanges and meetings with ECOWAS, we always make this point that you really need to take lead as a sub-regional organization because for us it is also very important to have regional organizations and to respect the African Peace and Security Architecture and so that they take ownership of their governance and their democracy.
And then we can support an organization like ECOWAS. So now there will be a summit of ECOWAS on the 19th of July in Freetown and I have no doubt that Guinea-Bissau will also be discussed but more broadly I think ECOWAS is asking itself questions about its normative role as an organization based on on the values of democracy, human rights and so on and yet an organization which faced very serious very serious backsliding in the recent years in particular. So that's something that we do. Then on the civil society point fully taken as I mentioned we do have a quite a quite a good range of projects covering but we can always try to do more and also reach out civil societies in the regions. But I I also want to highlight that that I think there is a recognition for what the EU is doing to support the human rights in in Guinea-Bissau.
For example, just recently on the 27th of June, the Bissau-Guinean League for Human Rights has even approved a motion of recognition to the EU for its important role as a long-standing strategic partner. So I think this shows that our work is not only important, but it's recognized and it's very close to the human rights activists in Guinea-Bissau. Now, the rest is the rest of the comments are asking for indeed a broader reflection, what kind of leverage European Union has to address these questions, whether it is in Guinea-Bissau or in any other country. And that's something that we continue to reflect upon because it is also our experience that sometimes, of course, the statement is not enough and that we need to find other points of leverage. But just so, for example, you mentioned security forces, of course, we don't work with security forces in Guinea-Bissau after the military coup.
So there are some adjustments that we make immediately to react to this situation, but overall, we then take a longer-term perspective to see what is in the interest of the country in the longer term and also in the European Union interest. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci à vous tous. Je pense cher Francisco que nous continuerons à suivre la situation en Guinée-Bissau avec attention. C'est le deuxième suivi de notre résolution que nous assurons et nous verrons comment dans les prochaines semaines à partir de la rentrée on continue à porter ce sujet et à voir si une nouvelle expression collective du Parlement ne serait pas une bonne idée pour continuer à pousser dans ce sens-là. Merci beaucoup à vous tous et on va changer de podium pour passer à notre dernier point de l'ordre du jour de cette matinée. À très bientôt.
Bien, chers collègues, je vous demande de vous installer. Nous allons commencer ce dernier point de l'ordre du jour de notre matinée de travail. Et nous passons donc à un point d'actualité que nous avons collectivement décidé de rajouter à notre ordre du jour en raison du développement très inquiétant pour la justice internationale. Il s'agit d'un sujet au cœur du travail de notre sous-commission. Et depuis le début du mandat, nous en avons fait un sujet essentiel.
Ce point se tiendra en association avec la délégation pour les relations avec les États-Unis. Nous allons bientôt accueillir le président de la délégation, Monsieur Bonifay, qui sera à mes côtés sur le podium. Ce 13 juillet, le département d'État des États-Unis a annoncé le lancement d'une campagne visant, je cite, démanteler la menace que représente la Cour pénale internationale pour la souveraineté américaine. Il présente une stratégie qui mobilisera l'ensemble des leviers diplomatiques, politiques et économiques des États-Unis afin de limiter la capacité de la Cour à exercer son mandat. Elle prévoit notamment un renforcement des sanctions et des restrictions à l'encontre de la Cour et de ses partenaires, des pressions diplomatiques sur les États afin qu'ils réduisent leur coopération avec la CPI ou se retirent du Statut de Rome, ainsi que l'examen de mesures supplémentaires telles que des restrictions de visas et d'autres mesures coercitives.
L'administration américaine a également déclaré qu'aucune option diplomatique ne sera exclue dans la poursuite de cet objectif. Je ne vous cacherai pas que j'en reste sans voix. Cette déclaration n'est pas un simple désaccord avec une institution internationale. Elle s'inscrit dans une série de mesures coercitives déjà imposées par cette administration à la CPI et ses partenaires.
Ne nous y trompons pas, il ne s'agit pas simplement d'une attaque contre la Cour pénale internationale. C'est un plaidoyer pour l'impunité quand il s'agit de défendre les intérêts américains et une attaque en règle contre la justice internationale, le multilatéralisme et la souveraineté des États de l'UE. 125 États ont librement ratifié le Statut de Rome conférant à la CPI la compétence de poursuivre les auteurs de crimes les plus graves lorsque les juridictions nationales n'agissent pas. En tant que juridiction de dernier ressort, la Cour ne se substitue pas aux systèmes juridiques nationaux, elle intervient uniquement lorsque ceux-ci sont défaillants. Aucune démocratie attachée à l'État de droit ne devrait percevoir son existence comme une menace.
Faut-il rappeler que lorsqu'on parle ici de l'institution héritière du tribunal de Nuremberg ?
Depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, la communauté internationale s'est construite sur la conviction que le droit prévalait à la force. La Charte des Nations Unies, le droit international et des institutions comme la Cour pénale internationale incarnent cet engagement à prévenir et à sanctionner les crimes de guerre, les crimes contre l'humanité, le génocide et le crime d'agression afin qu'à leurs auteurs répondent de leurs actes. Les pressions exercées aujourd'hui contre la CPI et ses partenaires visent à anéantir ce système de protection qui nous protège tous. Ces pressions balaient d'un revers de main l'aspiration des victimes à la justice et à la réparation. Face à cette escalade, l'Union européenne, aussi bien la Commission et les États membres, doivent avoir le courage de réaffirmer sans ambiguïté son soutien au Statut de Rome, à la Cour pénale internationale et au système multilatéral fondé sur le droit.
Ce n'est pas une option, c'est un devoir d'utiliser tous les instruments à notre disposition et notamment l'activation du règlement de blocage. La position de notre Parlement est claire et solidement établie. Nous exigeons une réponse européenne coordonnée pour défendre le multilatéralisme, le Statut de Rome et l'indépendance de la justice internationale. Malheureusement, le SEAE n'a pas réussi à trouver un intervenant pour cette réunion. J'ai bien conscience que nous sommes dans l'urgence, mais la justice internationale mérite à mon sens un bousculement des agendas.
On parle des fondements mêmes de la politique externe de l'Union européenne et de la défense de l'humanité, cela aurait mérité un entretien avec des représentants de notre service diplomatique européen. Et je regrette donc cette absence. J'ai pris la décision de maintenir ce point malgré l'absence d'intervenant du SEAE pour permettre aux députés de s'exprimer sur une situation grave et de souligner l'importance de son développement. Et nous sommes d'autant plus heureux d'avoir une représentante de la Commission, Madame Alexandra Amaro, policy officer dans l'unité sanctions de la DG FISMA, qui va nous briefer sur les mesures concrètes que la Commission compte mettre en œuvre pour protéger la souveraineté économique et juridique des États membres et de la CPI. Merci Madame Amaro, merci à la DG FISMA d'avoir accepté cette intervention de dernière minute.
Je donne la parole, puisqu'il nous a rejoint, à Monsieur Boniface, le président de la délégation des relations avec les USA.
Cher collègue, vous avez la parole.
Brando Benifei
So, dear colleagues, as it was already said, we are here today because the State Department just announced plans to roll out more sanctions against International Criminal Court officials and vowed increased scrutiny on allies who were relying on US assistance if they refuse to reject the ICC's false authority. I'm quoting the State Department on this. The announcement claims that the ICC poses an intolerable threat to US sovereignty and announces the launch of an effort to dismantle the International Court. Unfortunately, this announcement does not come as a surprise. It is a significant escalation of a long-standing feud between the Trump administration and the International Court.
