contents 
page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.
|
AS (2006) CR 27 |
Provisional edition |
2006 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(Fourth part)
REPORT
Twenty-seventh sitting
Wednesday 4 October 2006 at 10 a.m.
In this report:
1. Speeches in English are reported in full.
2. Speeches in other languages are summarised.
3. Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.
4. Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.
The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.
Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.10 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.
THE PRESIDENT. – The minutes of proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Sitting have been distributed.
May I ask everyone to take their seats and be silent? There should be no private conversations in the Hemicycle. If the ambassadors want to have meetings, will they please do so outside the Hemicycle?
Are the minutes agreed to?
The minutes are agreed to.
THE PRESIDENT. – On Monday, the Assembly agreed to limit speaking time in all debates to four minutes except on Friday. However, the number of speakers and amendments for the debates this afternoon is such that it is no longer necessary to limit speaking time in those debates. I therefore propose that speaking time in this afternoon’s debates should be five minutes.
Is that agreed?
It is agreed.
I would also like to inform you that, in the urgent debate tomorrow on “The mass arrival of irregular migrants on Europe’s southern shores”, Mr Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, will make a statement.
THE PRESIDENT. – In accordance with Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure a written declaration, No. 384, on the appeal for the release of the Bulgarian nurses detained in Libya, Document 11057, which has been signed by 27 members, has been printed.
Any Representative or Substitute may add their signature to this written declaration in the Table Office, Room 1083. If any names are added, the declaration will be distributed again two weeks after the end of the part-session, with all the accumulated signatures.
4. Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly
THE PRESIDENT. – We will now hear the presentation by Mr Sergey Lavrov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, representing the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, giving the communication from the Committee to the Assembly on its activities, in Document CM/AS (2006) 8.
This will be followed by parliamentary questions for oral answer. The list of written questions has been circulated, Document 11049.
Minister, I am happy to welcome you to this Hemicycle on behalf of the Assembly.
Ten years ago, Russia joined the Council of Europe, this community of values and the foremost guardian of human rights. Now Russia is in the sixth month of its chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of our Organisation. This chairmanship has been marked by many important events, such as the meeting of the Standing Committee in Moscow in May, the meeting on elections jointly organised by the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission and the Russian Central Electoral Commission, the projected Forum for the Future of Democracy and the important intercultural and interfaith conference in Nizhny Novgorod.
We highly appreciate the Russian chairmanship’s role in the activities of our Organisation that encompassed all areas of our activities. I, for one, was impressed with Russia’s input into the preparation of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union, and I would like to urge the European Union member states to follow this example.
The year 2006 is very special for Russia as far as its international profile is concerned: it marks the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the oldest multilateral organisation in Europe, and of the G8. The year 2007 will be the year of parliamentary elections in Russia and we expect those elections to be a further step toward a fully functioning and advanced democracy in Russia.
Minister, you have the floor.
Mr LAVROV (Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation) (Translation). – Mr President, parliamentarians, ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honour to present to you today a report on the activities of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for the period from July to September 2006. You can familiarise yourselves with the full text of the communication, so I will focus now on the most substantive aspects of the Russian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers over the past three months.
At the outset, I would like to stress that the Russian Federation is greatly interested in increasing the authority and the role of both the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We believe that achieving this objective is closely linked to the full implementation of the basic principles of the Organisation as laid down in its founding documents. Without questioning the mission of the Council of Europe to act as the principal guardian of human rights in the European continent, we should not forget another aim proclaimed in the Statute of the Organisation, which is to further the economic and social progress of Council of Europe member states by “common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administrative matters”. Therefore, when we talk about adherence to the values and aims of the Council of Europe, we should keep in mind all the main thrusts of the Organisation’s activities. Any proposals to reduce or weaken the mandate and competence of our Organisation and, particularly, any attempts to limit its independence, to transform the Council of Europe into an “auxiliary body” of other European entities would be unacceptable.
The Action Plan adopted at the 3rd Summit of the Organisation in Warsaw contains clear guidelines for the Council of Europe’s multidimensional and comprehensive development. At its meeting on 28 September 2006, the Committee of Ministers gave instructions to prepare, in time for the 117th Session of the Committee of Ministers in May 2007, a report on the implementation of the summit’s decisions to promote interstate co-operation in all spheres of the Council of Europe’s activity.
The Russian Federation calls for the full and efficient implementation of all the summit decisions and for the fulfilment of the strategic aim of the Organisation proclaimed in Warsaw, of “building Europe without dividing lines”. Such an approach logically implies that all European countries should be involved in co-operation in the implementation of Council of Europe international legal instruments. In this context, we consider a positive development the accession of Belarus to two major conventions: the Anti-Doping Convention and the Civil Law Convention on Corruption. The engagement of both Belarus and Montenegro in pan-European co-operation is important for maintaining the stability and security of our continent in a universal context.
The priorities of Russia’s chairmanship have been formulated in the spirit of the statutory aims of the Council of Europe and the provisions of the Action Plan. The events scheduled in our programme, which we have tried to make as broad as possible and truly pan-European, are intended to facilitate the implementation of these priorities.
Our first priority is to reinforce national human rights protection mechanisms, promote human rights education and improve the protection of the rights of national minorities. In fulfilling it, we reaffirm the importance of ensuring the leading role of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. On 4 May 2006, the Russian Federation signed Protocol No. 14 to this Convention, and the process of ratification is now under way. The Group of Wise Persons, set up by a special decision of the 3rd Summit, is elaborating proposals aimed at increasing the effectiveness of both the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights. We hope that by the end of this year the group will present a report reflecting the common position of all its members.
Like many of our partners, we believe that the development of national human rights protection mechanisms and the high-quality administration of justice in the states parties to the Convention represent the main tools to ensure effective implementation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and reduce the workload of the European Court of Human Rights. In this respect, it is our opinion that the recommendations of the conference on these issues, which was held in June in Yaroslavl, are to be taken into consideration. We hope that the upcoming conference entitled “Common European legal space and constitutional law practice”, to be hosted in Moscow at the end of October by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, will also result in interesting proposals concerning the development of the European legal space in the human rights protection field.
We welcome the arrangements reached in July between the Council of Europe and NATO concerning access of Council of Europe experts to the detention facilities in Kosovo. These arrangements are in line with the strengthening of the pan-European legal field and enhancing human rights monitoring.
In this context, the Committee of Ministers, at its meeting on 27 September, discussed and took note of the proposals made by the Secretary General on the issue of so-called secret prisons and clandestine transportation of persons detained under suspicion of terrorist activity. Of course, we understand the feelings of many Europeans and the great attention devoted to this issue by the Parliamentary Assembly. It is obvious to us that carefully considered and difficult decisions are required in this regard.
The second priority of the Russian chairmanship is the creation of a common European legal space to protect individuals from modern-day challenges. In this context the expeditious ratification by all European states of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism is particularly urgent, as it serves to eradicate terrorist propaganda and for the first time recognises as criminal offences the incitement to commit an act of terrorism as well as the recruitment and training of terrorists.
Combating terrorism is closely linked to international anti-criminal co-operation. The seventh conference of European General Prosecutors, organised in Moscow in July, was an important step in strengthening that co-operation. We welcome the establishment of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors. We expect that the Council will take practical measures to build up co-operation in the criminal justice field and to increase the effectiveness of mutual legal assistance and co-operation between European states.
As a logical continuation of the efforts to enhance anti-criminal co-operation in Europe, a high-level conference of Ministers of Justice and Internal Affairs will take place in Moscow on 9 and 10 November. Its themes – extradition, legal assistance in criminal matters and transfer of sentenced persons – are highly relevant to developing recommendations aimed at improving the European treaty regime in this field.
Effective responses to the new challenges and threats require a solid legal basis. There is a need for a legal instrument on combating cyber-terrorism, on modernising the outdated Council of Europe Conventions on Extradition of 1957 and on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959. It is necessary to develop and adopt a pan-European convention aimed at combating manufacturing and trafficking in counterfeit medical products, which directly relates to the protection of health of all Europeans. It is no surprise that a conference on “Europe against counterfeit medicines”, to be held in Moscow on 23 and 24 October, has been included in the programme of our chairmanship.
For its part, the Russian Federation has ratified the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and the Protocol amending the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism.
In the social field, which is the third priority of the Russian chairmanship, the main achievement has been the adoption of a 10-year action plan to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities. The action plan was officially launched during the Conference on Rehabilitation of People with Disabilities, held in St Petersburg on 21 and 22 September. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Nordic Council countries for their assistance in holding the conference.
Speaking of vulnerable groups, one cannot avoid mentioning the need to improve the mechanisms of protection of children’s rights, in particular those of disabled children, as well as to support the family in general. We note with satisfaction that the seminar entitled “Ensuring children’s rights – ensuring the development of society”, held in Moscow on 14 and 15 September, has contributed to promoting the Council of Europe’s programme “Building a Europe for and with children”. Specific measures on the protection of children’s rights were also considered at the Conference of National Ombudspersons in Athens on 29 and 30 September.
