EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 91997E002698
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2698/97 by Maartje van PUTTEN to the Commission. Demonstrators in Papua New Guinea
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2698/97 by Maartje van PUTTEN to the Commission. Demonstrators in Papua New Guinea
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2698/97 by Maartje van PUTTEN to the Commission. Demonstrators in Papua New Guinea
OJ C 102, 3.4.1998, p. 95
(ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2698/97 by Maartje van PUTTEN to the Commission. Demonstrators in Papua New Guinea
Official Journal C 102 , 03/04/1998 P. 0095
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2698/97 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997) Subject: Demonstrators in Papua New Guinea 1. a) Is the Commission aware that criminal proceedings are currently under way in Papua New Guinea (PNG) against Jonathan O'ata, John Kawowo, Powes Parkop and John Napu who had played a leading role in March 1997 in organizing demonstrations against the deployment of mercenaries by the PNG authorities in Bougainville? 1. b) If so, is it monitoring these proceedings? 2. Does the Commission agree with Amnesty International that if these men are found guilty and imprisoned they should be regarded as political prisoners and that this would damage the relatively open political climate in Papua New Guinea? 3. What opportunities does the Commission see in its contacts with the PNG authorities for calling for proceedings which respect human rights and political freedoms? Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1997) The Commission has followed closely the issue of the accusations against Jonathan O'ata, John Kawowo, Powes Parkop and John Napu. After the elections in June, a new government was formed on 29 July 1997 and it immediately became clear that this new government sought a national reconciliation on issues related to the Sandline mercenaries crisis. However, the four above named appeared in court on 29 August 1997 on charges of unlawful assembly. The prosecution appeared not to have their case ready and requested the magistrate to adjourn it, without proposing a date. This was not accepted by the defence and in the end the charges were dropped. The case is therefore to be considered closed.