Early last year, President Trump issued an executive order stating that the ICC has engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel. The executive order imposed US sanctions on the ICC prosecutor and instructed the Secretary of State to make additional sanctions designations within 60 days. The sanctions initially limited to the ICC prosecutor only were later imposed to eight judges and two deputy prosecutors.
While the confrontation between the US administration and the ICC has reached a new level, the themes are old. Since the negotiation of the Rome Statute, US relations with the court have zigzagged between quiet support and open hostility. While changes in engagement with multilateral institutions may reflect evolving US strategic priorities, sanctions of this nature and announcement of the State Department go further. They move beyond any form of legitimate critique and disengagement by imposing legal and financial penalties on cooperation with an international judicial body. In leading the fight against impunity, the ICC must be able to work independently and impartially.
This is why it's important to defend the court from any outside interference aimed at obstructing the course of justice and undermining the international system of criminal justice. Disengaging from that approach or worse, penalizing cooperation with the court, diminishes US credibility, reduces its ability to shape legal norms and gives influence to other actors. I can assure you that these specific messages were passed to our Congress representatives when we met recently in Cyprus, even before this latest escalation.
But now it needs to be even clearer. At the end of August, we will be with the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue in California, and I think it will be very important that we convey this message to the members of Congress that this choice of President Trump, that is against what the Congress itself has decided, because it rejected the sanctions when they were at the discussion in the Congress, is a fundamental undermining of our bilateral relations, because it hits on an international organization that is located in Europe and where Europeans are targeted. So I would like to thank the Subcommittee on Human Rights for this further occasion of discussion in a special moment, unfortunately, of urgency, as it was explained very clearly by the chair, and I think this is really a timely exchange for the reasons I explained. Thank you very much.
Alexandra Amaro
Honorable members, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the invitation to speak here today and also for your kind introduction. As the committee knows, the Commission deeply regrets the recourse to sanctions by the US, which placed the International Criminal Court under undue external pressure. We also acknowledge the difficult situation the ICC officials and those working for the court are currently facing. The ICC is not only an international court, it represents a global commitment that most heinous crimes like genocide, war crimes, must not go unpunished. The Commission's position has always been very clear.
Merci.
We stand firmly by the court. And as I speak here today, the Commission is already facilitating measures to ensure that the court may continue its mandate irrespective of any action from the US. Notably, the Union is prepared to safeguard the processing of payments within the Single European Payments Area, which is subject to our European Union law as an emanation of our Union's independence and sovereignty.
As we look at measures to facilitate and ensure the continuation of the court's operation, we are also looking how to make our toolkit more effective. Our strategic autonomy depends on our ability to defend our values while maintaining the stability of our global partnerships. The Commission is of course aware of the latest announcement by the US Secretary of State. We are monitoring closely. We need more clarity on the exact measures that US intends to take vis-à-vis the ICC.
But rest assured that we will continue our work to ensure that the ICC can fulfill its mandate. When we defend the ICC, we are defending the very principle of justice and the rules-based international order. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci beaucoup, je vais donner la parole aux membres, d'abord à Chloé Ridel.
Chloé Ridel
Merci beaucoup Monsieur le Président, Monsieur Benifei et merci pour l'organisation de cette conversation qui est en effet arrive à un moment urgent où l'administration américaine choisit par la voix de Marco Rubio de dire on ne peut plus clairement quelles sont ses intentions vis-à-vis de la Cour pénale internationale, vous les avez citées, démanteler brique par brique la Cour pénale internationale.
C'est la confirmation d'un mouvement qui a commencé depuis un an et demi maintenant, qui est celui des sanctions prononcées à l'encontre des juges de la Cour pénale internationale qui porte atteinte à leur indépendance, qui menace la souveraineté de l'Union européenne, qui menace le droit international dans son ensemble et qui vise à l'impunité pour les pires criminels. Face à cette situation, l'Europe n'agit toujours pas, mais je crois que là, nous sommes dans un dans un moment où quand l'attaque et la menace est si claire et assumée, il faut agir. Nous ne pouvons pas rester passifs. La souveraineté que revendiquent les États-Unis est une idée toxique de la souveraineté qui refuse toute règle collective et qui promet à la fin l'impunité pour les pires criminels.
