In view of the considerable prevailing risk of failure, the EU has as yet declined to table a resolution in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Instead, an unprecedented non-binding declaration against the death penalty was submitted to the General Assembly on the initiative of the EU on 19 December 2006. It was supported by 85 countries from all regional groups. This was an encouraging result, but at the same time confirmed that the success of an EU resolution in the UN General Assembly cannot yet be considered guaranteed.

Where do we go from here?

All EU partners are agreed that we want to actively bring forward our efforts to fight the death penalty, at UN level too. But it is also clear that conditions remain difficult, and that the EU can only achieve success with a measured, step-by-step approach. Our priority should remain to do all we can to rule out the failure of a new EU initiative. A failure on part of the EU would mean a success for those who support the death penalty and a setback in the fight against this inhumane form of punishment. We cannot and must not let this happen!

Some major non-governmental players (including Amnesty International) are thus warning against hasty action and have suggested that it could be counter-productive for the EU to insist on a renewed debate on this topic in the UN General Assembly.

At the General Affairs Council on 22 January, it was therefore agreed that we should first develop a carefully considered approach which will gradually lend our topic greater weight in the United Nations. Ambassadors in New York and Geneva were accordingly asked to assess all possibilities to advance this discussion at UN level. We should also take account of the recommendations of relevant NGOs regarding further measures to combat the death penalty at UN level. On the basis of these findings, the German Council Presidency will draw up proposals for further action which it will present to its EU partners in February.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.

Consequently, while noting that it would be desirable for the threshold complained of to be lowered and/or for corrective counterbalances to be introduced to ensure optimal representation of the various political tendencies without sacrificing the objective sought (the establishment of stable parliamentary majorities), the Court considers that it is important in this area to leave sufficient latitude to the national decision-makers. In that connection, it also attaches importance to the fact that the electoral system, including the threshold in question, is the subject of much debate within Turkish society and that numerous proposals of ways to correct the threshold’s effects are being made both in parliament and among leading figures of civil society.