As regards the implementation of the fourth priority of the Russian chairmanship, namely improving the forms of democracy and civil participation, I would like especially to dwell on the issue of elections and their monitoring. Unfortunately, the “technology” of election observation has not been the subject of an agreement duly reached and approved at interstate level. Numerous questions arise also with regard to the practice of forming the so-called “joint election observation missions”, to which representatives of the CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly are for some reason not invited.
The extremely high attention paid to the presidential elections held in Belarus on 19 March is in striking contrast to the lack of any substantial interest in the parliamentary elections to take place on 7 October in Latvia, where tens of thousands of so-called “non-citizens” are deprived of voting rights.
All this causes many problems in the process of election monitoring and, most important, leads to ambivalent evaluations of their conduct and results. The need to adopt a European convention on standards for democratic elections matured long ago. The “monopoly” of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights as regards the evaluation of national electoral legislation is perplexing. This function could be perfectly performed by the Venice Commission, which is more competent in this field than other bodies.
We are interested in the active participation of parliamentarians in election observation. In this context, the Parliamentary Assembly initiative to hold a conference on the parliamentary dimension of election observation in Strasbourg on 15 and 16 February 2007 is worth noting.
The Russian chairmanship is in favour of expanding inter-regional and transfrontier co-operation between European countries. Significant preparations have been undertaken to establish a European centre for inter-regional and cross-border co-operation, on the basis of an enlarged partial agreement of the Council of Europe. At the same time, the mandate of the future centre needs further consideration. The creation of the centre will be justified only if it brings tangible results in consolidating practical collaboration between regions and border territories. To this end it is important that the mandate of the centre should be based on the recognition of the equality of all Council of Europe members, without singling out the interests of any specific group of Council of Europe member countries.
Improving the forms of democracy and civil society is unthinkable without the active direct participation of non-governmental organisations. We are satisfied with the successful conduct of the European conference of NGOs held in Moscow on 15 and 16 September.
Undoubtedly, one of the key events of our chairmanship will be the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Europe Forum for the Future of Democracy on 18 and 19 October. Its theme, “The role of political parties in a democratic society”, is of paramount importance to all our countries. The State Duma is intensively working on the preparation of the forum’s meeting, to which leaders of all political parties represented in the Assembly are invited. Its success will to a great extent depend on the content of its final documents, and in particular on the state of work on a code of good practices for political parties.
Strengthening tolerance and mutual understanding is the fifth and final priority of the Russian chairmanship, but in this case, of course, “last” in no way means “least important”. This is indeed an important priority. The objective of promoting intercultural and inter-religious dialogue is increasingly becoming the most important area of the Council of Europe’s activity. This work should be at the centre of attention of the Committee of Ministers. New effective steps are needed to preserve the atmosphere of tolerance in Europe in the context of relations between different peoples, religions and cultures, on the basis of equality and mutual respect. We need further to improve dialogue between the state and religious organisations and between different religions.
A large-scale international conference on “Dialogue between cultures and inter-faith co-operation” was successfully held in Nizhny Novgorod on 7 and 8 September 2006. We are pleased to note that the President of the Assembly, Mr René van der Linden, and many representatives of the Council of Europe who attended the conference gave a high assessment of its organisation. It is important that we arm ourselves with the conclusions contained in the final document of the conference, as well as with many of the ideas expressed by its participants. We welcome the proposal to devote the next joint conference of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the Commonwealth of Independent States to the issues of intercultural and inter-religious dialogue.
The Committee of Ministers has paid significant attention to the interaction of the Council of Europe with other international organisations. The fact that, as the President mentioned, this year Russia is chairing the G8 – one of the most important forums for agreement and collective decisions on key international issues – is another particularity of our chairmanship. The G8 and the Council of Europe actively participate in shaping the new architecture of international relations. Although their respective scopes of responsibility do not coincide, we have taken advantage of our “parallel” chairmanships to compare and exchange ideas and to seek to strengthen the common understanding that narrow block-based approaches to solving the challenges posed by world development are deficient, counterproductive and dangerous.
As regards co-operation with the United Nations, the Committee of Ministers at its meeting on 6 September approved a draft resolution on co-operation between the Council of Europe and the United Nations, which was transmitted to the UN Secretary General. Suggestions from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, concerning the closer involvement of parliamentarians in the United Nations work, were taken into consideration during the drafting of the document. We expect that all member states of the Council of Europe will support the draft resolution during its consideration and adoption at the 61st Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
In the context of the implementation of the 3rd Summit decisions, the Russian chairmanship continued efforts to strengthen co-operation with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Ways of improving co-operation between the two organisations were discussed at a ministerial meeting in New York on 21 September. The participants in the meeting noted the importance of focusing the increasing attention of the Council of Europe and the OSCE on solving a broad spectrum of issues in the light of new threats and challenges, and the advisability of joint actions to foster security, peace and stability in Europe. The first Council of Europe-OSCE joint workshop on the prevention of terrorism, to be held in Vienna on 19 and 20 October, is a good example of the stepping up of co-operation between the two organisations. A meeting of the Co-ordination Group on 29 September discussed specific ways of advancing co-operation between the Council of Europe and the OSCE.
We attach great importance to establishing and defining the prospects of relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union. In accordance with the decisions of the 3rd Summit of the Council of Europe and the 116th Session of the Committee of Ministers, the preparation of a draft memorandum of understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union is under way. It is clear that this document should be the result of collective efforts and reflect the opinions of all interested parties, including the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament. In addition, we believe that further work on the drafting of this document should take into account the conclusions of the report submitted by Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg on 11 April at the Assembly’s spring part-session, as well as the outcome of the discussions in the Assembly on this matter. We regret that differences of opinion have not yet allowed us to set up a high-level group on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Juncker report, despite the relevant decision taken at the 116th Session of the Committee of Ministers. In this regard, I fully support the appeal that we have just heard from Mr van der Linden.
The Committee of Ministers has recently reviewed country-specific co-operation, in particular with Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Belarus. In examining these issues, the Russian chairmanship proceeded from the need to take objective and balanced decisions, which would strengthen the culture of consensus, trust and mutual respect.
The 3rd Summit of the Council of Europe determined that one of the Council of Europe’s priorities is to intensify the reform of our Organisation in order to increase its efficiency and effectiveness. I am certain that the Committee of Ministers will pay adequate attention to the institutional reform proposals, which are to be discussed at this part-session of the Assembly. It is no less important to pay due attention to strengthening the principle of consensus, budget policy reform, the development of the Organisation’s programme of activities and the reform of human resources policy to ensure fair geographical representation.
The Committee of Ministers has made the first steps to improve the structure of inter-governmental co-operation bodies. We assume that the work in other directions of the reform will receive further impetus and will be continued under the next chairmanship of San Marino, to whom we wish every success.
We are interested in the closest co-operation possible between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, particularly on the priority issues of the Council of Europe’s activities. The Russian Federation chairmanship stands ready to continue this constructive and mutually respectful partnership. We hope that you will reciprocate this approach.
Thank you very much for your attention. Now I would like to respond to questions from members of the Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Minister, especially for your broad range of initiatives and activities, which is an expression of your commitment to this pan-European Organisation. I also thank you especially for what you have done with regard to the memorandum of understanding and the implementation of the Juncker report. We risk losing momentum and I urge the Committee of Ministers to implement that report. It is a question of political will, not institutional issues.
We now come to parliamentary questions for oral answer.
I remind the Assembly that the Minister will answer questions only from those members who are present.
Thirty-two questions have been tabled. They are contained in Document 11049 and will be taken in the order in which they are listed in that document, unless they have been grouped together for answer with a question earlier in the list.
Since the questions have been published, I do not propose to give the floor to the member asking a question which is in the document. After the reply to each written question, I will allow one supplementary question from the member who tabled the question.
In the case of grouped questions, once Mr Lavrov has given his answer I will call each of the members in turn to ask a supplementary question before asking Mr Lavrov to reply.
Written answers will be given to any questions which are not reached this morning.
The first question is No. 1, tabled by Mrs Beck.
“Question No. 1:
Mrs Beck,
Considering that there are no stable societies without a pluralist and vibrant civil society enabling people to actively participate in public life, I have been closely following the adoption and implementation of legislation restricting progressively the scope of activities of non-governmental organisations in the Russian Federation. It is with utmost concern that I learned about campaigns against renowned organisations such as ‘Memorial’, the Moscow Helsinki Group, the Committee of the ‘Soldiers' Mothers of Russia’ or the ‘Russian-Chechen Friendship Society’;
Considering that, on the occasion of the summit of the Group of Eight most industrialised countries (G8) in St Petersburg, President Vladimir Putin made a public commitment to review the implementation of national legislation governing civil society organisations;
Noting, furthermore, that tolerance and non-discrimination is an issue high on the international agenda, and the Russian Federation has subscribed to international standards and commitments designed to promote tolerance and non-discrimination, within the framework of the Council of Europe as well as of other organisations. Such standards and commitments still fall short as far as the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian people are concerned;
Considering that recent events have shown that restrictions on the rights of civil society to peaceful public demonstrations in the Russian Federation further diminish the rights of gay and lesbian people within the Russian Federation. A German parliamentarian, Volker Beck, has been severely harassed by Moscow authorities. Gays and lesbians in the Russian Federation – as well as in a number of other countries – are not able to publicly commemorate Christopher Street Day.
To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,
Whether he could give further information on how President Putin’s commitment has been and will be put into practice; and which steps the Russian Federation has taken to promote the rights of gay and lesbian people on a national as well as an international level, including within the Council of Europe and the OSCE.”
Mr Lavrov, will you please answer this question?
Mr LAVROV said that when considering the issue of changes to Russian legislation relating to non-governmental organisations, the Russian Federation was aware of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Secretariat had given valuable advice on the draft law. The Russian Federation would continue the dialogue with the organisation regarding the implementation of the new legislation.
Turning to the second part of the question, Mr Lavrov stressed the importance of tolerance as a universal value. Freedom of peaceful assembly was guaranteed in the Russian Federation, subject to the restrictions in the European Convention on Human Rights. The police had a duty to ensure public safety. He pointed to a recent G8 meeting of young people as an example of how things were working well.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to ask a supplementary question, Mrs Beck? You have 30 seconds.
Mrs BECK (Germany) said she had been concerned to hear that non-governmental organisations had been adversely affected by tax measures.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Will you please reply, Mr Lavrov?
Mr LAVROV said that if Mrs Beck would give him the facts, he would look into that matter. It was the first time he had heard of taxes being levied on NGOs.
THE PRESIDENT. – The next questions are Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8 and 32, tabled by Mr Van den Brande, Mr Agramunt, Mr Mooney and Mr Pangalos.
“Question No. 2:
Mr Van den Brande,
Considering that the Centre for inter-regional and transfrontier co-operation is strongly awaited by a large number of European players at the national, regional and local level, including EU bodies, such as the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions, and that the EU Committee of the Regions’ President welcomed the initiative and expressed the full support of the Committee of the Regions to the proposal of establishing such a centre in St Petersburg;
Considering that the centre will contribute to the objective of building a Europe without dividing lines, including by providing assistance in developing inter-territorial co-operation in order to overcome barriers to contact between local and regional authorities of member and non-member countries of the European Union,
To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,
Does he agree that the activities of such a centre would contribute to the complementarity between the Council of Europe and the European Union and does he fully support the installation of the centre?
Question No. 3:
Mr Agramunt,
Considering that the Council of Europe centre for inter-regional and cross-border co-operation would aim at promoting joint projects in specific fields of topical interest, including projects aimed at strengthening civil society and human contacts, in particular where dialogue, co-operation and exchanges need to be strengthened;
Considering that we are convinced that the centre could also play an important role in assisting the current reforms in the Russian Federation in the field of local and regional self-government and that it would to no extent infringe on the competences of the Russian Federation in the field of inter-regional and cross-border co-operation,
To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,
In which particular field does he see a need for assistance of such a centre?
Question No. 4:
Mr Mooney,
Considering that, in 2005, the authorities of the Russian Federation and the President of the Congress of the Council of Europe jointly proposed the setting up of a Council of Europe Centre for inter-regional and cross-border co-operation, which could take the form of an Enlarged Partial Agreement of the Council of Europe and be located in the territory of the Russian Federation (in St Petersburg);
Noting that the creation of this centre would foster the development of local and regional democracy as the basis for sound decentralised co-operation and that it would enhance the capacity of local and regional authorities to engage in such co-operation;
Noting, furthermore, that a large number of Council of Europe member states expressed their support in principle and interest for the creation of the centre, and stressed the political significance of the creation of the centre in the Russian Federation,
To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,
Does he agree that the creation of a Council of Europe body on the territory of the Russian Federation would be profitable both for the host country and the Organisation and would consolidate their relations?
Question No. 8:
Mr Pangalos,
Considering that among the priorities of the chairpersonship of the Russian Federation of the Committee of Ministers, the Russian authorities intend to advance the Congress’ initiative to set up in the Russian Federation a Centre for inter-regional and transfrontier co-operation,
To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,
Can he give us reassurances today that the Russian authorities will take the necessary steps to finalise this project in the course of his chairpersonship?”
I call Mr Lavrov to reply.
Mr LAVROV welcomed the interest expressed in the plan to establish a Council of Europe centre for inter-regional and cross-border co-operation. He stressed the Russian Federation’s support for that project and its belief in promoting local and regional democracy with the aim of stimulating social development. Work on establishing the centre was progressing well.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to ask a supplementary question, Mr Van den Brande? You have 30 seconds.
Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – I thank the Minister for his positive answer. There is no misunderstanding. I want to be clear. Once the Union is positive about the Council of Europe’s project, it is important that you urgently go for implementation. Multi-level governance is essential in our member states and I hope that the centre can also contribute to the preservation and consolidation of multi-level governance in the Russian Federation itself.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to ask a supplementary question, Mr Mooney?
Mr MOONEY (Ireland). – Complexities are involved in organising government at regional level in the Russian Federation. Is the Minister aware of the international concern at what seems to be a dilution of local representation through the appointment of regional governors by central government, rather than by direct election? Will he assure the Parliamentary Assembly that the Russian Federation at government level will do everything it can to ensure the protection and expansion of local democracy, which is key to enhanced democracy, particularly in the Russian Federation?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Lavrov to respond to those two supplementary questions.
Mr LAVROV said that the supplementary questions were more comments than questions. Any centre that was established should be able to deal with issues of democracy at local level. That was very important for the Russian Federation, as it was for all Council of Europe member states. Much had been said about the election of governors in the Russian Federation, but in no way did those elections undermine the democratic principles that underlay the Council of Europe.
THE PRESIDENT. – The next question is No. 5, tabled by Mr Mihkelson.
“Question No. 5:
Mr Mihkelson,
To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,
In the light of his Chairpersonship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, could he specify what kind of input for the further development of democracy he has given?”
I call Mr Lavrov to reply.
Mr LAVROV said that developing effective forms of democracy and citizen participation and promoting good governance were among the key priorities of the Russian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. The exchange of views on how best to promote good governance enriched all member states. Any doubts about the Russian commitment to that priority were artificial.
From that perspective, great hopes were placed on the next session of the Forum for the Future of Democracy which was to be held in Moscow on 18 and 19 October 2006. That session would focus on the role and responsibilities of political parties in democratic life. The forum was expected to come up with concrete and innovative ideas on how to foster democracy in all member states.
Beyond the forum, a number of other events have been organised during the chairmanship of the Russian Federation in order to stimulate a public debate about different aspects of democracy. He noted in particular the seminar on the efficiency of the work of local self-government bodies organised in Veliky Novgorod in June and, more recently, the European conference of non-governmental organisations held on 15 and 16 September 2006, in Moscow, on the question of dialogue and co-operation between civil society and public authorities in the promotion of social rights, as well as the recent G8 meeting aimed at fostering understanding of democracy in young people.
The final and most important issue concerned elections. A number of instances over the past few years showed that practices for international election observation missions and the criteria used to assess the way elections were conducted were unclear. There had been a debate on those issues during the 3rd European Conference of election management bodies in Moscow last May. The Council of Europe was best equipped to set common pan-European standards in this area and should prepare a convention on electoral rules. It should be based on the code of good conduct in electoral matters already drawn up by the Venice Commission. Countries should take the draft Europe-wide election standards more seriously. It was not enough to ensure democratic practices without appropriate procedures that could not be abused for political ends.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.
Would you like to ask a supplementary question, Mr Mihkelson? You have 30 seconds.
Mr MIHKELSON (Estonia). – I am delighted, Mr Lavrov, that you are so devoted to strengthening democracy in Russia and Europe. I am also delighted by your approach to the dividing line in Europe. However, I cannot understand why your country has recently been so hostile to a small democratic and free country such as Georgia.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Lavrov to reply.
Mr LAVROV said that once again that question was more an expression of position. It would be possible to talk at great length about Russian-Georgian relations, but this was not an appropriate time. The Georgian Government had adopted anti-Russian policies. The Russian Federation had sought to improve the situation through meetings between the Georgian and Russian Presidents, as well as at other levels, but the Russian Federation could not understand why the Georgian Government continued to develop anti-Russian policies. The Russian Federation was fully interested in developing good neighbourly relations with the Georgian people, whom they greatly respected.
The Georgian Government did not reflect the will of the Georgian people. The policies of the Georgian Government were extreme: for example, Russian soldiers who had been supervising the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia had been kidnapped on the basis of false accusations. Such actions by the Georgian Government were an attempt to provide a pretext for the resolution of the situation between Georgia and Russia through non-peaceful means. Many organisations, including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the Secretary General of the United Nations had reported on that issue and concluded that Georgia had violated terms set down by those organisations. The Russian Federation sought a good relationship with the Georgian people, but that was not possible with the current Georgian Government.
THE PRESIDENT. – On behalf of the Assembly, I want to repeat our strong appeal to both sides to stop the conflict. All member states of the Council of Europe are obliged to find peaceful solutions to conflicts through dialogue and negotiations. I sincerely hope that both sides will cease blaming each other. I have a meeting with the two leaders of the delegations this afternoon and we will do our utmost to help to resolve the conflict between two member states.
The next questions are Nos. 6, 7 and 9, tabled by Mr Preda, Mr Glăvan and Mr Frunda.
“Question No. 6:
Mr Preda,
To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,
How, as Chairperson-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, he explains the presence in Transnistria of Russian observers monitoring a referendum that has not been recognised by any international body or by any Council of Europe member state?
Question No. 7:
Mr Glăvan,
To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,
What is the position of the Russian Federation on the referendum in Transnistria, how does Russia expect the situation to develop and, given a unitary position, what critical stance does it anticipate from the Council of Europe and European Union member states towards the Tiraspol authorities?
Question No. 9:
Mr Frunda,
Considering that according to a communiqué released by the department for press and communication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, independent Russian experts and members of parliament, acting as private persons, observed the referendum on the independence of the so-called Republic of Transnistria;
Considering that no international organisations such as the Council of Europe or the OSCE recognised the referendum or sent observers;
Considering that the Russian Federation currently holds the Chairpersonship-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe;
Taking into account that the Organisation considers the referendum as illegal,
To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,
How would he qualify the presence of Russian parliamentarians as observers in Transnistria and in his opinion, what impact should the results of the referendum have on the settlement of this conflict?”
I call Mr Lavrov to reply.
Mr LAVROV thanked the President for his statement following the previous question. He too hoped that the conflict would not be worsened and he hoped that the Georgian Government also held that view. However, the Georgian Defence Minister had commented that he expected war, and although he hoped that the Georgian Defence Minister’s expectations were not realised such declarations had to be taken into account.
The recent referendum in Transnistria had been prompted by the unfortunate fact that the conflict in that region had remained unresolved for over sixteen years. Faced with political uncertainty and continuing economic pressure, the Transnistrians had used the channel of direct democracy to express their views on the most suitable form of ensuring stability in the region.
Rather than dwelling on the legal validity of the results of that consultation, it was important to consider the political aspects of that manifestation of the will of the Transnistrian population. No one could ignore it and, clearly, the message sent was one of impatience at the lack of progress in achieving a durable solution to the conflict.
The negotiation process needed to be resumed urgently. A comprehensive and sustainable political solution to the Transnistrian problem had to be found. The Russian Federation was willing to play its part in this process. It counted on the goodwill of all stakeholders to devise such a solution.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to ask a supplementary question, Mr Preda?
Mr PREDA (Romania). – No, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. – Would you like to ask a supplementary question, Mr Glăvan?
Mr GLĂVAN (Romania). – No.
THE PRESIDENT. – Would you like to ask a supplementary question, Mr Frunda? You have 30 seconds.
Mr FRUNDA (Romania). – Thank you. No member
state of the Council of Europe recognises Transnistria, as has been said.
Do you think that the fact that Russian members of parliament are participating
in the referendum in Transnistria indirectly shows that they recognise Transnistria
as a
state – something that is contradictory to the decision of the Council
of Europe? Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. – Would you like to answer the question, Mr Lavrov?
Mr LAVROV said that members of the European Parliament had been observers at the vote in Transnistria but that that did not constitute recognition of Transnistria as a state. Instead, Transnistria had been recognised as a party to a conflict.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.
The next question is No. 10, tabled by Mr Schreiner, and it relates to the future budget of the Council of Europe.
“Question No. 10:
Mr Schreiner,
Considering that the debate on the 2007 budget within the Committee of Ministers is a difficult one;
Considering that Mr Terry Davis has made a number of proposals which I fully support,
To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,
How he thinks it will be possible to allocate to the European Court of Human Rights the resources it needs in order to function without putting excessive strain on the budgets of the other Council of Europe bodies which have already done a great deal to make savings?”
I call Mr Lavrov to reply.
Mr LAVROV said that the Russian chairmanship was committed to implementation of the 3rd Summit’s decisions, including on the question of resources. Ministers were now discussing the budget for 2007, including the two proposals made by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis. Everybody understood the need for increased resources for the European Court on Human Rights but the Russian Federation was afraid that an increased budget for the Court might take resources away from the other work of the Council of Europe. Ministers believed that administrative savings could be made. The proposal to increase the Council’s budget exponentially was unrealistic. The record of the debate yesterday in the Assembly would be examined carefully. There was no question of member states starving the Council to death.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to ask a supplementary question, Mr Schreiner? You have 30 seconds.
Mr SCHREINER (France) asked Mr Lavrov to read the minutes of the Assembly’s debate on the budget the previous day. His reply to the question had been unsatisfactory. The Warsaw Summit had led to new requirements, which must be paid for. He asked whether the governments of member states desired the slow death of the Council of Europe.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to respond, Mr Lavrov?
Mr LAVROV said that Mr Schreiner should not worry. Discussions in the Committee of Ministers had just begun and a solution acceptable to everyone would be reached. The summit’s objectives would be fulfilled. He would oppose a situation in which the funding of the Court endangered the other areas of the Council’s work.
THE PRESIDENT. – The last question before interrupting the debate is No. 11, tabled by Mr Wodarg, and it relates to the United Nations new universal periodic review mechanism for the assessment of human rights.
“Question No. 11:
Mr Wodarg,
Considering that the Human Rights Council of the United Nations is currently working out the modalities for the new universal periodic review mechanism to assess the human rights situation in all UN member states,
To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,
Does Russia as Chair of the Committee of Ministers support and promote the idea that the UN should design its review mechanism along the lines of the various human rights mechanisms of the Council of Europe which carry out periodic monitoring?”
I call Mr Lavrov to reply.
Mr LAVROV said that the Human Rights Council of the United Nations had to take into account the work of regional human rights bodies including the Council of Europe. The General Assembly resolution establishing the Human Rights Council stated that the council should co-operate with national governments, regional organisations and civil society. The United Nations was unique, representing almost all nations, and new UN mechanisms should be welcomed. The Human Rights Council would have to reconcile the diversity of values in different regions. Human rights scandals had been known to occur in Europe as well as in other regions. The periodic monitoring function to be carried out by the Human Rights Council was under discussion by a working group to ensure that the methodology was apolitical and acceptable to all.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to ask a supplementary question, Mr Wodarg? You have 30 seconds.
Mr WODARG (Germany) said that the Russian Federation had complained in the United Nations that UN bodies were politicised. He asked whether Mr Lavrov was resiling from that position.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to respond to that question, Mr Lavrov?
Mr LAVROV said that statements by the representatives of the Russian Federation in the United Nations were not related to the Russian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. No European body was entirely free of politics. Politicians behaved in a political manner, and that was life. His statements were not inconsistent with the position of the Russian Federation in the United Nations. It was necessary to accept that the politicisation of issues such as human rights was not desirable and should be reduced to a minimum.
THE PRESIDENT. – We must now conclude the questions to the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Lavrov. On behalf of the Assembly, Mr Lavrov, I thank you very much for your precise and extensive answers and for the exchange of views. The questions that Mr Lavrov has not had time to answer will be responded to in written form. Unfortunately, we did not reach all of the questions that had been tabled. Do you wish to add something, Mr Lavrov?
Mr LAVROV thanked the President for the opportunity to address the Assembly, but added that he had been surprised at the Assembly’s procedures, which required questions and answers to be prepared beforehand in writing. It would be more interesting and useful if the questions and answers were spontaneous.
THE PRESIDENT. – You are speaking to my heart as a politician, and I would like to do that, especially if the Ministers in the Chair could give a bit more time to the Assembly so that we could have an exchange of views for, say, two hours. Your point underlines the fact that we have a forum here at which the parliaments of all the 46 member states are represented. Their representatives have the opportunity to address questions to the various ministers in office. I can assure you that this is a unique situation and I would like to use it in the proper way in future. I hope that everybody will acknowledge this opportunity, and we will take into account your sincere request for a fresh debate involving oral questions and straightforward, direct oral answers.
5. Ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by the member states of the Council of Europe
THE PRESIDENT. – The final item of business this morning is the debate on “Ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by the member states of the Council of Europe”, presented by Mr Cilevičs on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 10961, followed by the vote on the draft recommendation.
The list of speakers closed yesterday at 6 p.m.; 30 names are on the list and one amendment has been tabled.
I remind you that speaking time in the debate is limited to four minutes.
In order to finish by 1 p.m., we will have to interrupt the list of speakers at around 12.50 p.m., to allow time for the replies and votes.
I call Mr Cilevičs, the rapporteur. You have eight minutes.
Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – Thank you, Mr President. The Council of Europe has good reason to be proud of the fact that it is our Organisation that has taken the lead in the field of minority protection. This Assembly has contributed greatly to the development of the first ever legally binding instrument on minority rights – the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
I would like particularly to commend the contribution of our distinguished colleague, Rudolf Bindig, in the early 1990s. Although he has now resigned from parliamentary activity, we must continue the work that was started by the Assembly. Nowadays, the period of standard setting in the field of minority protection is more or less complete. The main task today is to ensure that the standards set by our Organisation are respected and universally implemented throughout Europe.
Today, 38 member states of our Organisation have ratified the Framework Convention, and I am happy to announce that three more – the Netherlands, Latvia and Georgia – have ratified it during the preparation of this report. Unfortunately, the former two states have accompanied their ratification with some rather restrictive declarations. I believe that the complicated legal issue of the acceptability of reservations and declarations deserves detailed consideration in a separate report.
The monitoring mechanism based on the activities of the Advisory Committee, a group of prominent experts nominated by states parties, has proved its efficiency and should be highly commended. Many of the states parties have already submitted their second report on the implementation of the Framework Convention and engaged in a constructive dialogue with the Advisory Committee which, in many cases, resulted in gradual but essential improvements. In the circumstances, the fact that Belgium, Greece, Iceland and Luxembourg have signed but not ratified the convention, and that four other states – Andorra, France, Monaco and Turkey – have not even signed it could undermine the universal nature and significance of this essential European instrument.
The Framework Convention has threefold significance. First, it is undoubtedly a human rights instrument, and a powerful tool to prevent discrimination. It explicitly stresses that minority rights are an integral part of fundamental human rights. Secondly, it is an essential conflict prevention mechanism which contributes greatly to ensuring peace and stability in Europe. Thirdly, it is a tool to preserve and develop cultural, linguistic and religious diversity which is widely recognised to be a basic value of modern Europe.
It was definitely not my intention to criticise any member state or to provoke political pressure. All the committee’s work on the report was aimed at achieving a better understanding of the obstacles that have so far prevented our colleagues from ratifying the convention and at finding appropriate ways to help remaining member states to overcome those obstacles. I am sure that constructive dialogue is the best, in fact the only, way to find acceptable solutions to these sensitive problems.
The Framework Convention is a very flexible instrument. It is often called a document of principles, and indeed these general principles can be implemented in different ways, depending on particular conditions in each state party. I am not aware of a single case in which excessive, over-generous respect for minority rights would provoke conflict, separatist attempts or secessionist aspirations. It is exactly the opposite: when the dignity and identity of minorities are neglected or insufficiently respected, stability and social cohesion will inevitably be impaired.
Let me stress again that we in the Assembly can be proud of our ownership of this important instrument. I believe that all Council of Europe member states, due account being taken of their diverse political, historical and cultural backgrounds, can benefit greatly from the main principles of the Framework Convention, and that together we can find a solution that will allow us to make it a genuinely pan-European standard.
We often say that we are all becoming minorities in a united Europe. That is why it is so important to ensure that the convention and the rights enshrined in it are not merely declared, but work in practice as a safeguard for all Europeans, because we are all minorities.
Finally, I should like a few words in my mother tongue, Russian, which is a working language of the Council of Europe, which is the de facto, but not the recognised, minority language in my country, Latvia.
(The speaker continued in Russian)
Coming from a country with a significant national minority, he wished to use the language of that minority. He stressed the importance of establishing a general system of human rights with up-to-date standards and effective implementation. He hoped that today’s debate would represent another milestone on that path.
(Mr Jurgens, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr van der Linden.)
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Severin to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr SEVERIN (Romania). – The Socialist Group has always been the champion of minority rights. A socialist rapporteur was the author of the Assembly’s Recommendation 1201, which is the origin of the Framework Convention. Moreover, the group has always asked the Committee of Ministers to do what is necessary for the adoption of a protocol on cultural rights attached to the European Convention on Human Rights. Such a protocol would have dramatically improved the capacity of the European Court of Human Rights to examine cases involving breaches of identity rights. Unfortunately, that has not yet been achieved.
Naturally, the Socialist Group unanimously deplores the fact that an important number of states have neither signed nor ratified the Framework Convention, while others have ratified it with a number of reservations that sometimes render the ratification itself meaningless. There are two explanations for that. It is partly due to a still insufficiently developed understanding of the needs and the beauties of diversity in some European states and societies. The concept of the nation state, one and indivisible, formed only by individual citizens, still prevails in some countries. The other explanation lies in the deficiencies of the convention, both technical – for example, the lack of a definition of minorities – and conceptual.
The conceptual deficiencies are rooted in what is sometimes an oversimplification of minority issues. It is too much concerned with dichotomic concepts – good and bad, heaven and hell, tolerant and tolerated, minority and majority. The minorities are oppressed, and the majorities are oppressing: therefore the minorities must always be protected against any structural danger, and any protector is welcomed.
Those manichaeisms are sources of various negative developments. On one hand, such an approach fuels the “assisted people” mentality and the feelings of failure and oppression that generate ethnocentric and millenaristic neurosis. We cannot ignore the fact that some ethnic groups promote segregationist projects expressing their perception that because of geographical accidents or historical arbitraries, they have the misfortune to live alongside culturally different majorities. On the other hand, there are international players who undertake the role of protectors of minorities simply in order to promote hidden geopolitical agendas.
The Council of Europe’s collective role of multilateral solidarity in protecting minority rights is of paramount importance in preventing those rights from being kidnapped in local geopolitical games. It should also not be forgotten that minority rights are about power sharing, and should therefore be subject to permanent national democratic negotiations. Those negotiations must take place in the framework of European conventions whose requirements are minimal, which means that no one can go beyond them. However, the package of standards to be adopted by each country and the peace created by their implementation should take account of each country and society’s particularities.
Finally, we must not forget that the ultimate goal of recognition of minority rights is inter-ethnic peace and state cohesion. If we cannot balance the multiculturalism of the state with its civic dimension, the diversity with the cohesion, we will eventually lose both. We cannot afford that, and we therefore support Mr Cilevičs’s recommendations.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. It is perhaps indicative of Romania’s special interest in minorities that the next speaker, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, is Mr Frunda.
Mr FRUNDA (Romania). – A Hungarian from Romania!
It is more than a decade since the convention was adopted. When we look at it today, what do we see? Four states have still not signed it, and another four have signed it but have not yet ratified it.
The convention tried to achieve certain things. First, there was the principle of non-discrimination and equal rights between the majority nation and national minorities living in the same country. Secondly, there was the right of national minorities to preserve and express their national identity. Thirdly, there was the right of national minorities to use their mother tongue in their relations with the local authorities. Last but not least was their right to be represented in elected bodies and to make decisions, especially on issues that concern them directly.
Those rights represent the minimum basis on which the member states agreed when the convention was adopted. For national minorities it is a minimum basis that provides the possibility of preserving their nationality; creating a balanced relationship between the majority and the minority; assuring political, national and social stability; and preventing ethnic conflicts.
In my opinion, every democratic society should accept these principles, not only for national minorities but in the best interests of the majority. If national minorities feel equal to the majority, do not feel discriminated against or feel that they are treated as second class citizens and enjoy the right to decide common issues together with representatives of the majority and to decide their own cultural issues themselves, we have a real chance to prevent ethnic conflicts. However, if national minorities are not recognised or do not enjoy the basic rights that I have mentioned, there is a great risk of ethnic conflicts. Recent events, and some past events, in member states are an example.
That is why I cannot understand why such big and proud nations as France and Turkey refuse to sign and ratify the convention. If those countries recognised the existence of national minorities and guaranteed them the rights provided by the Framework Convention, it would ensure greater stability in Turkey and prevent social and ethnic riots in France. As for Monaco and Andorra, rejecting the Framework Convention will not change the fact that they have more foreign residents than national citizens. On the contrary, a balanced relationship between citizens and residents can guarantee social and political stability.
We should also debate how appropriate the Framework Convention is. We have to question whether it covers the reality and the expectations of national minorities. We need to acknowledge that most of the member states – even if they have not signed or ratified the convention – claim to be models for how to handle the issue of national minorities. That is the case for Germany, France, Romania, Hungary and others. However, there is no perfect model: there are always better or worse solutions.
I hope that the time has come to change this situation and to pass from models to minimum standards. On the issue of human rights in general, but especially the rights of national minorities, it is essential to establish minimum rights that every member state has to observe. Those rights should include the right to belong to a national minority; the right to preserve, express and develop the national identity; the right to use one’s mother tongue in every sector of public life, from administration to justice; the right to participate in political life and decide issues concerning national minorities; and the right to cultural and other forms of autonomy that ensure better cohabitation between the majority and national minorities.
The adoption of Protocol No. 12 will also diminish the possibility of different kinds of discrimination. That is why I make a strong appeal to all colleagues to press their governments to sign and their parliaments to ratify that protocol.
The list of rights that I have mentioned is not limited, but self-explanatory. All ideas and recommendations are welcomed and I am sure that if we act in openness and with good faith and tolerance, we can find the best solution. We should not forget that we are all in a minority in this united Europe.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. You do not belong to a minority in speaking time anyway.
I call Mr Jařab, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group.
Mr JAŘAB (Czech Republic) – The ALDE group commends the continued interest and consistent attention of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights regarding the protection of national minorities by and in member states of the Council of Europe. I wish to add sincere words of appreciation for the good work and dedication to the cause manifested over the years by the rapporteur, Mr Cilevčs.
Of course, we can agree with the proclamation that “a pluralist and genuinely democratic society should not only respect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of each person belonging to a national minority but also create appropriate conditions enabling them to express, preserve and develop this identity” . However, the same rights should also be granted to any person not belonging to a minority. Of course, we should and will support the notion “that the creation of a climate of tolerance and dialogue is necessary to enable cultural diversity to be a source and a factor, not of division, but of enrichment”, as stated in the text of the Framework Convention, which was adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 1994 and laid open for signature in 1995. That is all in accordance with our belief that Europe is and should remain a continent unified in diversity. Keeping that diversity alive is one of its most characteristic features.
One would expect that such a document, promoting the basic principles of human rights and approved by the Parliamentary Assembly, would proceed smoothly through the course of formal legal adoption by the member states in an Organisation that sets as one of its objectives the observation of the rule of law. The report tells us otherwise. Some countries have not ratified and some have not even signed the Framework Convention. The report tells us in great detail of the ongoing process of communication between the parties concerned, including questionnaires, public hearing and monitoring by an independent advisory committee. The dialogue and debates continue, as they should. We hope that the desired results will be achieved in the time to come.
We question whether it is a valid argument to say “there are no minorities in my country” or “in my country, the nation is indivisible”. It is in the general spirit of the convention that the document should receive support from our pan-European Organisation. There is an international dimension to the notion and practice of the protection of human rights and co-operation between member states.
As a liberal and someone who has devoted his professional life to studying the problems of assimilation and integration in multicultural societies, I am convinced that the Framework Convention provides basic principles that have to be observed. Consider the political wisdom of Article 3: “Every person belonging to a national minority shall have the right freely to choose to be treated or not to be treated as such, and no disadvantage shall result from this choice or from the exercise of the rights which are connected to the choice.”
It is, however, wise for the report to admit that the text
of the convention could be subject to reconsideration in the light of events
in Europe and beyond. For instance, how shall we view the new minorities
resulting from immigration? The devil is often in the details, as we see
when discussing the reports by the Committee on Culture, Science and Education
on the situation of the Finno-Ugric people or the cultural situation of the
Kurds, to say nothing of the reports on access by minorities to the
media – a matter that the Assembly will debate later this week.
As this is my very last intervention in the Hemicycle, I thank you, Mr President, and all colleagues for the wonderful opportunity to be a part of the work of the Council of Europe. I wish the Organisation great success and I hope that it has a great impact in improving the state of the continent.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. As that was your final intervention, I was lenient and gave you more time. We all regret the fact that that was your last intervention.
I call Mrs Smirnova, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.
Mrs SMIRNOVA (Russian Federation) thanked the rapporteur for the committee’s thorough and objective report. The European Democrats believed that protecting national minorities was integral to human rights protection. That issue was very topical in a globalised world where peoples were frequently moving and being assimilated. It was essential to retain cultural diversity. From the start, the Russian Federation had voluntarily protected all minorities on its soil. It was important that all countries that had not signed the convention, or had signed with reservations, should abandon their reservations because the political, social and economic rights of minority peoples needed to be protected. The report could have advocated in stronger terms that all countries should sign and ratify the convention.
On terminology: she noted that nowhere was there an agreed definition of “minority”. It was vital that a commission was established to define a single terminological approach and thus help to ensure the protection of minority peoples.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Smirnova. I have the impression that Mr Fomenko will be the next speaker. I call Mr Fomenko, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr FOMENKO (Russian Federation) thanked the rapporteur, observing that it was a good thing that no geo-politics were included in the report.
The protection of minority rights was very important. All
members would remember that conflicts between ethnic groups could be painful.
It should also be remembered that the protection of minority rights was not
a widespread concern in the 18th century and at that time populations had
suffered greatly from inter-ethnic conflicts. The French Revolution had opened
the Pandora’s box of nationalism. After the
First World War, the Treaty of Versailles had tried to define boundaries of
nation states but had failed to take account of the geographical dispersal
of millions of people. The result was the Second World War, which displaced
hundreds of thousands of people. That should give pause for thought on how
best to protect the rights of ethnic minorities. The question was not simply
whether a country had signed the convention, since countries that had not signed
might still protect the rights of their ethnic minorities, and those that had
signed might fail to put the convention into practice.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Wodarg.
Mr WODARG (Germany) said that the protection of minorities was central to the work of the Council of Europe. Neglecting the issue could lead to dangerous conflicts. He applauded those countries that had signed the convention and requested that they report on their progress every five years, in accordance with the convention.
Cohesion ensured the survival of countries, but diversity was a source of wealth to be recognised and promoted. Diversity made Europe a wealthy continent. However, borders changed and minorities found themselves part of different communities: members should be careful in deciding who needed special protection.
He himself came from a region of Germany near the Danish border where tensions between the communities either side of the border had been high in the past. He was pleased that that was no longer the case and both communities benefited from the diversity of the population either side of the border. All countries should seize the opportunity to benefit from diversity.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Wodarg. I call Mr Rustamyan.
Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that the protection of minorities led to the protection of the different languages and cultures of Europe. But ignorance of basic rights led to internal tensions which might lead to ethnic cleansing. Council of Europe member states could be divided into two groups: those that had ratified the convention and those that had not. However, such a division was formulaic and the real question was whether a country had the political determination to address the issue. The provisions in the convention had to be applied in practice; if member states were divided along this line, the two groups would be different.
Georgia’s recent ratification of the convention was to be welcomed. France, which had not ratified the convention, might argue that it safeguarded the rights of its minorities in other ways. Other states, however, might intend neither to ratify the convention nor to find a solution the matter. It was those countries where serious human rights breaches could occur. The real issue was the protection of minorities.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Rustamyan. I call Mr Dupraz.
Mr DUPRAZ (Switzerland) said that the number of member states that had not signed the convention was surprising. Smaller countries, such as Monaco, justified their action on the basis that the indigenous population was in a minority. France had not signed. He wished to avoid casting aspersions on those countries that had not signed, but noted that his country had benefited from the convention.
The Federal Chamber of Switzerland had met that week in a region of Switzerland where a minority language was spoken; indeed, many regions of Switzerland preserved minority cultures and languages. Minorities in Switzerland played an important role. The Federal Parliament took account of all parts of the population when devising policies. Countries should not be fearful of ethnic minorities, who contributed to the culture and wealth of every country. It was only when minorities felt misunderstood that major political problems could ensue and challenge national unity. He encouraged members to adopt the committee’s proposals.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Dupraz. I call Mr Schreiner.
Mr SCHREINER (France) commented that the report was designed to encourage countries, including France, to sign or ratify the convention. He wished to remind members why France intended neither to sign nor to ratify the convention. France had a constitution that enshrined the equality of all citizens regardless of their race or religion, a declaration that could be traced back to 1789. That legal fact of life was the reason why France could not ratify the convention.
France’s Constitutional Court had ruled on 9 May 1991 on the territorial status of Corsica and had recognised the Corsican people as a community within the Republic of France. Article 54 of the French Constitution conflicted with the Framework Convention, so that France could not sign the Framework Convention without changing its constitution, which it did not want to do. France had legislated to protect national minorities. France did not want affirmative action, but did guarantee the equal treatment of minorities and had legislated against discrimination and to ensure equal access to housing and education. Further measures had been adopted in March. The right to equal treatment had been enshrined since 1789, so that although France could not sign the convention it applied the principles contained therein.
THE PRESIDENT. – It was interesting to hear an Alsatian speaking who does not belong to a minority in France. Mr Kosachev is not here, so I call Mr Henry, who is the next speaker on the list.
Mr HENRY (Belgium) said that no state enjoyed a dominant position in Europe. That was a source of stability and had led to compromise and multilateralism. For historical reasons, including migration and the re-drawing of borders, there were many minorities in Europe. That those minorities deserved protection was recognised by the Council of Europe and by the Framework Convention. None the less, there was a distance between ideals and reality, which some countries were reluctant to travel.
He asked whether an amendment to the convention, as recommended by the report, was really necessary. That would admit the impotence of the Assembly and send a negative signal to minorities. In many countries, the treatment of minorities was a difficult issue. The Council of Europe should encourage states to find a way to observe the convention and not take an ambiguous stance.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Henry. It appears that Ms Hajiyeva is not present. I therefore call Mr Monfils.
Mr MONFILS (Belgium) said that 85% of countries had signed or ratified the Framework Convention, although some had opposed it. Instead of pressurising those latter countries, the report proposed amendment of the convention. That would emasculate the convention and discourage states from signing it. The convention allowed for flexibility and it was not therefore necessary to revisit it. Belgium had not ratified the convention because of the objections of Flanders. The suggestion that the Committee of Ministers should revisit the convention was regrettable and dangerous, especially for those countries that had already ratified it. It would set a dangerous precedent and the Council of Europe would be the pusillanimous architect of a code of conduct which would deliver nothing, but deal a blow to the common values that the Assembly held dear.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is also a Belgian, but a different one. I call Mr Van den Brande.
Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium) said that the Framework Convention was a pillar for the values cherished by the Assembly. He fully endorsed the principles and the standards in the Framework Convention. He asked whether it was right to shut one’s eyes to the reasons for not ratifying the convention. The report called for clarification of the reasons for not ratifying and for an understanding of why the convention had come about. The convention had been drawn up following the separation of some ethnic minorities by changing borders. If all states ratified the convention there would be problems in some: a compromise was needed, based not on principles but on practicalities. If some member states protected minorities through constitutional safeguards, that might be an alternative to ratifying the convention. It was not possible to accumulate rights upon rights. The wise approach of the committee should be trusted.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Mirzazada.
Mr MIRZAZADA (Azerbaijan) said that there were different cultures and languages in the world and the rights of minorities should be upheld. There were no states that contained only one ethnic identity and it was necessary to respect different groups. Members of the Council of Europe should report back on the conditions in their own countries, rather than talking in easy generalities. In Azerbaijan, rights were protected under the constitution and law of 1991. Since Azerbaijan had become a member of the Council of Europe there had been no claims that the constitution had been infringed. Some 20% of secondary schools in Azerbaijan conducted their teaching in languages other than Azeri and minorities were represented at all levels of government. The main religion in Azerbaijan was Islam, but in one area where there were 140 Catholics a church was being built for them.
Armenia had made negative remarks about Azerbaijan in the report and it was necessary to ask what Armenia was doing about human rights. Armenia had hounded out all Azeris from its territory and the Minister for Environment in Armenia had recently made an anti-Semitic remark which had not been condemned by those in authority. Armenia had destroyed Azeri religious buildings within its territory. It was necessary to put one’s own house in order before criticising others.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I am afraid that the next
speaker – Mr Pourgourides of
Cyprus – has gone for lunch. I call Mr Alevras.
Mr ALEVRAS (Greece). – The debate on the report in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights proved that the subject of national minorities is still one of the most disputed issues. The rapporteur took special account of the sensitivity of the issue, and presented a well-balanced report for which he deserves our congratulations.
The main theme of the report is that the convention remains a useful tool for broadening the rule of law and strengthening social cohesion in modern states. It is true that nationalism and national conflicts left a heavy shadow over Europe during past decades. That is a kind of heritage – a negative heritage, of course – which could explain, but not justify, the fear of open discussions about national minorities and their legal protection. It is also true that in many cases nationalistic groups use discussion of national minorities to promote ethnic tensions that we all hope will become history.
It could be disastrous to step back and allow such ethnic groups to manipulate the debate on protection of minorities, and to dominate procedures with their ulterior motive of splitting states into smaller states in the name of clear ethnic identity. Offering adequate protection to members of national minorities is the only way to reduce tensions and obstruct the exploitation of ethnic emotions. The purpose of the convention is to establish a system for minimum protection of those belonging to national minorities. It should be seen not as a special, exceptional provision whose implementation may be easier in some states than in others, but as a fundamental part of the entire human rights protection system.
It is vital for the Council of Europe to encourage member states to ratify the convention, and to establish the rigorous and vigorous standards set out in it. In that context, I could present arguments based on the Greek experience. It is true that two decades ago, the treatment of the Muslim minority in western Thrace did not comply fairly with human rights standards. The change in policy during the last decade proved that, through recognition of the same legal provisions, tensions in the area were being reduced.
It is also true that the Framework Convention retains its autonomy as a legislative tool not just because of its provisions against any discrimination, but because it imposes on states positive measures to enrich the system of protection of human rights. That is the main reason why we should call on all member states to re-examine their refusal to ratify the convention.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. It appears that Mr Rafael Huseynov and Mr Sambevski are not present. I therefore call Mr Popescu.
Mr POPESCU (Ukraine) commended the efforts of the rapporteur and stated that the protection of national minorities reduced tensions in multi-ethnic societies. He stressed the importance of promoting linguistic and cultural variety. However, signing and ratifying the Framework Convention was just a first step, since substantive progress would depend on having an effective machinery for implementing rights. Without any such machinery, the rights of national minorities would remain a fig-leaf. Those rights were not yet fully implemented and national minorities needed guaranteed political protection. The Framework Convention had to be ratified by all. It was vital to ensure robust mechanisms for guaranteeing respect for rights.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Papadimitriou is not present. The next speaker is Mr van Thijn.
Mr VAN THIJN (Netherlands). – I congratulate our colleague and friend Boriss Cilevičs on his excellent exposition, but I must confess that in my view the outcome gives no cause for optimism. So far, the Framework Convention has not really been a success story. One reason for that is the fact that too many member states did not ratify it. Many did not do so because they ignore the existence of national minorities in their countries. One example is France – as Mr Schreiner explained – in spite of the recent riots in the suburbs of Paris, rightly described by experts as protests by minority groups who feel excluded from the republic and do not feel that they are being treated as full citizens with equal rights. The French model seems not to work. Another problem is that several countries – mine, for instance – ratified the convention with a very restrictive definition of national minorities, which did not include any new minorities. The only minority that is recognised in the context of the Framework Convention in the Netherlands is that of the Friesians. It is a shocking fact that minorities that have lived for centuries in the Netherlands, including Islamic minorities, are not recognised as national minorities. New minorities are not included, which is against the spirit of the convention.
The main weakness of the convention is the lack of a common definition of national minorities, and that gives member states the opportunity to interpret the convention as they wish and even to develop policies that run counter to its spirit. The time has come – and that is why I support paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 of the draft recommendation – to update the Framework Convention and search for a workable and realistic definition that includes new minorities.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Ms Pashayeva.
Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan). – First, I wish to express my gratitude to Mr Cilevičs for his detailed and comprehensive speech. It is true that the protection of the rights of national minorities is important for social and political stability, democratic security, the prevention of social tensions and the dissemination of different cultures and languages in Europe. Azerbaijan is among those countries free of problems related to national minorities and has ratified the Framework Convention.
As for the report, certain issues related to the convention should compel us to consider it more seriously. The report says that 36 out of 46 member states of the Council of Europe have ratified the convention, four countries have not ratified it but have signed it, and four countries have not signed it at all. However, the list of 36 countries shows that the majority have signed the convention under certain conditions. Only a few countries have signed the convention unconditionally, and most of those can be considered mono-ethnic. Their reasons should be analysed thoroughly and if necessary we should take measures to improve the convention.
The protection of national minorities, including the rights of every person, is very important. However, like states, national minorities should fulfil their obligations. For example, when the Armenian minority constituted between 4% and 5% of the Azerbaijani population, it enjoyed all the rights discussed today. The Armenian minority of Nagorno-Karabakh had the opportunity to receive secondary and higher education in its native language. A newspaper was published in the Armenian language and telecasts in that language were broadcast in Azerbaijan. The Armenians took up very important positions in local and central legislative and executive bodies. Funds allocated from the budget of Azerbaijan to that region were relatively higher than those allocated to other regions. The Armenians could also easily travel to Armenia and back from Azerbaijan.
What happened? Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh tried to replace Azeri names for historical places with Armenian names and then started to show disrespect for the official language of the country, its flag and coat of arms. Separatist forces, with the assistance of Armenia and the Armenian lobby abroad, started to kill and forcibly evict the Azeri population in Nagorno-Karabakh, with the aim of joining the region to Armenia or creating a second Armenian state. Tens of thousands of peaceful Azerbaijani residents were killed and hundreds of thousands of people became, and remain, refugees and internally displaced persons.
Resolution 1416 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe contains detailed information on the policy of ethnic cleansing pursued by Armenia and separatist forces in Nagorno-Karabakh in the occupied Azerbaijani territories. Unfortunately, at the time, the international community did not take the necessary steps to prevent that situation.
The rights of national minorities should be protected. However, they should in their turn respect the territorial integrity, sovereignty and constitution of the country in which they reside. On that issue, the convention and adopted documents should be improved to prevent terrorists and separatists from hiding under the guise of being a national minority.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Mercan is not here, so I call Mr Berényi.
Mr BERÉNYI (Slovakia). – Many things have been said in the debate, but I stress that I do not speak in promotion of human rights or in defence of multicultural societies. I am proud to say, however, that my country has already ratified the Framework Convention and is implementing it successfully. I wish to speak on behalf of my community, because my life has been directly influenced by the convention as a Hungarian living in Slovakia. The convention influences my life and those of my family, neighbours and friends.
The balanced report by Mr Cilevičs starts with a very brave sentence: “The protection of national minorities and the promotion of their rights are among the greatest successes of the Council of Europe”. That is a brave but relevant sentence. The success of the Framework Convention relies on two factors. The first is flexibility in the application of principles. That was a good choice by the authors of the document. The second is the monitoring process, which involves an ongoing dialogue between representatives of the Council of Europe and member states. That means that we can be secure in believing that what has been ratified will be implemented.
That security is undermined a little by the fact that committees of the Parliamentary Assembly are not involved in monitoring. The Committee of Ministers has the final word on monitoring and that is the body on which the governments are represented. If the committees of the Council of Europe were more involved in the monitoring process, the results could be even more objective.
I support paragraph 9 of the draft recommendation and I ask members to vote to retain it. The situation of minorities in member countries is not static – sometimes it improves and sometimes it worsens. Therefore, it is up to the Council of Europe to consider how to improve the relationship between states and minorities while retaining the sovereignty of those states.
In essence, this report is well balanced. As many other speakers have said, it gives us an opportunity to think about different ways of categorising minorities. We cannot put in one box migrants who came freely to European countries and national historical minorities, as I call them, who never moved from their homeland and who are still a minority in certain countries. We should try to help all of them, but our response to their demands should differ.
I am convinced that the first sentence of the report, that “The protection of national minorities” is “among the greatest successes of the Council of Europe” is relevant not only for today but for tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Berényi. I now call Mrs Oskina.
Mrs OSKINA (Russian Federation) commended the well-prepared report and endorsed much of what other speakers had said. She said that there was still discrimination against the Russian-speaking population in Latvia which needed to be addressed. Latvia had introduced the term “non-citizen”: those in that category suffered from restricted rights. That classification directly contradicted the policies of the Council of Europe and the report under discussion. Some 34% of the population in Estonia and 41% in Latvia were classified as ethnic minorities. Those minority populations comprised historical immigrants, post-war migrants and more recent migrants from the 1980s and 1990s. Even that latter group were well established, with jobs, families, homes and so on.
In the United Kingdom, it took ten years to receive citizenship and in France five. She criticised the length of time people had to live in Latvia or Estonia before they could receive citizenship, and suggested that those countries change their approach. Many people were classified as “non-citizens”, not all of whom were members of minorities, but their civil rights were restricted and they could not stand as political candidates. The rapporteur should comment on that issue.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Oskina. The last speaker on the list is Mr Proroković.
Mr PROROKOVIĆ (Serbia). – In the past, a great number of countries in South-Eastern Europe have been unfavourably judged with respect to the honouring of national minority rights. Those states have been reproached for insufficiently implementing different international norms referring to the protection of minorities, and among those reports are different Council of Europe documents. At the same time, one seems to forget that four Council of Europe member states still have not ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and four countries have not signed or ratified it.
During this session, on many occasions, we have been informed that the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly should play an important role and retain its reputation as an important international institution, as well as hold discussions with regard to Lebanon, Kosovo or Georgian-Russian relations. At the same time, several Council of Europe member states do not want to sign or to ratify one of the Council of Europe’s crucial documents, which refers to the very reason the Council of Europe was established in the first place. That is why the question of the adoption and ratification of the Framework Convention reflects on the reputation of the Council of Europe and of the Parliamentary Assembly.
Naturally, the states that have not accepted or signed the Framework Convention will justify themselves by saying that national minority matters cannot be compared and are unique in their countries, but that does not justify not signing or ratifying the convention.
Mr Berényi mentioned different categorisations of national minorities. Of course the situation in respect of national minorities is different in every country and we cannot deal with each and every model separately, but we can discuss and determine the principles and standards – namely, the principles and standards that have to be applied and fulfilled by each and every Council of Europe member state.
I congratulate the rapporteur and I fully agree with the draft recommendation. The four countries that have not ratified, and the four countries that have not signed or ratified the Framework Convention must do so as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mr Proroković.
That concludes the list of speakers.
I call Mr Cilevičs, the rapporteur, to reply. He has four minutes.
Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – First, I express my gratitude to all colleagues who took part in the debate for their relevant and valuable contributions. Of course, it is impossible for me to reply to all the comments and proposals that have been made, so I apologise to all those to whom I am not able to respond in the Hemicycle.
Mr Severin and Mrs Smirnova suggested going back to the issue of the definition of minorities. Unfortunately, in this case, I cannot agree with my friend Mr Severin. It is not a technical issue. The debate on the definition took decades, both in the United Nations and in the Council of Europe, and so far discussion has appeared to be fruitless. I would be cautious in supporting the idea of reopening that Pandora’s box.
Mr Frunda made a serious proposition that we should switch to minimum standards and Mr Popescu mentioned some examples. I fully support that idea, and again it probably deserves a separate report and separate consideration.
Mr Jařab made the serious point that the same rights should be guaranteed for persons belonging to a minority and for all others. I am not surprised that Mr Jařab represents the Liberal Group. There is a well-known Liberal concept that is sometimes called “ethnic blindness”. Unfortunately, that concept does not always work. In particular, we witnessed its failure when trying to implement the integration policy for the Roma minority. It is an extremely interesting idea and I hope that we will have a chance to continue to debate it.
Mrs Smirnova was harsher in her demands. She may be right, but I do not believe in applying such pressure. I prefer to use negotiation. The Council of Europe has no way of demanding something or of forcing someone to do something. We have no alternative but to engage in dialogue and to use persuasion.
On Mr Schreiner’s comments, we know that there is a fundamental contradiction between the French concept of minority rights and modern terminology. It is not a question of values or substance; rather, it is a question of terminology and notions. I am deeply convinced that there is no contradiction between the concept of minority rights as enshrined in the Framework Convention and the concept of equality, unity and indivisibility as enshrined in the French Constitution. After all, the ultimate goal of the Framework Convention is to ensure full and effective equality. It is a matter of political tradition. I am optimistic that we will find a solution.
On the comments by Mr Henry and Mr Monfils, I know that paragraph 9 of the draft recommendation is contentious. I have great sympathy with many of their arguments, but it is a compromise. I want to stress that to keep it in the document does not necessarily mean that we are watering anything down. We heard what Mr van Thijn and Mr Berényi said about strengthening the paragraph.
Mr van Thijn said that he is not optimistic. Let us not be optimists or pessimists; let us instead be realists. Some 15 years ago we had no legal means to protect minorities; we merely had isolated political declarations. Today, however, there is some good news. We need to make an editorial correction to paragraph 4 because Romania has ratified Protocol No. 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I sincerely congratulate our Romanian colleagues on that.
We are making progress and moving ahead. We still have good reasons to be optimistic.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Cilevičs. Does the chairman of the committee wish to speak? Mr Marty, you have two minutes.
Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said that the debate demonstrated the importance of the problem and how controversial it could be. However, it was a debate that should continue. The committee had had many debates, sometimes controversial, always informative. The committee had benefited from the vast experience of the rapporteur, whose text had taken full account of the complexity of the different situations across Europe. He hoped that the day would come when people did not talk about minority or majority peoples, but spoke of unity through diversity.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.
With those moving words, the debate is closed.
The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft recommendation, to which one amendment has been tabled.
I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.
We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Philippe Monfils, Mr Jean-Pol Henry, Mrs Marie-José Laloy, Mrs Rodica Mihaela Stănoiu and Mr Zoltán Szabó, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 9.
I call Mr Monfils to support Amendment No. 1.
Mr MONFILS (Belgium) said that referring the convention back to the Committee of Ministers was tantamount to a slap in the face for the countries that had ratified and were trying to apply it. It sent the wrong signal to ethnic minorities throughout Europe. Rather than strengthening the convention, it would weaken it.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Van den Brande.
Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – Mr President, dear colleagues, as our rapporteur was pointing out, this is a compromise. As Mr van Thijn was saying, we have to find a way to make progress, and we have to take into account what the problems sometimes are in some countries. But, as a matter of fact, I think that this is a well-balanced proposal for a recommendation and that the amendment would dilute the general framework of the Framework Convention. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 1 is rejected.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 10961.
The vote is open.
6. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting
THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the orders of the day which were approved on Monday.
Is that agreed?
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 12.55 p.m.)
4. Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly
Questions
Mrs Beck (Germany)
Mr Van den Brande (Belgium)
Mr Agramunt (Spain)
Mr Mooney (Ireland)
Mr Pangalos (Greece)
Mr Mihkelson (Estonia)
Mr Preda (Romania)
Mr Glăvan (Romania)
Mr Frunda (Romania)
Mr Schreiner (France)
Mr Wodarg (Germany)
Presentation by Mr Cilevičs of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, (Doc. 10961)
Speakers
Mr Severin (Romania)
Mr Frunda (Romania)
Mr Jařab (Czech Republic)
Mrs Smirnova (Russian Federation)
Mr Fomenko (Russian Federation)
Mr Wodarg (Germany)
Mr Rustamyan (Armenia)
Mr Dupraz (Switzerland)
Mr Schreiner (France)
Mr Henry (Belgium)
Mr Monfils (Belgium)
Mr Van den Brande (Belgium)
Mr Mirzazada (Azerbaijan)
Mr Alevras (Greece)
Mr Popescu (Ukraine)
Mr van Thijn (Netherlands)
Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)
Mr Berényi (Slovakia)
Mrs Oskina (Russian Federation)
Mr Proroković (Serbia)
Replies
Mr Cilevičs (Latvia)
Mr Marty (Switzerland)
Draft recommendation adopted.
6. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting