AS/Soc (2010) PV 6 Addendum
7 September 2010
Item 6. of the agenda of meetings held on 21, 22 and 24 June 2010:
1. Opening of the hearing by the Chairperson, Ms Liliane Maury Pasquier, Switzerland, SOC
The Chairperson opened the meeting and welcomed participants. She particularly greeted Ms Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, under whose aegis the Council of Europe programme “Building a Europe for and with children” had been implemented since 2006, and the four international experts who had agreed to contribute to the preparation of the report through their respective expertise:
- Ms Marian Shanley, Member of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Ireland),
- Professor Massimo Introvigne, Sociologist from Vatican City,
- Dr Christine Bergmann, Special Representative on Cases of Child Abuse (Germany),
- Dr Helgard van Hüllen, member of the Executive Board, Victim Support Europe.
The Chairperson introduced the topic with a more personal statement. She underlined the importance of the issue which concerned various types of institutions and which had been actively debated in many countries in recent years (Austria, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, USA) and confirmed that the problem was also known in the Swiss context. Turning to the rapporteur, Ms Marlene Rupprecht (Allemagne, SOC), she expressed the wish that her report should notably address the needs of the victims of abuse and their protection, and take a broad view on different forms of child abuse (sexual, physical and emotional). For her, these included the victims of past offences who should be helped to overcome the trauma from which they still suffer today, the children who have become victims more recently and need to be protected from further offences and within ongoing legal procedures and the “potential” victims who should be thought of in the framework of national prevention strategies. She saw the identification of legal and political action to be taken by member states as the main objective of the report. She further mentioned the acquis and ongoing work of the Council of Europe in this field by referring to the Council of Europe convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse and the pan-European campaign to stop sexual violence against children to be launched in Rome on 29-30 November 2010 to which the Parliamentary Assembly should actively contribute (particularly through its Sub-committee on Children which would hold its next meeting on this occasion). She concluded by explaining the choice of experts for the present hearing which already reflected the balanced approach to be followed by the Committee and the rapporteur, and wished everybody a fruitful and interesting debate.
The Chairperson finally suggested that, due to the importance and topicality of the issue, the report should be treated using a fast-track procedure, so as to make sure that the voice of the Parliamentary Assembly be heard in the context of current investigations and debates. Subject to the agreement of the Committee and the Bureau of the Assembly respectively, it was therefore foreseen to adopt the report at the next Committee meeting on 13 September 2010 (changed to 6 September after the third-part session with a view to the Bureau meeting on 8 September) in order to present it to the fourth part-session 2010 (4-8 October 2010). She then gave the floor to Ms Rupprecht, rapporteur.
2. Introductory statement by the Rapporteur
Ms Rupprecht also welcomed the experts on the panel and confirmed that no Council of Europe member state could claim to be exempt from the responsibility of looking into the issue, as sexualised (and other) violence against children happened everywhere. She recalled the importance of the problem as reflected by the three world Congresses that had already taken place, the most recent one in Rio de Janeiro in 2008 (after Yokohama 2001 and Stockholm 1996). She insisted that the main focus of any future work should be on how to better protect children, both in a family context (which remained the main scene for child abuse) and in various institutional contexts (boarding and day schools, youth centres etc.). Further important aspects to be looked at from her point of view were: the investigation of past cases, the characteristics of institutions which were sometimes “nutrient media” of abuse due to a lack of external control, the training of educational staff and the way of dealing with offences in the most transparent manner. All stakeholders first of all needed to accept that something had happened and that existing systems needed to be changed. From there on, it was also necessary to look at how offenders were structured and how children could be strengthened. She finally expressed her hope that the findings presented during the following hearing would be substantial contributions to the debate and her report, and invited all types of institutions to participate in the debate. She concluded by stressing the importance of the Council of Europe Lanzarote convention and its implementation through national legislation.
3. Exchange of views with the participants
Ms Shanley, member of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Ireland), reported on the series of child abuse reports which had convulsed Ireland in recent years. The first inquiry had led to the “Ferns report” published in 2005 concerning cases of child abuse by catholic priests in the catholic diocese of Ferns (county of Wexford) regarding which the Bishop of Ferns had been accused of covering up abuse by several priests. The inquiry heard more than 100 witnesses at the time (victims, priests accused, witnesses) and led to startling results on the extent of the problem, given that serious and credible allegations were presented against 27 priests in the diocese, and that some seemed to have acted during up to 20 years without being stopped. These results “sent shockwaves through the Irish society” and the main question raised was how this could happen to children living in loving homes and with good support structures. The Ferns inquiry further revealed that almost all victims had been young boys and that notably serial abusers acted mostly on boys. Their modus operandum had generally been to implicate the child and make it feel responsible, guilty and even complicit, which in many cases led the child and the abuser to jointly cover up what happened. A central message Ms Shanley wished to convey therefore was the extreme importance of an education teaching children that they must never accept or feel guilty about abuse and that they need to report it.
Ms Shanley then continued her report by referring to the “Murphy report” which extended the view to 26 catholic dioceses and which, particularly for the Dublin diocese, focused less on the numbers of abuse cases, but on how allegations had been dealt with by religious institutions. The Murphy report uncovered the abuse of about 220 children by 46 priests. It furthermore revealed a “culture of secrecy, of cover-up and denial” which extended to various professionals including senior police officers refusing to investigate priests, as they had considered this an affront. Finally, the “Ryan report” published in May 2009, investigated the abuse of children in institutional care, which happened between 1940 and 1970. It unveiled a high number of complaints from residential school care run by different religious orders (mainly the Christian Brothers order and the Sisters of Mercy order), where children had apparently been accommodated in extreme conditions and military-like camps. During the investigations, almost 300 victims were heard (forming several victims’ groups over the time), about 250 of whom were compensated after long court proceedings against the Church and the state. As one of the results of the inquiry, limitation periods were suspended so that adults could file claims against perpetrators, but were re-established after a certain time. Ms Shanley concluded her presentation by saying that, in the light of the trauma that victims were carrying throughout their generation, there was an obligation to deal with past abuse cases and put money into them.
The Chairperson thanked Ms Shanley for her contribution on the Irish experience which would certainly prove helpful and gave the floor to Professor Introvigne.
Professor Introvigne, sociologist of religion from Vatican city, introduced his statement by referring to Pope Benedict XVI’s recent “Letter to the Catholics of Ireland”, in which he expressed the “shame and remorse” of the Catholic Church. At the same time, the Pope had stated that “the problem of child abuse is peculiar neither to Ireland nor to the Church”, but the whole Western culture which had undergone a silent, moral and sexual revolution in the 1960s. Professor Introvigne then expressed his gratefulness for the Ryan report given that social scientists like himself liked to work with reliable data. He referred to further reports, such as the ones presented by Philip Jenkins on Paedophiles and Priests (1996) and the John Jay College of the City University of New York (2004), which proved, at least for the United States, that the problem reached far beyond the Churches’ realms, or the “Shakeshaft report”, commissioned by the US Department of Education (2004). Notably the latter claimed that 6.7% of pupils in US public primary schools were abused or molested by teachers and other personnel, and that two thirds of sexual abuse incidents against minors did not come from strangers or educators, but family members. He therefore concluded on this point by stating that there was a serious problem amongst the Roman Catholic clergy, but that it was occasionally exaggerated. He invited the Committee to rather look into original reports on the issue than “press clippings”.
Professor Introvigne explained what the Catholic Church had done over the years to address the issue of child abuse, and particularly referred to some of the main texts of Canon law which were of relevance when it came to child abuse: the Pagella instruction of 1922, which was later reproduced in 1962 under the title of Crimen sollicitationis. The latter notably requested victims and others who were aware of abuse to report the facts to the Church authorities and provided for a canonical prosecution which was to be kept secret so as to protect the privacy of the victim and the abuser (until his guilt was proved). The Church later reformed its canonical prosecution of certain crimes including clerical sexual abuse through the Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela of 2001 and the corresponding rules included in the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith’s letter De delictis gravioribus (“the most grave crimes”) by providing that the latter were to be reported to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. Under these overall rules, however, the local bishops remained responsible for what happened in their diocese. After the authorisation of the Congregation, a canon law trial may be conducted in the diocese and the Congregation would act as advisor and court of appeal. These rules are further specified at a global level under the Vatican “Guide to Understanding Basic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations” and various national charters and guidelines. Professor Introvigne further emphasised that these rules did not only apply to physical or other forms of direct child abuse, but also indirect abuse such as paedophilic pornography on the Internet. He concluded his presentation by stating that recent reports had unveiled a tendency of significant decline of incidents of child abuse by the clergy during the period 2000 and 2005, and that current studies were expected to confirm this trend. He admitted that cover-ups did occur in certain dioceses, but that they clearly were failures to apply canon law and had never been condoned by canon law which had proved to be reasonably effective in recent years.
The Chairperson thanked Professor Introvigne for his clear presentation on the canon law and gave the floor to Dr Christine Bergmann, special representative on cases of sexual child abuse from Germany.
Dr Bergmann informed the Committee that Germany was only at the very beginning of a process aimed at investigating sexual child abuse in institutions and families, although the topic was not new. According to the German experience, attempts to tackle the problem through new regulation in the past had not led to efficient action. Currently, the country was undergoing a massive debate which had been initiated through the abuse cases uncovered at the Jesuit Canisius Kolleg Berlin, followed by cases in other church- or state-run institutions. Measures taken in 2010 included various inquiries through investigators especially appointed for the purpose, the set-up of telephone hotlines by the Catholic church, the state (her own office), and others. First investigations had unveiled that many abuse cases had taken place over long periods of time, some of them were known to not having been followed by action and some of the offenders were simply transferred to new functions instead of being submitted to disciplinary or judicial procedures. As for Germany, she noted that the Catholic Church took the issue very seriously and participated in the round table on sexual abuse of children which was set up in March 2010 under the leadership of three Ministers and with a broad participation of civil society, at the same time when she was herself appointed special representative on cases of sexual child abuse. Her office offered assistance to all persons concerned by sexual child abuse, including victims of abuse having occurred in all types of institutions or within the family, as well as family members, witnesses etc. who would find well-trained interlocutors to be contacted anonymously in writing, through the Internet or over the phone (psychotherapists, social workers etc.); currently about 500 to 600 people made use of this service every week. At the same time, her mission consisted of scientifically investigating the issue so as to put forward recommendations to the public authorities in charge; first results that she would readily share with the Committee were expected for the end of August 2010. When it came to acute abuse cases, her collaborators would roughly explain relevant administrative and legal procedures before transferring people searching help to assistance services at local level. Concluding her short presentation, she wished to convey to the Committee and the rapporteur that it was of utmost importance: (1) to deal with cases of abuse even if they had happened way back in the past, (2) to “break the silence” and entirely unveil what had happened, and (3) to prevent, by all means, that new abuse could occur. Important issues also were the creation of a social climate which put the assistance of children at its very heart, and the creation of a large awareness for sensibly dealing with alleged cases.
The Chairperson also thanked Dr Bergmann for her presentation of the German experience and gave the floor to Dr Helgard van Hüllen, member of the executive board, Victim Support Europe (VSE).
Dr Helgard van Hüllen started off by explaining that VSE was founded in 1990 as a network of European non-governmental victim support organisations with the purpose of promoting the development of effective services and fair and equal compensation for victims over Europe as well as of exchanging experience and good practice. The federation was currently composed of 26 member organisations from 21 Council of Europe member states. She stated that both the federation VSE as well as the German victim support association Weisser Ring, where she was also a member of the executive board, were very concerned about high numbers of cases of child abuse in institutions recently uncovered. In a great majority of cases, sexual abuse of children happened in the social environment of the child (family, relatives, friends of the family, institutions, like schools or leisure associations). Difficult conflicts for the children normally arose from the fact that their relationship with the offenders were marked by respect, sympathy or even love, and led to the fact that many cases remained unknown for long periods of time or were never unveiled. VSE considered that in order to respond to the victims’ needs, it was crucial to recognise their situation and treat them with respect (also in court proceedings), to provide them with comprehensive victim support services available all over a given country, to give them full justice by prosecuting the perpetrator, and to compensate them wherever appropriate and possible. According to the time when abuse was uncovered victims’ needs strongly varied: for victims of immediately uncovered abuse it was crucial that the mistreatment would stop immediately, which also meant intervening in their direct social environment; for victims of abuse unveiled a long time afterwards, assistance was required with a view to the trauma which often strongly influenced their personality and development. Not to be neglected were the problems of “indirect victims” such as a victim’s family who would also suffer from some of the short-term or long-term consequences of abuse. VSE promoted the type of comprehensive approach to victim support offered by Weisser in Germany through its 3 000 voluntary workers in 420 branch offices, supported by a limited number of professional staff; all specially trained to rapidly intervene. VSE and Weisser Ring strongly welcomed the open debate on the issue of child abuse in the institutional context and the current investigations undertaken both at the level of individual institutions and the state. Their main claims with regard to action required were (1) to recognise victims as such and provide them with the possibility of talking about what had happened, (2) to harmonise the statutes of limitation under civil and penal law, (3) to provide victims with the services of a barrister free of charge, (4) to intensify efforts undertaken with a view to preventing sexual abuse, (5) to further scientifically examine the needs of victims. Dr van Hüllen concluded by saying that the establishment of close networks between various support services was of utmost importance.
The Chairperson thanked Dr van Hüllen for her substantial contribution and gave the floor to Ms Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
The Deputy Secretary General thanked the Committee for this timely event. She particularly thanked Mr Omtzigt for having tabled the motion and said that she looked forward to the report to be presented after the summer. She invited the Committee to take a broad view on the issue not only including sexual abuse, but also other forms of child abuse. She further insisted that when it came to abuse in a child’s “circle of trust” where most cases happened (family, schools, leisure activities etc.) the political decision-makers should refrain from “hiding behind sensitive issues”. She finally recalled the range of Council of Europe instruments related to child protection, such as the Council of Europe convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse or the Policy guidelines on integrated national strategies for the protection of children from violence, but also the pan-European campaign to stop sexual violence against children, to be launched in Rome later this year, which would strongly emphasise prevention strategies and address all stakeholders concerned (children, families and professionals working with children).
The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Secretary General for this reference to the recent or current work of the Council of Europe and opened the general discussion.
Mr Volontè, after having thanked all experts and the Deputy Secretary General for their statements, emphasised that child abuse happened in all types of institutions including those which were related to the Church. He wondered, however, if more precise data was already available on how cases of abuse split over various organisations; data which might have been specially researched or derived from judicial procedures where perpetrators were condemned.
Mr Mullen welcomed the diversity of experts represented on the panel, and made reference to the fact that, in his own country Ireland, where he used to be in charge of public relations of the Church, the Catholic Church was very present in the educational sector and that it was therefore normal that the Church was overrepresented when it came to child abuse in the institutional context. For him it was therefore important to also investigate the issue by looking into more secular contexts in other countries. Further important aspects to him were to ensure greatest transparency on abuse that happened also by listening to “uncomfortable facts” presented by former victims, given that they were well placed to pass on lessons on how to prevent future abuse.
Ms Andersen confirmed that child abuse in institutions was not only a catholic problem, but also occurred in more secular countries like her own, Norway. She wondered if it was not important to ensure legal proceedings, even for children, and if other countries offered comprehensive and well-coordinated assistance services for children, such as those offered through the “child houses” in Norway or Iceland.
Mr Béteille congratulated the rapporteur on the balanced choice of experts on the panel. He added that an issue not to be forgotten about was the one of former victims who became educators themselves and who could further amplify the problem.
Mr Omtzigt suggested that the experts could possibly respond in writing to any other questions which might be raised but could not be fully responded to during the current discussion, an idea which was supported by the Chairperson.
Professor Introvigne reacted to members’ statements by confirming that US studies revealed a percentage of only 5% of the clergy having committed or been suspected of abuse offences against children whilst allegations were raised against 20% of the clergy in Ireland.
Dr Bergmann confirmed that it was indeed important to examine more closely what differences could exist between different kinds of institutions and which was the common denominator between all of them. She stated from her own experience that all institutions (and families) are closed systems with similar behavioural patterns, but that relations of dependence were sometimes stronger in Catholic institutions than they were in protestant or secular organisations, not the least because certain institutions were easier to leave than others. For definite statements, however, further investigations were required.
Dr van Hüllen, responding to Ms Andersen’s question, confirmed that, once the abuse had stopped, it was also important for many children to see the perpetrators condemned through judicial proceedings. Some of the victims, however, just needed someone who listened to them and required professional help, something that the German association Weisser Ring tried to organise in their branch offices.
Professor Introvigne reiterated that the problem was not only a catholic one, but that there was a catholic problem as well, even though the current media attention was certainly too much focused on catholic institutions. He was convinced that more surveys were required for Europe and that they would confirm some of the findings of US studies revealing that abuse outside of the Church was often understated. He admitted that the Ferns report had unveiled some horrible facts which seemed to reflect a certain “microculture of paedophiles”, but that the findings would probably be much less dramatic if one looked at the whole of Ireland, and that some of the bishop’s conferences had been found to work very effectively.
Ms Shanley admitted that Ireland seemed to have undergone a somewhat unusual experience in the past, but expected that the problem would emerge everywhere, now that the “doors had been opened”. She was convinced that the problem could be solved and that the current open debate in various countries was a healthy pro-active one.
The Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe conceded that the lack of reliable data was a real problem and that only 20 member states had responded to a recent survey. The latter, however, revealed that most cases of child abuse happened in the family, that, in this context, most of the victims were girls, and that the lack of coordination of social services and of an instance to which abuse could be reported was a real problem from the victims’ point of view.
The Chairperson once again thanked all experts for their contributions and closed the meeting.
List of presence/Liste de présence
Hearing on child in institution /Audition sur les enfants en institution
The names of the members and alternates present at the meeting appear in bold
Les noms des membres et de leurs suppléants présents à la réunion sont indiqués en gras
Chairperson / Présidente
Mme Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Switzerland / Suisse
Ms Doris STUMP
Ms Pernille FRAHM Denmark / Danemark Ms Pia CHRISTMAS-MØLLER
M. Bernard MARQUET Monaco Mme Catherine FAUTRIER
Mr Pieter OMTZIGT
Netherlands / Pays-Bas
Ms Ine AASTED-MADSEN - Van STIPHOUT
Mme Lajla PERNASKA Albania ZZ…
Mme Maria Pilar RIBA FONT Andorra / Andorre M. Joan CARTES IVERN
Mr Armen MELIKYAN Armenia / Arménie Mr Artsruni AGHAJANYAN
Mr Karl DONABAUER Austria / Autriche Mr Franz Eduard KÜHNEL
Ms Christine MUTTONEN Austria / Autriche Ms Sonja ABLINGER
Mr Ali HUSEYNOV Azerbaijan / Azerbaïdjan Mr Akram ABDULLAYEV
Mr Fazail İBRAHIMLI Azerbaijan / Azerbaïdjan ZZ...
M. Luc GOUTRY Belgium / Belgique M. Dirk Van der MAELEN
M. Patrick MORIAU Belgium / Belgique M. Philippe MONFILS
Mr Ilija FILIPOVIĆ Bosnia and Herzegovina / Bosnie-Herzégovine Ms Mirjana MALIĆ
Mr Desislav CHUKOLOV Bulgaria / Bulgarie ZZ...
Ms Dzhema GROZDANOVA Bulgaria / Bulgarie Mr Yanaki STOILOV
Ms Karmela CAPARIN Croatia / Croatie Mr Mirando MRSIĆ
M. Fidias SARIKAS Cyprus / Chypre Ms Athina KYRIAKIDOU
Mme Daniela FILIPIOVÁ Czech Republic / République tchèque Mr Pavel LEBEDA
Mme Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ Czech Republic / République tchèque Ms Kateřina KONEČNÁ
Mr Indrek SAAR Estonia / Estonie Mr Silver MEIKAR
Ms Sirpa ASKO-SELJAVAARA Finland / Finlande Ms Tuulikki UKKOLA
M. Roland BLUM France M. Laurent BÉTEILLE
Mme Claude GREFF France Mme Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO
M. Denis JACQUAT France Mme Françoise HOSTALIER
Mme Marietta KARAMANLI France M. Jean-Paul LECOQ
Ms Magdalina ANIKASHVILI Georgia / Géorgie Mr Rati SAMKURASHVILI
Ms Viola von CRAMON-TAUBADEL Germany / Allemagne Mr Manuel SARRAZIN
Mr Andrej HUNKO Germany / Allemagne Mr Thomas NORD
Ms Marlene RUPPRECHT Germany / Allemagne Ms Doris BARNETT
Mr Johann WADEPHUL Germany / Allemagne Ms Gitta CONNEMANN
Mr Konstantinos AIVALIOTIS Greece / Grèce Ms Charoula KEFALIDOU
Mr Michail KATRINIS Greece / Grèce Ms Sophia GIANNAKA
Mr Péter HOPPÁL
Hungary / Hongrie
Ms Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉM
Ms Virág KAUFER Hungary / Hongrie Mr Gábor HARANGOZÓ
Mr Birkir Jón JÓNSSON Iceland / Islande ZZ...
Mr Peter KELLY Ireland / Irlande Mr Ronan MULLEN
Mr Mario BARBI Italy / Italie Mr Paolo GIARETTA
Mr Maurizio SAIA Italy / Italie M. Giacomo STUCCHI
Mr Oreste TOFANI Italy / Italie Mr Giuseppe CIARRAPICO
Mr Luca VOLONTE' Italy / Italie Mr Vannino CHITI
M. Andris BĒRZINŠ Latvia / Lettonie Ms Ingrida CIRCENE
Ms Doris FROMMELT Liechtenstein Mr Leander SCHÄDLER
Ms Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ Lithuania / Lituanie Ms Birutė VĖSAITĖ
M. Marc SPAUTZ Luxembourg M. Jean HUSS
Mr Francis AGIUS
Malta / Malte
Ms Marie-Louise COLEIRO PRECA
ZZ... Moldova / Moldova ZZ...
Mr Neven GOSOVIĆ Montenegro/ Monténégro Mr Obrad GOJKOVIĆ
Mr Paul LEMPENS Netherlands / Pays-Bas Mr Luuk BLOM
Ms Karin ANDERSEN Norway / Norvège Ms Ingjerd SCHOU
Ms Bożenna BUKIEWICZ Poland / Pologne Mr Stanislaw RAKOCZY
Mr Włodzimierz KARPIŃSKI Poland / Pologne Mr Maciej ORZECHOWSKI
Ms Anna SOBECKA Poland / Pologne Mr Ryszard BENDER
Mme Maria de Belém ROSEIRA Portugal Mr José Manuel PUREZA
ZZ... Portugal ZZ...
M. Cezar Florin PREDA Romania / Roumanie M. Iosif Veniamin BLAGA
Mr Cristian DAVID Romania / Roumanie Ms Ana Adriana SĂFTOIU
Mr Mihai TUDOSE Romania / Roumanie Mr Florin IORDACHE
Mr Igor CHERNYSHENKO Russian Federation / Fédération de Russie Mr Valery PARFENOV
Mr Oleg LEBEDEV Russian Federation / Fédération de Russie Mr Alexander Minovitch PODLESOV
Mr Vladimir ZHIDKIKH Russian Federation / Fédération de Russie Ms Tatiana VOLOZHINSKAYA
ZZ... Russian Federation / Fédération de Russie Ms Svetlana GORYACHEVA
M. Marco GATTI San Marino / Saint-Marin Ms Assunta MELONI
Mr Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ Serbia / Serbie Ms Nataša VUČKOVIĆ
Ms Vjerica RADETA Serbia / Serbie Mr Velimir ILIĆ
Mr Ján KOVARČÍK Slovak Republic Mr Július BROCKA
Mr Ljubo GERMIČ Slovenia / Slovénie ZZ...
Ms Meritxell BATET LAMAÑA Spain / Espagne Mr Jordi XUCLA I COSTA
Mme Rosa Delia BLANCO TERÁN Spain / Espagne Ms Emelina FERNÁNDEZ SORIANO
Mr Agustín CONDE BAJÉN Spain / Espagne Mme Blanca FERNÁNDEZ-CAPEL BAÑOS
Ms Carina OHLSSON Sweden / Suède Mr Morgan JOHANSSON
Ms Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN Sweden / Suède Ms Tina ACKETOFT
M. Felix MÜRI Switzerland M. Arthur LOEPFE
Mr Zoran PETRESKI « The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia » Ms Flora KADRIU
Mr Lokman AYVA Turkey / Turquie Mr Yüksel ÖZDEN
Mr Haluk KOÇ Turkey / Turquie Ms Birgen KELEŞ
Mr Mustafa ÜNAL Turkey / Turquie Mr Ali Riza ALABOYUN
Ms Olena BONDARENKO Ukraine Mr Yevgeniy SUSLOV
Ms Olha HERASYM'YUK Ukraine Ms Oksana BILOZIR
Mr Victor YANUKOVYCH Ukraine M. Ivan POPESCU
Mr Paul FLYNN United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni Lord Donald ANDERSON
Mr Michael HANCOCK United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni Baroness Anita GALE
Baroness Jill KNIGHT OF COLLINGTREE United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni Mr Tim BOSWELL
Ms Christine McCAFFERTY United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni Ms Betty WILLIAMS
Special guests / Invités spéciaux
Ms / Mme Marian SHANLEY, Member of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Ireland), membre de la Commission d'enquête sur la maltraitance des enfants (Irlande)
Professor Massimo INTROVIGNE, Sociologist (Vatican City), Sociologue (Cité du Vatican)
Dr Christine BERGMANN, Special Representative on Cases of Child Abuse (Germany), Représentante spéciale sur les incidents de sévices portés aux enfants (Allemagne)
Dr Helgard VAN HÜLLEN, Member of the Executive Board, Victim Support Europe, membre du Conseil Exécutif de « Soutien aux victimes »
Ms / Mme Maud de BOER- BUQUICCHIO, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe / Secrétaire Générale Adjointe du Conseil de l’Europe
Permanent Representatives / Représentants permanents
Mr / M. Stelian STOIAN , Ambassador, Romania / Ambassadeur, Roumanie
NGO / ONG
Ms / Mme Brigitte LE GOUIS, CECIF/ CECIF, France / France
Secretariat of the Assembly / Secrétariat de l’Assemblée
Mr / M. SAWICKI, Director General, Directeur Général
Mr / M. NEVILLE, Head of the Migration, Social Cohesion and Equal Opportunities Department / Chef du service des migrations, de la cohésion sociale et de l'égalité des chances
Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee / Commission des questions sociales, de la santé et de la famille
Ms / Mme KLEINSORGE, Head of the Secretariat / Chef du Secrétariat
Ms / Mme LAMBRECHT-FEIGL, Secretary to the Committee / Secrétaire de la Commission
Ms / Mme ARZILLI, Co-Secretary to the Committee / Co-Secrétaire de la Commission
Ms / Mme LUTZ, Principal Assistant / Assistante principale
Ms / Mme STEMP, Assistant / Assistante