32. Calls on the Chinese authorities to grant Protestant house churches and underground
Catholic churches, as well as those of other religions, official recognition; recalls, in this
connection, that international human rights law recognises freedom of religion or belief
regardless of registration status, meaning that registration should not be a mandatory
precondition for practising one’s religion; strongly condemns all attempts by the authorities
to deprive these non-registered churches of their fundamental right to freedom of religion
by imposing the requirement to operate under government-controlled management boards,
confiscating their property and even using detention and imprisonment in an effort to
silence them, thereby interfering with their religious autonomy and seriously restricting
their activity;
33. Shares the criticism of Chinese jurists that the fundamental shortcomings of China’s legal
code on religion reside in the constitution, since the principle of ‘religious freedom’
provided for in clauses 1 and 2 of Article 36 conflicts with the principle of ‘restrictions on
religion’ provided for in clauses 3 and 4, with no clarification as to which takes precedence;
joins the call by Chinese jurists religious freedom to be established as the principle of
precedence in the constitution;
34. Acknowledges efforts made in the area of controlling and carefully applying the death
penalty in China, but remains concerned at the fact that the Chinese Government is still
maintaining its policy of not releasing details of the number of prisoners executed annually,
keeping information on the death penalty a state secret; further urges the Chinese authorities
to stop the politicised use of the death penalty and to ensure that there are procedural
safeguards in the country’s legal system which guarantee the protection of people sentenced
to death, including the right to a fair trial in accordance with international standards;
35. Considers regrettable, as regards the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue, the continuing lack
of any substantial progress and the failure to produce concrete and visible results; recalls
that, on the adoption of a new EU human rights strategy, EU foreign ministers pledged in
June 2012 that the EU would now ‘raise human rights issues vigorously in all appropriate
forms of bilateral dialogue, including at the highest level’; calls on the newly appointed EU
Special Representative for Human Rights, the EEAS, the Council and the Commission to
step up their efforts in order to give this process new impetus and make this dialogue more
effective and result-oriented, including through preparatory meetings with both international
and local civil society organisations and NGOs in the presence of the authorities of both
sides; takes the view that such dialogue should be included in all contacts with officials
from strategic partners such as China; stresses the importance of addressing thoroughly all
the problems relating to human rights and the rule of law in China and in the EU; takes the
view that EU-China summits and human rights talks should include a set of transparent
issues to be discussed and concrete benchmarks; urges the EU’s High Representative for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, to voice her concerns regarding
human rights abuses in China and to refer publicly to the concrete cases and issues
discussed with Chinese officials in all encounters; encourages Member States’ officials to
follow the same lines in a coherent and coordinated manner; calls on EU companies with
activities in China to comply with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights and urges the EU and its Member States to monitor such compliance closely;
Cross-Strait relations
36. Reiterates the EU´s one-China policy; welcomes the increasing contacts between the PRC