Donc il faut que la Commission, le SEAE n'a pas pu se rendre présent aujourd'hui, mais que la Commission européenne puisse vraiment jouer son rôle, agir avec l'activation du règlement de blocage que nous attendons, mais pas seulement, porter aussi une parole politique face aux États-Unis d'Amérique, face à Donald Trump et dire que non, la Cour pénale internationale ne s'attaque pas, que les juges ont droit à leur indépendance et que l'Union européenne sera là pour leur barrer la route quand il s'agit de respecter le multilatéralisme et l'État de droit. Je crois qu'il en va de nos valeurs, de notre héritage et de l'avenir aussi de la paix dans le monde.
Mounir Satouri
Merci Madame Riedel. La parole est à Monsieur Gerbrandy pour le groupe Renew. Ouh là, excusez-moi. C'était la mauvaise ligne, je suis désolé. Allez-y.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, Chair, and also thank you, Chair of the US delegation, where I'm a member of, so it's good to have this meeting. So thank you for taking the initiative. And I fully agree with everything that Madame Riedel already stated. This is a political attack. This is not an administrative, technical attack.
This is going to the next political level in attacking the international order. And not only that, but based on their national sovereignty, trying to get rid of the national sovereignty of other states. Because other states, they have the sovereign right to unite and to agree on a treaty that was signed in Rome for the ICC. And they cannot take away that sovereign right of other states in the world. So my question is quite clear.
First of all, the first reaction of the Commission was on spokesperson level. I think the next step is a reaction on political level. And a reaction should be very strong. I heard the representative of the Commission saying a few things that I very much liked, but it's more a pragmatic approach, that we will do everything we can in order to give the ICC the opportunity to continue working, that the credit cards of people who work at the ICC will continue to work, things like that. But this goes far beyond pragmatism.
This is political.
So I think that the European Commission and also Council should react at political level and react very strongly. Having said that, I also believe that the External Action Service should take the initiative to try to get the member states reacting united on this. And not just at Council level, not just Antonio Costa, but also at member state level, that they react united against this, this American attack. And also because we know by now that a soft approach with this US administration is simply not working. So I, yes, call upon the Commission, Council, and member states to react very strongly.
Thank you.
Speaker 26
Merci chers collègues. Madame Vira pour le groupe Vert s'il vous plaît.
Catarina Vieira
Thank you chair. Speaking of political signals, I've been in the Human Rights Subcommittee for two years now and it's not often that we suddenly come together to discuss something. And I'm really glad we did today because this really matters. It's something we've talked about before, but the latest steps are completely unacceptable. And the choice is very clear to be honest.
Either we defend international justice or it's the law of the strongest and the most powerful. And that's the world we live in and that cannot be the world we live in. The ICC is an indispensable pillar of the rules-based order and the fight against impunity. And that benefits us all.
All states, all citizens, all people are protected by it because we don't want a world where war crimes go without consequence. So Marco Rubio's call to dismantle the court and systematically undermine it, it's completely shameful. And it's not just shameful for the world, it's also shameful for American democracy, as Brando said in the beginning. It's completely incompatible with our shared belief on rule of law between the US and the EU. So any sort of political pressure, sanctions, the ones that are already there or the ones that may come, coercive measures that target the court, targeting its elected staff, sorry, its elected officials or staff or those cooperating with it, all of it is completely unacceptable because it's threatening the ability of the court to do its job in an independent manner and therefore it undermines the accountability for the gravest international crimes.
Weakening the ICC does not strengthen sovereignty, it weakens the international system that protects victims, that upholds accountability and that deters future atrocities. So as the EU, we have a huge responsibility right now. I agree with what my colleagues have said. We need to react to this strongly, politically, at all levels and take this seriously as the battle that is worth fighting because it is. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Bien, merci chers collègues pour vos prises de position. On va poursuivre les prises de parole et c'est Francisco Assis qui va... D'accord. Madame Rydel a dit tout ce que vous vouliez dire. Très bien.
Je partage évidemment tout ce que vous avez dit. Je trouve que le fait que jusqu'à maintenant il n'y ait pas de prise de position forte à haut niveau européen est un problème. En vérité l'administration Trump nous envoie un message. Un message de brutalité, un message rempli d'idéologie pour démanteler la Cour pénale internationale mais surtout détruire l'ordre mondial basé sur le droit. Et en vrai dans cette bataille-là, le droit international n'a pas beaucoup d'alliés.
Je ne vois pas la Russie s'exprimer contre cette expression puisque la Cour pénale internationale non seulement a poursuivi des responsables israéliens mais poursuit avec la satisfaction de tout le monde y compris les Américains le président russe. Et je n'imagine pas la Chine faire cela même si parfois ils peuvent nous surprendre mais je n'imagine pas. En vrai il n'y a que l'Union européenne.
Il ne reste que nous pour dire non, nous ne sommes pas d'accord, stop, on ne laissera pas cette administration détruire l'ordre mondial international basé sur le droit sans réagir. Et donc non seulement c'est une question de valeurs et de respect du droit international et de souveraineté comme vous avez dit, mais c'est aussi une question de configuration internationale. Je ne vois pas comment on peut espérer que le statut de Rome ne soit pas démantelé avec des pays qui s'en retirent par peur des représailles de Donald Trump si nous on ne construit pas un bras de fer. Et donc je pense que cet épisode peut avoir peut-être une opportunité pour l'Union européenne de construire des alliances autour du multilatéralisme, autour du droit international, autour de nos valeurs avec une partie du reste du monde. Et donc si nous ne saisissons pas cette opportunité pour exister, je pense qu'on aura raté quelque chose d'essentiel sur ce qui se passe aujourd'hui dans le monde.
Donc si le président Binifa souhaite ajouter un mot évidemment avant qu'on conclue ce point, il peut le faire avec grand plaisir.
Et j'attends avec impatience une mobilisation forte au Parlement dans la lignée de toutes les délibérations, résolutions qu'on a eues depuis le début de cette mandature au moins, voire avant. Et que soit le Conseil des ministres européen, soit la Commission au plus haut niveau jusqu'à la présidente Ursula von der Leyen saura prendre la mesure de la séquence et avoir la réaction qu'il faut et que le monde attend de l'Union européenne. Monsieur Bonifai.
Brando Benifei
Merci, thank you. I think it's very important that we work together as Parliament in giving a clear message that we want to defend international law and we want to defend the ICC. And this is why we need the European Commission to take further action. It should not lose any more time on this and send a clear message because if we do not take action in terms of clearly reacting and also preparing for legal measures like the blocking statute, it's going to be getting worse and worse.
This is my perception. And I have to say, working with the Congress as the chair of the delegation with the United States, I think we can find a lot of support also among our fellow elected representatives in the United States, even those that would not support any accession to the court by the US, but they respect the fact that we should be free as countries that want to be part of the court, as colleague Gerbrandy said earlier, to be able to exercise our freedom to be part of such an international institution and let it do its work properly, without sanctions, without threats from countries that are our allies and should not be doing this kind of actions from the president in this case of the United States. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Très bien, et ben je vous propose que sur ces paroles du président Boniface on mette fin à cet échange jusqu'à la prochaine fois, parce que je pense que c'est pas la dernière fois qu'on parlera de ce sujet ici dans cette maison. Merci beaucoup. Je vous dis à tout à l'heure pour celles et ceux qui poursuivront et suivront nos travaux de l'après-midi. On reprend à 15h. Allez, à tout à l'heure.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.