PDL strong theme of the meeting of yesterday was as usual justice. Berlusconi wants his reform. Reform of the CSM (too hostile to B), short process (you never know, the Constitutional Court in December may find unconstitutional “such failure”), a new Lodo Alfano, separation of the careers of judges and, above all, revival of Law on interception is so dear to mobsters and criminals but also includes very strong restrictions on press freedom. Everything Else (federalism, fiscal reform, and security plan of the south) are just an option, smoke and mirrors.

Berlusconi did not affect the four optional (already present in other government program), he is concerned that only about justice, the only point disputed by Finian puts it above any other Italian citizen, above the law.

No mention, of course, the laws against corruption, reform electoral law and the Ministry of Economic Development to which the Premier still has the interim. These are things that are of “interest”, rather, are things that ruin it (interest). Not quite the time with all these “friends” accused of corruption and make the ridge through cracks and lodges on public procurement. Better to wait and think about how to place them beyond the “communist magistrates who as usual want to subvert the popular decision.”

Everything as expected in fact. Nothing new, indeed, important confirmation on the fact that some gentlemen, the Constitution is only an “unlawful refusal” that the President should stay good and quiet and those who dare challenge the system finds a minimum on the cross and targeted from all over the guns of the press premierina. The only doubt that assails me is about the statement that Berlusconi on his part “there has never been the wish to promote the campaign against Gianfranco Fini. But what was that a joke?
From Free Italian Press

Kian, who spoke to Rooz along with Mostafai, announced that Sakineh’s children had been put under pressure adding that the video film that was shown of her was under duress. He reminded the country’s judiciary and that it could not justify its actions through violence, force, duress and the creation of fake situations.

Mrs. Mohammadi was Beaten

Sakineh Mohammadi was shown on television was shown recriminating herself on television after the stoning court judgment had been suspended by the judiciary.

After the “20:30” program on IRIB which showed Mrs. Mohammadi “confessing” to her crimes, her attorney Kian told Rooz, “They (prison officials) took Mrs. Mohammadi to room 37 in Tabriz prison and extracted confessions from her incriminating herself. But the so called confessions did not take place under normal conditions but, based on the news that I have, were extracted under severe duress which included harsh beatings. Another dangerous thing they did is that they also took video clips of her family members and relatives against Mrs. Mohammadi.”

Kian said that judiciary officials had gone to Mrs. Mohammadi relatives’ house, who were deeply religious, and captured video clips in which the relatives said that Mrs. had committed adultery for which she had to be punished. “Relatives also put pressure on Mrs. Mohammadi’s children asserting that she had disrespected the honor of the family and therefore had to be stoned, this way also exerting psychological pressure on them.”

Attorney Kian revealed that he had heard from his other clients who were kept in the same prison ward as Mrs. Mohammadi that the latter had been put under pressure and beaten severely, forcing her to appear in the self-incriminating television program.

Speaking about the current condition of Mrs. Mohammadi’s case, Kian said, “Our last request from the court was to annul the trial and it had been agreed that they would inform us in 20 days, but unfortunately my colleague Mr. Mostafai’s issue came up. Then, the security department of the judiciary suspended the case, which was finally passed on to Mr. Saeed Mortezavi who sent the file to the security department of the judiciary noting that Maryam Ghorbanzadeh’s case had to be processed first and then Mrs. Mohammadi’s.  These two cases have nothing to do with each other. This way, Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s life is in danger and now that international attention is focused on Mrs. Sakineh Mohammadi, they want to execute Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh.”

Forty five year Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani has been in Tabriz prison since 2006 after she was arrested on sentenced to 90 slashes for coming adultery in branch 101 of Osko’s criminal court. After the execution of the sentence, when the sixth branch of Easter Azerbaijan’s criminal court was deliberating the case of the murder of Mrs. Mohammadi’s husband’s, Mrs. Mohammadi was tried again and this time sentenced to death by stoning.

After the international uproar against the stoning sentence of Mrs. Mohammadi, her sentence was suspended, but the head of Tabriz’ judiciary announced that Sakineh Mohammadi had been sentenced to death in her husband’s murder case. The defendant’s defense attorneys have rejected the sentence.

Mrs. Mohammadi’s son Sajad Mohammadi Ashtiani had told Rooz earlier, “They (the judiciary) had told us earlier that my mother’s case was under investigation and that it was possible that she would be retried. Nothing has been definitively told to us and we do not know what sentence they will issue instead of the stoning verdict.”

Mohammad Mostafai’s Response to the 20:30 TV Program

After Mrs. Mohammadi was shown on television making the self-incriminating statements, Rooz spoke with her attorney Mohammad Mostafai who is currently in Norway and this is what he said. “Everyone knows that whenever someone’s life is in danger, regardless of whether they have passed a sentence of execution or stoning on the victim, the person is forced to accept whatever her captors ask her to do in front of television cameras in the hope of saving her life. Regarding Mrs. Mohammadi too, I am certain that this has been the case. But I must also say that the issue of murder in her case is ruled out because the murder case is different from the adultery case. What is important is that when the relatives of a victim give their consent and withdraw their charges, execution or reprimand for the perpetrator is completely negated. This has nothing to do with the kind of crime that has been committed. So retribution for murder has been removed because the relatives of the murder victim has said they do not wish to press or pursue charges. But judiciary officials are highlighting the murder through the national radio and television network as a way to justify their own actions. My question is why are they not talking about the stoning sentence and do they not announce that Sakineh as asked for forgiveness on three occasions. Why are they not saying that 2 of the five judges have ruled Sakineh to be innocent because of the absence of evidence of adultery.”

In response to a question of why must a person who faces imminent death by stoning be brought before television cameras and told to make incriminating statements against herself. “Why do they not talk to her attorney on television? They claim that I have not met Sakineh, whereas I am her attorney and have seen her many times and spoken with her as many. I have an official power of attorney to represent her, which is in her dossier. I do not understand why there is so much official publicity and what are they trying to prove.”

Mr. Mostafai concluded that if the judiciary accepts his client’s request for an amnesty, none of this hue and cry would exist. “Government and judiciary officials need to know that nothing will move forward through violence, duress, and lies. I do not care what Israel or the US says or what they do. I am concerned and want to save the life a person from death. Meanwhile, some people outside the country too are taking political advantage of this, while others look at it completely from a human perspective and are silently doing what they can (to help save a life). I have nothing to do with those who are misusing this situation.  I love my country. Instead of making these fake documentary videos, they need to take the right steps in the interests of the country, the regime and Islam.”

Maryam Ghorbanzadeh’s Life is in Danger

Speaking about Maryam Ghorbanzadeh, another prisoner facing execution, attorney Kian says, “All the attention is focused on Sakineh Mohammadi’s case while the life of Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh is in danger as well. With the protests that have risen against the stoning sentence for Mrs. Mohammadi,  the stoning sentence for Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh was changed to execution about a month and a half ago. Her sentence has been sent to the execution office and may be implemented any moment. This woman may be killed any time.”

“Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s case is similar to Mrs. Mohammadi’s. She is in prison and had been sentenced to stoning. After all the hue and cry over the stoning sentence for Mrs. Mohammadi, Mr. Nowbakht, the deputy prosecutor of Tabriz sent Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s case to branch 12 of the provincial criminal court out of fear that the same fate awaited this case. The court changed her sentence from stoning to hanging,” Kian said.

Kian said that all he could do was to request that the trial be discarded, which he said he had done. He expressed uncertainty of whether they would accept the request or not. “Unfortunately, the file is currently in the execution office of the court,” Kian said with concern.

Speaking about Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s case, the defense attorney said, “Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s husband was paranoid who is dangerously suspicious so that he would give Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh sleeping pills before himself leaving the house, and he would lock all the doors of the house. He was divorced twice before, and both of his former wives filed for divorce because of his illness. He did the same thing with Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh who could not leave her house for months until she established close relations with someone outside her marriage, who then kills her paranoid husband. I must say that Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh has nothing to do with the murder. The murderer too has been free on bail.”

Kian continued describing the case in these words, “After the murder, Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh takes up a temporary marriage with this person she knew. The relatives of her dead husband however, arrange for the arrest of Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s temporary husband in an effort to deny her husband’s inheritance. When officials went in to arrest Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s husband, they found a video film that reveals the sexual relationship that she had with this man. The judge in branch 12 of Tabriz’s criminal court used this to sentence her to death by stoning. Our defense indicated that these two individuals were temporarily married when the movie clip was taken, which was attested by the date of the marriage certificate that was in the dossier.”

After mentioning that Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh was arrested when she was pregnant, attorney Kian said, “Three months ago, when Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh was six months pregnant, they forced her to undergo an abortion because a pregnant woman cannot be executed. We protested to this in the strongest terms and argued that a gene was a full person after three months and that removing it was committing murder. But they did not care and the attention that had focused on Sakineh Mohammadi made these gentlemen rapidly pursue the case of Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh.”

Kian said that his client had a very low morale. “Maryam’s psychological situation is not good and it has deteriorated after the abortion. She is now in danger of being executed, so you can imagine how she feels.”

Azar Bagheri is another Victim

Azar Bagheri is another client of attorney Kian who has been in prison since she was 14 years old. She was arrested on the protests filed by her husband and is now facing a stoning sentence.

Kian explained her case in these words. “Mrs. Bagheri was arrested ten years ago. We have tried everything in her case but she has been given the death by stoning sentence six times. More recently, they changed her sentence to lashing and the case has now been sent to the supreme court. If the court upholds this, then she will be free from the stoning sentence. Her 100 lashes, however, are to be executed on a naked body which in most cases leads to damage to the spinal cord.”

He explained that her case rested on that “Mrs. Bagheri’s husband owed money to a person. One day he invited the man to his house, and beat up his wife and the man, and then called up the police claiming that the two of them were having an affair. In fact this was jus a conspiracy plot to rid himself of his debt owner. Her case has been changed from stoning to lashes because we succeeded in showing that the whole scenario was a conspiracy by Mrs. Bagheri’s husband and that there was no affair in question.”

Death by Stoning for Kobra Babai

Mrs. Kobra Babai is another client that Kian has. Her husband had been executed in Tabriz on changes of being a homosexual. She herself now faces death by stoning. Kian has said that her sentence too has been sent to the execution office.

According to attorney Kian, Mrs. Babai’s husband Rahim Mohammadi too was not a homosexual and had not committed homosexual acts. He had created this story to blackmail someone. This failed and he was arrested. So Mrs. Babai is twice a victim and so she is in a dreadful psychological state right now and take dangerous medicine. So she too could be stoned any time.

At the end, Kian asked the international community for assistance and attention to save the lives of these four women, adding that there is nothing else he can do now for them.

However, as we prepare detailed dossiers on which we work for weeks but because of the continuous and daily updates fail to finish, it will be appropriate to make a brief summary presents the major implications that this murky case.
Stakeholders – stakeholders are Sparti Gaetano, Italian engineer, a former official of Italy Nalco, Nalco Company Corporate Affiliate. On the other hand is the Nalco Gulf, based in Dubai and also Nalco Company Corporate Affiliate.

The accusations - The Nalco Gulf initially accused of embezzling Gaetano Sparti in association with the Max Goeldi, an Indian national employed by Nalco Gulf, a considerable amount equal to U.S. $ 1,938,834 and had founded, again with Max Goeldi, a company that did the same work through the system known as Nalco Gulf Rak Free Zone, a single, existing only in the UAE that allows the opening of companies and bank accounts without many formalities (we have done in half an hour) and without any control, which allows these “fake farms” to overcome all the checks and embargo, and then all the marketing in any country.

The preliminary investigation – The March 14, 2008 Gaetano while Sparta is preparing to return to Italy was stopped by police in Dubai and the passport was impounded because of accusations made against him by Nalco Gulf. Thus begins the preliminary investigation that in one way or another drag on for over a year and a half, during which Mr. Sparta can not leave the UAE and is forced to live (own expense) at a hotel in Dubai. Beginning to emerge early quirks. The judge in charge of preliminary investigations refers constantly to the hearings and can not find any evidence against Gaetano Sparta. Yet still refusing to return the passport holding it in fact seized. The Ministry of Justice of Abu Dhabi but is not that Gaetano Sparti is inserted in the black list of those who can not leave the country and therefore it is sufficient that the Italian authorities to issue him a new passport for him to return to Italy, plus operation that would be more seen that permitted the long period passed since the seizure of the passport. The Italian authorities however refuse to do so trivial and baseless excuses. Not really want to spoil relations with the emirate of Dubai (which reports will see them in detail in the dossier in preparation). Meanwhile, our association seeks in all ways to make known to the press and several Members of the scandalous affair suffered by Gaetano Sparta, but every reporter and / or Member who asks questions about this story is immediately stopped by “the highest level of foreign ministry “on the grounds of” a very complex case where (even) have involved the secret services of different countries. ” Actually there’s nothing like that but there is only a billion-dollar business with the UAE and in particular with the emirate of Dubai that the Ministry does not want to ruin for a single (small) plus man who had the ‘daring to defend himself by pulling out the truth about all the shady deals that multinational companies can do in the emirate. Finally after a year and a half Gaetano Sparti is indicted on charges of “failing to prevent Mr. Max Goeldi to appropriate that sum (in practical terms is accused of negligence). Gone the other allegations. The passport continues to be detained in Dubai, Abu Dhabi continue to say that Mr. Sparta could leave the country at any time, we continue to ask for a copy of the passport, the Foreign Ministry continues to refuse to do it.

The process – And here we are at long-awaited trial. Here is a premise: UAE Shariah, ie Islamic law. According to Sharia law a person accused of any crime must be brought before a judge within a short time (the average time in the UAE are of three months). Gaetano scores are passed to a year and a half. Without that necessary premise we turn to talk about the process. The court begins the same story of his predecessor employed to preliminary investigations, that starts to continuously postpone the hearings and any excuse. The Nalco Gulf is represented in this process by none other than Habib Mohamed Sharif Al Mula then that is nothing but the lawyer Emir of Dubai. A lawyer typically costs a few million dollars for the whole Malpractice plus very doubtful. But are not the only oddities. Witnesses fail to appear and when they are accompanied by leadership of Nalco Corporate (not so those of Nalco Gulf), so we are at the highest levels. The Summits of Nalco can safely attend hearings and to suggest to the witnesses. The same thing is not permitted to Italian consular representative who is forced to wait outside the classroom. Why? In any case after a year you come to the decision. It must be said that no charges against Mr. Gaetano Sparti been proven, however, after all this time that Mr. Gaetano was kept sequestered could hardly let him go with apologies, that is sentenced to three months for negligence. Note that the same penalty was saddled Goeldi Max, however, be properly accused of over one million dollars. Why?

The appeal – At this point Mr. Gaetano Sparti initially decided not to appeal and serve his sentence of three months. His reasoning is simple: three months, and I’m going home. If I make the call keep me here for another year. Just one might think. But no. The lawyer of Mr. Sparta explains that Nalco could seek civil damages of several million dollars, according to UAE laws, until Mr. Sparta has not paid should remain in prison. So is trapped. So you decide to make the call. Important Note: Three days after the ruling Mr. Gaetano Sparti be informed in writing that can not leave the country, that his name was entered into that famous black list where not there before and that was why we asked a copy of your passport at the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry itself has always been inexplicably refused to do. Why?

The reason for the whole story – hard to explain in a few lines because all of this sordid story that involves an Italian. For this reason we decided to prepare the dossier. However we want to give a preview, just to not leave the reader empty-handed. First of all, who is the Nalco? The Nalco is an American multinational corporation with offices worldwide and quoted that produces and sells products related to the oil sector and that of water purification. In fact, the activities and connections of Nalco are many more, but as I said we’ll talk about the issue. Just to give a small preview we refer to this article on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and tell you a little background regarding BP, Nalco, and incredible, Goldman Sachs and that should make the idea of power this multinational. You must know that Goldman Sachs was a shareholder, along with a cartel of six other owners of the Federal Reserve (the bank that governs the U.S. dollar), BP. Shortly before the disaster to happen (by chance) Goldman Sachs sells almost all its shares in BP (4.68 million out of 6) for a total of 276 million dollars. Okay you say, nothing strange. But you know what does he do with that money to Goldman Sachs? Nalco invests them all on that, coincidentally, just weeks after cashing millions of dollars with its product called “Corexit” which is used (wrongly) to clean up the damage caused by BP in the Gulf of Mexico. Foresight? Doubt it. We have told this little episode (one of many) just shows how we are interests behind Nalco, interests (directly or through affiliates) also involve different “personalities Italian” the highest level. How could objectively claim that someone intervene to Mr. Gaetano Sparti where there is the other side Nalco, Goldman Sachs, the emir of Dubai, a system to bypass the embargo that earns millions of dollars to a lot of people including “tall Italian characters? Do you understand now why all those who have highlighted? Understand why despite the promises made to Mr.. Gaetano Sparta was not even allowed access to the support fund of the Consulate General in Dubai, although this happens to any Italian citizen who is in trouble abroad? They simply and deliberately isolated and seized with the aim not to return to Italy. The reasons for this choice are many and perhaps all valid when viewed by the person who does business with this gang. But now the case of Gaetano Sparta becomes an international case and if anyone thinks it can be left to rot in Dubai is really big mistake. From today, all nodes will be to comb. Then see what heads will fall first. Meanwhile for those who wish to read other interesting little things on this matter may do so by following this discussion on our forum (need to be able to read a simple registration.)

The reasons for our request are as follows:

1 – Ashton speaking on behalf of the entire European Union calls for the full opening (men and material) of the crossings into Gaza by Israel knowing that such an eventuality would allow Hamas terrorists to infiltrate Israel to carry out bombings and to enter the Gaza Strip for use in war materials and weapons of all kinds. Ashton’s position is even more irresponsible because the terrorist group that controls the Gaza Strip has made no secret of wanting to destroy Israel. It is clear from this that the request of Ashton is deliberately designed to encourage Hamas and so the potential destruction of the Jewish state. I do not believe that this is the position of the European Union.

2 – Ashton has deliberately avoided any mention of the continuing violations of fundamental human rights perpetrated by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. According to the summary that says “silence”, one can only interpret this behavior as a clear agreement as to the repressive policies of Hamas. What is in total disagreement with the policies and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

3 – Ashton entirely personal opinions expressed by pretending to be a common European

4 – with his statements Ashton openly supports the policy of Hamas, we recall, is considered by the European Union that she is a terrorist group

5 – now in his numerous visits to Ashton was never interested in development projects in the Gaza Strip financed by European funds and usurped by Hamas, in fact, propose new and more appropriate funding knowing that these funds will end in the hands of terrorist group . The Ashton has never even bothered to ask the NGOs of the ECHO (the most serious) why the projects submitted to them were never implemented and the reasons why the funds bestowed by ECHO bounces to the impossibility to implement these projects because of opposition from Hamas in any development project.

6 – Ashton’s visit in July 18 he visited the summer camps UNRWA (the UN agency for Palestinian refugees) for the youth of Gaza, expressing “satisfaction” for their work in these fields, but did not said a word or expressed conviction on the two camps run by UNRWA always destroyed by Hamas to mixed (boys and girls) did not express any words of condemnation for NGOs devastated and then expelled in recent days by Hamas proving once again that his line is to support the terrorist movement.

7 – Ashton finally has asked to see the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, as requested by many, simply to “whisper” a general request for release. The European Union, whose representative is Ashton, but had expressed a “firm conviction” and had asked at least one visit to the International Red Cross to Corporal Shalit. None of this has been asked by Ashton.

For these reasons and because of statements made by Catherine Ashton in recent months, statements, all focused on support to Hamas (and not the Palestinians) ask the European Union, the registries, the Italian Foreign Minister and MEPs elected for the ‘Italy, to request the immediate removal of Catherine Ashton from the role of High Representative for European foreign policy as blatantly inconsistent with the views expressed repeatedly on the issue of the Middle East by the European Union. Hamas is a terrorist group taking hostages 1.5 million Palestinians and violates basic human rights every day. Europe can not have a foreign minister (or equivalent), which openly supports this terrorist group.

Request sent to the President of the European Commission for Foreign Affairs, Gabriele Albertini, the vice presidents, Fiorello Provera (Italy), Ioan Mircea Pascu (Romania), Dominique Baudis (France) and Jean-Luc Mélenchon (France) and by petition (here link) to the European Parliament.

Following are some details of the sanctions imposed on Iran by the United Nations, the United States and the European Union:

* U.S. SANCTIONS:

– Sanctions imposed after Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy and took diplomats hostage in 1979 included a ban on most U.S.-Iran trade.

– Goods or services from Iran cannot be imported into the United States, either directly or through third countries, with the following exceptions: gifts valued at $100 or less; information or informational materials; foodstuffs intended for human consumption; certain carpets and other textile floor coverings and carpets used as wall hangings.

– In 1995, President Bill Clinton issued executive orders preventing U.S. companies from investing in Iranian oil and gas and trading with Iran. Tehran has looked for other customers.

– The same year, Congress passed a law requiring the U.S. government to impose sanctions on foreign firms investing more than $20 million a year in Iran’s energy sector. It was extended for five years in September 2006. No foreign firms have yet been penalised, though many have severely curtailed their operations in Iran.

– In October 2007 Washington imposed sanctions on Bank Melli, Bank Mellat and Bank Saderat and branded the Revolutionary Guards a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. In October 2009, the Treasury also sanctioned Bank Mellat in Malaysia and its chairman.

– The Treasury this month added Post Bank of Iran to its list of specially designated proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. It is the 16th bank in Iran that Washington has sought to cut off from the international financial system.

– The Treasury has identified some 20 petroleum and petrochemical companies as being under Iranian government control — an action that puts them off limits to U.S. businesses under a general trade embargo.

– Congress approved on June 24 tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran’s energy and banking sectors, which could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran.

– The legislation will sanction companies for supplying Iran with refined petroleum products with a fair market value exceeding $1 million or that during a 12-month period have an aggregate fair market value of $5 million or more. Companies that fail to abide by the sanctions will face tough penalties, such as being banned from the U.S. financial system or being denied US contracts.

– The legislation also imposes sanctions on international banking institutions involved with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, its nuclear programme or what Washington calls its support for terrorist activity. It effectively deprives foreign banks of access to the U.S. financial system if they do business with key Iranian banks or the Revolutionary Guards. — U.S. sanctions against Iran can be found on the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control website: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/iran/iran.shtml and http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2194/text

* U.N. SANCTIONS:

– The Security Council has imposed four sets of sanctions on Iran, in December 2006, March 2007, March 2008 and June 2010.

– The first covered sensitive nuclear materials and froze the assets of Iranian individuals and companies linked with the nuclear programme. It gave Iran 60 days to suspend uranium enrichment, a deadline Iran ignored.

– The second included new arms and financial sanctions. It extended an asset freeze to 28 more groups, companies and individuals engaged in or supporting sensitive nuclear work or development of ballistic missiles, including the state-run Bank Sepah and firms controlled by the Revolutionary Guards.

– The resolution invoked Chapter 7, Article 41 of the U.N. Charter, making most of its provisions mandatory but excluding military action. Iran again ignored an order to halt enrichment.

– The third measure increased travel and financial curbs on individuals and companies and made some of them mandatory. It expanded a partial ban on trade in items with both civilian and military uses to cover sales of all such technology to Iran, and added 13 individuals and 12 companies to the list of those suspected of aiding Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes. In September 2008, the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution again ordering Iran to halt enrichment. Iran again disregarded the order.

– The Security Council resolution passed on June 9 called for measures against new Iranian banks abroad if a connection to the nuclear or missile programmes is suspected, as well as vigilance over transactions with any Iranian bank, including the central bank.

– It also expanded a U.N. arms embargo against Tehran and blacklisted three firms controlled by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and 15 belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The resolution also called for setting up a cargo inspection regime similar to one in place for North Korea.

– Annexed to the draft resolution was a list of 40 companies to be added to an existing U.N. blacklist of firms.

* EU SANCTIONS

– The EU has imposed visa bans on senior officials such as Revolutionary Guards chief Mohammad Ali Jafari, former Defence Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar and former atomic energy chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh, and on top nuclear and ballistic experts.

– Britain announced last October it was freezing business ties with Bank Mellat and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, both of which have previously faced sanctions from the United States. Britain cited fears they were involved in helping Iran develop nuclear weapons.

– New sanctions, which EU leaders agreed in June, will focus on trade, Iran’s transport sector, and key sectors of the gas and oil industry.

– Energy sector sanctions would prohibit “new investment, technical assistance and transfers of technologies, equipment and services related to these areas, in particular related to refining, liquefaction and liquefied natural gas technology”.

But let’s calm and do a little background: Yesterday, after two years and three months of actual kidnapping and after continuous and repeated insistence, the court in Dubai sentenced to death by Gaetano Sparti three months. I do not know if you realize. An Italian citizen was held hostage for over two years without anyone moving a finger for an offense (committed to nothing, but that’s another story) that has been sentenced to three months. Like we call this? Nonsense? Mala justice UAE? A spectacular miscarriage of justice? Or do we call it for what it is, that the clumsy but effective attempt to ruin a person and his unassailable reputation to make it harmless? Here’s what it is, nothing more, nothing less. Of course, I realize that I can not sum up in two rows or in a long article, do not tell a story like this in a nutshell. For this we are drawing up a very detailed report that tells the whole story and we will publish as soon as possible. Meanwhile, what we want is to know to whom it may concern that no one is stupid and that it is far from completed. If they wanted to turn in case of Gaetano Sparti an international case, well, some people know that they did it.

Meanwhile, when I write a detailed dossier about to leave for the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and the FBI. The first is the body that controls the American Stock Exchange, while the second one we all know who that is. The SEC is concerned because the company that is upstream of this case, the Nalco Company Corporate is listed (there are some interesting news item), while the FBI is concerned that because the company has made quite the vixen in these years . We say that the American law is particularly harsh with those who violate the embargo considered rogue countries like Cuba, Sudan and Iran. But it does not end here. Now that we want also to reveal how the system used in the UAE to evade and circumvent the rules on the embargo imposed by the international community, that little-system called “Rak Free Zone” that allows many companies around the world trade products with prohibited embargoed countries without appearing. Emirs can announce what they want to have put the seized accounts of those companies who trade with Iran to comply with new UN sanctions, to end with this system will affect only 2% of these companies and they know very well. Now we will devote the next few days a nice confirmation report is very detailed, complete with opening of a ghost company and a UAE account at a bank. But it would not be complete if we did not speak also of Italian companies and Italian characters (top-thickness) in various capacities that are involved in this matter, not because it directly involved but because the holders of securities or investments in companies doing part of the circuit oil and energy which are instead involved in this whirlwind tour of interest. If someone asked favors for these people will find out and denounce. If you put self-interest (or national), the right of an Italian citizen, will find out and accuse him without any discounts.

And then there is the behavior of the Italian Institutions. May 11 th 2010 the President of the Republic, through the ambassador Rocco Antonio Cangelosi, following one letter of mine he answered me regarding the case of Gaetano Spartì. It was not the usual letter of circumstance but it underlined, through different passages, that the Presidency of the Republic was indeed interested near the Office of the Foreign Affairs of the story, which it goes everything for the President Napolitano. If not that it also underlined another thing, that is that also with the Presidency of the Republic the MAE had been very evasive, not to say of worse. It was first of all said that the MAE affirmed to have, through the embassy of Abu Dhabi and the General Consulate of Dubai, continuous contacts with the authorities emiratine to arrive to one, textually quotes, “rapids solution of the matter.” To speak of rapids solution after two years of sequestration seems me inopportune. And then, from our contacts with the Office of the Justice of the United Arabic Emirates, it doesn’t result us there has been never some pressure for a rapids solution of the case. You will say, justly, that Italy cannot interfere with the justice of a third State. Correct, provided that the most elementary fundamental Rights of an Italian citizen are not stamped on. In the kind letter of the Presidency of the Republic, he also affirmed that the embassy he was also concerned of, I textually quote, “to verify the state of health (of Gaetano Spartì n.d.r.) through his own physician of trust.”  Far from it. Gaetano  Sparti, which is really dramatic health conditions, was provided the name of a physician who then had to pay the same score of his own pocket (although later reimbursed), who had prescribed some tests but not never been made as deemed by the Italian authorities “too expensive”. Now, I do not know what exactly lie to the President, but I confess that it makes quite an impression.

Finished here? No, I still have a few things to say about Italian institutions. On May 31, 2010 I write in response to my letter, Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. Minister proves to be well informed about the case from the beginning. However also demonstrates that, like the President, is not informed either the current health of Gaetano Sparti (he also says that investigations have been made), nor on the current charges. In short, while confirming the continued involvement also confirms that I was on two years ago. So much! But what does annoy me most is the fact that only a few days later (May 14), the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is working personally with Libya for the release of a Swiss citizen, that Max Goeldi, even He seized more than two years as Gaetano Sparti. But how – I wonder – we beg assistance from the Italian government in favor of an Italian citizen and the prime minister is working for a Swiss? Absurd and humiliating at the same time.

Now, what I wanted to get those who are behind this whole thing they got: a decent man made harmless by destroying it morally, physically and psychologically, and doing so (spending millions of dollars) that was to pay for something that never made but somehow made him “unreliable”. But what did not calculate is the ultimate determination of this person, Gaetano Sparti, in obtaining justice. I firmly believe that the role of Gaetano Sparti has been greatly overestimated and that there was a danger to anyone. This before being sequestered for over two years and finally condemned unjustly. But now things have changed. They wanted an international incident? Well, now we have it.

Franco Londei

Mr. Tandar and thousands of others forced out of their homes while remaining in their countries are known as internally displaced persons (IDPs). They are the forgotten victims of a protracted low-intensity conflict. Fear, loss, need and a dispiriting feeling of being in exile in their own land have been their lot for nearly two decades. But these people are hardly the only ones living through such an ordeal. Across Africa nearly 12 million persons (almost half the world’s IDP population) share the same plight, according to estimates by the United Nations and the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), the leading independent body on the issue, which works closely with the UN.*

There are fundamental differences between IDPs, whose displacement takes place within the borders of their country, and refugees, who seek shelter in another country. Africa is home to around 3 million refugees protected under international laws by the 1951 UN Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1969 Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. Under the Geneva Convention the international community is obliged to protect and assist refugees, including with shelter, food and medical help. The UN has a central institution dedicated to carrying out that comprehensive mandate, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Unlike refugees, IDPs do not enjoy the same support, be it legal or institutional. Instead a highly influential but not-legally-binding set of principles (known as the guiding principles) serves as the main international instrument for their protection. Although these principles specify the standards (largely similar to those for refugees) for the best response to the needs of displaced people, no institution is required to implement them. The primary responsibility for the protection of IDPs falls to their own government.

However, many states lack the capacity or resources, and sometimes the political will, to assist IDPs adequately. As IDPs struggle with difficult living conditions, they are often inefficiently supported by an array of agencies and actors. Some remain unassisted for extended periods and are marginalized and vulnerable to human rights violations. Their suffering is precisely what drove 17 African countries to sign the African Union (AU) Convention on IDPs — also known as the Kampala Convention, after the capital of Uganda where the treaty was signed on 23 October 2009. If ratified, the convention will fill this void in international humanitarian law for Africa’s IDPs. The Kampala Convention is an “historic agreement aimed at protecting and assisting our brothers and sisters, the internally displaced,” President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda told the press on signature day.

‘A beacon of hope’

By agreeing to the first legally binding continental treaty on IDPs, African leaders have taken a bold step in dealing with what former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan once described as “one of the great tragedies of our time.” Potentially, the document has far-reaching political implications. Governments that sign it agree to shoulder primary responsibility for preventing forced displacement, among other things by threatening prosecution of those responsible, including non-state actors such as insurgent and rebel groups, private military contractors and multinational corporations. It also obliges governments to assist IDPs and facilitate their resettlement after they have been forced to move.

Under the convention, both governments and armed groups are required to protect and assist IDPs without any discrimination in areas under their effective control, to assist local communities that host IDPs and to facilitate humanitarian organizations’ access to the displaced and delivery of relief supplies. Additionally, the treaty obliges governments to provide compensation for the harm suffered by persons as a result of their displacement. It calls for cooperation among governments, international organizations, humanitarian agencies and civil society organizations to protect IDPs. According to Julia Joiner, the AU commissioner for political affairs, “This instrument clearly demonstrates that African leaders are conscious of the difficulties that displaced persons experience and are poised to do as much as possible to put an end to their suffering.”

Walter Kälin, the UN Secretary-General’s representative on IDPs, likened the Kampala Convention to “a beacon of hope for 12 million Africans.” In an interview with Africa Renewal, Mr. Kälin underlines the fact that compared to the UN-supported guiding principles on IDPs, the AU treaty clarifies the responsibilities of governments and other actors. Mr. Kälin notes, however, that “we still have a long way to go until it has an impact on the ground.”

‘Tragic crisis’

As a result of protracted conflicts, massive human rights violations and natural disasters, internal displacement has reached daunting proportions in Africa. “Between 1969 and 1994 … the number of internally displaced persons soared, to between 10 million and 15 million,” writes Francis Deng, the first representative of the UN Secretary-General on IDPs, in a widely praised book co-authored with Roberta Cohen, a former scholar at the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C.** Such an alarming increase, the authors add, prompted the Organization of African Unity, which was superseded by the African Union in 2002, to affirm in 1994 that internal displacement is “one of the most tragic humanitarian and human rights crises in Africa today.”

Since the mid-1990s the many wars in the Great Lakes region (Burundi, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda), West Africa (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire) and the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia) have forced millions of people to flee their homes, pushing some abroad but also displacing many within their own borders. In recent years, as the number of conflicts have declined, more IDPs have returned home. In Uganda, more than half of the 1.8 million IDPs recorded in 2005 had gone home by December 2009. In Burundi the number went from 800,000 in 1999 to 100,000 at the end of 2009. According to the IDMC, the number of IDPs currently recorded in Africa is the lowest in a decade.

Yet over the past two years, three out of five of the world’s largest internal displacement situations have still been in Africa. With 4.9 million displaced, Sudan has the largest reported IDP population, victims of the conflict in the Darfur region and the instability in Southern Sudan. An estimated 2 million people are IDPs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and some 1.3 million have been forced to flee their homes in Somalia. In total, 19 African countries confront problems of forced displacement resulting from conflict, generalized violence and human rights abuses.

“Internally displaced communities in African countries faced myriad risks, due to immediate threats to their safety in some cases, and long-term neglect in others,” notes the IDMC report. Rape and sexual violence against women and girls, and the forced recruitment of children into armed groups, are particularly insidious and widespread, adds the centre. Both the international community and African governments have generally been slow in devising solutions. Until the end of the Cold War, action in favour of IDPs was very limited. In 1992 the UN Secretary-General appointed Mr. Deng, a former Sudanese foreign minister, as his first representative on IDPs. As the only senior UN official solely devoted to IDPs, he was instrumental in developing and publicizing legal mechanisms for their protection, including the guiding principles.

African responses to the needs of IDPs have come a long way, from an initial reluctance to a progressively stronger stand in recent years. In 2006, 11 Great Lakes countries adopted a protocol on IDPs, the first binding multilateral pact in the world focused on internal displacement. Before the Kampala Convention, some countries had set up or were in the process of setting up legal frameworks for IDPs’ protection. The Kampala Convention resulted from a complex three-year drafting process that . To date, it represents the single most ambitious initiative for dealing with IDPs.

Challenges ahead

Even before the ink dried on the AU convention, many were already pointing to the numerous challenges it will face. First is the challenge of ratification. To come into force, the convention needs to be formally endorsed by 15 countries. Katinka Ridderbos of IDMC suggested to Africa Renewal that “it is unlikely that we will see all the 53 African countries ratifying the convention.” However, Ms. Ridderbos asserts, enough governments will likely ratify the document to make it binding. The 11 signatories to the Great Lakes protocol are expected to adopt the AU convention. The 15 members of the Southern African Development Community are also said to be committed to it. But as of early March 2010 only Uganda, the host country, had ratified the treaty.

Another issue will be effective implementation. The UN’s Mr. Kälin, whose work involves assisting national authorities around the world to protect IDPs, foresees that “the lack of capacity and financial as well as human resources” will be a practical hurdle. In most countries the needs of IDPs are not matched by the resources allocated for assisting them. “Africa cannot do it alone,” says Ms. Joiner of the AU. “That is why we are calling for partnerships.”

To make the convention matter for the millions of African IDPs, political commitment by African leaders will be the most important ingredient. “An absence of sufficient political will to adhere to the commitments” would be disastrous, says Mr. Kälin. In some situations, assisting IDPs has been difficult because national authorities have refused to recognize their existence. Invoking their right as sovereign states, they have been reluctant to let in any foreign actors. Too often, governments or rebel groups have not accepted responsibility for displaced people. They often deny having forced them out of their homes and reject calls to take care of them. In some cases, population displacement has even been part of a military strategy, and civilians have been used as human shields.

Under the former Organization of African Unity, African states were reluctant to interfere in each other’s internal affairs, even in the face of massive killings and displacements, elevating the principle of national sovereignty to “absurd proportions,” regrets Salim Ahmed Salim, a former OAU secretary-general. But there has been progress since then. Mr. Kälin believes that while the Kampala Convention recognizes the sovereignty of states, it “understands this concept not as the right of governments to do nothing in situations of internal displacement, but rather as responsibility to assist and protect their IDPs — a responsibility that flows from the fact that they, and nobody else, have the power to do so.”

Now that the treaty exists, African governments have a duty to ensure that “the convention becomes a binding instrument,” says Jean Ping, the AU Commission president. “At this point it is an achievement, but not an end in itself.”

Many global investors still shy away from Africa, falling victim to the continent’s outdated image of war, corruption, political instability, financial chaos and universal poverty and suffering. Investors opening their eyes to the African reality however are making the business of their lives on the continent, real numbers demonstrate.

A new report by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) shows that investors putting their trust in Africa already in 2003 made far larger profits than those investing in more conventional markets. Between 2003 and 2008, investments in Africa’s leading companies yielded more than double profits compared to investments in US, East Asian or European companies.

Over the last decade, the BCG report says, the African economy “has begun to emerge. Hidden in plain view, scores of African companies have been competing and rapidly expanding in the global economy.” BCG had identified 40 fast-growing African companies with global aspirations as an example of the continent’s vibrant economy, terming them “the African challengers.”

The BCG report explains the “keys to success” for the African challengers. “First they benefit from doing business in a place with many native advantages, including natural resources, cheap labour, and a fast-growing population that is unencumbered with legacy technology and systems.”

Second, the report says, “they enjoy a beneficial business environment that includes market deregulation, national economic-development policies, and commodity prices that, for most of the past decade have been rising.”

“Finally, they share the challenger mindset – a willingness to be bold and to recognise that a challenging economic environment is an opportunity to be creative and expand globally,” the BCG analysis holds. A long-term business vision “not looking for quick profits” and an outstanding creativity in African firms are also emphasised.

But the African challengers have also been allowed to emerge due to the strong economic growth experienced on the continent during the first decade of this millennium. The “Africa renaissance” conjured up by African leaders is indeed materialising through tough economic reforms and a determination to make democracy, transparency and political stability the norm on the African continent.

And indeed Africa was the continent that managed to go through the global crisis in the best way. “While the Great Recession shrank most economies, Africa’s was able to grow. In 2009, the continent’s GDP expanded by 2 percent, while GDP dropped 4 percent in the United States, 2.8 percent in the European Union, and 1.5 percent in Latin America,” the BCG report sums up.

“The top African economies – which we call the African Lions – are doing relatively well,” the report says, differentiating developments on the continent. “The Lions comprise Algeria, Botswana, Egypt, Libya, Mauritius, South Africa and Tunisia, and their GDP per capita exceeds that of the so-called BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, and China. In 2008, the GDP per capita of these two groups was US$ 10,000 and US$ 8,800, respectively.”

“In terms of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living, the African Lions are comparable to the BRIC countries and the Asian Tigers (Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam). … The political stability of the Lions is on a par with that of the BRIC nations and is much greater than that of the Asian Tigers, while the ease of doing business is roughly similar in all three groups of countries,” according to the BCG report.

A June 2010 82-page analysis by McKinsey Company, a leading US consultancy firm, goes even deeper into the “progress and potentials” of the African Lions. Not only does it confirm the en ormous progress made during the last decade, but it also foresees Africa’s boom to continue, making the continent an economic powerhouse during the next decades.

Indeed, for the first time in history Africa has by now already become an economy of importance. Africa’s collective GDP, at US$ 1.6 trillion in 2008, is now roughly equal to Brazil’s or Russia’s. Even the African consumer market is now of global importance: While Africa still has fewer inhabitants than India, it by now has a higher number of middle class and middle income households than India.

African experienced poor growth in the 1980s and 90s, still forming the collective minds of the Western world when viewing Africa. “But sometime in the late 1990s, the continent began to stir,” the introduction to the McKinsey report says.

“GDP growth picked up and then bounded ahead, rising faster and faster through 2008. Today, while Asia’s tiger economies continue to expand rapidly, we foresee the potential rise of economic lions in Africa’s future,” the McKinsey analysts conclude. Already today, “the rate of return on foreign investment in Africa is higher than in any other developing region,” the report says, agreeing with the BCG report.

The statistical annex to the McKinsey report provides impressive facts about the emerging rise of Africa, begun in the 2000-08 period. During that time, only five African countries lived up to the cliché of chaos and stagnation, with average GDP growth close to zero or even negative: the Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia and Zimbabwe.

The remaining 48 African countries showed annual average growth rates between 2 an 21 percent. 38 out of the continent’s 53 countries had annual GDP growth rates of 4 percent or more during the entire period, mostly by far exceeding their population growth and as such also rapidly increasing their GDP per capita. A sizable middle class therefore is about to emerge in most of Africa.

While some of the highest growth rates during the last decades have been in oil exporting nations – Equatorial Guinea’s GDP grew by an annual average of 21 percent, Angola’s by 13 percent – in general Africa’s sudden and mostly unexpected boom is driven by a diversification of national economies.

Strong economic growth is indeed registered in most categories of African nations. Post-war economies – Africa has managed to end many of its worst armed conflicts – are quickly picking up, with average annual growth in Sierra Leone reaching an impressive 11 percent from 2000 to 2008, second only to post-war Angola’s oil economy. Post-genocide Rwanda’s economy grew by 7 percent each year, Mozambique’s and Uganda’s even by 8 percent.

The McKinsey report notes that even “pre-transition” national economies – countries still largely dependent of agriculture – are growing fast and have started to diversify. Ethiopia’s economy grew by an impressive 8 percent each year in the period; Mali’s and Burkina Faso’s economies by 6 percent.

A large number of countries are seen to be “in transition” towards a diversified economy. Most of these nations can show to durable and high growth rates in the 2000-08 period, including Tanzania (7 percent), Ghana (6 percent), Zambia (5 percent), Cameroon, Kenya, Madagascar and Senegal (4 percent).

Several African economies are already seen as “diversified”, with the GDP share of manufacturing and services exceeding 70 percent. These include Cape Verde, Egypt, Lesotho, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, South Africa and Tunisia. All these diversified economies grew by 4-6 percent annually in the period.

While the McKinsey report documents the successes already achieved in Africa, it is even more optimistic about the future and potentials. The analysts project that at least four groups of industries in Africa – consumer-facing industries, agriculture, resources, and infrastructure – “together could generate as much as US$ 2.6 trillion in revenue annually by 2020, or US$ 1 trillion more than today.”

With urbanisation rates similar to China and the world’s fastest growing cities, the middle class is steadily growing and Africa’s construction sector is living its greatest ever boom, for the first time becoming a major industry on the continent.

A growing number of international investors have discovered this boom. Direct foreign investments into Africa only totalled US$ 9 billion in 2000, but increased sevenfold to US$ 62 billion in 2009. And while investors earlier only focused on Africa’s natural resources, new investments focus on Africa’s booming construction, tourism, banking and telecommunication sectors, the McKinsey analysts found.

New industries are in the coming, with African transition economies – such as Ghana, Kenya and Senegal – moving onto exports of manufactured goods including processed fuels, processed food, chemicals, textiles and cosmetics.

And this is only the beginning for Africa’s expected industrial revolution. Indeed, McKinsey finds that productivity in African transition economies already is as high as in India and China, while labour costs are far lower. Only remaining red tape and poorer infrastructure makes production costs in Africa somewhat higher than in Asia’s giant economies.

Parallel with a projected industrial revolution in Africa, the continent is set to copy Asia’s green revolution. Over 60 percent of the world’s unexploited agricultural lands are located in Africa, and with a growing global population and new needs in the production of for example biofuels, these unexploited lands are already becoming the target of massive investments.

The McKinsey and BCG reports agree that Africa still has some major challenges to overcome to secure its exit from poverty. This includes the need to remove inter-African trade barriers; invest massively in infrastructure and communication; strongly improving the education sector; and improving public health throughout the continent.

All this, however, are major policy concerns of African leaders and analysts, also being the focus of the strengthened regional organisations such as the Africa Union (AU), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the new common market now being established, the East African Community (EAC), comprising of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi.

Asking whether these high growth rates and booming businesses will continue in the coming decades, both McKinsey and BCG are optimistic. McKinsey has no doubt that Africa’s role in the global economy will continue to increase rapidly. “By 2040, Africa will be home to one in five of the planet’s young people and will have the world’s largest working-age population,” surpassing China, the report emphasises.

This not only will have to influence Africa’s future key place in global production, it will also make Africa a major market of the future. The number of African households with discretionary income is projected to rise by 50 percent over the next 10 years, reaching 128 million. “By 2030, the continents’ top 18 cities could have a combined spending power of US$ 1.3 trillion,” the McKinsey report projects.

“Global executives and investors cannot afford to ignore the continent’s immense potential. A strategy for Africa must be part of their long-term planning,” McKinsey analysts conclude. And Africa cannot afford to move away from its path of democracy, stability and economic liberalisation to secure that investors remain interested.

http://secondoprotocollouk.blogspot.com/

On 21 December 2008, Iranian police and security officials closed the Centre for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) led by Ms Ebadi as it was preparing to hold a celebration marking the 60th anniversary of Human Rights Day. Eight days later, her office was searched and documents and computers were removed.

The closure of the CDHR is “not only an attack on Shirin Ebadi and human rights defenders in Iran, but an attack on the entire international human rights community of which she is an influential and leading member”, say MEPs

There is increasing evidence that the Iranian authorities’ persecution of Shirin Ebadi has intensified because of her contact with UN human rights officials and their use of information provided by her centre in a UN report of 2 October 2008 on the situation of human rights in Iran.

MEPs urge that the Iranian authorities put an end to the repression, persecution and threats against Shirin Ebadi, authorise the re-opening of the CDHR, and allow the CDHR, the HROK and other human rights associations to function unhampered.

Intimidation of political opponents and human rights defenders

The EP also reiterates its concern regarding the persecution and imprisonment of citizens who engage in the defence of human rights and who campaign against the death penalty, which frequently leads to them being charged with so-called activities against national security.

One case for serious concern is that of Mohammad Sadiq Kaboudvand, a prisoner of conscience whose health has deteriorated since imprisonment. The resolution calls both for his immediate and unconditional release, and for an end to the “harassment, intimidation and persecution of political opponents and human rights defenders, including by releasing persons imprisoned arbitrarily or on the basis of their political views”.

Appeal to respect religious minorities

Observing that believers of the Baha’i faith are harshly persecuted in Iran, the EP appeals to the Iranian authorities to “live up to the government’s requirement to respect religious minorities”. The resolution asks that Bahia’ leaders who have been imprisoned solely on the basis of their belief be promptly released.

EU Trade Agreement depends on improvement of human rights situation

The resolution emphasises that any future conclusion of a Cooperation and Trade Agreement between Iran and the EU depends also on a substantial improvement in Iran’s human rights situation.

Looking to the future, Parliament urges the Council and Commission to continue their examination of the human rights situation in Iran and to submit to it in the first half of 2009 a comprehensive report on the matter and to continue to raise specific cases of human rights abuses.