contents 
page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.2007 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(Second part)
REPORT
Fourteenth sitting
Wednesday 18 April 2007 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 10.05 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.
THE PRESIDENT. – The minutes of proceedings of the Eleventh and Twelfth sitting have been distributed. If there are no objections, the minutes are agreed to.
The minutes are agreed to.
The minutes of proceedings of the thirteenth sitting have not yet been distributed. They will be adopted at a later sitting.
2. Changes in the membership of committees
THE PRESIDENT. – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2007) 4 Addendum 2.
Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?
They are agreed to.
THE PRESIDENT. – There are three debates this morning and afternoon and two resolutions and one recommendation on which we have to vote. I propose that each of our debates today be organised in the following way: the rapporteurs present the reports for debate and opinions. This will be followed by statements from invited personalities and speakers in the debate will take the floor, before the main rapporteurs reply to the debates.
Votes on the amendments, resolutions and recommendation will not take place immediately after the relevant debate. They will be taken together at the end of this afternoon’s sitting after the debate on the monitoring of states’ performance at 6.30 p.m. We will start our debate on the state of democracy in Europe at 12.30 p.m. and resume it at 3 p.m. in the afternoon sitting.
I also remind you that the programme for today’s sittings has been published, Document AS/Inf (2007)4.
Are these arrangements agreed?
They are agreed.
For the reports this afternoon, a total of 56 amendments have been tabled. In view of the large number of amendments, I propose that the speaking time on amendments on the three reports be limited to thirty seconds.
Is this proposal agreed to?
It is agreed.
THE PRESIDENT. – Before we start the debates, I would like to take the opportunity to make a few comments and, as we have agreed, I shall ask everybody to stick exactly to the maximum time – both guest speakers and members of the Parliamentary Assembly. Members have three minutes, as we have already agreed.
Friends, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, today, with the first of our annual reports, we launch a unique new initiative. The Assembly will bring together all the key players of the Council of Europe, along with important outside partners, to present a snapshot of the state of human rights and democracy in Europe.
By focusing on our core activities, we will underline our Organisation’s role as Europe’s centre of excellence for protecting and promoting our common values. Today’s report – a masterpiece – must be put at the top of the political agenda and become the essential reference on the state of democracy and human rights in Europe. I invite all our national parliaments to hold their own debates on the report, to ensure that governments take these issues much more seriously both at home and abroad.
We should also establish closer relations with national parliaments’ human rights committees, to ensure systematic co-operation and more effective follow-up to Assembly recommendations, including the annual report. We must also make active concern for these common values part of people’s daily lives, reminding them of what is at stake.
I hope that our report will be an inspiration to human rights teaching in schools and universities, and to NGOs, journalists and others. Of utmost importance are our relations with civil society: the Council of Europe is the primary platform for our NGO partners, whose vital role we greatly appreciate.
We should use the occasion of today’s debate to establish a flexible framework for enhanced co-operation on future annual reports and the identification of common strategic goals. The fact that we can bring together today’s speakers underlines our unique contribution to European political life. I am honoured that we will begin this new tradition in such distinguished company, and I look forward to their contributions.
Before finishing, however, I must convey to you the apologies of European Commission Vice-President Frattini, with whom we have always enjoyed very good co-operation, notably on our report on secret detentions and extraordinary renditions. Mr Frattini regrets being unable to participate in today’s debate but has sent us a written statement, in which he underlines the Commission’s conviction that EU fundamental rights policies must be based on close co-operation with the Council of Europe, with the ultimate goal being European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. I am sure that we all welcome and agree with that view. Mr Frattini’s full statement is available outside the chamber and will be included in the record of proceedings.
5. State of human rights in Europe
THE PRESIDENT. – We now come to the debate on the state of human rights in Europe, presented by Mr Pourgourides on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 11202, with opinions presented by Mr Glesener on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, Document 11216, and Mr van Thijn on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, Document 11217.
The list of speakers will be interrupted at 12.25 p.m. to allow time for the rapporteur’s reply to finish the debate at 12.30 p.m.
The list of speakers closed at 6.30 p.m. yesterday and 53 names are on the list.
I now call Mr Pourgourides, Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have eight minutes.
Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – Thank you, President. Dear colleagues, you have before you my report on the state of human rights in Europe, as well as a draft recommendation and resolution addressing the issues referred to in my report. They are the result of intensive efforts. It has been an extremely challenging task to prepare this report on such a wide-ranging subject in such a tight time frame.
Of course, I am well aware that such a report can cover neither all topical human rights issues nor all the work of the Council of Europe on each issue that I have managed to investigate. Consequently, I have placed emphasis on examining the Assembly’s work, and attached particular weight to the distribution of the case load of the European Court of Human Rights as an objective criterion to select key issues, trends and challenges. I have sought to be as fair and objective as possible in dealing with the issues presented in the report, and in such a way as to reflect the case law of the Court.
This report has the merit of giving our Assembly an opportunity to take stock of the human rights situation in Europe and to evaluate not only the successes achieved and good practices developed but the failures of the Council of Europe’s action. This exercise provides a good opportunity for us to draw lessons for improvements and to define priorities for future action in our member states and in the Council of Europe. I have attempted to achieve four objectives: first, to recall the irreplaceable role of the Council of Europe as the leading human rights organisation in Europe; secondly, to present a number of major human rights challenges in Europe; and thirdly, to stress the necessity of the Organisation’s human rights mechanisms in view of these numerous challenges. Last but not least, I would like to make a number of proposals for action on the part of the Council of Europe, aimed at improving the situation in member states.
As regards my first concern, today’s debate is a unique opportunity to stress that the Council of Europe is Europe’s leading human rights watchdog. Had it not been set up in 1949, it would now need to be created. It possesses a unique array of effective control mechanisms, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the European Social Charter, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, and the institution of the Commissioner for Human Rights. Thanks to these specialised bodies, whose leading representatives the Assembly welcomes here today, the Council of Europe has accumulated a unique experience and expertise in human rights, the rule of law and democracy.
Secondly, regarding major human rights challenges in Europe, I have to say straight away that I am very concerned about the gap between pious declarations and the human rights situation in practice. The full implementation of existing human rights in everyday life is still very much an unfinished task. Despite important progress in member states, achieved with the help of the Council of Europe, serious human rights violations such as enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings, secret detentions, torture and inhuman treatment still take place on our continent. In several countries, human rights defenders who are trying to help others to uphold their rights are themselves harassed and face repression. In addition, the rule of law is still not fully respected in several European countries.
Trafficking in human beings is another scourge that must be eradicated, as should racism, xenophobia, intolerance and discrimination against minorities. Domestic violence, poverty, social exclusion – all these plagues must be fought resolutely at all levels with the common goal of fighting for human dignity.
In view of these numerous threats and challenges, I come to my third objective: the need further to strengthen the Organisation’s human rights mechanisms. The Council of Europe’s statutory mission remains as, if not more, relevant as it was in 1949. In view of its limited resources, the Organisation should focus on its areas of excellence, in which its work is most valuable: the promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
Member states should finally end hypocrisy. It is time to turn words into deeds and to respect in fact human rights and the rule of law. Human rights must first and foremost be enforced at national level. To be credible, member states must avoid double standards when dealing with human rights violations. Moreover, the Council of Europe, and first our Assembly, should give a higher degree of priority to its work relating to human rights and the rule of law.
In the preliminary draft resolution and recommendation, I have, to the best of my ability, tried to take into account and to accommodate opinions and contributions of other committees, while keeping an appropriate balance between the numerous issues addressed in the text, and at the same time not duplicating what is available in other reports. Dear colleagues, I appeal to you to bear in mind the necessity of keeping this balance when adopting the texts tonight. I am confident about the usefulness of this stock-taking exercise and I am hopeful that it will lead to concrete actions by the Organisation and by our member states.
Dear colleagues, today’s debate is a unique opportunity to reaffirm our common values and our commitment to human rights and the rule of law, and, first and foremost, to step up our efforts to denounce and combat human rights violations wherever they take place in Europe, and to remember that human rights must be fought for every day. Our Assembly should remain the moral conscience of Europe, keeping the Council of Europe on track as the point of reference for, and guardian of, human rights throughout Europe.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. I call Mr Glesener to present the opinion of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. You have three minutes.
Mr GLESENER (Luxembourg) noted that, despite expectations, the extent of poverty and social exclusion had not lost its ability to shock and surprise. In Europe, there were 72 million people living in poverty. He thought that there were two challenges, globalisation and demographics. It was important to determine demographic trends to be able to assist families and to reform social welfare to take these factors into account.
There were two central points: a need to bring the largest possible number of people into the labour market; and a necessity to integrate the maximum number of people into society. Labour market policies needed to be adapted so that poverty could be overcome. It was important for a democratic Europe to respect human and social rights in line with the principles of the revised European Social Charter. Member states should take the necessary steps to integrate the European Social Charter into their policies and administrative frameworks.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr van Thijn to present the opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. You have three minutes.
Mr VAN THIJN (Netherlands). – With regard to immigration, three large-scale humanitarian tragedies are occurring that challenge the state of human rights in Europe, given the large number of desperate refugees, internally displaced persons, irregular migrants without any rights and missing persons.
In 2006, wave after wave of boat people ended up on the shores of the Canary Islands, Lampedusa, Malta and other parts of Europe, which has raised human rights and humanitarian concerns. Does Europe want to be a fortress in the middle of a globalised world? For those arriving in Europe as asylum seekers, what many call “the asylum lottery” shows no sign of improvement, with vastly differing acceptance rates for asylum seekers between member states competing for the most restrictive status.
In many parts of Europe, notably in the northern and southern Caucasus, South-East Europe and Turkey, a problem with refugees and internally displaced persons continues. Europe is not leading the way in protecting migrants’ rights. About 4.5 million migrants are living in an irregular situation in member states of the European Union. A further 8 million irregular migrants are said to be living in the Russian Federation. Those people are vulnerable to exploitation, live in fear of being caught and returned, and have problems accessing basic human rights. The European Social Charter offers only limited scope for protecting their social rights. Council of Europe member states have shown a worrying lack of interest in ratifying the UN International Convention on Migrant Workers: only three ratifications is a disgrace for our Organisation. It is time for governments to tackle the issue of irregular migrants’ rights.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.
Before opening the debate, we will hear three statements. I invite Ms Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to make a statement. She has previously served as chief prosecutor before the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. We are extremely honoured that you are addressing the Assembly today. You have the floor.
Ms ARBOUR (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights). – Mr President, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed an honour for me to address the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on this occasion, which is the first of its kind. I am not sure that I can do justice to a topic as broad as the state of human rights and democracy in Europe, but I will attempt from a global perspective to address three key challenges that confront the citizens and residents of Europe and the institutions that have the mission to protect their rights.
In the light of history, and at least from a normative perspective, the advanced state of human rights and democracy in Europe today is a genuine achievement. Across an entire continent, the rule of law is deeply embedded, and democratic institutions and the practical enjoyment of rights are woven into the legal, political and social fabric of very diverse societies. That said, some of the impressive gains over the last decades are today challenged afresh, and several problems continue to defy resolution. The issues related to the fight against terrorism and expanding migration flows, as well as persistent discriminatory attitudes and practices, lead the range of human rights concerns that should dominate Europe’s agenda.
Today’s debate represents a valuable opportunity to throw an objective, impartial light on to the state of human rights in Europe. The Assembly is an ideal forum for problems to be squarely confronted as well as successes celebrated. In the light of the insights acquired in this Chamber and elsewhere, the Parliamentary Assembly is in a position to act decisively in response to grave human rights violations and should also be fully engaged in preventive action.
Security of the individual is a basic human right and the protection of individuals is accordingly a fundamental obligation of governments. That rather trite observation is often conveniently overlooked, as some governments portray human rights as an obstacle to their legitimate security concerns. Terrorism, much more so than even large, organised criminal activity, challenges the right to life and to security, the rule of law and democracy – some of the fundamental values that underpin the existence of the Council of Europe. As has been well documented, however, by the Council’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, measures adopted by some states in the name of counter-terrorism disregard basic human rights requirements of due process and non-discrimination, and in that way impair the rule of law as well as the long-term sustainable success of the fight against terrorism. I applaud the Council and the initiatives of this Assembly for the commitment to ensure that the fight against terrorism does not serve as a pretext to undermine fundamental human rights and to erode democratic values.
Progress towards strengthening human rights protection has been made over time. However, I am deeply concerned that some states continue to engage in serious human rights abuses, including torture and other ill-treatment, as measures to counter terrorism, while the legal and practical safeguards available to prevent torture, such as regular and independent monitoring of detention centres, are often disregarded. Other states have condoned the use of evidence extracted through torture or other ill-treatment – a practice strongly condemned by the European Court of Human Rights. Some Council of Europe member states have also been implicated in the unlawful return of persons suspected of engaging in terrorist activities to countries where they face a real risk of torture or other serious human rights abuse, thereby violating the international legal obligation of non-refoulement. Others are quick to tarnish the media and civil society with a terrorist brush, visiting on them harsh and disproportionate legal consequences.
Together, those practices undermine the legitimacy of democratic institutions and are counter-productive to national and international measures to combat terrorism by lawful means. They also have a seriously corrosive effect on the rule of law and human rights not just in Europe, but around the world, as the erosion of standards becomes difficult to contain.
This Parliamentary Assembly is well situated to encourage member states, through the Committee of Ministers, to implement fully their obligations under international human rights law through existing structures, and to strengthen protection through the new tools of international human rights law. I take this opportunity to encourage all states represented in this Assembly to ratify the optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, not only as a sign of good faith but as a firm commitment to effective protection around the world.
The Council has taken laudable steps to ensure that measures for combating terrorism do not compromise human rights. The establishment of temporary committees to investigate reports of serious human rights violations – notably, secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers in Europe or elsewhere under the responsibility of European states – is highly commendable and I hope that they will become routine practice. I encourage the Council to follow up on the specific recommendations made by these bodies. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights continues to provide crucial guidance to policy makers in developing counter-terrorism strategies that are fully respectful of human rights, safeguarding both the fundamental right of individuals to due process and their equally fundamental right to security.
The practical effectiveness of the Court’s decisions, and indeed of all human rights monitoring mechanisms under the auspices of the Council, will depend on the sustained political support of the Parliamentary Assembly and a commitment to follow-up by individual member states. I encourage the Assembly to exercise its strong leadership to that end.
Migration has risen to the top of the political agenda around the world, as evidenced by last year’s high-level debate in the General Assembly. Well-managed migration brings many benefits, while migration where the rights of migrants are violated in countries of origin, transit or destination compounds already complex problems. Migration towards and into Europe poses stark challenges and not just resonates in frontier states but has profound implications across the continent. However, on such a critical issue, Europe’s commitment to fundamental standards is surprisingly weak. Without engagement on such matters, I suggest that European credibility and authority is at risk when it seeks to encourage other states and regions to tackle problems that are sensitive or complex in their part of the world, or that are perceived as adverse to economic or other powerful interests.
Of all member states of the Council of Europe, only three – Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Turkey – are party to the international Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. It is imperative that more European countries sign, ratify or accede to this convention, which to a large extent simply makes explicit for migrants many of the rights already set out in binding treaties elsewhere. I recognise and welcome the fact that the Parliamentary Assembly has on several occasions adopted resolutions inviting member states to sign, ratify and implement the convention, and I encourage the Assembly to take further steps to examine the obstacles, whether real or imagined, that are seen to stand in the way of Europe’s commitment to this fundamental human rights treaty.
Modern Europe has yet to overcome racist, xenophobic and discriminatory attitudes and practices that negatively affect many of its most vulnerably populations. Despite the progress made in many other areas, discrimination is perhaps the area of greatest disconnection between the standards and institutions that have been developed and the actual extent of practical improvements, real though they have been. Not only do deeply rooted forms of discrimination such as racial and ethnic discrimination persist, but subtler and new forms whose perniciousness was not fully appreciated are reaching public consciousness. That is true in the case of discrimination on the basis of religion or belief and of discrimination against persons with physical or mental disabilities. There is also the recognition of the discriminatory dimensions of already well-known issues, such as violence against women and the shameful neglect of the elderly.
In this area, a first step would be to ensure that laws conform to the highest international standards. I therefore call for prompt adherence by states represented in this Organisation to the new Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Parliamentary Assembly can and should give real impetus to this process. States also need to be reminded of, and held to, their public commitments, including to the agreements reached at Durban in 2001 in the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. States must be willing to examine whether further normative developments are required. In the United Nations, processes are ongoing to examine the need for supplementary standards in the context of racial and religious discrimination. Finally, states must be prepared to establish and resource the institutions necessary to make these legal and political commitments a reality.
I conclude by simply urging this Assembly to rise to the challenges in the fight against terrorism and in the area of migration and particularly in confronting discriminatory practices.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Ms Arbour, for that very valuable contribution to today’s debate.
I now give the floor to Mr Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, to make a statement. I also thank him for his extensive co-operation in preparing for today’s debate.
Mr HAMMARBERG (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights). – First, I congratulate you, Mr President, on having organised this much-needed discussion and on ensuring that the Council of Europe has a final report on the state of human rights and democracy in Europe. That is very important.
The report illustrates that there really is not much room for complacency. We have human rights problems in our own backyards. Of course, we should recognise that important progress has been made. It is a remarkable achievement that the Council of Europe area is now a death penalty-free zone, de jure or de facto. We have ombudsmen or national human rights institutions in all member states, and in many countries there is a lively and critical civil society monitoring the human rights performance of those in power.
However, it came through clearly in the report that there is a serious gap between words and deeds in several important areas when it comes to human rights – an implementation deficit. Louise Arbour mentioned the problems relating to counter-terrorism measures, and this Assembly has exposed violations in government action against terrorism: illegal arrest and transport, secret detention and the use of forbidden interrogation methods. Through his Article 52 initiative, the Secretary General has raised the issue of democratic control of the intelligence agencies and cross-border co-operation between them. That needs to be pursued.
The rights of migrants were mentioned both by the rapporteur, Mr Pourgourides, and by Louise Arbour. The truth is that such rights are not fully respected in Europe today. In particular, many irregular migrants – some of them trafficked – are very vulnerable. It seems to have been forgotten by many, including those in power in Europe, that the core human rights instruments are universal and generally apply to both citizens and non-nationals, including those who have moved in an irregular manner.
Xenophobia and racism are real problems on our continent. I have been struck on my travels by how widespread they are in Europe today. More needs to be done to counter such tendencies. Roma people are discriminated against in the housing and labour markets, and many of their children are still not in school. That is an embarrassing failure for us.
People are also discriminated against because of their sexual orientation and too few others stand up against homophobia. More needs to be done for the rights of children and to guarantee gender equity. Unfortunately, more campaigning against domestic violence is also needed.
Reforms are still necessary in some European countries in order to secure the independence of the judiciary and to protect the judicial system against tendencies of corruption.
Also, prisons in a number of member states are severely overcrowded and detention conditions are clearly unacceptable. We held an expert seminar here yesterday with representatives of leading inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations and we asked why we still have an implementation deficit in our European countries. It was said that national parliaments are particularly important in monitoring the human rights situations in their countries, and in that respect members of this Assembly have a particularly important role as catalysts. The seminar recommended that each country should be encouraged to start the process of producing a comprehensive national plan of action for the implementation of agreed human rights standards. Some member states have successfully done that; others ought to follow through. The problem was mentioned in Mr Pourgourides’s report and my office is prepared to take on the task of helping member states to improve planning and implementation.
Finally, we are prepared to play an active role when it comes to defending human rights defenders all over Europe if we have the resources necessary for that purpose.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Hammarberg, for that valuable contribution to the debate. I give the floor to Mr Jean-Paul Costa, President of the European Court of Human Rights, to make a statement.
Mr COSTA (President of the European Court of Human Rights) said that it was difficult to obtain an overview of the state of human rights through the workings of the Court, which was not necessarily a representative mirror of society. He continued by referring to the following specific issues, revealed through recent cases. Human rights violations were obvious through abuse under police custody and in the use of torture. Freedom of thought remained a difficult issue, as did policies on euthanasia.
He said there was a close correlation between civil peace and observance of human rights and that one could not exist without the other. He cited as exemplar recent improvements in Turkey and in Northern Ireland. However, the threat of terrorism and conflict in the Caucuses was a matter of concern. Because of these, the Court would have to face up to new challenges in terms of the number of cases brought before it to be processed. A fresh impetus was required to meet those challenges, and this could be delivered by the implementation of Protocol No. 14. He called on the Russian Federation to ratify this.
He concluded by calling for continued support from the European Union and individual governments for the Court of Human Rights.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Costa, for that important contribution and particularly for the work that the Court is doing for the whole of Europe and the Council of Europe.
(The speaker continued in English)
We now start the debate. I remind members that the Assembly agreed on Monday that the speaking time for members would be limited to three minutes, except for the spokespersons of political groupings, who are limited to four minutes. I call Mrs Vermot-Mangold, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mrs VERMOT-MANGOLD (Switzerland) said that she was satisfied with the human rights instruments that existed and the work of non-government organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. However, work would be required to ensure that existing instruments would continue to be implemented. Member states would need to ensure that their economic and other interests did not get in the way of the observance of human rights.
Acceptable human rights standards were not being entirely met anywhere. Roma and other minorities were consistently facing discrimination. Furthermore, those in prisons were facing abuses of their human rights: in particular, the separation of mothers from their children. Work place exploitation, the treatment of asylum seekers, racism and sexual discrimination were universal issues and she concluded that much work was still required to tackle these problems.
(Mrs Lavtižar-Bebler, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr van der Linden.)
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mrs Bemelmans-Videc on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mrs BEMELMANS-VIDEC (Netherlands). – The report by our colleague, Mr Pourgourides, offers an impressive overview of the state of human rights and democracy in Europe. It is at the same time a cri-de-coeur from a man passionately dedicated to the cause of human rights. That has been illustrated by his numerous reports on the subject over the years.
The core message of the report is given in two lines of its summary: “It is now time to end hypocrisy and to turn words into deeds. The most effective method of preventing human rights violations is by adopting a zero-tolerance approach”. We hear the impatience in these lines – a passionate impatience at the apparent lack of progress.
The catalogue of key trends and challenges that has been presented provides an overview of the urgent issues that need to be addressed by the Committee of Ministers, which is accountable to the Assembly, by the Assembly itself in calling for a higher priority to be given to human rights and the rule of law, and by national governments, which should hold up a mirror and engage in self-critical examination. Above all, and aligned with the appeal by the President this morning, it is up to us as parliamentarians to take this agenda home so that it may direct our efforts to establish humane societies and induce us to develop benchmarking criteria against which to evaluate our progress in this never-ending quest.
A discussion on best practice is needed on which basic common standards – ideally minimum standards – should be developed. One of the functions of these minimum standards would be to prevent discrimination between member states when they are being monitored. That would also fill part of the implementation gap that Mr Hammarberg mentioned. It would also encourage solidarity between member states – whether consolidated democracies or relatively new member states such as the former socialist states who, as they have repeatedly said, would never have realised their present state of human rights and democracy without the Council of Europe.
The rapporteur’s passionate impatience calls for self-analysis, for renewed dedication and above all for solidarity among our member states.
THE PRESIDENT. – The next speaker is Mr Eörsi who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – Am I expected to make a report on the book on “The state of human rights and democracy in Europe”? It has more than 350 pages and looks like an encyclopedia. It is full of information and it is heavy, and I do not think that four minutes would be sufficient for me to speak about all its content.
Instead, I will start with a personal statement. I spent two thirds of my life in a country in which the level of human rights was not under discussion – human rights were not discussed at all. The country was ruled by communists. I became a politician at a time of political change with the mission of helping to try to bring democracy and human rights to my people and others. After a few years, Hungary became a more or less defined democracy. It is not perfect at all, but we started to deal with routine issues.
I was happy when Hungary joined the Council of Europe and I came to Strasbourg to assist colleagues who had been in my shoes earlier. That helped me to recharge the batteries in my political life. If, during debates, I was impatient with anyone, I apologise. I did that only because of my strong and deep commitment to the job that we do here.
The Council of Europe is losing its impact and I have to ask whether that is because human rights and democracy are perfect all over Europe. No, I do not think that they are. The Council of Europe is losing impact because we are not as good at implementing our mission as we once were. We can criticise the Committee of Ministers and the Secretariat, but the most important thing that we can do is to hold a mirror to ourselves and ask what we do right and what we do not. That is important; I believe in it.
Let me mention two examples. As I recall, the Assembly was unable to condemn the crimes of communism and it was unable to start a discussion about the future of Kosovo, so I come to the conclusion that those of us who represent certain values at home and who fight for the values in which we believe start to become diplomats when we come to Strasbourg. We start to balance everything very carefully. We should do here what we do back at home. If we do not do that, after achieving the abolition of the death penalty in every European country, member countries will condemn the Council of Europe to death. We should try to prevent that.
I have read many items in the book that I am holding up. It is heavy and I hold up two copies to achieve a balance. It contains a lot and it is full of critical remarks about member countries. However, the first thing that we should do is ask ourselves how we could work better to build a better and nicer Europe, in which it is easier to live.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Greenway who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.
Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group, but what I shall say is largely a personal opinion.
The state of human rights in Europe is well documented and it appears in the many reports that we agree in this Assembly. Time after time, we draw attention to countless violations of human rights and unacceptable practices. They include the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers; the many humanitarian tragedies that we see, for example, in the southern Mediterranean; the fast tracking of refugees to Sudan, which is happening right now in my own country; missing and displaced persons; people trafficking, the abuse of women and children; enforced prostitution; forced disappearances; torture; extra-judicial killings; and secret detentions. All those things are happening in our continent right now and we should continue to speak up about them. This is not an acceptable situation.
We also draw attention to those parts of our continent, such as Belarus, where human rights mechanisms are not being applied. You would think that because in this Assembly we speak most of the time with unanimity – 46 countries across the political divide – more notice would be taken of what we say. I agree with Mr Eörsi that this is a time for reflection. Huge progress has been made in fifteen years in the spread of democracy across our continent, but we are losing impact in this Assembly. The question that we must confront today – this debate is the opportunity to do so – is whether anybody really takes much notice of what we say. Is anything done to address the many humanitarian tragedies to which we draw attention? Is anybody actually listening? Does anyone outside this Parliamentary Assembly really care much whether this Assembly continues to exist? Who is aware of this debate that we are having right now?
Compared with those of the European Union, our resources are derisory. The Court is under-resourced. You, sir, our commissioner, are under-resourced. It seems that neither can be improved without a reduction in our own activity in monitoring human rights. Our efforts to improve relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union continue to disappoint. The dialogue seems so one-sided, fostering the suspicion that the EU would be glad to see the back of the Assembly altogether. As to member governments, there is no new money for us, but there is €30 million for a Fundamental Rights Agency that nobody really wants. Colleagues, this has got to stop. As Madame Bemelmans-Videc said – it is in the summary of the rapporteur’s brilliant report – it is time for Council member governments to end this hypocrisy, turn all these words into deeds and adopt a zero-tolerance approach to all human rights abuses.
It must be the hope of all of us that our debate today will be a turning point in the fortunes of minorities especially, but also in moving towards the creation of a more humanitarian and democratic Europe, and a Europe in which the standards of human rights that our convention and its protocol are meant to guarantee become more and more the reality on the ground.
I find it a great privilege to be here. We have a deep responsibility as the protectors of human rights in all our countries, and we should make no apology for speaking bluntly in our debate today and in the months and years ahead.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Kyprianou, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – Mrs President, dear colleagues, the issue that we are debating today is a very important one. The Group of the Unified European Left has made repeated calls throughout the years and has fought tirelessly for the promotion of human rights. When we, the left, talk of human rights, we refer not only to civil and political ones. We also refer to social and economic rights, which are an indispensable part of human rights.
However, it is regrettable that, despite efforts made in that direction, we still witness tolerance and even acceptance of the violation of rights by certain countries under various pretexts. The most commonly accepted pretexts are socio-economic advancement, globalisation, safeguarding democracy and democratic values and the “war on terror”. Some of this pretexts were used in promoting laws to combat terrorism that violate human rights. Others allowed an anti-communist and anti-democratic campaign to be launched in Poland. Unfortunately, Europe is turning a blind eye to such infringements. Furthermore, in the name of flexibility, liberalisation and globalisation, social and labour rights are being constantly undermined. Social development is hindered and micro and small enterprises are being undermined. As a result, a culture is being created that is conducive to the shameful exploitation not only of immigrant workers and their families, but of European workers.
Moreover, the report says nothing of the involvement of European states in the violation of the rights of others in the name of protecting democracy, human rights and freedoms. How can the invasion of Iraq and the continuous bloodshed, as well as torture, instability, lack of security, a lack of basic necessities, the imposition of the will of a third state on the Iraqi people and the interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country ever be considered as a step towards safeguarding democracy and the establishment and protection of human rights?
The Group of the Unified European Left expresses here today its serious concern and disappointment about the fact that we still witness enforced disappearances, discrimination of all forms, xenophobia and even torture and ill-treatment, and people being denied their inalienable right to live in their birthplaces in conditions of peace, stability, security and prosperity. I would also like to mention the severe damage to the environment that is occurring in the absence of decisive legislation to protect it.
Our political group believes that cases such as the one persisting in Cyprus highlight the problems inherent in the state of human rights in Europe and generally in the world. A small country that was invaded by another member state of this organisation thirty-three years ago continues to endure such violations, experiencing the presence of refugees and displaced persons, and the fact that they are denied the right to return to and/or to enjoy their properties, with rights of the enclaved citizens who live in the occupied part of the republic still subjected to gross violations and the relatives of the missing continuing to endure an endless drama, not knowing the fate of their loved ones. This phenomenon is not restricted to Cyprus; the situation in the Palestinian territories is another similar situation.
There are many ways to safeguard human rights and to promote democracy, security, stability and peace. We of the Group of the Unified European Left will continue this struggle tirelessly and demand the just and equal enjoyment and protection of human rights not only in Europe, but in the entire world.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Brincat.
Mr BRINCAT (Malta). – The challenge of enhancing democracy and human rights in Europe should not rest solely on parliamentarians. Civil society, Governments and academia should work hand in hand to ensure that the values and principles to which we are all committed are put into practice in our daily lives. The challenges and opportunities that this issue poses can best be addressed by not only constantly working for democratic reform, but by ensuring that we can and do make our democratic institutions work.
In this day and age, when information and communications technology is at the forefront of society’s development, we need to ensure not only that we have more inclusive election and deliberation mechanisms, but that we gauge how modern communications technologies can affect the democratic process itself. At the same time, we should strive to ensure that all member states have legislation in place concerning freedom of information, as well as what are referred to as whistleblower acts, to ensure greater transparency.
Three years ago, the Council of Europe organised a conference on the future of democracy in Europe at expert level in Barcelona. Its deliberations now are as valid and topical as they were then. Primarily, they stated that we need to make governments more accountable, offset political disengagement and enhance incentives for citizens to participate in decision-making processes. The conference’s main conclusions should guide us in future, in the sense that we must ensure that democratic practice is continually evaluated and renewed to adapt to new contexts. It is equally imperative that development should also be a component of our endeavours in favour of democracy and human rights, particularly now that we are living in a age dominated by globalisation. For that reason, while taking into account perspectives in our continent, we need to set an example in how we conduct ourselves beyond our shores.
The economist Joseph Stiglitz recently identified five areas where the international community has recognised that all is not well to illustrate both the progress that has been made and the distance that is yet to go. These are: the pervasiveness of poverty, particularly at a time when it has become a global concern; the need for foreign assistance and debt relief; the aspiration to make trade fair; protection of the environment; and the presently flawed system of global governance.
As Council of Europe parliamentarians, we must realise that the lack of good governance is not simply a third world phenomenon. It is also a problem in various international and public institutions that shape globalisation, and we must speak out, since these problems contribute to their failure. When countries and institutions experience a democratic deficit, they will be undermining their own legitimacy and efficacy. In this day and age, we cannot think locally when we are living in an increasingly global environment. With this in mind, the enhancement of democracy and human rights in Europe should feature centre-stage, without the development component being forgotten.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Lindblad.
Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – Dear colleagues, when you woke up this morning, did you ask yourselves the same question put forth by Mr Hammarberg – how do we close the gap between words and deed? We should do that each morning – we should think about how to close that gap.
As members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we must engage with, and be focused on, the core values of the Council of Europe. Human rights are individual and universal, but there is a demand from some in many member countries – including in my own – for different legislation for different groups of the population for religious or ethnic reasons. We must all stand up for the individual and universal way of looking at human rights. We cannot have Sharia Law for some and universal rights for others.
We must also discuss the rights of individuals even when the legislation in question is perfect. In some countries – probably all the member countries – where the tradition is to have a free society, social pressures can make people change their minds about the question of having free choice. We must be very aware of such social pressures.
The issue of irregular migrants has been mentioned. My country alone has between 10 000 and 14 000 irregular migrants. Some 90% of them are working, but in the black sector, without making any social security, tax or insurance payments. The same situation applies in all countries. We must deal with this issue and make a lot of these illegal irregular migrants legal, because we need a work force. Some of you heard me say yesterday when we discussed political parties that the average age of the members of my party is 66. The same problem applies in most European countries. We need to fill these countries with migrants, so we need more legal migrants.
Finally, I again urge all of us to wake up each morning and ask ourselves what improvements we can make, and how we can close the gap.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Hancock.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – For the benefit of Mr Eörsi, who has unfortunately left, let me say that I have no intention of making a balanced speech, because I do not believe it possible to compromise on the issue of human rights. If one tries to make a balanced contribution on this issue, one ends up paying lip service to it, which is why we must be very careful regarding the words used by the rapporteur and in the report. The report is the first written document of this type put together by the Council of Europe. Why? We have existed for more than fifty years and we have acknowledged a trickle of improvements, but the report explains that in fact, there is a chasm between what we aspire to and what we are delivering on. That is the issue that we must recognise today. There should be no hiding place regarding the abuse of individuals or groups, or regarding the principle that human rights are vital.
There are three elements that we should consider in discussing the level of equality that human beings are provided, or should provided, with. First, we enter this life through birth the same, and we end it through death the same. Secondly, in between, many can take everything available to them, while others spend their entire life just trying to exist. Thirdly, all of us expect, demand and should have human rights. It is an indicative pledge on Europe’s part that this Assembly speak up for those individuals and groups who are denied that opportunity, but we have to make it more than words, do we not? We must not pick out the soft, easy, regular targets, saying that there are problems here. Why is it that, sometimes, the biggest targets are the ones most easily missed? We must consider that question seriously enough to make ourselves credible in this regard. We can claim to be the defenders of human rights, but that claim can be substantiated only if there is no hiding place. No one should be too big to avoid being the target – a target that can be properly hit.
There is no excuse for xenophobia’s still spreading its way across Europe; indeed, the situation has got not easier, but worse. The problems of the Roma and their children have been with us for generations and they are still with us. We have tinkered around the edges of such issues, but we have never done what we set out to do fifty-odd years ago, when politicians founded this place: to speak up and shout loudly, so loudly that no one can ignore the voice of the Council of Europe. Our problem now is that we are trying to put right fifty years of speaking too softly and not targeting seriously enough the targets that confront us. Let us not have reports and lip service. Let us do what we set out to do all those years ago: to make sure that that third element that I referred to, which makes us all equal, is not only aspired to but delivered on by the rest of us in society in Europe and throughout the world.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Wodarg.
Mr WODARG (Germany) noted that much had already been said by previous speakers about the injustice that still existed despite the amount of time spent combating it. In the past there had been a great deal of injustice, but it had not been widely discussed. Today, there was still injustice but it was being much more widely discussed and this, at least, was a step forward. However, it was still possible for perpetrators to remain hidden and to escape accountability, and to enrich themselves at the cost of others.
A concentrated effort should be made to pinpoint potential abuses in advance of their occurrence. There were many new forms of discrimination based on ethnicity and variations in the distribution of strengths, weaknesses, and knowledge. If the powers of the Council were to be discussed, account also needed to be taken of new forms of human endeavour such as biotechnology and intellectual property and their impact on the peoples of the world. Consequently, the approach taken to human rights needed to be broadened out and not narrowed down.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Foss.
Mr FOSS (Norway). – The rule of law and human rights are closely interlinked. The report is correct in saying that the rule of law is the backbone of human rights implementation, so perhaps this Assembly’s most important task is to build, uphold and develop the rule of law. The independence of the judiciary and equality before the law are two key principles of the rule of law. The right to an independent and impartial tribunal is laid down in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A fair trial within a reasonable time is guaranteed, but states often find it difficult to practise what they preach. Many governments need to address those issues and bring about reform of their judicial systems.
The treatment of people who are deprived of their liberty is also an issue of concern. The annual activity report of the Commissioner for Human Rights says that prison conditions are appalling in several European countries. The region has a duty to keep its own house in order. Prison sentences should not destroy the health of prisoners. European prison rules are very clear in that respect and should be followed.
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does an important job in protecting detainees and preventing torture and ill-treatment. The positive effect of visits to centres of detention is well documented. I am concerned about recent developments in the Öcalan case in Turkey, about his long isolation and general health condition. I trust that the Council of Europe will keep the situation under close scrutiny. At the international level, I appeal to Council of Europe member states – including my own country – to ratify the additional protocol to the UN convention against torture, which aims to open up prisons all over the world to scrutiny.
Freedom of expression and assembly are human rights at the core of democracy and are firmly established in Articles 10 and 11 of the convention. They are powerful rights to voice criticism and expose violations of human rights, and can bring about change, as European history has demonstrated and will continue to do so. When people cannot gather or hold demonstrations, and when the media are silenced and opposition parties cannot operate freely, democracy is at great risk. We cannot tolerate that in Europe or anywhere else. An annual Council of Europe report on the state of human rights would be a valuable instrument to help us assess the situation and try to improve human rights further.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Vaksdal, who is also from Norway.
Mr VAKSDAL (Norway). – I want to focus on the situation of human rights defenders in our region. Such courageous individuals or groups, lawyers, ombudsmen or journalists represent civil society’s claim for a life in which human rights are respected and protected.
As the report points out, human rights defenders face many obstacles to their work to improve human rights in their countries. Physical repression, threats, harassment, and judicial and administrative procedures are used against them. The climate seems worse today than before.
I also compliment the Commissioner, Mr Hammarberg, on his focus on the protection of human rights defenders in our region. His role is important and could be even more significant in the future in close co-operation with the UN and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Work is going on to strengthen further that work in the Council of Europe. Recent meetings of the group of specialists on human rights defenders have been promising. It seems to be agreed that the situation of human rights defenders requires increased attention from both member states and Council of Europe institutions. I look forward to the final report, which I trust will give impetus to further work by our Organisation in this important field.
The basis for the international protection of human rights defenders is the UN declaration of 1998. The special representative, Mrs Hina Jilani, does an excellent job, too, with regard to monitoring the situation in Europe. Clearly, concrete co-operation between the Council of Europe and UN on human rights could produce important synergies.
A declaration from the Committee of Ministers on human rights defenders could contribute to greater visibility and focus on the role of human rights defenders and on the importance of protecting them. Such a declaration must be a strong text, which shows a clear commitment to improving their situation. It would stress the priority given to the work of human rights defenders at the Council of Europe, including the important functions of the Commissioner in that respect.
The voices of human rights defenders must be heard. Without such voices, there will be no progress.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Err of Luxembourg. She is not here. The next speaker is therefore Mr Berényi of Slovakia.
Mr BERÉNYI (Slovakia). – This is a great day for Europe and for human rights. Three extraordinary reports have been tabled. All are open and frank, as they consider what we must do in the future to improve human rights in Council of Europe member states.
I fully agree with Mr Eörsi that the Council of Europe has played a fundamental role in implementing human rights in new democracies. For example, in my country, Slovakia, it would have been much harder to introduce bilingual signs in villages and cities if there had not been such a strong push from the Council of Europe to have such signs where national minorities are living.
Mr Pourgourides’s report also refers to national minorities and respect for diversity and states that the minority issue is still very sensitive. That is true. Having a good national minority policy involves adopting not only the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities or the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Real respect for diversity depends on how such conventions are implemented, how and what institutions are established for the protection of minority rights, and how politicians at home and abroad are talking about national minorities, including Roma minorities.
It is easy to judge whether a country has a benign national minority policy. One only needs to look at the census to see whether there is assimilation of national minorities. In almost all countries there is a census every ten years, and that provides a clear picture of whether minorities have been properly protected according to Council of Europe values.
I know that we face new challenges in the field of human rights. I also know that the protection of national minorities was most important in the Council of Europe at the beginning of the 1990s. However, I appeal to you, dear colleagues, to keep the policy on the Council of Europe agenda, because the protection of national minorities is still of value in a multicultural society.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Lundgren from Sweden.
Mrs LUNDGREN (Sweden). – I welcome greater focus on human rights and democracy in our continent, from the Council and from our parliaments back home.
During our history, we have achieved a lot, but the struggle for democracy and human rights occurs every day for every generation in all our countries. New challenges and threats to human rights are appearing in different areas: in the case of people seeking asylum; in the case of people who are more or less refused free association; in the case of journalists being murdered; and in discrimination against minorities. We also see challenges in European Union countries in the attempts to combat terrorism with new laws and measures that undermine human rights.
Europe, due to its historic experience, has a big challenge to maintain the rule of law, human rights and democracy, not only in good speeches but in reality. The Council of Europe must be the gatekeeper and the front runner in those areas even when we are provoked in our home countries. We are now in the position to play an active role in ensuring that the fight against terrorism does not become a fight against human rights, and in the long term, even a fight against democracy. That is crucial for the people for Europe, because if we fail in that area, it will have an impact on the rest of the world. So, let us focus on and stress the basic human rights and democracy questions, and let us take the debate back home to our parliaments, promoting human rights for the sake not only of this Council but of the people of Europe.
THE PRESIDENT. – I must now suspend the list of speakers in order to hear two more statements.
(Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mrs Lavtižar-Bebler.)
I now invite Ms Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International to make a statement. She has long served the cause of international human rights protection, particularly for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We had a long discussion during my visit to London. Ms Khan, you have the floor, you have ten minutes.
Ms KHAN (Secretary General of Amnesty International). – Mr President, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Amnesty International, I am honoured to have been invited to speak today on what is an historic occasion: the first time ever that a civil society has been invited to address this Assembly. I hope that this will become the norm rather than the exception.
The European regional human rights system is the envy of the world. It has achieved much that you can be proud of, but the report on the state of human rights and democracy paints a bleak picture of failed promises, lost opportunities and gross abuses. This Assembly sets the moral compass of Europe, but the hard truth is that many member states are way off track, creating a huge gap between standards and application, and between principles and performance.
Nowhere is that more striking than in the recent case of renditions. European governments have been partners in crime with the United States in the secret and illegal transfer of people to countries where they face torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance. All that is by a Europe committed to human rights and the rule of law; all that is confirmed by Senator Dick Marty, the Secretary General Terry Davis and the European Parliament. Yet, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has failed expressly to condemn such unlawful practices. That silence is deafening and the inaction is a scandal. It is outrageous that the Committee of Ministers has not yet agreed to draft the three non-treaty standards recommended by the Secretary General.
This Assembly has repeatedly stated that the fight against terrorism should not be a pretext for undermining fundamental rights, yet some member states have adopted draconian counter-terrorism laws, returned people to countries that have well-documented records of torture on the basis of unreliable diplomatic assurances, and used information extracted through torture and duress.
It is not only human rights standards that are under attack in Europe; it is also those who seek to defend those standards. In many parts of Europe, there have been physical threats as well as legal restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly and the restricting of space for activists and human rights defenders.
In critical areas of human rights, the work of the Assembly is weakened when member states fail to display the political will both to sign up to standards and to live up to them. Let us take domestic violence, for which rhetoric has not matched commitment or resources. Let us take the issue of minorities and discrimination. The Council of Europe has been instrumental in promoting equality, diversity and tolerance, but only a third of its 46 member states have ratified Protocol No. 12.
The failure of leadership to confront populist agendas that promote racist and xenophobic acts and ideologies have had devastating consequences for minorities, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. The Council of Europe was created in the aftermath of the holocaust, yet across Europe many of the groups targeted by the Nazis – Roma, Jews, and lesbian, gay and transgender people – still face discrimination and violence. Migratory pressures and fear of terrorist attacks have whipped up hostility against new groups, most notably Muslims, which in turn is leading to a dangerous polarisation of communities and cultures.
Zero tolerance of human rights violations will not be possible as long as there is no political will to tackle the culture of impunity that persists in some parts of Europe. The corollary of impunity is the denial of justice to victims. The prime example is Chechnya. Sometimes, those who dare to approach the courts, including the European Court, are harassed or hounded out. What is the response to that? Under Russian pressure, the Council of Europe has scaled down its reporting and monitoring of human rights abuses. That is the response.
The consistent failure to match promises with performance erodes confidence and in time will undermine the very real successes that have been driven by this Assembly. The common thread throughout is the lack of political will of governments to live up to their human rights obligations – so what can be done to change that? First, we should strengthen the Assembly. We support the Assembly’s calls to the Committee of Ministers to re-enforce the Assembly’s investigative powers through a specific mechanism.
Secondly, we should build synergy across the various European institutions, so that the human rights bar is consistently set at its highest level, and not at the lowest common denominator. That means that we believe in encouraging the EU to become a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and the revised Social Charter, and in seeking out ways to enhance co-operation with the EU, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations.
Thirdly, you should put pressure on your own government and parliaments. The first test could be the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, which needs only four more ratifications to come into force. Can you achieve that by the end of the year? There are many more issues in which, as members of this Assembly, as well as members of your own national parliaments, you are uniquely placed to push the human rights agenda towards implementation.
Fourthly, there are at least two burning issues that cannot be left unattended. One relates to the renditions and the other to the North Caucasus. The Assembly should press the Committee of Ministers to increase parliamentary scrutiny of intelligence agencies. It must also push the Committee of Ministers to break its conspiracy of silence on renditions and publicly denounce what has happened.
The Assembly must ensure that it does not become complicit in silence. By that I mean that it should resume strongly its own monitoring and public reporting on the human rights situation in the North Caucasus.
The Assembly’s report on human rights is a wake-up call not only to you as political leaders, but to us as civil society players, to galvanise public opinion, to build a stronger constituency for human rights, and to demand accountability and results throughout the Council of Europe. With more than 2 million members, many of them in Europe, I believe that Amnesty International is uniquely placed to do that, and in the spirit of partnership in which you, Mr President, invited me to address this Assembly, I promise you the support of my organisation in the pursuit of our common cause to make human rights a reality for all.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much for that valuable contribution, for the wake-up call to many in the member states and national parliaments, and also for your offer of co-operation.
I now invite Mr Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, to make a statement. I must say once again how grateful we are for what you have done, which led to the report on CIA detention. Your organisation provided the basis for the report. Without that information and the Washington Post, the matter might never have been discussed. Thanks to your contribution, a few members under the leadership of Mr Marty have done a great job.
Mr Roth, you have the floor. You have ten minutes.
Mr ROTH (Executive Director of Human Rights Watch). – Thank you, Mr President, for those kind words. Distinguished parliamentarians, thank you for the opportunity to address the Assembly on this first-ever day-long debate on the state of human rights in Europe.
As Thomas Hammarberg highlighted in his report, many serious abuses mar Europe’s human rights record. My organisation, Human Rights Watch, has reported on many of them and it shares the concerns expressed in Thomas’s report. In discussing the state of human rights in Europe, it is important to shine a spotlight not only on the shortcomings of individual governments, but on Europe’s performance as a whole in promoting human rights throughout the continent and beyond. This topic is especially important today because the United States Government has lost so much of its credibility as a promoter of human rights in light of the Bush Administration’s abusive counter-terrorism policies. A firm and effective European voice is thus acutely needed.
There can be no doubt that Europe has great potential as a powerful force for human rights. Every major multilateral European institution is founded on human rights principles. Countless bodies have been set up to monitor the compliance of European governments with those obligations, but despite this unparalleled institutional framework, Europe has not lived up to its potential. The clearest example for the Council of Europe is its striking failure to respond effectively to the continuing, pervasive impunity for grave human rights violations in Chechnya, even though Chechnya today is the largest human rights crisis in Europe and the only place on the continent where the civilian population faces the day-in, day-out reality of systematic torture, summary executions and forced disappearances.
The problem cannot be chalked up to a lack on information about human rights conditions on the ground. Over the years, a range of Council of Europe bodies has extensively documented atrocities in Chechnya and issued detailed reports and urgent recommendations for remedial action. In addition, eight recent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights have found Russia responsible for serious abuses and hundreds more cases relating to Chechnya are pending.
Russian authorities, however, have persisted in their refusal to take any meaningful steps to curb these atrocities. The Kremlin has the power to rein in its Chechen proxies which are behind most of these abuses, but instead it supports them unconditionally and blocks investigations into their conduct.
Over the past five years, the Russian Government has also managed to rid itself of virtually every international human rights monitor with a presence in the region, from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, to the Council of Europe, to the United Nations. Shockingly, Russia has faced no adverse consequences for this stone-walling and cover-up. Its partner governments in Europe have greeted its abusive policies and bullying tactics with deafening silence. It is instructive to contrast that silence with the firmer voice of the Parliamentary Assembly, which has expressed “deep...concern” about abuses and impunity in Chechnya and noted that the lack of effective response by the Council’s executive body undermines the Council’s credibility.
Unfortunately, the Committee of Ministers has done nothing to demonstrate a more vigorous approach. Meanwhile, the Assembly’s own Bureau, in a decision that we find hard to understand, decided not to renew the Assembly’s monitoring and reporting mandate on Chechnya, silencing this important voice. How could this possible happen?
In Human Rights Watch’s recent world report, issued this past January, we examined the European Union’s under-performance as a leader on human rights. Much of what we said there applies also to the Council of Europe. For example, both the EU’s Council of Ministers and the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers are plagued by a policy of reaching decisions only by consensus. A system that allows any single member state to stand in the way of the defence of human rights is a recipe for weakness. It yields a lowest common denominator position and means that on human rights, Europe allows itself to be led by its most reluctant member.
Indeed, the problem is arguably worse for the Council of Europe than it is for the EU. Many human rights problems addressed by the EU lie outside its territory, but when the Council of Europe takes up a government’s abuses, that government is almost always seated at the table, with an effective veto in hand. The forcefulness of the Council’s interventions is thus limited by the target government’s willingness to confront its own wrongdoings. If the government objects, silence prevails.
To break this paralysis, the consensus rule should be modified. Rather than insisting on unanimity, one option would be to allow decisions to be taken by a super-majority. Another option would be to allow the Council to act without the agreement of the government being addressed, much as the so-called Moscow mechanism, however underutilised, does for the OSCE.
However, the problem is not only the consensus rules. As in the EU, many Council members compound this weakness by treating the common position as a ceiling rather than as a floor. Even if the collective action of the Council’s 46 members is weak, there is no reason why individual members cannot do more on their own for human rights, whether through public statements, diplomatic representations or other forms of pressure. But all too often member states find it convenient to justify their own inaction by pointing to the inaction of the Council as a whole. No one should be taken in by that excuse.
Even when the full Council cannot act effectively, member governments should proactively advance the recommendations whether of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Commissioner or other Council of Europe institutions. They should ensure that these recommendations are implemented by ensuring that they become a regular part of the bilateral and multilateral relations with the government concerned.
For example, I mentioned the European Court of Human Rights and the numerous rulings that it has issued about Russian abuses in Chechnya. Russia has a duty to implement these rulings, meaning that it must not only compensate individual victims and their relatives, which it tends to do, but remedy the underlying systemic problems that led to the violations, which it is unlikely to do without pressure. Both the Council and its members should make full Russian compliance with these judgments an integral part of their dealings with Moscow, not just through the Council but bilaterally as well.
The Assembly has a special role to play here. As parliamentarians, you have a responsibility to act as a check on your governments to ensure that they live up to the commitments that they have embraced. When they fail in that duty, you should speak out. The need for this oversight is particularly acute when it comes to European governments’ complicity in the CIA’s abusive counter-terrorism policies. Many governments have refused to co-operate with the investigation led by Swiss senator and Assembly member Dick Marty, as was mentioned. National parliaments should be using their own investigative powers to counter governmental attempts to cover up. Only when each parliamentarian uses the full powers at his or her disposal will the Parliamentary Assembly as a whole be able to maximise its impact.
Let me conclude by saying that Human Rights Watch deeply appreciates our partnership with the Council of Europe. Much has been accomplished in the defence of human rights, but there is so much more that could be achieved if the shortcomings that I have outlined today could be addressed through the Council’s own practices.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on this important day of debate. I look forward to our continuing partnership.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you for your very valuable contribution and especially your willingness to continue the partnership with this Assembly.
The debate is now resumed. I call Mr Jurgens. You have three minutes.
Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – At the meeting of the Bureau in October, I expressed my doubts about the possibility of holding this debate at this April part-session. I have been very impressed by what has been done in the meantime to ensure that the debate has come to pass. The rapporteurs and the Secretariat should be commended on that.
As Mr Hammarberg clearly told us, the problem is the difference between words and deeds. There are 353 pages of words about the human rights situation in Council of Europe member states, but the important thing is deeds. We are very good at reciting the mantra of “democracy, human rights and the rule of law”. That goes on all the time in our debates and it is a good thing. It is the basis of our existence. However, in the end, it is the controlling mechanisms that make things happen. By far the most important of these mechanisms is the Court, but the work of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of the European Commission against Racial Intolerance and of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities also help to ensure that decisions are taken. Without such specific mechanisms, all the words that we utter will be valueless.
I understand that we have to find a way to produce these reports and I suggest that we concentrate on the workings of the mechanisms. For example, the Court makes decisions and asks for general measures to be taken to ensure that there is no repetition of a certain violation of human rights. It is possible for those measures to be the central point that the Council of Europe’s institutions should follow up. If general measures are not taken, repetitive cases will come before the Court. However, we can help the Court to implement its decisions and flag issues up to enable us to do our work in the best way. That would ensure the real implementation of decisions on human rights. Perhaps, next year, there will not be 353 excellent pages, but information on what we are doing with the controlling mechanisms.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. This is the proof that we will find the road ahead. We will evaluate the experience of this first annual report.
I now call Mr Kelemen.
Mr KELEMEN (Hungary). – I would like to contribute to a strictly defined segment of a complex problem – to a future country-by-country report. So how do I see the state of democracy and human rights in Hungary? Mr Eörsi said that it was not perfect and he is right. Regrettably, there is a shared belief among the Hungarian population that the government does not intend to represent the interests of the voters. After a campaign that involved unlimited pledges and an unrealistically bright vision of the economic and financial state of the country that contrasted with the actual position, the shocking austerity programme that came totally out of the blue had the effect of a cold shower on the people.
A good example shows how the masses were misled before the parliamentary elections. A five-year process of tax reduction had been approved in parliament but, suddenly after the election, it was cancelled and a whole raft of bills, including tax increases and the introduction of several new tax categories, came into force.
In a secret speech by the Prime Minister that was unexpectedly published, he admitted that, for the sake of winning the general election, the government had not actually governed; it had worked on the assumption that all the relevant information would remain under its control. In the spontaneous demonstrations that followed, the people insisted that he resign, but he refused to resign.
During this period, the peaceful celebrations commemorating the anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian revolution were thwarted by the police in a series of intimidating and terrorising measures of unprecedented dimensions that were directed not only against anti-government demonstrators, but against a crowd that was celebrating peacefully. Causing massive injuries, policemen continued to assault, kick and beat people after they had fallen to the ground and were defenceless. It became clear that the Prime Minister, in clinging to power, used the police in his own interests against demonstrators and his political opponents to intimidate those who were demanding his resignation.
The Hungarian example leads to the conclusion that we Europeans have a common interest in strengthening everywhere – but especially in the member states of the Council of Europe – the principle that the rule of human rights is the basis of stable national societies.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Grebennikov is not here, so I now call Mr Strässer.
Mr STRÄSSER (Germany) began by setting out the results of a recent survey, which had shown that in Germany 15% of under 25-year-olds had a useful understanding of human rights. However, these were the same young people who had shown the greatest support for those without human rights and were the first to attend demonstrations and apply pressure on the government.
He said that tackling human rights abuses should not only be the work of parliamentarians and that more effort should be made to involve and educate young people about human rights matters. He called for the teaching of human rights issues to be placed on national curriculums.
He concluded by urging human rights organisations to conduct their work in an efficient manner.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. You know what we have all undertaken, including the debates with agencies. The Assembly supported all that, and we must continue in our own states.
(Mr Kosachev, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr van der Linden.)
Mrs PAPADIMITRIOU (Greece). – This report is really a milestone – a brilliant contribution of our Assembly to the global perspective of a world honouring its obligations for full respect of human rights by all and for all, and for a European perspective of our continent’s leadership in the fields of our three core issues: democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Mr Pourgourides’s report is excellent and worthy of our congratulations and thanks. One should also mention that our President Mr van der Linden’s efforts to make human rights a top priority theme in the European political and social agenda have not only motivated our national parliaments, but increased the visibility of the Council of Europe at levels never reached until today. Of course, that was achieved with the help of our commissioner, Mr Hammarberg, and his predecessor, Mr Gil-Robles.
The rapporteur and my distinguished colleagues covered all aspects of the report, adding to its extensive highlighting of the totality of its field of application, which is successful intervention, with reference to country-by-country viewing; to more concerns and to new hidden nests of evil to be unveiled and eliminated. The report’s proposals for improvements on the organisational level, the acquisition of all effective mechanisms to control, inform, teach, monitor and finally the confrontation of all challenges, every day they are born, compose a set of rules that should lead our countries to match the pioneering role that the Council of Europe has won for us all. Mr Pourgourides suggests a way forward for all of us, both violator countries and the onlookers – monitors – which are thought of as having achieved a point of excellence in their de facto respect of human rights.
The rapporteur asked in a voice of agony that we should all end hypocrisy and turn words into deeds. To take it a bit further, I should like to ask us all, and our governments, to stick to our principles and honour our culture and democratic heritage, sometimes coming up with loud “Noes” when the case demands it, even if we have to displease our Atlantic alliance. If we assess the past year’s results of our involvement in actions that have disgraced humanity, we should accept that it is mainly the most developed and sensitive in the field of human rights among us who have abolished the human rights to life, freedom and a minimum standard of living of millions of people around us, belonging to countries that we want to otherwise monitor and teach.
I believe that the next step is to rediscover our deeply rooted principles and to venerate once again what was won over tens of wars and tonnes of blood – European freedom and independence. After all, when wanting to preach, teach and monitor, we must first of our spotless faith and practice of the full context of our preachings.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Tevdoradze.
Mrs TEVDORADZE (Georgia) thanked the rapporteurs for their report. She referred to paragraph 11 of the draft resolution in which “black holes” were mentioned where the full protection of the Council of Europe for human rights did not operate. In some such areas, full elections could not be held as a large proportion of the population had been displaced. She cited the example of three students who had returned to their country and had spent the past few months in prison simply because they wanted to move freely. In relation to Georgia, many people had been expelled from the Russian Federation and in one case the government had prevented a husband from visiting his wife and family. In all these cases, Europe had remained silent.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Keskin.
Mr KESKIN (Germany) explained that he wanted to talk about an important democratic deficit which affected western Europe. Every form of discrimination, whether on the grounds of gender, ethnicity, social or religious grounds, needed to be eliminated. Citizenship was a crucial political and legal link between the state and the individual and this posed problems for all democracies. It was not acceptable that millions of people were not entitled to citizenship as they were migrants and therefore were not able to participate in the political system of the country in which they lived. It should be made much easier for people to apply for citizenship where they had lived for a long time in the country.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gardetto.
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) congratulated the rapporteurs and emphasised that the area of human rights required vigilance. There were millions of people who suffered from discrimination as a consequence of, for example, human trafficking, age, race, religion, education or domestic violence. The main problem in relation to such socially fragile people was indifference. Efforts should be made to improve the legal protection for victims of human trafficking, people with disabilities and the elderly. The way these matters were dealt with by the Council of Europe and its member states should be exemplary; standing as a symbol for others.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Pollozhani.
Mr POLLOZHANI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). – This progress report comes on the 10th anniversary of the creation of the Council of Europe Monitoring Committee, and is in the context of today’s main theme – the state of human rights and democracy in Europe. I am pleased to say that, during that period, the Committee and the Council of Europe have played a significant role in introducing standards and have helped countries to achieve them. The Council of Europe has accompanied the member states, especially the new democracies, on the path to overcoming their difficulties. Successful democratisation and the integration into the European Union of those countries is the main argument for the successful and effective job done during that decade. In that context, we must congratulate the various countries and their citizens on their dedication and partnership in achieving the goal of democratisation and integration.
It is important to say, as the report stresses, that activities such as monitoring are understood as a process of seeking solutions, rather than confrontation and punishment. They create a mood of mutual understanding and ease the dialogue on achieving appropriate solutions. The report shows that the problem of achieving democratic standards is not only reserved for the new democracies. Every country needs to cherish, assess and upgrade democratic standards as part of meeting the continuing need for adjustment and harmonisation, and to find solutions to new challenges.
Bearing in mind the complexity of the realities and specifics of different countries, the Council of Europe and its various bodies should continue their work, avoiding stereotypes in the monitoring procedures and paying more attention to those specifics. For instance, in facing some of the realities in the new democracies in terms of their ethnic and cultural diversity, and in realising the need for stabilisation, we have encouraged and supported inclusive solutions in a move towards consolidating multi-ethnic and multicultural democracies. The management of diversities and the harmonisation of inter-ethnic and intercultural interests are new challenges at a national and international level. In my opinion, the Council of Europe and its various bodies have to pay more attention to these issues.
Mismanagement of diversities, being guided by principles of exclusion and not taking into account the legitimacy of the main political factors in multi-ethnic and post-conflict countries can deepen the lack of confidence, undermine reconciliation and keep societies fragmented. In this context, and bearing in mind recent developments, I believe that my country of Macedonia will have a lot to discuss in the ongoing post-monitoring dialogue with the Council of Europe, in order not to lose the chance given by the European Union in the form of the candidate status granted to my country last year.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Rigoni.
Mr RIGONI (Italy) said that in a global context democracy no longer mattered. This was shown in cases where democratic mechanisms had been exported.
He said that international changes over the last decade had placed human rights at the core of international relations, but legislation on paper did not correspond with the reality of implementation. Human rights violations such as human trafficking and domestic violence remained prevalent and were not constrained by borders. The protection of human rights was an issue of credibility for European institutions. It was necessary to give more political support to the European Court of Human Rights. This institution was the cornerstone of human rights protection in Europe and the Court must be allowed to do its work unconstrained. He hoped that Protocol No. 13 might provide a way forward.
Italy had requested a debate and vote in the June session of the Council of Europe on the subject of an international moratorium on the death penalty. Eighty-five states, 42 of which were members of the Council of Europe, had supported this initiative but it was of course only a first step in the battle to outlaw the death penalty.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Kawa from Poland.
Mr KAWA (Poland). – Mr President, dear colleagues, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about the state of human rights. There is no question but that Europe needs sincere and honest debate about this issue.
First, we need to discuss the right of European nations to their identity and liberty. Nowadays, liberty is being reduced by an attempt to impose on us the opinions of small and marginal ideological groups. That is particularly evident in the creation of additional rights – human rights to freedom of sexual orientation – which do not improve the process of democracy at all. By introducing in law additional privileges for those groups, some countries are giving them preferential treatment in comparison with ordinary citizens.
My country is mentioned in the report of Mr Christos Pourgourides from Cyprus in the context of discrimination related to sexual orientation and gender. The rapporteur claimed that opposition to groups of different sexual orientation in Poland had supposedly manifested itself in a number of ways, such as in the banning of marches. I am firmly opposed to such a one-sided presentation of this sensitive issue. Let me present my country’s more responsible approach, which seeks to protect innocent children from homosexual propaganda.
It is noticeable that several actions have been taken to promote in youth education a spirit of permissiveness and a belief that no standards and values should be met. Europe was strong, however, when it was rooted in a natural law and when youth education drew on that law. Other recent cases in Europe deserve much more condemnation than the supposedly homophobic ones. Let me remind you, for example, of an incident in one European country in which an 11-year-old boy was to participate in a gay parade, to which propaganda the local authorities had given their consent.
I am aware that in some European countries questioning the privileges of homosexual minorities is a taboo subject. Fortunately, in my country, we can talk about that frankly and it is not a symptom of discrimination against anyone. We notice, however, that in western Europe homosexual propaganda is reaching younger and younger children.
I strongly oppose the limited scope of reports on human rights in Europe in not mentioning the crime committed against unborn children. In Europe, every human being – and that includes those who are not yet born – needs protection, regardless of religion, race, health or origin. Not admitting the truth about the tragedy of millions of Europeans aborted each year is one of the gloomy realities of our times. That crime, legalised by several European parliaments, is a new form of barbarity. Thank you for giving me the floor.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The final speaker in this debate will be Mr Slutsky from the Russian Federation.
Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said the report presented a realistic picture of human rights in Europe, highlighting issues such as illegal detention and the transfer of people between states. Paragraph 9 of the draft resolution, on the subject of diversity, was particularly important. However, he was critical of Mr Roth’s analysis of the present situation in the Chechen Republic. Mr Roth’s summary varied from that of other international non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International. The Russian Federation had worked hard with the Council of Europe and other bodies to normalise the situation in the Chechen Republic. Human Rights Watch needed to be more objective about the situation.
Mr Slutsky noted paragraph 17.5 of the report concerning provision of the right to vote to legal migrants. The Council of Europe had already taken steps to address this issue. However, no measures had been taken to ensure the resolutions of the Council of Europe were implemented. In particular, Mr Slutsky was concerned about ethnic Russians living in Latvia and Estonia who did not have voting rights. Any resolutions of the Council must be applied to a common standard in all countries; any other approach was unacceptable.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.
I must now interrupt the list of speakers for this debate. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report.
I now call Mr Pourgourides, Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, to reply. You have four minutes.
Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – I warmly thank all the participants in this debate for their contributions, and I thank in particular our guests. Their wisdom and experience will no doubt assist our Assembly in its task of limiting human rights violations in Europe to the minimum. Let us hope that this debate will be a turning point, reversing the recent trends of deterioration. I fully agree with Mr Hancock that we cannot meet the challenges facing us by speaking softly. When it comes to human rights violations, we must speak loudly and clearly and above all without fear.
As our President says in the foreword to our publication, we cannot take our basic human rights for granted: “Their protection and promotion will always be ‘work-in-progress’, requiring constant vigilance and determination.” As Mrs Bemelmans-Videc said, and other colleagues agreed, their protection requires zero tolerance of human rights violations. The tolerance shown by the Committee of Ministers of our Organisation for many serious human rights violations is to us in the Assembly totally unacceptable. There is no doubt that on some issues the Committee of Ministers elegantly applies double standards. That tolerance undermines the Council of Europe’s credibility and maintains the gap between words and deeds.
I agree with Mr Slutsky from the Russian Federation that we could have given greater prominence in our report to the human rights situation of ethnic Russians in the Baltic states. Definitively, the Russians living in the Baltic states need better protection of their human rights, and this Assembly should not ignore that.
Before concluding, allow me to thank you personally, Mr President, for the chance to have this debate. As some colleagues know, but many others may not, this debate was entirely your idea. Without your determination to have it organised, we would not be here debating these very important issues today.
I also warmly thank my co-rapporteurs, particularly Mr Gross, who will take the floor in a few minutes’ time to speak about the state of democracy in Europe. I also thank all the co-rapporteurs from other committees with whom we worked in producing the report.
I thank my good friend, the chairman of my committee, Mr Marty, and all members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for their support. Without it, my task would have been far more difficult. Above all, I thank warmly the Secretariat of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Without their help and assistance, I may well have failed in my task. I have worked for more than thirty-five years as a parliamentarian with many people in many forums. Very few have shown the devotion and ability that I witnessed in the Secretariat. I heartily thank them and I hope that the Assembly will share my sentiment with warm applause.
(Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Kosachev.)
THE PRESIDENT. – I join you, Mr Pourgourides, in thanking on behalf of the Assembly all those you have mentioned, as well as the committee, and I especially thank you for your contribution.
Mr Marty, chairperson of the committee, does not wish to speak, so the debate is closed.
I remind members that the votes on the draft recommendation in Document 11202 and the 17 amendments will take place after the debates this afternoon at about 6.30 p.m.
6. State of democracy in Europe
THE PRESIDENT. – The second item of business this morning is the opening of the debate of democracy in Europe, Document 11203, presented by Mr Gross on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, with opinions by five committees. The list of speakers closed at 6.30 p.m. yesterday. There are 47 speakers. The debate will continue with the speakers list at the start of this afternoon’s sitting.
I call Mr Gross, Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee, to take the floor. You have eight minutes.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) said that dignity and democracy were at the heart of human rights. It was not just a question of citizenship; citizens could not have a dignified existence without the right to lead their own lives. The subject of human rights was like a jigsaw comprised of many pieces which, when put together, made democracy. Democracy went beyond human rights. The Council of Europe was the hospital of democracy and its health was the responsibility of all the members of the Council of Europe. Some said that democracy was dependent on dignity but members could see from the report that democracy was a key issue for citizens and therefore it should be for members as the representatives of citizens. Many people were disappointed by the state of democracy even though they themselves lived in democracies. The principle of democracy had become a yard stick, accepted as the norm which no one would criticise. However the foundations of democracy had been weakened by this normalisation.
Democracy should involve more than just elections. The freedom resulting from democracy provided people with a means to improve their lives and living conditions. If that freedom did not exist, and democracy was bad, violence would result. Democracy was also about co-existence and, to achieve one’s ends under democracy, tolerance of others was required.
In the past, the representation provided by a democratic system was of great importance because citizens within a society had less access to literature explaining the decisions of government. That had now changed as people had better access to information but institutions did not allow people to realise the potential of this information. Democracy should be more than just an election process; it should encourage, and provide for, the involvement of people in the activities of government.
Democracy also involved a guarantee of the provision of equal opportunities; but for this to happen the economy and democracy needed to achieve an equilibrium. Democracy should act as a tiller to steer society.
He concluded that Europe needed democracy just as democracy needs Europe.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. As always, that was a very interesting presentation.
I call Mrs Pirozhnikova to present the opinion of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, Document 11215. You have three minutes.
Mrs PIROZHNIKOVA (Russian Federation) said it was an honour to participate in this, the first discussion to treat democracy and human rights holistically. She set out a list of human rights including, in particular economic and environmental rights and noted that 740 million individuals had trusted the Council of Europe to improve their lives and provide them with equal opportunities.
She stated that it was the economy that provided a stable basis for human rights. A strong economy resulted in the potential to establish and maintain strong respect for human rights. However, she noted that in many rich countries equal opportunities were not guaranteed.
She concluded by highlighting the importance of the observance of the human rights of immigrants in the richer countries.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.
I now call Mrs Melo to present the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Document 11218. You have three minutes.
Mrs MELO (Portugal) began by highlighting the importance of this debate in defining the future role of the Council of Europe. She expressed five areas that should be addressed if human rights were to be maintained and improved.
First, discrimination should be tackled by giving people across the member states equal dignity in respect of their language and heritage. Secondly, the violation of human rights and separatism between peoples could be reduced through education and a better understanding of current laws. Thirdly, action must be taken against xenophobic organisations to foster peace by encouraging intellectual dialogue between peoples with defined objectives. Fourthly, freedom of expression would have to be maintained. However, she recognised that these freedoms had to be deployed responsibly and sensitively as they were open to misuse. Finally, recent developments in science and technology would have to be addressed particularly in areas concerned with the exploitation of the human body.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Platvoet to present the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs.
Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – Sustainable development is a basic condition for human rights, as are social welfare, the rule of law and democracy. That may seem a rusty and formal statement, but unforeseen rapid climate change is such a big threat to the planet that many people become greens overnight.
The opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs focused on two issues that are related to, and form part of, human rights. The first is the right to water. Access to clean water and sanitation is a basic condition for human living. This demands an adequate environmental policy and transparent and integrated water management.
The second main issue is the right to food and food security. That statement seems to speak for itself, but it has a direct relationship with climate change. Food production and transport contribute to the production of carbon dioxide emissions. Rich countries produce the bulk of those emissions while the poor countries pay the debts.
Food safety crises are well known in Europe but we have managed them better than we have the widespread hunger in the world. Our responsibility goes wider than Europe itself. Sustainable agriculture, organic farming and fair trade are the answers to these challenges.
Local and regional democracy is the other main issue and not for human rights, but for the implementation of a successful, sustainable and transparent policy and to raise awareness among the citizens.
The important issues that the committee raised in its opinion are implemented in the resolution and recommendation, and we are satisfied with that. We agree that the main issues of sustainable development – and certainly with unforeseen climate change – can be seen as basic human rights, but are they are a part of our monitoring mechanisms in this Organisation? The answer is no. Of course, I am aware of the lack of financial resources and of the work load of the Secretariat and the Monitoring Committee. However, if we take seriously the future of our children and the threat to the earth, we must consider new goals, new politics and new measures.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mrs Čurdová to present the opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Document 11220. You have three minutes.
Mrs ČURDOVÁ (Czech Republic). – I have decided to start my speech in an unconventional way by quoting from the speech delivered by Mr Leuprecht, former Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe. He said, “Any democratic society must make sure that it grants equal opportunities to all its members. It must respect dignity and integrity of all – women and men.
Effective participation of women in public life is a necessity for the accomplishment of real democracy. We need to say that today in Europe there are no or very little obstacles de jure that would prevent women from participating in public life. But, it is true that in most of the European countries, women are still under-represented in decision making. Parity democracy also means that it is necessary for women and men to really participate in the responsibility in the family and in the process of balancing family and work-life.
Human rights of women and girls are integral and inseparable part of general human rights. The principle of equality of women and men is incorporated in the principle of human rights as sine qua non of democracy. If we want to overcome the gap between equality de iure and equality de facto we have to do more than just proclaim our good intentions.”
Mr Leuprecht then goes on, “We cannot deny the existence of a very negative aspect concerning equality in Europe. It is violence against women. Women are becoming the subject of physical, sexual and psychological violence in their everyday life, in the family and the workplace. Trafficking of women and forced prostitution are especially reprehensible forms of violence against women. It is a modern form of slavery and violation of human rights, which must be recognised and denounced as such.”
Mr Leuprecht gave this speech in 1994 and before the Women’s World Conference held in Beijing in 1995. Today, 18 April 2007, we can see from the report that I am presenting on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men that not much has changed.
Our committee shows the three major areas where human rights continue to be violated and where a lack of democratic principles is still experienced: the under-representation of women in decision-making processes, domestic violence and trafficking in human beings including forced marriage. They are virtually the same topics evoked by Mr Leuprecht’s speech.
Finally, let me point out that a democracy in which equal opportunities are not assured cannot be considered a fully fledged democracy and a society that does not use all of its mental capacity cannot develop any further. Equal opportunities represent a political and social conception of modern democratic society. As such, they must be reflected in everyday life and not merely talked about.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Čekuolis to present the opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities, Document 11221. You have three minutes.
Mr ČEKUOLIS (Lithuania). – The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities wishes to contribute to this debate by raising two issues: the representation of minorities in elected institutions and the rights of the opposition in political life. Our committee has dealt with both questions for several years through hearings, conferences and debates. As an interim result of all these discussions, we propose two amendments to the draft resolution.
I shall discuss both issues briefly, and I shall deal first with the representation of minorities. The conclusion for the time being could be that there is no “one size fits all” model. Some countries have quota systems for minorities in political life; others do not. Some countries say that they are a good thing; others do not. Who is right and who is not? It is an open question.
However, for this moment we must have a conclusion, and the conclusion that our committee proposes is that first, we as politicians, and our political parties, have a responsibility to ensure the fair representation of minorities in elected institutions, taking account of their proportionality in our respective countries. Probably the most convenient solution is the inclusion of candidates belonging to minorities on the lists of major political parties.
The second question concerns the rights of oppositions in parliament. Our committee concludes that opposition parties and their members cannot simply claim rights and means, but should also show responsibility in using them, and use their best efforts to strengthen the efficiency of parliament and democratic development in their countries.
At the same time, the majority – whatever majority they have – must be wise enough to give the opposition as much power and influence as possible. In short, the majority has just one privilege: the majority of the votes. Our committee will definitely continue working on both those issues in the future.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.
I now invite Mr Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, to make a statement.
Mr Davis, you have the floor. Everybody knows our Secretary General, and you need no further introduction. You have five minutes.
Mr Terry DAVIS (Secretary General of the Council of Europe). – Thank you, Mr President. I thank the Assembly for having arranged this debate, and all the rapporteurs for their contributions to it.
Democracy and human rights are intrinsically linked. There will always be violations of human rights as a result of random malevolence or genuine mistakes. What worries me are those violations of human rights with a political background or political implications, or both, which are therefore a challenge to the normal functioning of our democratic societies.
I will focus on three trends. The first is related to the fight against terrorism. The facts about the so-called extraordinary renditions are well known, but one aspect has so far been largely ignored. Our inquiries have revealed that most, if not all, of our member states have failed to put in place effective legal and administrative safeguards against security services running wild. This has created a loophole allowing the executive power – which includes security services – to circumvent scrutiny by parliament and the judiciary. Such a creeping transfer of powers not only threatens our individual human rights, but also undermines the functioning of our democratic institutions. The fact that this is done with the best possible intentions is irrelevant. Our governments have a duty to protect us from the terrorist threat, but they must do so effectively, legally, and democratically. Our member states received my proposals in July.
The second trend concerns regrettably frequent and unjustified restrictions on political rights and freedoms. Such restrictions interfere with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, notably Article 10, which guarantees freedom of expression, Article 11, which guarantees freedom of assembly and association, and Article 14, which prohibits discrimination.
Some governments may believe that they are protecting the public interest when they try to silence media which they consider to be irresponsible, or to keep from power a political force which they consider to be unfit to govern, but such arbitrary actions are undemocratic and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The last trend is related to the exploitation of prejudice against minority groups. Across Europe, intolerance is becoming socially and politically acceptable, and it is gradually finding its way into mainstream politics. Among the groups which are regularly targeted by populist and extremist politicians are the Roma, non-European immigrants and the gay and lesbian community.
Hate is a powerful motivator, and prejudice can be an effective tool in diverting the public’s attention from the real problems in society and making significant electoral gains. Sooner or later, people see through the charade – but elections do not take place every week, and in politics even a short-lived deception may cause long-lasting harm. In short, bigots not only hurt human rights, they also pervert our democratic systems.
I will conclude with a word of caution. Democracy and human rights in Europe are facing a paradox. The standards are higher than ever before, but the political commitment to protect them is not always as strong as it should be. The level of democracy and human rights in Europe has not yet reached the point at which they would become irreversible, and I doubt that they ever will. The debate today is an important opportunity to send a strong signal to our member states that we want them to reinforce their support for the Council of Europe, its institutions and its mechanisms, in order to deal with all these threats to both democracy and human rights.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you for your precise account of these important issues.
7. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting
THE PRESIDENT. – That concludes this morning’s sitting. This afternoon we will begin at 3 p.m. with statements by invited personalities followed by the resumed debate on the state of democracy in Europe.
Are there any objections? That is not the case.
The sitting is adjourned.
(The sitting was closed at 1.10 p.m.)
5. State of human rights and democracy in Europe
Presentation by Mr Pourgourides of report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Doc. 11202
Presentation by Mr Glesener of opinion of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, Doc. 11216
Presentation by Mr Thijn of opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, Doc. 11217
Statements by:
Ms Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Mr Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
Mr Costa, President of the European Court of Human Rights
Speakers:
Mrs Vermot-Mangold (Switzerland)
Mrs Bemelmans-Videc (Netherlands)
Mr Eörsi (Hungary)
Mr Greenway (United Kingdom)
My Kyprianou (Cyprus)
Mr Brincat (Malta)
Mr Linblad (Sweden)
Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)
Mr Wordarg (Germany)
Mr Foss (Norway)
Mr Vaksdal (Norway)
Mr Berényi (Slovakia)
Ms Lundgren (Sweden
Statements by:
Mrs Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International
Mr Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
Speakers:
Mr Jurgens (Netherlands)
Mr Kelemen (Hungary)
Mr Strässwer (Germany)
Mrs Papadimitriou (Greece)
Mrs Tevdoradze (Georgia)
Mr Keskin (Germany)
Mr Gardetto (Monaco)
Mr Rigoni (Italy)
Mr Kawa (Poland)
Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)
Reply:
Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)
6. State of democracy in Europe
Presentation by Mr Gross of report of the Political Affairs Committee
Presentation by Mrs Pirozhnikova of opinion of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development
Presentation by Mrs Melo of opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Doc. 11218
Presentation by Mr Platvoet of opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Agricultural and Local and Regional Affairs, Doc. 11219
Presentation by Mrs Čurdová of opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Doc. 11220
Presentation by Mr Čekuolis of opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities, Doc. 11221
Statement by Mr Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe
7. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting