22. Agrees that in those cases where the offender is unknown or where he or she could not be prosecuted, a minimum standard should lay down the degree of proof that the victim must furnish, when applying for compensation, with regard to having been the victim of a crime and the injury having been occasioned as a result of that crime;

This is the line adopted by the Commission when it calls for the 'public condoning for a racist purpose', the 'dissemination of tracts containing expressions of racism' and incitement to such acts and other similar acts to be made punishable as criminal offences.

The Italian situation is one example: our Italian citizens had to suffer humiliation and dissatisfaction on the part of the other Member States just because our government attempted, without success, to make the scope of the European Convention subject to certain conditions, excluding from it certain offences which are of great importance to our Prime Minister, who – by pure chance, as the State attorney for Milan, Francesco Saverio Borelli, would say – happens to be on trial in Italy for precisely these offences.

* Pursue the GAC conclusions of 22 January 2001 on the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue, focus the human rights dialogue better, assess it on a continuous basis, and identify ways of making it more effective and results-oriented, notably on the key issues of concern identified in the GAC conclusions, including co-operation with human rights mechanisms; guarantees for the protection of those prosecuted for a crime for which the death penalty could be imposed and restriction of the cases in which the death penalty can be imposed; reform of administrative detention; respect for the fundamental rights of all prisoners; untrammelled exercis ...[+++]e of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, of the freedom of expression and of the freedom of assembly and of association.

Full mutual recognition as envisaged to be achieved among EU Member States would have to be based on the principle that a decision taken by no matter which authority in the EU fully deals with the issue and that no further decision needs to be taken at all, i.e. the principle of exhaustion. In other words, if someone was convicted or acquitted [14] for a criminal offence committed in Member State A, he should not be prosecuted for the same facts, however they may be qualified, in Member State B, even if Member State B has jurisdiction over the facts (because e.g. the person in question is a national of Member State B) and even if in Memb ...[+++]er State B, a different judgement could have been pronounced (e.g. because the offence in question can be punished by longer deprivation of liberty).

Following examination of the documentation submitted by the complainants and by the Italian authorities in the framework of the infringement procedure initiated by the Commission on 18 December 2005 (first letter of formal notice) and continued on 18 October 2006 (supplementary letter of formal notice), the Commission services have concluded that it is not possible, at this stage, to identify an infringement of Directive 92/43/EEC in the case in question.