Verbatim record 2007 CR15

2007 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Fifteenth sitting

Wednesday 18 April 2007 at 3 p.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 3 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT. – In accordance with Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure, a written declaration No. 392 on a solemn tribute to the “Righteous” of Europe, document 11257, which has been signed by 21 members, has been printed.

Any Representative or Substitute may add his signature to this declaration in the Table Office, room 1083. If any names are added, the declaration will be distributed again two weeks after the end of the part-session, with all the accumulated signatures.

2. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT. – In this afternoon’s sitting, we start with the resumed debate on democracy in Europe. The list of speakers in this debate will be interrupted at about 4.30 p.m. to allow the main rapporteur to reply.

I propose that the second debate this afternoon, on monitoring states’ performance, will start just after 4.30 p.m. The list of speakers in that debate will be interrupted at 5.55 p.m. to allow for reply by the rapporteurs.

The final item of business will be the votes on the resolutions, recommendation and amendments for the three reports debated today. This will start at 6.30 p.m.

Are these arrangements agreed?

They are agreed.

3. State of democracy in Europe (resumed debate)

THE PRESIDENT. – I now invite Mr Halvdan Skard, President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, to make a statement. Local and regional authorities play an important role in terms of communication and in human rights affairs at a local level. Mr Skard, you have the floor.

Mr SKARD (President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe). – It is a great honour for me to participate in this debate, which I welcome wholeheartedly. It is useful that we look at our roles in defending and developing human rights and democracy, and at who does what – governments, parliaments, local and regional authorities, civil society and non-governmental organisations.

The concept of human rights has been constantly evolving. Today, we are talking about access to social rights, rights to housing, health, education and a healthy environment, minority rights, rights of migrants and the rights of children. We are going deeper in our understanding of the needs and expectations of our citizens, and in our understanding of the problems that we face, such as trafficking in human beings, domestic violence, racial attitudes, drug abuse, urban safety, street children and lack of gender equality, to name but a few.

Local and regional authorities are and must be at the forefront in dealing with these problems. They are the first to be affected by their consequences, and the first to treat the victims of human rights abuses and to take preventive measures. That is becoming even truer as decentralisation processes and the devolution of power towards territorial communities, coupled with the transfer of competences from central governments, are increasingly making local and regional authorities the first line of defence in terms of human rights and the development of democracy.

The Congress has a clear mission to bring the local and regional dimension to human rights protection and the development of democracy, mounting action at the grassroots level that is the very foundation of the democratic edifice of our societies. We certainly all agree that the local and regional level is the basis for democracy and the starting point of any activity that we envisage, and that its role is essential when we debate democracy and human rights. I have read today’s report with great interest, and I look forward to next year’s report, which I am sure will pay even more attention to the local and regional aspect of human rights and democracy in Europe.

The Congress, which represents more than 200 000 territorial communities, is the only body tasked with monitoring the development of local and regional democracy in all our member states, not least by ensuring the implementation of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. That charter is the cornerstone treaty, which we see as our most important contribution to the human rights protection system and to the development of local democracy. Our monitoring activities show that in most member states, there is still a lot to be done.

Local and regional authorities are best placed to take action within their communities at the level closest to the citizen, be it by mobilising community leaders to ease ethnic tensions, by setting up shelters for battered women, by organising local police to take action against human trafficking, or by engaging young people in public life and improving the situation in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. We should also not forget our role in the field of education.

Real prospects for improvement lie also in addressing the root causes of such problems. Let me give a few examples. Public apathy towards democratic processes may be due to disenchantment with our democratic institutions and to loss of trust in politicians. Domestic violence and human trafficking are linked to a great extent to the economic situation. Inter-ethnic tension and urban riots may be linked to perceived discrimination against, or at least to a lack of attention to, certain ethnic or minority groups.

One of the answers lies in greater inclusion and participation of all groups in society. This starts at a grassroots level. The local economy is becoming increasingly important for education, creating jobs and improving people’s economic situation. Local police are perceived as more friendly in the eyes of communities. Empowerment of women must be achieved at local level. Such issues – the questions of human rights and of citizens’ participation – will also be discussed in June at the Council’s Forum for the Future of Democracy, organised in Sweden, in which local authorities will take an active part.

I would like to conclude by stressing once again that empowering communities, enhancing citizens’ participation, giving people the genuine feeling of belonging and involving them in decision making will make Europe an even better place for our fellow citizens. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Skard.

I now invite Mr Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, Vice-President of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), to make a statement. The Venice Commission is one of the various prestigious institutions of the Council of Europe.

Mr Bonnici, you have the floor.

Mr BONNICI (Vice-President of the European Commission for Democracy through Law). – Thank you, Mr President. I am honoured to be asked to represent the Venice Commission and to speak to you today. I was impressed by the analysis of Mr Gross in his speech this morning, as I was with the contribution of Mr Pourgourides. I speak as a former politician – I was in parliament for thirty years – and I am now a member of the Venice Commission, examining the various institutions and considering what can be done to remedy the present situation. We have now arrived in Europe at a formal complete victory for democracy. In some way or other, however, we are all dissatisfied with the performance. That is the problem: in 1932, when I was born, Germany was a democracy, and the result of that was not only the failure of democracy in Germany but a cataclysm in Europe. We should consider whether we can overhaul the institutions of today and remedy certain problems.

First, with regard to the rule of law, laws alone do not make a democracy; one must have something else – good laws. I am happy that I am a member of the Venice Commission, because that is what the Venice Commission is concerned with. The achievement of the Council of Europe is mostly in law: in the Convention on Human Rights and in the Court of Human Rights. The Venice Commission is also in the tradition of considering laws and how they can help.

That part of Europe that is in the European Union has still not resolved the problem of its constitution. Other institutions also need to be considered. Is parliament, its procedures and the way in which it works conducive to participation by the people? Are those who watch a parliamentary debate, as our friends in the public gallery are doing now, enamoured of the workings of democracy? What are electoral laws producing? According to Mr Gross’s analysis, representation and the quota system – 5% or 2% – is a problem. On the other hand, we have the problem of governance and the forming of coalitions after elections: what do citizens think when they see that laborious process take place in many European countries? Can we have fuller representation as well as an executive that has power?

Another problem with our laws and arrangements, as Mr Gross said this morning – I repeat his point with qualification – is that we still approach our democracy as if we were dealing with an electorate who have a primary school education, whereas the electorate today are much more sophisticated than that. Another, higher system is necessary. I must also tell Mr Davis that the Venice Commission has considered the point about surveillance of security forces. My whole argument is for better laws and better democracy.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. We now open the speaker’s list in the debate.

I remind members that the Assembly agreed on Monday that speaking times should be limited to three minutes, except for spokespersons of political groups.

I call Mr Mota Amaral who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party. You have four minutes.

Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal). – It is customary to greet and thank the rapporteur at the beginning of each speech. I gladly abide to that tradition, as I recognise the high level of competence, political wisdom and dedication to the purposes of our Assembly and the Council of Europe demonstrated by our Swiss colleague, Mr Andreas Gross.

I also consider it mandatory in this case to compliment you, Mr President – on behalf of myself and of my political group, the European People’s Party, over which you have presided so brilliantly previously – on this debate, which is an important achievement of your presidency.

We tend to feel comfortable about human rights, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law in Council of Europe member states, which are considered to be the trademarks of freedom and democracy. They denote an outstanding victory of the citizens of Europe, which could be designated the European political model. The success of civil liberties across our continent is the glory of the Council of Europe, which, in its conventions and institutions, remains a beacon of enlightenment and reason and an example and symbol for the whole world.

Only countries organised as democracies can become members of the Council of Europe. Democracy, along with human rights, has proved to be an evolving and therefore demanding concept. In these times of mass education, economic and technological progress and the globalisation of information, markets and society, democracy is no longer simply a form for organising political society based on the guarantee of civil liberties and regular, free and fair elections.

We are all seriously concerned about the quality of democracy. Civic participation, social inclusion, gender equality, transparency, accountability, and the prevention of and fight against corruption became the top priorities in a balanced judgment on the type of democracy existing in every society. The purpose of Andreas Gross’s report is to identify the requirement for excellence of democracy in Europe, including in the old member states of the Council of Europe.

For both political scientists and political leaders in Europe considering the functioning of our democracies, red lights are flashing. A large number of citizens do not vote or participate in political parties. Demagoguery and populism became serious threats to democracy and are generally associated with terrible prejudices, which have plagued our societies in the past.

Measures must be taken with wisdom and determination to heal the illnesses identified in Europe’s democracies. A new, younger face must be presented to our fellow citizens across the continent that is capable of motivating them, enthusing them and even inspiring passion. On behalf of myself and my political group, I strongly support Andreas Gross’s suggestions. We have challenging homework to do, in this Chamber and in our national parliaments, in the next few years. We must commit ourselves and our best energies to that mission, which is genuinely worth while.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Hancock to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Democrats and Liberals in Europe.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – As others have done, I congratulate the rapporteurs and others who have contributed on the success of today’s voyage of discovery by the Council of Europe in considering itself, its record on human rights and now its record on democracy.

What has been sadly missing from both the reports and booklets produced is a sense of how we have systematically allowed many of our supposed democracies simply to drift into being managed democracies. They are not political democracies in the true sense of the word. They are about politicians who are elected and then want to manage. It is because they like to manage that they trust themselves with more and more power, and that makes it very difficult for the process of democracy to work. The very people who have the power create the environment in which that is the only way.

The report claims to identify four reasons why we have that problem: the democratic deficit; corruption and the absence of trust between the public and politicians; suffrage and disenfranchisement; and non-governmental organisations and their roles in trying to create an environment in which people can understand what is going on. We kid ourselves that that is happening, yet the report offers only management solutions. The authors have fallen into the trap of wanting to manage.

If democracy is to flourish, it has to be about political ideas and thoughts, about providing platforms for people, about encouraging the population to take part in elections, about having an enthusiasm for a belief and the realisation that things can be better. People do not want always to be managed. They want to be excited, to be given opportunities and to see that there is at least a small prospect of something in their lives changing.

All four “problems” are clearly associated with politicians. The remedy is in the hands of politicians. I trust the rapporteur’s opinion and listen to him keenly on many subjects, but he has also fallen into the trap. The report states: “The Assembly notes, with great concern, the increasing feeling of political discontent and disaffection among citizens, which is well illustrated by a declining turnout at elections”.

People do not vote because the choices are not there; they get so much of the same. In Britain there has been a merging of belief which has made it unbelievably difficult for people to see the difference between parties. We go from Conservative to Labour and Labour to Conservative seamlessly, as if nothing has happened. That is not political change. Why should people vote for the same thing? They might as well stick with what they have, and that is what most politicians insist on and hope will happen. Some rig the results. Of course, some try to do so and get the wrong result, and that is when the real trouble starts.

If we are to have a real debate, it must be about why politicians chose not to provide people with deliverable choices. They do not provide a challenge; they do not excite the population. This is not about the young and the old. It is about the whole community having no reason to vote. In our country, most people participate in elections reluctantly in order to vote against what they have. They do not vote for a better choice, because on paper that choice is not there. The politicians have not bothered to think it through and present a choice to the people. Lack of choice – that is what is wrong with democracy in Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Wilshire, who speaks on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – The European Democratic Group fully supports the whole process in which we are involved. We congratulate you, Mr President, on making it possible. It is an important initiative. We have given ourselves a difficult challenge. It is a good first attempt, but as always, there are lessons to be learned when embarking on something as difficult as this. Perhaps we could have allowed more time – I do not know. Perhaps the usual procedure for producing reports is not appropriate for such a major undertaking.

Personally, I have hugely enjoyed being involved in the process. On behalf of my group I congratulate Mr Gross and thank him for allowing me to be involved as he wrote his report. The report has improved as it has been worked on. I am sure that the rapporteur will accept that it is not perfect, but it is an excellent start, on which we can build for the future.

I have learned a lot of lessons in this process, but time allows me to mention only three. All three are controversial. I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to define democracy. We all know it when we see it, but each society of the 47 member states has its own definition. There are so many variables: geography, history, the state of development of the country, culture and, perhaps most important of all, the way in which the values and beliefs shape democracy. I say this to you: beware of trying to impose our definition on others – it is a dangerous idea.

The second lesson that I have learned is that the relationship between democracy and human rights is very easy to misunderstand. Democracy itself, in a simple way, is all about the transfer and exercise of power via a majority of citizens voting for it. All too easily, that can become a dictatorship of the majority. Human rights exist to speak up for and protect individuals and minorities. Human rights are a counter-balance to democracy and not its partner. I have reached the conclusion that we should beware of human rights undermining democracy. It could happen.

The third lesson that I have learned is that democracy is constantly changing and developing. The democracy that we know today developed alongside the development of the nation state in the nineteenth century. By the end of the 20th century, the nation state was in decline and other things were taking its place. Could it be that democracy is declining as well? Is that one reason why the public are going off what we know?

I end by saying again: beware of believing that 20th century democracy is adequate for the 21st century. Beware of the work that we do that simply tries to maintain the status quo and our own positions, but undermines the democracy in which we so passionately believe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Kox, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – On behalf of my group I thank colleagues in the Assembly and particularly President van der Linden and our staff who have worked so hard to make the debate possible. They have done a great job. I also thank our guest speakers who have participated in this debate on what is, and always should be, our core business at the Council of Europe: the protection of human rights and the promotion and development of democracy in Europe.

As Rapporteur Gross rightly states, democracy is an open and ongoing process. We should be proud that Europe was able to create democracy, to develop it and to return from dark periods of authoritarian rule, fascism and other forms of undemocratic government in our recent past. The fact that democracy is an open and ongoing process means that there is always the possibility of a decrease in it – of a growth of authoritarian behaviour among governments and politicians. Therefore, we must always be alert.

If democracy is government by and for the people, it is the people who have to guard it and oppose any violation of democratic rights. For members of my group, that means that we should plead for the promotion, protection and ongoing development of democracy, not only in this Assembly but at home. We must demand a further exploration and development of democracy in all fields of society. An example is the development of real democracy in the economy. It is important to recognise that democracy has made huge progress in recent decades in the spheres of politics and of private relations, but in the economic sphere democracy has lost power in the past quarter of a century. Instead of the principle of one person, one vote ruling the political and the private sphere, the economy in Europe is increasingly ruled by the principle of one euro, one vote. Our group would like to emphasise that and have it included in next year’s debate on the state of human rights and democracy.

Democracy as an ongoing process also means including the protection of our environment. Without a healthy environment, we will not have anything, democracy or otherwise. I believe Rapporteur Gross agrees with our group that this aspect should receive greater emphasis in next year’s report.

Because democracy means government by and for the people, it is extremely dangerous to see a decrease in people’s involvement in politics and democracy. We should do our utmost to find new means of increasing the involvement of the people in democracy. Democracy without people is like an Assembly without members – it is unthinkable, impossible and unacceptable. We agree with Andreas Gross that democracy is an ongoing process from which much is still to be gained, but if and when democracy fails, we will be the ones to blame. We must realise that.

Democracy can and will be our future if we protect and promote it now. My group feels a deep commitment to democracy and will do its utmost to get this excellent report on to the order of business of our national parliaments. It would be great if other groups could deliver that same commitment. In our opinion the debate does not end today. It merely begins.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Lloyd, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President, and may I congratulate you on the debate taking place? I was one of those who voiced concerns about how the process would work out, but our concerns proved to be unfounded and those who, like you, wanted us to pursue this course were right. Today is a good day for the Council of Europe.

We frequently use the mantra of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Our colleague from the Venice Commission was right to say that many of our real achievements are in the area of the rule of law. We should be grateful for those non-corrupt institutions, where they exist, such as the Venice Commission, which can offer profound and sensible advice on how we move forward. We can be proud of the body of legislation that exists throughout Europe through the various conventions that have come into force, which make a material difference to people’s way of life, protecting minorities and protecting the vulnerable in our societies. Those are the people who need the rule of law, because democracy of itself will not protect their basic human rights.

We can be proud of those steps. We should perhaps be less proud of the extent to which we have embedded the culture of democracy throughout our continent. In my own country and in many other European countries, rates of participation in our elections are dismally low. That is extremely dangerous because democracy works only if people participate. Democracy is not about the election every four or five years of dictators or monarchs. Democracy works only if power is widely distributed throughout society and if people participate in the use of that power at different levels.

I agree with the previous speaker, Mr Kox, that we have a long way to go to entrench democracy in our societies. I come from a trade union background and I am very proud of the long tradition of democracy in the British trade unions. I do not see that in trade unions everywhere, and even in my own country I see it coming under threat now. Democracy is not just about the ballot for members of parliament or the president. Democracy is about how we live our daily lives.

I did not agree with everything that Mr Hancock said, but he was right about the management of democracy. We see in some of the newer members of the Council of Europe, such as Russia and Azerbaijan, which we discussed yesterday, that the authorities there seek to control the things that make democracy work. They seek that control as a way of managing those societies, not in the interests of the proper entrenchment of democracy and the opening up to pluralism in those societies.

The reduction in the power of the media is important. It matters enormously when we see journalists killed in this continent of ours, whether they are killed in Ireland by the IRA or in Russia, like Anna Politkovskaïa, by people unknown. It ought to concern us when nobody is brought before the courts when they attack journalists. An attack on the freedom of the media is an attack on our democracy. Media freedom is central to the entrenchment of democracy in our society.

We still have a long way to go on all this. Today is important not because we have the finished article, but because, as you say, Mr President, this is work in progress. We are only scratching the surface. We must begin to develop measures of democracy. Yes, we do have a right as the Council of Europe to interfere in the internal affairs of our member states – you who are not from Britain in my country and me in yours, because democracy matters to us all. We must establish the benchmarks whereby we can test the robustness of electoral systems, not just in terms of the ability to submit a clean ballot paper, but in terms of people’s ability to take control of their politicians. That requires a genuinely pluralistic democracy which protects majorities and minorities, and a society based on proper rules of information and the media, where we can examine how far we progress or regress. In many cases we are regressing.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mrs Durrieu.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) began by defining a democracy as a construction; a deliberate attempt by citizens to create a shape for their society. A democracy required laws that were recognised by the citizens. Individuals within a democracy also had a duty to perform certain roles within their society. These citizens must be informed and educated and in turn be given rights. She defined one of these key rights as the choice to select a government through elections held on the basis of universal suffrage.

The process created under the Council of Europe and the Venice Convention was helping to ensure that these rights continued. The 1950s’ Convention on Human Rights was an important element in this, but it should also be remembered that it must be applied universally to every individual. She gave an example of the abolition of capitol punishment as one success in this field but also warned that member states and the Council of Europe must remain vigilant if such developments were to continue.

(Mr Schreiner, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr van der Linden.)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Legendre

Mr LEGENDRE (France) said that today’s debate was a credit to the Assembly. Children now were hardly aware of what had caused the Second World War. Therefore, fundamental rights needed to be constantly re-presented and re-developed. Sometimes, the press and media were called the fourth estate. The first Republic of France established freedom of expression as a fundamental right, and the law of 1960 afforded both liberty and the means to limit excesses in pre-established circumstances. The threat of terrorism should not be allowed to limit these values. Instead, freedom of expression should be available for all. Together with UNESCO, attempts were being made to secure intercultural dialogue, and the Council of Europe needed to play its part.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Rafael Huseynov.

Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan). – Saying nice words about democracy and being a true democrat are different things. Demanding that others respect democracy and trying directly to apply democracy in reality are also different things. The tree of democracy grows not as a result of slogans but as a result of deeds.

As an organisation safeguarding democratic values, the Council of Europe should pay more attention, and give more care, to the countries that need assistance with democratic reform. No double standards are acceptable in that approach. We sometimes fight until the end to restore the rights of several people while ignoring the thousands of people who live in the same environment but who are subject to injustice. We do not fight for their rights.

There is an example of that not too far away. Azerbaijan has been subject to occupation. Nearly 1 million citizens of Azerbaijan have lost their homes, wealth, health, comfort and the opportunity for a normal education because they have been forced to live as refugees and internally displaced persons. This process has been going on before the eyes of the world and of the Council of Europe for fifteen years. Azerbaijan is the only country in such a situation.

The Council of Europe has launched many efforts to solve this problem and still continues its activities. Nevertheless, if there is no resolution to the problem and if 1 million people continue to live as refugees and IDPs – the instigator of their problems is among us and in the Council of Europe – we will not be entitled to speak loudly of democracy and human rights. We should bear in mind that those 1 million people do not believe in the sincerity of the words that they hear.

For that reason, all of us – and the Council of Europe, which unites us – should do our best to get down to business and to move away from mere words. A joint fight involving all the member states is one of the most effective means of doing that. Those, such as Armenia, who are in the Council of Europe but who do not observe the principles of this Organisation should be subject not only to oral reproach but to economic and other types of pressure from member states.

If we are going in the same direction, let us communicate with each other. If we are to engage in co-operation and partnership, let us do so in democratic, economic and other spheres and let the Council of Europe co-ordinate our efforts. The possibility of keeping out those who violate the rules in a big way should always be on the agenda.

Today I have the big desire that the many sweet words said about democracy should not remain in the reports but should come true. If that is the case, the life of all of us will certainly become better.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Mr Islami is not here, so I now call Mr Nessa.

Mr NESSA (Italy) said that the Council of Europe had played a major role defining the Europe’s democratic model since its establishment in 1949 with particular efforts being made in 1989 following the collapse of the communist system and the emergence of a number of fledgling states. It fell to the Council of Europe to find the right set of tools to monitor the democratic process. It was important to take geo-political realities into account, and to remain flexible in judgement. Democracy should not be seen as a forced process run to a political timetable but should take account of people’s differences. The Council of Europe and the Assembly could assist both new countries in their path towards democracy as well as more established countries in consolidation of their democratic structures. The observation of elections was an important tool in ensuring that democracy was applied properly and should not be used as a last resort. Democracy could not be achieved by force.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Chelemendik. He is not present. I call Mr Kucheida. He is not present either. I call Mr Matušić. He is not here; the place is deserted. I call Mrs Tevdoradze. We are not in luck this afternoon. I call Mr Milo. Not here? I call Mr Wach.

Mr WACH (Poland). – Democracy is one of our greatest assets. This belief has been expressed here in this hemicycle many times. We, the citizens of Poland, longed for freedom and democracy for a long time, because for nearly 200 years, with the short exception of twenty years between the First and Second World Wars, we were deprived of it.

The very successful, wide and strong social and political movement of solidarity in the 1980s brought back freedom and enabled the development of democracy in Poland and other neighbouring countries that were ruled by communist regimes, at the head of which stood the Soviet Union and its local partners. However, now comes the time to review the state of democracy, and it would be best if everybody did this in his own name and the name of his or her party and country.

Generally, we are proud and happy with the democracy in our country, and we owe it so much, but it is far from ideal. First, the participation rates in the elections are low, as one group of people is disappointed with the functioning of democracy while another group is too nonchalant to fulfil its duties. The other problem is the passing of a law by parliament that does not fulfil democratic standards. Here I have in mind the so-called Lustration Act concerning alleged co-operation with secret services in communist times, which requires individual declarations of co-operation or lack of such activities under the threat of losing a position or a job. In my opinion, the Act is going too far, as it concerns not only politicians and governmental officials, but, for example, widely known academic staff. This Act requires the above-mentioned declarations from more than half a million people in Poland. The next problem of democracy in my country is the limited social education of people, which appears, for example, in the potential acceptance of the reintroduction of the death penalty.

Those are only examples. Democracy needs constant concern, care, tradition, education and good practices. I wish unchallenged democracy in written law and in practice for my country as well as in all other countries, and excellent leadership in these fields from the Council of Europe and our Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Korobeynikov.

Mr KOROBEYNIKOV (Russian Federation) thought that the report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development was excellent. Although there were more than 300 economic organisations, the nature of what was happening was a disaster for many countries. World trade amounted to around $7 trillion, most of which constituted trade exchanges between the richest countries. This needed to be changed, but none of the international financial institutions did much to assist the financial participation of less-developed countries. It was not enough to be able to vote every four years. People needed to eat every day. Therefore, the Council of Europe needed to strengthen the standards of living across the whole of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Err. She is not here. I call Mr Lindblad.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – Thank you, Mr President.

Colleagues, do you have any ideas? Do you have any ideology? Or do we wake up every morning just trying to steer the boat, not knowing where we are going? I think that there is too little ideology and passion in political debate these days. We need more passion. We had a little passion in one of yesterday’s debates, about the Court and the issue of one country not nominating a woman. Otherwise, there is too little passion in the discussions in this Hemicycle, as well as in our national parliaments.

Personally, I am a passionate liberal conservative, and I am very much into being passionate and discussing ideology. In talking about that, I must also say that the process regarding this report has been very good. Indeed, it is a very good report, Mr Gross, and I congratulate you on it. We have had a lot of compromises; for example, we had a compromise on the threshold in the Political Affairs Committee this afternoon, although it is not an issue of consensus. The consensus principle, which was mentioned by Mr Roth earlier in the debate, is difficult. Consensus is like a wet blanket, taking away all debate and the possibility of voting when we disagree. All of us parliamentarians are used to voting when we disagree. If we do not get our way, we will try another time and there will be other votes. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers has a bad habit, however – I agree with Mr Roth on this – of using consensus too much. We must be very careful, or consensus will lead away from democracy instead of promoting it. Colleagues, do not be afraid about that.

We cannot be sailors without a compass. Some people have some iron in their pockets, so their compass is simply going round and round. We need a strict compass so that we can promote democracy. We need to promote ideals, even though they may vary, and then we will vote and decide.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Lindblad. I call Mrs Hadžiahmetović. She is not here, so I call Mr Symonenko.

Mr SYMONENKO (Ukraine) said the report showed that, in the third millennium, threats to democracy, such as child labour, were still under discussion. The President of Ukraine had violated the constitution and the rights of the Ukrainian people. There could not be democracy in Ukraine when there was such a difference between the rich and the poor – of such a significant order of magnitude – and the rights of the poor were ignored. In many countries, democracy was ephemeral because people’s rights to work were not protected, people were forced to migrate illegally in order to seek work. Poor migrants had so little protection and old democracies in Europe benefited from these illegal migrants; this was in fact a new form of slavery.

Politics had double standards, and this was a threat to democracy that needed to be monitored. More demands needed to be made of the leaders of those countries where poverty threatened stability.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Tilson from Canada, which is an observer country.

Mr TILSON (Observer from Canada). – Allow me to begin by commending the Assembly on initiating an annual debate on the state of human rights and democracy in Europe. The Council of Europe has made impressive strides in the implementation of democratic standards in the European continent.

Canada shares with the Assembly a deep commitment to implementing democratic principles and to finding solutions to the key challenges confronting democratic governance today. Canadians believe that governments – whatever the country or culture – should be accountable to their citizens. In the long term, democratic systems provide the most effective guarantees of accountability, human rights, stability and prosperity. Our government has identified democracy as one of four core values that guide Canadian foreign policy, along with freedom, human rights and the rule of law.

The Canadian Parliament has launched a major study to explore how we can improve our support for democratic development. In the meantime, we have already begun to intensify our diplomatic and development efforts in support of new and fragile democracies, and to oppose serious violations of democratic rights in other contexts. For example, our government has taken a strong stance in response to violations of democratic principles in countries such Burma and Belarus.

We have asserted the importance of the promotion of democracy and human rights in our aid policy. Support for democratic governance from the Canadian International Development Agency totalled about Can$ 375 million last year. This included major investments to assist Afghanis and Haitians in building functioning democratic states. It also included grants to the Council of Europe to support judicial system reform and prison reform projects in Bosnia and Serbia, and the development of an independent and efficient judicial system in Kosovo.

One key principle that emerged from recent discussions in Canada is the importance of a demand-driven approach to democracy assistance, in which the recipients solicit and manage support for democratic reform. This principle has already shaped Canada’s involvement in Europe. Ukraine is a key example of our approach to supporting democracy, in which we have endeavoured to support national actors directly, while also working through existing regional organisations, including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, to uphold commitments to democratic principles. Our involvement in this area in Europe – bilaterally and through the OSCE, the Council of Europe and other organisations – has given Canadian parliamentarians and officials an appreciation of the importance of the Council and its Assembly in defending and strengthening democratic governance in the continent.

Once again, let me commend the Assembly on your initiative in organising today’s debate, and congratulate the rapporteurs on their work.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Tilson. I now call Mr Iwiński.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – I congratulate everybody concerned on holding for the first time such a crucial debate on the state of human rights and democracy in Europe. As the Italians say, “Meglio tardi che mai” – better late than never. I hope that we will continue the present discussion on an annual basis. We cannot do without it – otherwise, the Council of Europe could be marginalised. Democracy and human rights are of course closely interlinked, so it is proper that the forthcoming meeting in Sweden of the Forum on the Future of Democracy, as a follow-up to the Warsaw and Moscow meetings, will be devoted to the interdependence of both the above-mentioned phenomena.

Mr Gross’s courageous, versatile and non-schematic report can be characterised in a positive sense, in that it takes both a scientific and a practical approach. I entirely agree with the findings and explanations of our Swiss colleagues. Yes, democracy is a basic human right and a necessary precondition for political power to be legitimate and accepted by citizens. Yes, democracy is an open and never-ending process, and we should establish concrete criteria to evaluate its maturity, and more deeply examine the application of democratic standards.

Are any of us here fully satisfied with the state of democracy in her or his country? I do not think so – neither in western or eastern Europe, nor in even Scandinavian or Benelux countries – and unfortunately not even in Poland, despite significant progress in this field in the previous two decades. At the same time, only last week in my motherland, the centre-left forces were able to block an extremely dangerous attempt to change the constitution that aimed at significantly limiting women’s rights, mainly regarding abortion.

Overcoming the increasing number of democratic deficits is a must, especially from the point of view of the average citizen, as is improving the quality of representative democracy. We need to avoid distortion of the generally important political role that the media play – a role that has been particularly visible in the past in, for example, Italy and Slovakia. We cannot be passive in view of the autocratic tendencies flourishing in so many places. I am thinking not only of those considered “black holes” in our continent; the same point also applies to the so-called demokraturas.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Lindblad. I call Mrs Hadžiahmetović. She is not here, so I call Mr Symonenko.

Politics had double standards, and this was a threat to democracy that needed to be monitored. More demands needed to be made of the leaders of those countries where poverty threatened stability.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Tilson from Canada, which is an observer country.

Once again, let me commend the Assembly on your initiative in organising today’s debate, and congratulate the rapporteurs on their work.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Tilson. I now call Mr Iwiński.

On the approach to national minorities, the situation is a dynamic one. Who could have imagined years ago that Poles would today be the biggest national minority in both Ireland and Iceland? Like every other minority, of course, they need their rights properly defended. I therefore support both the rapporteur’s proposals in chapter 14 that would further democratise democracy.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Jazłowiecka.

Mrs JAZŁOWIECKA (Poland). – After fifty years of fundamental acts of democratisation, today, towards the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we are discussing anxiously democracy and the state of human rights in Europe. That fact alone should induce reflection. What has happened to the enthusiasm and hope of not so long ago? Where are the ideals and values towards which we thought that the world was heading? What is the reason for this anxiety?

We are heading in an unexpected direction. One of the most important reasons for that is terrorism and the war against it. What is at the root of the problem? It is the repressive character of political systems, especially in Arab countries, but also the social exclusion that affects Muslim emigrants in Europe.

We should pay attention to western society’s methods of fighting terrorism. In the name of security, certain principles have been abandoned. Secret prisons have appeared, kidnappings by secret investigation services have taken place, people have been held prisoner without honest legal proceedings, and the presumption of innocence and the right to an adequate defence have also been questioned. Illegal wire tapping and surveillance have taken place. Most of these have had the general approval of society. It is time to ask the question: where are we heading? Did not the experiences of the 21st century teach us anything?

In the eastern part of our continent, the Council of Europe is constantly monitoring the situation in Belarus and attempts to liberalise the regime. But what about the situation in Chechnya? Why do we so rarely ask about Russia? Should we only seek better economic contacts in pursuit of oil and gas, and turn a blind eye to what happens in that country? Are Russians and Chechnyans worse people than western Europeans? It is time to finish with this hypocrisy. In terms of democracy and human rights, a country’s “internal affairs” or “specific culture” are irrelevant. Each man has the right to live in a dignified way, and not to be held prisoner illegally or killed just because he has a different appearance, different views or comes from another country. Human rights cannot be sold for oil. If we do not prevent those in power in some countries from conducting reprisals and persecutions, how will we be able to look our children in the eyes?

Dear colleagues, I appeal to you not to be indifferent or to turn a blind eye to human tragedy in return for short-term profits. Let us propagate democracy and human rights and fight for their observance, so that the 21st century brings common peace and welfare.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I call Mr Kosachev.

Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) thanked the President and said that, when talking about the state of democracy in Europe, people were really talking about the rights of people to rule themselves. There were still black holes in Europe in terms of basic principles of democracy. For example, in Kosovo, a large proportion of the population had been forced out of their country. They had lost their rights to participate in elections and achieve representation for themselves. Kosovo would not be a democratic place until the Serbs were allowed to return. In Estonia and Latvia, people were denied citizenship and therefore prevented from engaging in democratic processes; if allowed to vote, the people might vote against those in power. In Estonia, the government had sought to move a memorial to those who had given their lives in the fight against fascism. This might not have been successful had all migrants had the right to vote. The approach of the Estonian Government to the Russian people and all those who had fought against fascism was appalling.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Riester to speak.

Mr RIESTER (Germany) said the debate was very important and reflected the issues at the heart of the Council of Europe. He was pleased that the report recognised the tensions that existed between democratic and human rights issues. There were different historical, social and economic processes which influenced the situation. Five years before the formation of the Council of Europe, Germany was under a fascist dictatorship. Other countries represented at the Council of Europe had maintained colonies in Africa and Asia in the 1950s and 1960s. Others had only recently emerged from socialist regimes. Thus, all countries had a different starting point.

He would like to emphasise that differences did exist between member states within the Council of Europe and that these differences should be acknowledged before any accusations are made.

He concluded that Europe and the United States of America were no longer the only predominant forces in world government and that, as new players emerge, the Council of Europe should influence the development democratic institutions within these nations.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Lipiński.

Mr LIPIŃSKI (Poland) began on the theme of multiculturalism and multilingual families and called for more support in this area. He recognised that Multilingual Day on 26 September 2001 was an important step towards this.

He stated that equal status should exist between all the languages within a multilingual family and gave as an example the situation in Germany – in particular, the situation with a number of Polish families in Germany that had Polish as their first language. He stated that in such families, where the parents had separated, the children were being encouraged by the German Government to adopt German as their principle language. He then referred to a report from the German Government that had suggested that bilingualism may be detrimental to a child’s development.

He concluded that the rights for both parents to contribute to their children’s education must be maintained.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Gülçiçek.

Mr GÜLÇIÇEK (Turkey) commended the rapporteurs for their comprehensive report. He said that members of the Council of Europe were concerned with human and economic rights and that they should continue to defend the rights of those less able to defend themselves.

He referred to the issues of intolerance, terrorism and xenophobia and noted that there were difficulties in dealing with these. As concepts hostile to democracy, they should always be tackled.

He moved on to highlight his concerns about young people’s participation in the democratic system and again stated that this was something the Council of Europe should be prepared to act on.

In closing, Mr Gülçiçek called for these issues to be tackled in all countries. Balanced representation was important to everyone and must be developed where it did not exist; and maintained where it did.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Berényi.

Mr BERÉNYI (Slovakia). – I would like to withdraw my request to speak. I give the floor to another speaker.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Berényi. In that case, I call Mr Szabó from Hungary. He is not here, so I call Mr Kozma, who is also from Hungary. I do not see him in the Chamber. Therefore, the last speaker will be Mr Proroković from Serbia.

Mr PROROKOVIĆ (Serbia). – I take this opportunity to draw colleagues’ attention to several problems that we face today, some of which were recognised by Mr Gross in his excellent report. What are the problems facing democracy today? First, an imbalance between economy and democracy has caused important decisions increasingly to be adopted outside parliament under the influence of various values or lobby groups. Secondly, citizens are starting to have doubts about democracy because they do not believe that important decisions are taken in parliament and also because they feel distant from politicians and unable to influence the decisions that politicians make.

The third problem is one of perception. There is often an enormous difference in perception between the international institutions that make the decisions and the national states to which those decisions refer. Consequently, the means which are considered to be a form of assistance in Strasbourg are perceived in the target country as a form of pressure. The desire expressed in Strasbourg to stimulate countries to step up their reforms has unfortunately led to the establishment of extreme movements in those countries. The people living in those countries feel under pressure to change their customs, traditions, way of life and rhythm of life.

The fourth problem is the implementation of double standards by the international institutions. That undermines trust in international organisations and in international order in general. I had the opportunity to meet a distinguished German politician and I asked his opinion on Iran. His position on the issue was simple. He believed that Ahmadinejad had realised that if Milošović had had nuclear weapons, NATO would never have bombed Serbia. That is the reason that he started to develop nuclear weapons. He recognised that to be the best method of protection. The problem is the fact that it was also accepted by a number of dictatorial regimes all around the world. Where will it all end? We must keep insisting on respect for international law and international order. We must not apply double standards, create gaps in perception or mistrust in democracy, or allow key decisions affecting our citizens to be made outside our existing institutions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

I must now interrupt the list of speakers. 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 call Mr Gross, Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee, to reply. You have four minutes.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – It is true that the report is not perfect and that it is only a beginning. It should be seen as a base for learning.

The best suggestion was the one from Mr Kox, that we should take the reports to our home parliaments and discuss them in the relevant committees. We should learn from them when we come back for next year’s report. If I prepare the report for next year, I will stress what Mr Riester said. We should show the different conditions and different positions that applied when we started to learn to become better democrats. That would enable us to understand each other better. Often, part of the dialogue is missing. People provoked others but they did not react, and still others were provoked. Even in our Hemicycle, a dialogue is not always successful.

I must criticise one of the guest speakers, but I will do it in the spirit of Mr Fellini, who was quoted yesterday by the Prime Minister of Ukraine. He said that happiness is criticising someone without hurting them. I am not sure whether that is possible with respect to the representative from Amnesty, but coming here and saying that this is the first time that anyone is representing civil society is a reflection of the biggest crisis of democracy. We represent our civil societies. The NGO is another way of representing the same people, but we do not need NGOs to represent civil society. We acknowledge them and we are open to them as partners because they are another way of representing civil society, but we do not have to undermine our own representation in order to do that.

I thank Mr Wilshire for his co-operation, but we must be clear that whenever power is used, it must have democratic legitimacy. That is true in the 21st century and the 22nd century. The way we achieve that may have to change, but not the aim. The nation state cannot guarantee democracy any more but that is not a reason to give up democracy. It is an incentive to enlarge democracy on a transnational, continental and global level.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). –Thank you.

The debate is closed.

I remind members that the votes on the draft resolution in Document 11203 and 33 amendments will take place after the debates this afternoon at 6.30 p.m.

(Mr Lloyd, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Schreiner.)

4. Monitoring of states’ performance: progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure

THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on “Monitoring of states’ performance: progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure” presented by Mr Lintner on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by member states of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), Document 11214 and addendum.

The list of speakers, which has been distributed, closed at 6.30 p.m. yesterday.

I call Mr Lintner, the rapporteur. You have eight minutes.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) reminded the Assembly that the mechanism for monitoring compliance of accession countries was supplemented by more effective instruments ten years ago. There was now a dedicated committee which enabled critical and constructive support to be given. It was not only new member states that were monitored – old member states were also reviewed every ten years to ensure compliance with the principles of the Council of Europe. Sometimes, there was concern in member states that governments were not sufficiently compliant. Other institutions such as the Venice Commission were able to support member states in this process. The main obstacle to changes in member states was often the need to change mindsets.

The goal striven for needed to be kept in mind, as did the fact that member states had embraced membership of the Council of Europe of their own free will. There were, however, certain values that could not be abrogated; such as those relating to the banning of all forms of torture. It was also important to ensure that governments were accountable to freely elected parliaments. The Monitoring Committee’s work was important for peace, cohesion and political stability in Europe. National governments should pay more attention to these activities and provide better support. The process of monitoring had led to more than 60 debates on the subject in the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much Mr Lintner. Before the debate, I must invite contributions from two of our invited guests. First, I invite Mr Jean-Michel Belorgey, General Rapporteur and former President of the European Committee of Social Rights, to make a statement.

Mr Belorgey, you have the floor. You have five minutes.

Mr BELORGEY (General Rapporteur and former President of the European Committee of Social Rights) said that the European Social Charter should be seen as an extension of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Furthermore, the European Committee of Social Rights could be seen as an adjunct to the European Court of Human Rights, although he recognised the limitations of comparing the two institutions. However, such a comparison would be helpful if the appointment mechanism for members of these institutions was similar. The Assembly had the ability to elect members of the committee, but in practice it was the Committee of Ministers which made the appointments. He also thought that it would be helpful if all countries could subscribe to the Charter, thereby improving the lives of the peoples of the member states in the matters covered in the Charter.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

I now invite Mr Mauro Palma, President of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to make a statement.

Mr Palma, you have the floor. You have five minutes.

Mr PALMA (President of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment). – I wish first of all to pay tribute to the Parliamentary Assembly for its determined action in the 1980s, which was instrumental in the subsequent adoption of the European anti-torture convention. Without your Assembly, there might well never have been a CPT.

Through on-site visits and dialogue with states, the CPT seeks to prevent torture and ill-treatment across the European continent. The committee has had some success, but the present situation remains far from satisfactory. Instances of torture and other forms of deliberate severe ill-treatment still occur in the Council of Europe area. Conditions of detention can be wretched in a number of our member states, particularly in pre-trial establishments and holding facilities for foreigners, and even psychiatric hospitals. Being kept for months, if not years, in a state of enforced idleness, in overcrowded and unhygienic accommodation, subject to a constant lack of privacy, is still the fate of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of detained persons in Europe. Providing the necessary resources so that detention facilities can offer decent conditions may not be an obvious vote winner, but it will be a good long-term investment for our societies.

To quote the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, “the gap between standards on paper and the actual situation in Europe is striking”. The proposals before you provide a sound basis for removing that discrepancy, and the Assembly can count on the CPT fully to play its part in that process.

At the heart of the CPT’s activities lies the principle of co-operation with national authorities; for the most part, the committee enjoys a real spirit of partnership with states. However, the CPT does face in certain cases a persistent failure to implement recommendations on key issues. Here I must stress that the committee does not exist simply to carry out visits and maintain cordial relations with states; its purpose is to bring about necessary change with a view to strengthening protection against ill-treatment. Only if the CPT’s dialogue with a state leads to the achievement of that purpose can one speak of effective co-operation.

Faced with a failure to co-operate, the CPT is empowered to make a public statement. The committee is extremely reluctant to take that step; only five public statements being made in eighteen years is proof of that. The fifth of those statements was made one month ago, and was the third concerning the Chechen Republic. Contrary to what has been asserted, that statement was certainly not politically motivated. It was a result of the continuing absence of a constructive dialogue on issues that go to the core of the principles defended by this Organisation. The CPT has every intention of pursuing its activities in the Chechen Republic, and trusts that its public statement will focus everyone’s attention on the key questions.

The CPT is committed to avoiding a human rights vacuum in any part of Europe. I headed the delegation that made the CPT’s first visit to Kosovo last month, and I am happy to report that it received excellent co-operation from all the authorities concerned, including at Camp Bondsteel. The CPT also continues to monitor the situation in the Transnistrian region, and went there again last year. I can inform you that the idea of a first CPT visit to Abkhazia and south Ossetia is receiving close attention. When the time is ripe from a political standpoint, the possibilities for extending the CPT’s activities to Belarus could also be explored.

We live in times when the possible dilution of the absolute prohibition of torture is considered a legitimate subject of discussion and when the actions of some risk undermining the effectiveness of that prohibition throughout the world. Faced with such a challenge, it is essential what we reinforce and strengthen our synergy and make it clear that our greatest security ultimately lies in the defence of human rights. We ensure our security only if we ensure fundamental rights for everybody.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Palma, for your remarks and your attendance here this afternoon.

We now open the list of speakers in the debate.

I remind members that the Assembly agreed on Monday that speaking times are limited three minutes except for the spokespersons of political groups, who will be limited to four minutes. I hope that members will respect those times.

I now call Mrs Severinsen, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mrs SEVERINSEN (Denmark). – Thank you, Mr President.

On behalf of the liberal group, I would like to say that the monitoring procedure that we have developed over ten years is very important. We might make comparisons with other organisations, such as the United Nations, which have already been mentioned. What is the difference? I think that the monitoring procedure is one difference, as we can take up matters in every country and make reports, and colleagues can discuss issues with one another in a political way.

That gives an enormous impetus to the monitoring countries.

We started the process when Europe was dramatically changed after the fall of the Berlin Wall. One country after another became a member of the Council of Europe, and we discussed whether they had the right form of democracy and whether their constitution was in accordance with European standards. The initial order was followed by the establishment of the Monitoring Committee. In the light of experience this year, that committee has developed various ways of functioning. Most importantly, we now produce reports at least every two years. Those reports are very important, and we also take elements from other organs in the Council of Europe to enable us to advise on improvements that can be made. We also point out in those reports when the situation in a given country has improved.

Over the years, the overall situation has improved. Some countries no longer need monitoring. Many are no longer monitored, and some are under post-monitoring conditions. We hope that we can finish the task of monitoring, given the special commitment that new countries gave when they became members of the Council of Europe.

We should ensure that there are no differences in the approach to new and old member countries. The Monitoring Committee is not an organ for dealing only with new member states. No state is perfect, and there are still things that could be improved, so it is good that we now have a procedure that enables an overview of all the countries on which reports have been made by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and other bodies. Now, every country can see the shortcomings of my own, for example, and make such points clear in debates in parliaments in their own democracies. This process also enables us better to compare all countries, and to see whether there is a tendency not to follow some of the conventions.

It is good that the Monitoring Committee consists of colleagues who discuss issues with each other. It has nothing to do with punishment; rather, it is about colleagues having a real debate about how we can improve the situation for everybody. I hope that we will continue in that way.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Nigel Evans, who speaks on behalf on the European Democratic Group.

Mr EVANS (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President, I am delighted that we are having this debate today. I hope that we can have a full day’s debate on human rights more regularly. It is clear that the issue of human rights is a core function of this body, and they are vitally important.

When we talk about monitoring, we tend to look at the new democracies, but we sometimes forget the old ones, and I include within them the United Kingdom. As the report shows, there is an application to look at the United Kingdom because of the postal voting fraud there. That investigation is ongoing, which is important. There have been irregularities in the United Kingdom; indeed, I had my own postal vote for the local elections stolen last year. I managed to get it back, because sufficient time was given to me, but in a number of cases that simply would not have happened. It is therefore important that we do not forget the old democracies and that full investigations be made in cases where we know that irregularities have occurred. Local elections take place in the UK on 3 May not only for local government, but for the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, so it is important that we examine the relevant procedures.

I want to make just two other points, the first concerning Ukraine, on which we shall have a full debate tomorrow. I was one of the monitors at the elections in Ukraine last year, and found the process fascinating. Now we are presented with the possibility of another election, on 27 May. Whether it will take place or not I do not know, but as the Prime Minister of Ukraine said yesterday to this Assembly, the important thing is that what decides the issues is the rule of law, not what takes place on the streets. There were demonstrations today in front of the constitutional court, which prevented some of the constitutional judges from accessing the courts in order to deliberate on matters put before them, and from making a decision on the presidential decree. It is right that this body call on the people of Ukraine to ensure that the constitutional judges are in no way hindered in their efforts on behalf of the people of Ukraine to examine this issue in order to see whether the President has the power to call a snap election, as he has done. If they decide that he has that power, there will be an election; and if they do not, there will not be one. I understand that both the major parties involved have said that they will abide by the ruling of the constitutional court, so it is important that the judges be allowed to do their job.

Finally, we had two referendums recently on the European constitution. I know that we are a much wider body than the European Union – we consist of 47 countries, whereas the European Union consists of 27. France and Holland voted against the constitution, which has killed it. It behoves this body to ensure that the democratic rights of the peoples of those countries and the procedures used within the European Union are respected properly, and that the constitution is not salami-sliced and delivered through the back door in an underhand manner. This body has a right to examine what goes on within the European Union and, if we find that there are irregularities, we ought to adjudicate on them and undertake monitoring. We should not flinch from our duties simply because we are talking about the European Union. We should carry them out and ensure that the EU abides properly by its own procedures, too.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Platvoet, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – The UEL thinks it was a good proposal to develop an overall mechanism for monitoring all the member states regarding their commitment to the principles of the Council of Europe. It is clear that, since enlargement of the Council of Europe, following the inclusion of new member states from central and eastern Europe, and in the light of the monitoring procedure that these new members must meet, the discussion of double standards has had a new dimension. It is not true that only in new member states are human rights and democratic principles offended – the situation is not black and white. Mr Evans has told us about the situation in his own country, and the older member states, including the founding mothers and fathers, have much to improve. As many speakers said in the earlier discussion on the report of Andreas Gross, democracy is an ongoing process.

During the June part-session last year, the first 11 countries in alphabetical order were discussed in the first periodic report. That was a useful discussion. In a number of countries, the process of signing or ratifying treaties and various other measures has speeded up to a greater or lesser extent, but those countries still have a lot to do. However, it is still not clear how many national parliaments have done what was asked of them in Resolution 1515: to use the report to debate their own country’s record in fulfilling its obligations.

It would be good if information were included in next year’s report about whether that had happened.

A periodic report on the second range, from Greece to the Netherlands, tells us that in Greece there is still great concern about a number of human rights issues. In Hungary, there is much to be done in the fight against corruption and organised crime. Iceland seems to be more or less okay. In Ireland, however, the position of tinkers is a matter for concern.

The last country of the 11 is the Netherlands, my country, where mayors are still formally appointed by the Queen, a practice that is rightly criticised. In too many cases, my country is not in line with European standards on the position of migrant workers. Those are just a couple of examples, but I stress that it is important to have this debate in your own country. It is disappointing that, apart from me and a speaker from Liechtenstein, no one from the countries mentioned in the periodic report has taken part in this debate.

The countries subject to the monitoring mechanism are often discussed in the Assembly. Others are now on the scene, but, as I said, not all of them are participating. The development is positive, but it would be even better if those countries took the periodic report seriously, discussed it in their own parliaments and urged their governments not only to sign more treaties but to contribute more, financially, to the important work of the Council of Europe. Taking action on the report in our own national parliaments is the only way in which we can have the moral and political authority to criticise the so-called weaker democracies.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Pollozhani, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr POLLOZHANI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). – The progress report comes on the 10th anniversary of the creation of the Monitoring Committee in the Council of Europe and in the context of today’s main theme, the state of democracy and human rights in Europe. I thank the rapporteur for the work that has been done and express gratitude to all member countries for their co-operation and partnership in achieving common goals towards democratisation based on the values of the Council of Europe.

The report shows us the results and shortcomings, which is normal bearing in mind that nothing is granted and human rights, democracy and the rule of law face difficulties in all countries. Of course, each element raises specific issues. It is important that the monitoring procedure is understood as a process of seeking solutions rather than of confrontation and punishment. It creates the mood of mutual understanding and eases the dialogue on appropriate solutions.

Bearing in mind the complex realities in different countries, the Monitoring Committee should continue its work, avoid stereotypes in monitoring procedures and pay more attention to such specifics. For instance, recognising the realities of ethnic and cultural diversity in new democracies, and the need for stabilisation, we have encouraged and supported inclusive solutions to consolidate multi-ethnic and multicultural democracies. The management of diversity, and the harmonisation of inter-ethnic and intercultural interests, are new national and international challenges. The Monitoring Committee must pay more attention to those issues. The mismanagement of diversity, guided by principles of exclusion, and the discounting of the legitimacy of major political factors in multi-ethnic and post-conflict countries can further reduce confidence, undermine reconciliation and continue the fragmentation of society.

We must also pay more attention to the implementation of basic documents, adopted in this Assembly, as effective binding instruments. We should be concerned by the low level of implementation of our resolutions, even as non-binding instruments. The report shows that even our basic binding documents are not fully implemented. As we have heard from the chairperson of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, there is sometimes a lack of co-operation. Unfortunately, some countries have not ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Many countries have neither signed nor ratified Protocol No. 12 – only 14 have ratified – and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages has been ratified by only 22 countries.

Given that the Monitoring Committee must pay more attention in its procedures to the implementation of such commitments as benchmarks of human rights, not doing so undermines our work and creates more room for individual, arbitrary evaluation of the basic principles of our core activities. The same applies to the implementation of the decisions of the Court of Human Rights. In that context, member states will continue to co-operate with the Monitoring Committee and other bodies of this Assembly to find a solution to all such problems. As has been noted today, democracy is an ongoing process. My country, Macedonia, must also discuss, within the ongoing “post-monitoring dialogue” with the Council of Europe, appropriate ways of ensuring social cohesion given the multi-ethnic and multicultural realities.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Van den Brande from Belgium, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – At the end of the third part of this debate, let me say that we were pleased that this debate was possible. There were some defeatist voices in the hemicycle saying that it would not be possible, but the EPP said from the beginning that it was not only timely but necessary to have the debate in April.

We cannot disconnect the monitoring report, a wonderful work for which I thank Mr Lintner, from the other debates on human rights and democracy. Human rights, which are personal, apply whatever political system is in place. Democracy is a collective right, but the state must still preserve personal rights as well.

Mr Pourgourides said rightly that there are still great problems, and for that reason we must strengthen the mechanism of which monitoring is an example. After the Warsaw summit, some countries wanted to downsize monitoring procedures, but we must be clear and, on the contrary, strengthen the mechanism.

It is not just to please the Council of Europe that countries must comply with standards and conform to the rule of law, democracy and so on; it is for the benefit and quality of life of those societies. As Mr Gross said, democracy is an ongoing process, a promise and a work in progress. In the European Union, in order to compete in the global economy, we are pursuing the Lisbon strategy, so why not set up the Strasbourg strategy on human rights, democracy and the rule of law? That must apply not just at state and national level but at all levels of governance and responsibility – local, regional and state. With regard to monitoring, we are not judges of other countries who are seeking dialogue; we have the Court for that. But we cannot accept 20 forms of democracy. Do we accept Putinism as a new form of democracy?

Are we accepting Erdoganism as a new kind of democracy? Of course we must take into account the specifics, but there are minimum standards. When considering the mavericks, we must preserve the minimum standard that is set for all countries.

The second progress report following the important decision of 2006 is going in the right direction, but we must give more importance to the role of mediation that the Assembly can play. It is strange that, following the fall of the iron curtain and of the Berlin wall, in some ways new curtains and walls have appeared inside countries. We must carefully monitor that.

Monitoring is about assessing how conventions and treaties are honoured. We must strive for better co-ordination with other monitoring bodies and say clearly to the Committee of Ministers that we cannot on one hand try to monitor countries but on the other compromise standards.

I am pleased that we took the decision last year to monitor all countries. Just as people in health care suggest a check-up with the doctor, we must in the interests of the quality of democracy have a check-up on the state of democracy and the rule of law.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Frunda, from Hungary. I do not see him in his place, so I call Mrs Tevdoradze, from Georgia. She is also not with us, so I call Mr Berényi, from Slovakia. You have three minutes.

Mr BERÉNYI (Slovakia). – I share the view that it was a good decision to speak about democracy, human rights and the rule of law and about the monitoring procedure on the same day. As many colleagues have stressed, our monitoring system is unique and we can be proud of it. It is an institutionalised instrument that other European institutions and international organisations do not have.

We are going in the right direction by introducing progress reporting, which adds to the monitoring and post-monitoring system, because there are now no divisions between old and new member countries, between old and new democracies and between semi-old and semi-new democracies. We have also overcome the feeling in some member states that they are over-monitored while others get away with violations of human rights.

Such an organised system is a big tool in the fight against hypocrisy. In my view, there is not much difference between countries that do not ratify a convention or a treaty, and those that do so but do not meet the conditions and implement them. At least failure to ratify a treaty or convention is an open and frank policy. To ratify but not implement is false and hypocritical.

Countries that are not implementing the adopted conventions and treaties are devaluing such agreements, the advisory committees and the Council of Europe as a whole. The monitoring procedure is highly important in order to show what is going on with implementation of conventions and treaties. I do not want to speak about the question of punishment, but hopefully we can find a common solution and reach a consensus on the consequences for countries that have adopted conventions and treaties but have not met their provisions.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Kosachev.

Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation). said that the Russian Federation had had the honour of being monitored by the Council of Europe for ten years. He said that much good had come of it but, with the monitoring process entering its second decade, some reform was required. The monitoring process had highlighted issues that were of concern but had also revealed that the Russian Federation had much to be proud of. He hoped that in future Russia would be able to share its knowledge and experience with other members of the Council of Europe.

He moved on to comment on monitoring the democracy ‘black holes’ and gave the example of Latvia. He noted that the Latvian issue had been discussed by the Assembly a number of times but that Latvia had continued to ignore the recommendations put forward. He requested that more should be done to address the human rights problems in Latvia and that the situation should be more closely monitored.

He concluded by thanking the rapporteurs for their work.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) thanked the rapporteurs and said that the monitoring process remained the cornerstone of the Assembly’s work and enforced its credibility.

He called for further work on the monitoring of the older member states that were not monitored. He noted that, in these longer-standing member states, human rights abuses still occurred, particularly against those in prison and those wishing to exercise freedom of speech. It was vital that any double standards that existed between new and old member states should be removed. He called for extra monitoring of these older member states to complement the work that currently existed and requested that a more universal system be applied across the board.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Gardetto. I must now suspend the list of speakers in order to hear two more statements by invited personalities. I now invite Ms Eva Smith Asmussen, president of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, to make a statement.

Ms Smith Asmussen, you have the floor. You have five minutes.

Ms SMITH ASMUSSEN (President of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance). – As members probably know, ECRI is entrusted with the task of fighting discrimination on the grounds of colour, language, religion, nationality and ethnic origin. The overall picture is complex and worrying, as several speakers mentioned this morning. Intensified manifestations of racism and intolerance can be observed in member states. For example, Islamophobia is an issue of great concern. Prejudice, negative attitudes and sometimes even violence are the daily reality of many Muslims in Europe. We cannot accept this. Islam is a peaceful religion. It does not pose any kind of threat to democratic societies. The real threat comes from racism and discrimination, which leads to tension and possibly even violence.

We are also concerned by manifestations of anti-Semitism in many countries, especially as those are often mainstream phenomena, even happening in schools. Europe must take a strong stand against anti-Semitism, this evil which has persisted for centuries across Europe.

I must mention the negative climate of public opinion which is also fuelled by the use of racist and xenophobic arguments in political discourse. Xenophobic discourse enjoys a free rein in countries where the transition to a multicultural society arouses fears which find an echo in a context of economic crisis and globalisation. This raises the question of national identity for many citizens, and politicians are using that to feed people’s prejudices. I hope this is not the case for members of the Assembly but I implore you to talk to your fellow parliamentarians in your home country about this.

Terrorism was mentioned many times this morning. It was pointed out that new laws may adversely affect our democratic societies because, directly or indirectly, discriminatory legislation is sometimes adopted. We should be careful not to introduce measures that feed the fire, rather than putting it out.

Integration is widely discussed in European countries. Of course, there can be no true integration if there is discrimination. In our country-by-country monitoring reports, we put forward concrete and practical solutions to deal with the problems identified by ECRI. We try to close the gap that many speakers spoke about this morning, and we try to put words into action, but you have to help us. Governments have a commitment to draw inspiration from ECRI’s recommendations and implement them. That commitment was stressed in your annual report so you must help us to gain general political support for ECRI’s work.

Protocol No. 12 has been mentioned and we would very much like you to help us there as well. We know that your Assembly has worked in a very positive manner in the past to ensure that member states sign and ratify the Council of Europe legal instruments in the field of human rights. We would really appreciate your help in getting member states to sign and ratify Protocol No. 12.

I would like to remind the members of this Assembly, on behalf of ECRI, that Europe’s future must be, and can only be, one of integrated societies free of discrimination, where no one suffers discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, religion, nationality or national or ethnic origin. A society free of discrimination benefits everybody, not just the victims of discrimination. Combating racism is a moral duty, but it is also an absolute necessity in the process of European construction.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much.

I now invite Mr Alan Phillips, president of the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities, to make a statement.

Mr Phillips, you have the floor. You have five minutes.

Mr PHILLIPS (President of the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities). – It has been a full day, but I would like to thank the Parliamentary Assembly for giving me the opportunity to speak, and to speak from this podium last. I can place our work within the context of human rights protection in the wider context that has been discussed today and show where we add value. I note the importance that you have given to minority rights and non-discrimination in your earlier discussions.

The Council of Europe is unique. It is the only organisation in the world to have produced a legally binding treaty devoted to minorities. Thanks to this Assembly’s help, 39 states have ratified the Convention. Now it is our joint responsibility to put the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities to maximum use. National minority issues are not as “media sexy” as they were, say, ten years ago, when the Convention entered into force. This is good news if it reflects the fact that debates on minority questions have become more pragmatic and less polarised. However, it would be a major political error to conclude that minority protection requires less attention.

There are circumstances, such as those in Kosovo, where we must remain vigilant and take measures to protect and promote the rights of all communities, whether they be ethnic Serbs, ethnic Albanians or members of vulnerable smaller communities such as the Roma. No one should become a second-class citizen, no one should be denied access to good jobs and no one should live in fear of violence. The Advisory Committee’s report shows that these are real dangers in Kosovo.

The situation elsewhere is usually less dramatic, but we need to be eternally vigilant. Pragmatic measures and constructive dialogue are crucial for transforming principles into practice. These include devising new ways to bring minorities into decision making, as was discussed earlier in the context of democracy, advancing minority languages in education, and giving minorities genuine access to the media. Such positive steps do not make headlines but, without consistent attention to them, we risk having headlines that nobody wants to see, headlines about inter-ethnic tension fuelled by the denial of rights.

The Advisory Committee is a monitoring body, but it is much more.

We evaluate the situation within states and make constructive recommendations to key actors on how to go forward. These recommendations need to be implemented if our work is to have an impact. We need the support of this Assembly in ensuring that parliaments are consulted before states submit their reports to us. We need your help in ensuring that parliamentary committees discuss minority issues with us during our visits. Above all, we need your assistance in promoting our recommendations and the resolutions of the Committee of Ministers. I also hope that this debate will be continued in domestic parliaments.

The objective, legal frameworks of the Framework Convention are crucial. They make sure that we do not fall into the trap of double standards, and many of you have commented on that. The Advisory Committee is scrupulous in ensuring that there is no difference in our approach between states across Europe, wherever they are or whatever their status may be. We make sure that all national minorities, including those with no kin state, such as the Roma, are fully protected by the effective implementation of the Framework Convention. As parliamentarians, therefore, you can be confident in supporting our recommendations.

Let me conclude by saying that the Council of Europe is rightly proud of its practical achievements in protecting national minorities. But we must not become complacent; the protection of national minorities must respond to new circumstances. We should not expect that yesterday’s solutions will work tomorrow. In creating new ways forward, we will need the support and participation of parliamentarians, governments, civil society and, most importantly, the involvement of the minorities and majorities in your constituencies. I hope that we can count on your support.

Thank you, Mr President.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Phillips. I would also like to reiterate my thanks to the four invited guests for the time that they have spent here and, importantly, for their contributions to our debates.

We now resume the debate. I call Mrs Wohlwend. You have three minutes.

Mrs WOHLWEND (Liechtenstein) thanked all those who had organised the debate, and thought that, although the Council of Europe could be proud of its achievements, much remained to be done. She welcomed the report on monitoring and the initiatives for looking at the compliance of old and new member states. In relation to Liechtenstein, the charter of local self-government had been implemented in full, as could be seen from the recent report examining the January 2007 regional elections. Liechtenstein had also received positive approval form the International Monetary Fund with regard to its way of dealing money laundering. In general, she thought it was necessary to proceed carefully when monitoring small countries.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Açikgöz.

Mr AÇIKGÖZ (Turkey). – I thank Mr Lintner for his comprehensive and highly relevant report. This year, the document goes beyond a mere annual progress report and provides us with a stock take of the activities of the Monitoring Committee for the 10 years of its existence. It also raises a number of essential questions about the future work of the committee.

I find the periodic reporting on the groups of member states that are not involved under a monitoring procedure or in post-monitoring dialogue particularly important. I believe that this procedure should be further improved, particularly by adding to it the component of dialogue that seems to be lacking at the moment.

Ensuring the full compliance of all member states with their undertakings in a spirit of co-operation and non-discrimination was the basic objective of the core mandate of the Monitoring Committee when it was adopted in 1997. In practice, however, the work of the Monitoring Committee focused mainly on the honouring of the accession commitments of the new member states. The implementation of the obligations of long-standing members, with the exception of Turkey, did not receive attention until last year.

I have carefully read the follow-up reports to Assembly recommendations that addressed in 2006 the first group of 11 member states and this year’s periodic reports on the second group. It is clear that not one of our countries is immune from having deficiencies in human rights and democracy. The situation needs to be improved in all Council of Europe member states. It is therefore important to maintain an overall monitoring system that covers the obligations and commitments of all our countries – old and new members alike.

Improvement in human rights and democratisation is an ongoing process in all our countries. Despite the fact that issues remain to be addressed by individual member states, we expect the Assembly to acknowledge and accurately reflect the progress achieved. In this context, I draw the attention of the distinguished members of the Assembly to the amendment we tabled to the paragraph in the draft resolution dealing with Turkey. I hope that we will receive the Assembly’s support and set the record straight on Turkey’s performance.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Ivanić.

Mr IVANIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina). – Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of those countries under the monitoring procedure and our experience has been more or less positive.

I was the member of the government, and it was not easy to answer some of the questions asked by the monitoring team. If one cannot find a logical or acceptable explanation for something, the best thing is to change it, so we carried out a lot of reforms based on experiences and dialogue involving the monitoring team of the Council of Europe.

The Council of Europe has made a big contribution to all the reforms in the country. It was not always well balanced. Some parts of the reports may have resulted from lobbying in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but generally the process was positive. Even in some very difficult and sensitive cases, such as Srebenica, the situation is significantly different from the situation five or 10 years ago. Why? It was helped by the fresh input from the monitoring mission and the reports.

A few years ago, it was not possible even to suggest that the Republika Srpska Government would recognise Srebenica as an area of special economic and social interest and deliver there a significant amount of money, as it did for the first time four weeks ago, or that the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina would also agree, supported by all representatives from different groups, to allocate for the first time a significant amount of money to develop a project to achieve better conditions for the people there. I believe that there have been positive developments thanks to the contribution of the Council of Europe.

There have also been some negative elements, as Srebenica will be used by some forces in Bosnia to reopen territorial issues, which is like opening Pandora’s box. We have to be careful about that, and continue to work on concrete issues that will help the people in the area.

Generally, there has been a positive outcome, but I ask people to be careful in discussing all these sensitive issues. We are slowly coming to a situation in which Bosnia and Herzegovina can believe in the monitoring procedure and start with the post-monitoring dialogue phase, which will provide additional positive impetus in the country to continue to take ownership of its problems. Very soon, we will also transform the office of the high representatives and the local institutions will take full responsibility.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The last speaker on the list is Mr Jacobsen of Norway. He does not seem to be with us, so that concludes our list of speakers.

I call Mr Lintner, the rapporteur and chairman of the committee, to reply. You have four minutes.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) thought that those who had spoken had in essence confirmed what had been said in the report. In older member states, a blind eye was often turned to breaches of human rights and the monitoring initiative proved useful in such circumstances. It was important that fundamental principles could be acted upon. Certain essential rights and principles could not be placed on a back burner but required immediate implementation. It was desirable for national parliaments to be more involved. National parliaments played an important role in the promotion of democracy and human rights. Therefore, it was necessary to win the support of national parliaments, and to have similar debates on human rights and democracy in those forums. Other action could also be taken to foster closer links between national parliaments and the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Lintner. The debate is now closed.

I remind members that the votes on the draft resolution in Document 11214 and the addendum and six amendments will take place after the summing up by the rapporteurs and chairpersons on the three main committees.

I think that we have most of our complement of rapporteurs and chairmen, but Mr Ateş is not with us at the moment. Does anybody know whether he is due to join us? In any case, we now come to the summing up of the three debates.

To conclude the debates today, I will now call on the rapporteurs and chairmen of the three main committees. I will the call the rapporteur and chairman of each committee in the order of the debate.

I call first Mr Pourgourides, rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human rights. You have four minutes.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – I have already spoken twice, and I think that speaking for a third time in this debate would not serve any useful purpose. I would like to grant my time to the president of our committee, who has done an excellent job in supporting us throughout the period of doing this work. At this stage, I think that he will be in a position to say more useful things than I would say after having taken the floor twice this morning.

THE PRESIDENT. – Your words are always very welcome to us, Mr Pourgourides, but your courtesy is also appreciated. Mr Marty, if you were to use Mr Pourgourides’ four minutes instead of your two, that would be acceptable to us.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) thanked the chairmen and rapporteurs who had made the debate possible. He said that at this stage he did not have much to add, and just wanted to outline a few ideas. The debate was very important and fundamental, but there was a risk that all concerned thought they had done their bit. The debate had meaning only if it spurred member states on to uphold the values of the Council of Europe with more resolve.

In other words, members needed to turn words into deeds. They were under an obligation to pay attention to serious issues such as those faced by the European Court of Human Rights; an important institution which the Assembly had brought into being and which therefore should be given sufficient resources to operate effectively. The Assembly should concentrate on its core business – it needed to be much more inclusive in terms of its links to the Committee of Ministers. It was true that there had been a deafening silence from the Committee of Ministers on the subject.

Mr Marty urged those present to act when they saw erosions of human rights in their own countries, particularly when implemented in the name of the fight against terrorism. The energy released in the debate needed to be harnessed in order to take the fight forward.

(Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Lloyd)

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gross, Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee. You have four minutes.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – I want to thank you, Mr President, for insisting last September that we have this debate; you did indeed have to convince some of us to have it. I was ready to do have it, but I had to invest about ten days between Christmas and early February in preparing for it. I would like to thank Mrs Nachillo for her help; it was a unique and worthwhile experience. We should follow the advice of Mr Kox and take these reports to our home countries and committees and discuss them there, so that others can learn that what we are doing is important for them, too.

I turn to an issue that I was a little disappointed that we did not speak more about. If we want to overcome the crisis of democracy, we have to think about constituting democracy on a transnational level. Constitutions do not build states – they legitimise democratic power on any level at which such power is handled. Some might think that revolutionary, but it is just old stuff. This Assembly was founded by those who wanted to make it a constitution-making body for the 10 founding members of the Council of Europe. Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, which prevented democracy-building in the west, as well, we come back to the old rules. We want better democracy in the west, the east and at a transnational level, and it is very important to remind ourselves of the need to achieve that.

I hope that we will not forget the original criteria for judging, evaluating and assessing our democracies. There is a gap that we need to fill, because although human rights are developed conceptually, democracy is under-developed. There are too many élite persons in the scientific community who, although they have power and position, are no longer interested in sharing their power with the people. As many colleagues have said, democracy is the sharing of power with the people, and we must do that. We cannot chose people but people can choose politicians, and they will choose different ones if we do not fulfil these obligations. Between now and the next report and debate, we must work to produce an even better report that will help even more in our daily work in our own countries.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Ateş, Chair of the Political Affairs Committee. You have two minutes.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The beautiful book that you have in your hands, Mr President, was not produced easily. The Political Affairs Committee has confronted many difficulties, one of which was choosing the methodology for this excellent report. Another even more difficult task was defining democracy. What is democracy? The third hard question that we had to deal with was how to strengthen democracy. Any political affairs committee anywhere could easily fail to answer these questions. Fourthly, we had to avoid writing yet another academic textbook on democracy. Nobody wants to read another scientific, academic textbook on that subject. However, one has to be an academic in order to write a book such as this. Fortunately, this Political Affairs Committee and this Chamber have politicians who are also academics. One such person is Mr Gross, and I want to thank him for his excellent work.

We tried to find answers to those questions, and the rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee viewed the problems associated with democracy through the eyes of the citizens. That was very important, because the committee agreed that the citizens are the only source of legitimate political power. We strongly believe that democratic politics should be all about people’s interests. Our report took the citizens as its central reference point. Our rapporteur, Andreas Gross, was absolutely correct to follow this methodology, and the excellent book that you have in your hands, Mr President, is proof of that.

I want to thank all our rapporteurs, chairpersons and the secretariat. Putting all the various elements was another difficult job, and I should also thank Mrs Dinsdale in this regard. It was a very painful job. A democracy is a living organism. It is not possible to write a report saying that we solved everything; the situation changes. Different communities require different things at different times, so we must do such work periodically. However, we must also allow more time for the discussion of the adoption of such reports. The experience of this report will probably give us a better final outcome.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Lintner, Rapporteur and Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee. You have four minutes.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) acknowledged his previous opportunity to make comments in the light of the debate and promised to be brief. He was pleased at the number of people who had underscored the message that monitoring meant dialogue rather than criticism. Much progress had been achieved as a result of personal dialogue over extended periods of time. He advocated this approach, which took both personal conviction and integrity, and thanked those involved.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. That concludes the debate.

5. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT. – Tomorrow morning, we have a debate under urgent procedure on the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine. There are already 33 speakers, and 17 amendments have been tabled. In view of the large number of speakers and amendments, I propose that speaking time in the debate be limited to four minutes.

Furthermore, tomorrow afternoon we have a debate on the draft memorandum of understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union. There are 14 speakers, and 35 amendments have been tabled. In view of the large number of amendments, I propose that speaking time in the debate be limited to four minutes and speaking time on amendments be limited to thirty seconds, so as to allow a reasonable number of members to speak.

Are these proposals agreed to?

They are agreed to.

6. State of human rights an democracy in Europe: votes

THE PRESIDENT. – We now come to the votes on the draft resolutions, recommendation and amendments.

The Political Affairs Committee has prepared a draft resolution to which 33 amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the notice paper.

For both the draft resolution prepared by the Political Affairs Committee and draft recommendation prepared by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, the two committees have worked together and each draft text has a “human rights” chapter and a “democracy” chapter. Therefore, when examining each amendment, I will ask for the opinion of Mr Marty on the “human rights” chapters and for that of Mr Ateş on the “democracy” chapters.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to thirty seconds.

We now come to Amendment No. 29, tabled by Mrs Liudmila Pirozhnikova, on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 3, add the following words:

“The Assembly acknowledges that human rights are universal and manifold, covering all aspects of life. They comprise not only political and civil rights but also social, economic, environmental and cultural rights which together enable people to lead meaningful lives with dignity. Inspired by the spirit of the Council of Europe’s statute, the Assembly considers that these rights are indivisible, interdependent and complementary.”

Mrs PIROZHNIKOVA (Russian Federation) said that the amendment stemmed from the discussion which had taken place. She urged those who thought that people’s rights were both economic and political to move from polemic to dialogue and to vote for the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – I cannot accept that all rights are equal. Some human rights are much more important than others, so the phrasing of the amendment is unacceptable.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 29 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Ed van Thijn, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, after the words “United Nations and its specialised agencies”, insert the following words:

“, such as UNHCR”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu, instead of Mr Van Thijn, to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The purpose of the amendment is to highlight the co-operation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which is the only international organisation with a presence in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr André Schneider, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 8, add the following words:

“Human rights can most effectively be maintained when they are embedded in the culture of its citizens, which requires affirmative cultural and education policies by all member states and the Council of Europe.”

I call Mr Schneider, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, to support Amendment No. 9. You have thirty seconds.

Mr SCHNEIDER (France) (On behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education) said he accepted the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment: in paragraph 2 of amendment No. 9, leave out the word “affirmative” and replace with “adequate”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6, and can be considered unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object.

Do 10 or members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Pourgourides to move the oral sub-amendment.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – The word “adequate” is more appropriate, as the word “affirmative” is open to misunderstanding.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr SCHNEIDER (France). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

The committee is obviously in favour.

I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – In favour.

I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 9, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Ali Riza Gülçiçek, Mr Mustafa Ilicali, Mr Osman Coşkunoğlu, Mr Ruhi Açikgöz and Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, delete the words “, as well as northern Cyprus”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights, the definition of northern Cyprus as a black hole is totally baseless. If northern Cyprus is a black hole, why are many judgments of the European Court of Human Rights implemented? Moreover, if it is a black hole, why are representatives of northern Cyprus sitting in the chamber with us? If northern Cyprus is referred to as a black hole, we will be disrespecting our own decisions.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

Mr ZACCHERA (Italy) said that he supported the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – No, I was asking for someone to speak against the amendment. I call Mr Vis.

Mr VIS (United Kingdom). – I would like to point out that there is no such country as northern Cyprus. Cyprus consists of two parts: the legitimate part and an occupied part. The occupied part has only been recognised by Turkey. No other nation in the world has recognised the occupied part of Cyprus.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 31, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, Mr Abdülkadir Ateş, Mr Mustafa Ilicali, Ms Ganira Pashayeva and Mrs Gultakin Hajiyeva, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 11, add the following words:

“On the other hand, the Assembly welcomes the initiatives of the authorities in northern Cyprus in complying with the Council of Europe mechanisms, particularly with those that implement the European Court of Human Rights judgments.”

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 31.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Political problems in Cyprus and legal issues are totally different things. The authorities and people in northern Cyprus are willing to comply with the Council of Europe mechanism. That is why a property commission under the guidance of European Court of Human Rights judgments was established. Moreover, many judgments of the Court are being implemented. When there is criticism, it should be addressed and when credit is due, it should be given. Therefore, we should accept this amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Viz.

Mr VIZ (United Kingdom). – When one hears that the people in the occupied part of Cyprus are in favour of one thing or another, one needs to bear in mind the fact that there are 140 000 Turks living in the occupied territory, which is more than twice the number of Turkish Cypriots. We have no problem with Turkish Cypriots; the problem is Turks living in the occupied territory.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 31 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Ed van Thijn, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 16.1, replace the words “illegal immigrants” with the following words:

“irregular migrants”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 5.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The amendment suggests using the terminology adopted in previous resolutions and recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly, whereby reference is made to “irregular migrants” rather than “illegal immigrants”.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Meale.

Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – In line with the previous objection of my colleague, Mr Viz, I want to point out that this is an illegal regime and we cannot recognise it in any way. I ask people to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 22, tabled by Mrs. Anna Čurdová, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 17, add the following words:

“Forced and child marriages, so-called “honour crimes” and female genital mutilation also constitute grave human rights violations which need to be addressed without further delay.”

I call Mrs Curdová to support Amendment No. 22.

Mrs CURDOVÁ (Czech Republic). – Some violations of women’s human rights, such as forced and child marriages, “honour crimes” and female genital mutilation, are so widespread and so great that they should be specifically mentioned in the report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 22 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Baroness Gloria Hooper, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 21, insert the following paragraph:

“Cultural rights are part of human rights, in particular the right to education under Article 2 of the first Protocol to the ECHR and the right of everyone to take part in cultural life under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Member states must respect these rights and those enshrined in the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society as well as academic freedom and university autonomy.”

I call Baroness Hooper to support Amendment No. 10.

Baroness HOOPER (United Kingdom). – We felt it important to clarify that the right to education is contained in the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, and it is therefore also important to refer to cultural rights as human rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 10 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 21, insert the following paragraph:

“The Council of Europe has also drawn up the only comprehensive international standards for bioethics in the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and its Protocols.”

I call Mrs Melo to support Amendment No. 11.

Mrs MELO (Portugal). said the amendment would cover ethical problems in the crossover between human rights and biomedical sciences.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 11 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Jacques Legendre, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 25.

I call Mr Legendre to support Amendment No. 12.

Mr LEGENDRE (France). said the amendment would prevent cultural and inter-faith issues from being overlooked by the broader issue of human rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – Resources are very scarce and limited, so the Council of Europe must deal with and focus mainly on establishing excellent human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We are not saying that we should not deal with other matters, but simply that we should focus on those important issues.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is unanimously against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – If Amendment No. 12 is adopted, Amendment No. 32 falls.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 12 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 32, tabled by Mr Ştefan Glăvan, Mr Emanuelis Zingeris, Mr Rafael Huseynov, Mrs Sinikka Hurskainen, Ms Åse Gunhild Woie Duesund, Baroness Gloria Hooper, Mrs Antigoni Papadopoulos, Mr Kent Olsson, Mr Osman Coşkunoğlu, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg and Mr Alexander Fomenko, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 25, replace the words “and the rule of law” with the following words:

“, legal co-operation and cultural co-operation”.

I call Baroness Hooper to support Amendment No. 32.

Baroness HOOPER (United Kingdom). – Again, I wish to say that as this is a report about human rights and democracy, it is of course natural to emphasise such matters, but when we speak of areas of excellence and the financial resources of the Council of Europe, it would be unfair and contrary to the decisions of the 3rd Summit to, as it were, slip in a paragraph that forgets legal and cultural co-operation. Inter-cultural dialogue is currently a priority for the Council of Europe, as are the conventions on cybercrime, suppression of terrorism and on the recognition of studies and diplomas. Those are leading achievements and must be mentioned, whereas the rule of law is already well-known as part of human rights and democracy.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Cilevičs.

Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – The rule of law is an extremely important and comprehensive concept, whereas legal and cultural co-operation are different tools for promoting the rule of law in Europe. Therefore, I am against the amendment. We should stick to basic principles.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 32 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mrs Maria Manuela Melo, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 31.

I call Mrs Melo to support Amendment No. 13.

Mrs MELO (Portugal) said that human rights were a priority and should not be forgotten.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 13 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr André Schneider, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 32.6, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“develop human rights education as a basic requirement of school education and life-long learning;”

I call Mr Schneider to support Amendment No. 14.

Mr SCHNEIDER (France) said this amendment would underline the importance of educating people about human right issues.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 14 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Dick Marty, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr György Frunda, Mrs Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc and Mr Jaume Bartumeu Cassany, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 32.7, after the words “as already requested by the Assembly on numerous occasions”, insert the following words:

“, refuse to expel or extradite any individual to a country where there is a real risk of him or her being subjected to serious human rights violations, regardless of assurances received”.

I call Mr Marty to support amendment No. 8.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said that the wording of this amendment was self-explanatory.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

What is the opinion of the committee? I could give the floor to Mr Pourgourides but I know that the committee is in favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Ed van Thijn, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 32.9, after the words “internally displaced person”, insert the following words:

“, missing persons and members of their families”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support amendment No. 6.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – It is important that missing persons and members of their families are added to the list of people in particularly vulnerable situations described in the draft resolution.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 6 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 23, tabled by Mrs Anna Čurdová, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 32.10, add the following words:

“as well as so-called “honour crimes” and female genital mutilation;”

I call Mrs Čurdová to support amendment No. 23.

Mrs ČURDOVÁ (Czech Republic). – It is important that honour crimes are included in this category and that we recognise that bodily integrity is the highest human right of all.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 23 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 24, tabled by Mrs Anna Čurdová, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 32.10, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“Concerning forced marriages and child marriages, fix at or raise to 18 years the minimum statutory age of marriage for women and men and consider as rape sexual relations forced on victims of such marriages, or automatically annul them, as far as possible, in a maximum period of one year.”

I call Mrs Čurdová to support Amendment No. 24.

Mrs ČURDOVÁ (Czech Republic). – The amendment speaks for itself.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – I query whether marriage at age 18 can be considered a forced marriage. In some countries, people do not think that marriages should take place under the age of 18, but that is not the case in all countries. In some countries, people may legitimately get married at 17 and that is not contrary to their culture.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 24 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 25, tabled by Mrs Anna Čurdová, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 32.10, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“Concerning the fight against domestic violence, continue and step up their efforts to implement the Council of Europe Campaign to Combat Violence against Women, including domestic violence, alert public opinion and pass laws prohibiting domestic violence against women.”

I call Mrs Čurdová to support Amendment No. 25.

Mrs ČURDOVÁ (Czech Republic). – It is important that the Assembly reminds countries to deal effectively with domestic violence. Our Council of Europe campaign to prevent domestic violence against women should be fully implemented at all levels in all member states.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 25 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mrs Maria Manuela Melo, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 32.14, replace the word “education” with the following words:

“facilities for vocational guidance and training”.

I call Mrs Melo to support Amendment No. 15.

Mrs MELO (Portugal) said this amendment would amend the wording to match that in the European Social Charter.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 15 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 16, tabled by Baroness Gloria Hooper, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 32.14, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“fully respect the right to education under Article 2 of the first Protocol to the ECHR and the right to take part in cultural life under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and become party to the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society;”

I call Baroness Hooper to support amendment No. 16. You have thirty seconds.

Baroness HOOPER (United Kingdom). – Again, we wish to reinforce and clarify the fact that cultural rights are part of human rights in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is, in paragraph 2 of Amendment No. 16, to leave out the words “and become party to the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6, and can be considered unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object.

Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Pourgourides to move the oral sub-amendment.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – Our aim is achieved by the first part of the paragraph and so there is no need to insist on becoming a party to the Council of Europe framework convention.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Baroness HOOPER (United Kingdom). – I am against the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is agreed to.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. –. I shall now put the amendment as amended to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 16, as amended, is agreed to.

We come to Amendment No. 17, tabled by Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 32.14, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“become party to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and to its Protocols;”

I call Mr Wodarg to support Amendment No. 17.

Mr WODARG (Germany) said that one needed to take the conventions relating to human rights and bio-medicine into account.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – In favour.

Amendment No. 17 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 27, tabled by Mr Luc Van den Brande, Mr Mikhail Margelov, Mr Lluís Maria de Puig, Mr Tiny Kox and Mr Mátyás Eörsi, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 32.21, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly further resolves, in close co-operation with the national delegations of the Assembly, to invite the competent committees of the parliaments of member states to an annual conference of parliamentary legal and human rights committees to take stock of shortcomings and progress in the field of human rights and the rule of law, to exchange good practices and identify any necessary improvements for national legislation and possible future Council of Europe action in the field.”

I call Mr Van den Brande to support Amendment No. 27.

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – I am convinced that everyone agrees that it is not enough to have this debate or to have guidelines. We have to implement the measures in our national parliaments and that is why we propose an annual conference to assess progress on human rights and democracy. That view is supported by all groups in the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

Amendment No. 27 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 28, tabled by Mr Luc Van den Brande, Mr Mikhail Margelov, Mr Lluís Maria de Puig, Mr Tiny Kox and Mr Mátyás Eörsi, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 32.21, add the following paragraph:

“The Assembly, in view of the significant contribution of civil society, including human rights defenders, to the promotion and protection of human rights, invites its Bureau to establish an annual Award of the Parliamentary Assembly for outstanding civil society action in the defence of human rights as well as the criteria to be followed for the selection of candidates.”

I call Mr Van den Brande to support Amendment No. 28.

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – The idea is to make an annual award to those in civil society who are committed to upholding our standards. That would send a good signal to those people that they are part of the horizontal subsidiarity in a democracy.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

Amendment No. 28 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 33, tabled by Mr Bakir Izetbegović, Mr Slavko Matić, Mrs Azra Hadžiahmetović, Mrs Ruža Lelić and Mr Abdülkadir Ateş, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 32.21, add the following paragraph:

“In the region of Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, activities have to be intensified with the aim of identifying and burying those killed, removing the alleged war criminals from the police and security structures in the RS, bringing the perpetrators of the genocide to trial and ensuring special attention is given to the Srebrenica region that will provide for the safe and prosperous life of the survivors.”

I call Mr Izetbegović to support Amendment No. 33.

Mr IZETBEGOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina). – Almost all the men and boys were killed in Srebrenica 12 years ago. The mothers and wives should be able to find their bodies and bury them properly. There should also be a normal, multi-ethnic police force and employment opportunities.

The authorities of the Republika Srpska have done nothing for these women, and the police in the RS still employ people who took part in the massacre. The authorities in the RS have not captured a single person who took part in the massacre or identified a single mass grave where civilians were buried. I ask you to support my amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mrs Marković to speak against the amendment.

Mrs MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) commented that Srebrenica was different today from what it was five or ten years ago. It was now an important economic and social centre. The amendment proposed would open up difficult questions for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against the amendment because we do not think this is the place to discuss the issue.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 33 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mr Ştefan Glăvan, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 38, add the following words:

“Democracy can best flourish and succeed when it is embedded in the culture of its citizens, which requires affirmative cultural and education policies by all member states and the Council of Europe.”

I call Mr Glăvan to support Amendment No. 18.

Mr GLĂVAN (Romania) wanted reference to democracy, human rights and cultural rights to be added.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 18 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 19, tabled by Mr Robert Walter, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 49 with the following paragraph:

“The role of the media in setting political agendas, transmitting political debates and forming opinions about political leaders underlines the importance of independent, pluralist and responsible media for a democratic society.”

I call Mr Walter, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, to support Amendment No. 19.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom). – The committee was appalled by the language used in this paragraph. We believe that journalists in the written and broadcast media provide a vital role to our democracy in pluralist societies. The current wording rubbishes and denigrates the work of those journalists and those media. We therefore suggest a much more positive phraseology that would provide the report with credibility.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I understand that Mr Gross, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is

“In paragraph 1 of Amendment No. 19, to keep paragraph 49 and at the end to add the paragraph proposed in Amendment No. 19”.

I call Mr Gross to move the oral sub-amendment.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – We would accept the amendment if it were an addition and not a replacement. It deals with a totally different argument. We wanted to be critical of some media who make their business by undermining political parties. The media have their own role. They should not undermine political parties and not do business by upgrading or downgrading individuals. That is why paragraph 49 should stay. The contribution was welcome, but we should not replace the words in the paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT. – In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6 and can be considered unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object. Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment?

What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment No. 19?

I call Mr Walter.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom). – I am totally against the oral sub-amendment for the reasons that I stated before. The paragraph undermines and denigrates the work of our journalists and the good media throughout Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – I will put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment as amended?

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 19, as amended, is adopted.

I have received Oral Amendment No. 1 from Mr Gross, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which reads as follows:

“In the draft Resolution, replace paragraph 54 with the following paragraph:

‘In well established democracies there should be no thresholds higher than 3% during the parliamentary elections. Then, it should be possible to express a maximum number of opinions. Excluding numerous groups of people from the right to be represented is detrimental to a democratic system.’”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation, and if there is no opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6 and can be debated. Is there any opposition to the oral amendment being debated?

I therefore call Mr Gross to support Oral Amendment No. 1.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – Here also we would like to make a compromise. We would take out the words “have no justification”. The movers of Amendment No. 30 will be satisfied if they can add their text to ours and not completely replace paragraph 54.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Oral Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 30, tabled by Mr Björn von Sydow, Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, Mr Michael Hagberg, Mr Göran Lindblad, Ms Anna Lilliehöök, Ms Kerstin Lundgren, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mr Kent Olsson, Mrs Sinikka Hurskainen and Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 54 with the following paragraph:

“In well-established democracies, a balance has to be found between fair representation of views in the community and effectiveness in parliament and government.”

I call Mr von Sydow to support Amendment No. 30.

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden). – The addition of the proposed text would be gladly accepted.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that Mr Gross, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment:

“In paragraph 1 of Amendment No. 30, to keep paragraph 54 and at the end to add the paragraph proposed in Amendment No. 30.”

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6, and can be considered unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object.

Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case.

Mr Gross, do you wish to speak?

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – I am grateful that Mr von Sydow has already said what we want to do. We want to add the proposed words instead of replace the existing ones. He is in favour of that proposal, and we are glad to have made a compromise.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden). – I, too, gladly accept the compromise reached.

Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

That is not the case.

The Committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

I call Mr Platvoet.

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). –The amendment, as amended, would enable a higher threshold than 3%. That is a bad idea. The amendment has been tabled by managers, not politicians. The lack of effectiveness is due not to a low threshold, but to incompetent politicians in governments. Please vote against the amendment as amended.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 30, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 26, tabled by Mrs Anna Čurdová, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 72, add the following words:

“The undemocratic practice of ‘family voting’ must be eliminated.”

I call Mrs Čurdová to support the amendment.

Mrs ČURDOVÁ (Czech Republic). – The amendment speaks for itself. We should eliminate the undemocratic practice of family voting, which denies women the right to vote.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 26 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Jonas Čekuolis, on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 73, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly also recalls that since the beginning of European integration the right to form a political opposition was considered to be an essential element of a genuine democracy. It notes that the opposition in parliament is increasingly granted rights in connection with the setting up of inquiry committees, the convocation of special sittings of parliament and the possibility to bring cases before the Constitutional Court. In some countries it is also proposed to give these rights to single opposition parties or political groups. Opposition parties and their members cannot only claim for rights and means but should also show responsibility and willingness to use them and make their best efforts to enhance the efficiency of the parliament as a whole. They should not only carry out their natural but perhaps insufficient role of criticism. However, also the parliamentary majority has the responsibility to respect the right of the minority to dissent the majority’s opinion and to promote alternative policies.”

I call Mr Čekuolis to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr ČEKUOLIS (Lithuania). – The right to form a political opposition is considered an essential element of genuine democracy. In the amendment, we propose to specify the rights and responsibilities of both parliamentary majorities and minorities. It is worth including such a statement in the text as a separate paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Ed van Thijn, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 74, replace the words “nationals of Council of Europe member states lawfully residing in another member states” with the following words:

“lawfully resident immigrants”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The amendment would ensure that lawfully resident immigrants have the possibility of voting at least at a local level, in accordance with the standards of the Council of Europe convention on the participation of foreigners in public life at local level. This should not be limited only to nationals of the Council of Europe member states.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The intention of the committee is already fulfilled in another paragraph. In this paragraph, we wanted to add the idea that we could look at what the European Union did ten years ago to give all its citizens the right to vote in local elections and think about doing the same for all the Council of Europe member states, which means including 20 states more, to promote a sense of common belonging.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – On a point of order, Mr President.

Mr VIS (United Kingdom). – A point of order cannot be taken during a vote.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I will give you the floor after the vote, Mr Çavuşoğlu, for one minute, maximum.

Amendment No. 7 is rejected.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu on a point of order.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – I am not a member of the Political Affairs Committee, but I was informed that the amendment was accepted in the committee. If I am wrong, I apologise, as I will be clear that I have been misinformed.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I got the information from the committee, and we have heard the point of order. We will now proceed.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Jonas Čekuolis, on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 76, insert the following paragraph:

“In the Council of Europe member states the political parties have a responsibility to ensure a fair minority representation in elected institutions, taking into account proportionality. There is no one formula to achieve this objective and a range of possible measures is available.”

I call Mr Čekuolis to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr ČEKUOLIS (Lithuania). – The amendment is about a fair minority representation in elected institutions. The committee regarded this issue as of high importance for democracy, and we sought to put responsibility for ensuring such representation with the political parties and the politicians in our countries.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 20, tabled by Mrs Maria Manuela Melo, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 78, replace the words “should be in accordance” with the following words:

“must be eliminated in accordance”.

I call Mrs Melo to support Amendment No. 20.

Mrs MELO (Portugal) said that disproportionate restrictions should be eliminated in accordance with the approach of the European Court of Human Rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – We are talking about a very subtle difference. There are restrictions, and we want to check to ensure that they follow only case law and the ruling of the court. For that reason, we think our wording more precise.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 20 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 21, tabled by Mr Ştefan Glăvan, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 80 with the following paragraph:

“Education for democratic citizenship and human rights is an important condition for the effective protection and promotion of human rights and democracy. The Council of Europe should step-up its work in this field in accordance with the outcomes and evaluation of the 2005 European Year of Citizenship through Education. This should be reinforced by the elaboration and implementation of national programmes in this area.”

I call Mr Glăvan to support Amendment No. 21.

Mr GLĂVAN (Romania) said that the principles of democratic citizenship were very important and needed to be enshrined in specific educational policies.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 21 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft Resolution in document 11203, as amended, on the state of democracy in Europe.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution, Document 11203, as amended, is adopted, with 117 votes for, 6 against and 3 abstentions.

THE PRESIDENT. – The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft recommendation to which 17 amendments have been taken. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the notice paper.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to thirty seconds.

We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mrs Maria Manuela Melo, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 2.3, add the following words:

“and its work on education for democratic citizenship and human rights”.

I call Mrs Melo to support Amendment No. 13.

Mrs MELO (Portugal) said that children should have access to information about human rights and democratic citizenship. This principle was one promoted by the Council of Europe. It needed to be highlighted further in order to focus attention on the issue.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 13 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mrs. Anna Čurdová, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 2.5, add the following words:

“as well as increasing its efforts to ensure the swift accession of the EU/Community to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings”.

I call Mrs Čurdová to support Amendment No. 8.

Mrs ČURDOVÁ (Czech Republic). – It is not only the European Convention on Human Rights that the EU needs to accede to. The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings must also be signed and ratified by the EU without further delay.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – There must be a misunderstanding. The European Union must accede to the Convention on Human Rights because it employs people and takes decisions that affect the rights of others. Therefore, there is a gap. The European Union is in no way involved in human trafficking – as yet. Perhaps at some future time, it will be involved in such business, but at this stage it is not, so the amendment is totally inappropriate.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Marcel Glesener, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2.7, add the following sub-paragraph:

“take the necessary measures to ensure that member states that have not already done so ratify the revised European Social Charter, the Protocol amending the European Social Charter and the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints and grant national NGOs the right to lodge complaints;”

I call Mr Glesener to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr GLESENER (Luxembourg) said that social rights were an integral part of human rights and member states should be encouraged to ratify the treaty.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – We have addressed this issue properly and fully in the draft Resolution, so there is no need for the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 2.

I call Mr Glesener to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr GLESENER (Luxembourg). – I would like to withdraw the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment is withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Dick Marty, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr György Frunda, Mrs Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc and Mr Jaume Bartumeu Cassany, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4, replace the words “drawing from, inter alia, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the work of the United Nations on this issue” with the following words:

“drawing from, inter alia, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the work of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) and of the United Nations on this issue”.

I call Mr Marty to support Amendment No. 6.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) sought to add the Committee on the Prevention of Torture to the other bodies already listed.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). –The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 6 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr Paschal Mooney, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 9 with the following paragraph:

“Diversity in Europe needs to be better accepted and respected. The Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to strengthen its political support for activities referring to cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue (including the religious dimension), for action by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) and for the work under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, and to reinforce its activities in the fight against all forms of discrimination, as well as its activities related to the protection of the rights of persons belonging to minorities and the integration of minority groups in society.”

I call Mrs Melo to support Amendment No. 14.

Mrs MELO (Portugal) said that language was a key element of diversity and therefore she wanted the European Charter for minority languages to be mentioned because of its importance in this area.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 14 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Ed van Thijn, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 11, after the words “internally displaced persons,” insert the following words:

“missing persons and members of their families,”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Amendment No. 3 would include among the list of relevant people “missing persons and members of their families”. It is recognised that enforced disappearances are covered elsewhere in the text, but missing persons arising from past conflicts in the region are not mentioned, which is why have moved the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mrs. Anna Čurdová, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 13, add the following sentence:

“It also invites it to instruct the relevant intergovernmental committee to follow the Assembly’s recommendations on forced marriages and child marriages when reviewing all the legal instruments elaborated by the Council of Europe in the field of family law, in order to identify those instruments which require revision or any new instruments that may be needed.”

I call Mrs Čurdová to support Amendment No. 9.

Mrs ČURDOVÁ (Czech Republic). – It is important that the Assembly remind the Committee of Ministers of its responsibilities in combating forced and child marriages.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 9 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mrs Maria Manuela Melo, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 13, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

(i) calls on all member states which have not yet done so to become party to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine as well as to its Protocols,

(ii) invite non-member states to become party to this Convention and its Protocols and

(iii) call on all member states which have not yet done so to become party to the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society.”

I call Mrs Melo to support Amendment No. 15.

Mrs MELO (Portugal) said that the Council of Europe was a leading organisation in the field of bio-ethics. There were a number of human rights issues associated with bio-medicines. She called on the Council of Europe to acknowledge and recognise these issues and support her amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – We have covered all these proposals elsewhere, so the amendment is unnecessary.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 15 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Blagoj Zašov, Mr Göran Lindblad, Lord Russell-Johnston and Mr Andrzej Grzyb, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 17 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers draw up guidelines on the “Elimination of deficits in the functioning of democratic institutions”, taking into account existing Council of Europe legal instruments, engaging member states to take measures to remedy problems identified in Resolution …(2007), and in particular:”

I call Mr Gross to support Amendment No. 12.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – As we say that we need guidelines, we would also like to engage the Committee of Ministers in making such guidelines.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the Committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 12 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 16, tabled by Mr Robert Walter, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 17.1 with the following sub-paragraph:

“to ensure freedom of expression in accordance with the ECHR and the case-law of the Strasbourg Court, safeguarding pluralism of the media and that measures are taken to prevent and dismantle media concentration;”

I call Mr Walter to support Amendment No. 16.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom). – We do not disagree with the basic thrust of the paragraph, but we want to make it more powerful and concise. The current phrasing contains almost a double negative. We believe in freedom of expression, not restrictions on the freedom of expression. I commend our amended wording to the committee.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – We all believe in freedom of expression but sometimes it may be legitimately restricted. The paragraph only refers to restrictions that are in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the Committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 16 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mrs. Anna Čurdová, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 17.3, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“to take all necessary measures to eliminate “family voting”;”

I call Mrs Čurdová to support Amendment No. 10.

Mrs ČURDOVÁ (Czech Republic). – The amendment speaks for itself. We should eliminate the undemocratic practice of family voting, which denies women the right to vote.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 10 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Ed van Thijn, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 17.5, after the word “immigrants”, add the following words:

“, at least at a local level”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu, on behalf of Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, to support Amendment No. 4. You have thirty seconds.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The amendment clarifies that the right to vote for immigrants should be granted at least at a local level.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that Mr Gross intends to propose an oral sub-amendment: in Amendment No. 4 after the word “local” insert the words “or regional”.

That is in line with Rule 34.6.

Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – We are happy for the amendment to be accepted.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The vote is closed.

I call for the result to be displayed.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4, as amended, is adopted.

I understand that Mr Çavuşoğlu wishes to withdraw Amendment No. 5. Does anyone else wish to move it? That is not the case.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Björn von Sydow, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mrs Tina Acketoft, Mr Kent Olsson, Mr Michael Hagberg, Ms Anna Lilliehöök, Ms Kerstin Lundgren, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mrs Sinikka Hurskainen and Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 17.9 with the following sub-paragraph:

“concerning thresholds, to consider the balance between fair representation and effectiveness in parliament and government;”

I call Mr von Sydow to support Amendment No. 7. You have thirty seconds.

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden). – We reached a compromise in a previous discussion. The idea is to add this element of the meaning to the rapporteur’s text.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that Mr Gross, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment:

“to keep paragraph 17.9 and at the end insert the following sub-paragraph: ‘to consider the balance between fair representation and effectiveness in parliament and government;’”

In my opinion the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6 and can be considered unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object.

Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case.

I therefore call Mr Gross to move the oral sub-amendment.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – I just wanted to say that we would like to please Mr Platvoet and keep the 3%, while leaving open the second consideration in the interest of Mr von Sydow.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden). – I gladly accept.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

Mr PLATVOET (The Netherlands). – I can live with that proposal once, but not a second time in the recommendation, which is too much. The purpose of raising the threshold is to keep minorities and outspoken politicians out of parliament. We should not accept that.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

I call Mr Platvoet to speak against the amendment.

Mr PLATVOET (The Netherlands). – I will not repeat my point, which was made clearly enough.

THE PRESIDENT. – The opinion of the committee is also clear.

I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mrs. Anna Čurdová, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 17.19, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“to draft, at the earliest opportunity, a Charter for electoral equality to foster balanced participation of women and men in decision-making by inviting member states to foresee in their Constitution, in accordance with the principle of equality, the possibility of taking special measures to promote equal access for women and men in decision-making;”

I call Mrs Čurdová to support Amendment No. 11.

Mrs ČURDOVÁ (Czech Republic). – In the amendment, I am taking up an old Assembly demand from 2004, first formulated by our colleague, Mr Mooney from Ireland, in his report on women’s participation in elections. We need this charter for electoral equality and it is high time that the Council of Ministers draw it up.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 11 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 17, tabled by Mr Ştefan Glăvan, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 18.1, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“to pursue its work on a new framework policy document on education for democratic citizenship and human rights education;”

I call Mr Glăvan to support Amendment No. 17.

Mr GLĂVAN (Romania) said he would like to highlight the importance of human rights in education and citizenship, particularly because the Council of Europe had designated 2005 as the European Year of Citizenship through Education in all its member states as part of the Council’s Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education projects.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 17 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11202, as amended, on the state of human rights in Europe. I remind the Assembly that we need a two-thirds majority.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation, Document 11202, as amended, is adopted, with 114 votes for, 6 against and 6 abstentions.

THE PRESIDENT. – The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution to which six amendments have been tabled. They will be tabled in the order in which they appear on the notice paper.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Anatoliy Korobeynikov, Mr Valeriy Sudarenkov and Mrs Liudmila Pirozhnikova, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace the words “Georgia and Moldova have not been able to regain full control over their separatist regions (Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Transnistria);” with the following words:

“the Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-South Ossetian conflicts as well as the conflict between Moldova and Transnistria still continue;”

I call Mr Korobeynikov to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr KOROBEYNIKOV (Russian Federation). said his amendment would take account of the situation between Georgia and Moldova.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mrs Postoico.

Mrs POSTOICO (Moldova) said that there was no conflict between Georgia and Moldova.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs SEVERINSEN (Denmark). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is rejected

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Anatoliy Korobeynikov, Mr Valeriy Sudarenkov and Mrs Liudmila Pirozhnikova, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, delete the following words:

“This applies also to Chechnya in the Russian Federation”.

I call Mr Korobeynikov to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr KOROBEYNIKOV (Russian Federation). said his amendment enabled the recommendation to reflect border concerns.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Lintner.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that the committee had agreed to stick to the agreed wording.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs SEVERINSEN (Denmark). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – I have received an oral amendment from Mr Lintner on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, which reads as follows:

“In the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace the words ‘This applies also to Chechnya in the Russian Federation’ with the following words: ‘The situation is similar in Chechnya in the Russian Federation’.”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 34.6 which enables the President to accept an oral amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to its being debated.

In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? That is not the case.

The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Azis Pollozhani, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Dick Marty, Mr Robert Walter, Mr József Kozma, Mr Kornél Almássy, Mrs Maria Manuela Melo and Mr Blagoj Zašov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, after the words “ratification of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention”, insert the following words:

“and of the Charter for regional and minority language”.

I call Mr Pollozhani to support Amendment No. 5.

Mr POLLOZHANI (''The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia''). – The

amendment relates to paragraph 12, where the draft resolution explains which documents are accepted. We say that “The Assembly is particularly concerned by the slow pace of ratification of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention”, which is true. The words proposed in the amendment would complete the idea.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs SEVERINSEN (Denmark). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mrs Gülsün Bilgehan, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Osman Coşkunoğlu, Mr Ruhi Açikgöz and Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, second sentence, delete the words “and Turkey”.

I call Mrs Bilgehan to support Amendment No. 1.

Mrs BILGEHAN (Turkey) said that the reference to Turkey should be removed.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs SEVERINSEN (Denmark). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Anatoliy Korobeynikov, Mr Valeriy Sudarenkov and Mrs Liudmila Pirozhnikova, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, delete the following words:

“as the Russian Federation fails to co-operate or refuses to improve the situation in the light of the CPT’s recommendations”.

I call Mr Korobeynikov to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr KOROBEYNIKOV (Russian Federation). said this amendment would reduce the unwarranted focus on the Russian Federation.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Lintner.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said the committee wished to stick to the original wording.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs SEVERINSEN (Denmark). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Younal Loutfi, Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov, Mrs Darinka Stantcheva, Mr Andrey Pantev, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mrs Evguenia Jivkova, Mr Samad Seyidov and Mr Mikhail Margelov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14, last sentence, delete the word “Bulgaria,”.

I call Mr Seyidov to support Amendment No. 6.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan). – I am in favour of the amendment because Bulgaria has done a lot in this direction.

THE PRESIDENT. – I suppose that you are in favour, as you signed the amendment.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Lintner.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that it was right that Bulgaria should be referred to.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs SEVERINSEN (Denmark). –The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 6 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11214, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution, Document 11214, as amended, is adopted with 111 votes in favour, 4 against and 6 abstentions.

May I, from the Chair, warmly thank the staff, who have done a great job? This has been an encouraging debate for everyone in the Assembly. It is proof that we can realise great projects, but the work is not complete. Somebody said earlier – I believe it was Mr Kox – that now we start work on the national level. I fully agree. I thank the rapporteurs for the great job that they have done, and the chairpersons of the three committees. I also thank all those in the Council of Europe who have contributed to this wonderful report. All the bodies have co-operated efficiently and enthusiastically. Finally, Jane Dinsdale has done a great job as the co-ordinator of all this work.

7. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT. – That concludes our business for the day.

I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the business which was approved on Monday.

Is that agreed?

The sitting is adjourned.

The sitting was closed at 7.35 p.m.

CONTENTS

1. Written declaration

2. Organisation of debates

3. State of democracy in Europe (continued debate)

Statements by:

Mr Skard (President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe

Mr Mifsud Bonnici, Vice President of the European Commission for Democracy through Law

Speakers:

Mr Mota Ameral (Portugal)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Wilshire (United Kingdom)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Lloyd (United Kingdom)

Mrs Durrieu (France)

Mr Legendre (France)

Mr R Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Nessa (Italy)

Mr Wach (Albania)

Mr Korobeynikov (Russian Federation)

Mr Linblad (Sweden)

Mr Symonenko (Ukraine)

Mr Tilson (Canada)

Mr Iwiński

Jazłowiecka (Poland)

Mr Kosachev (Russian Federation)

Mr Riester (Germany)

Mr Lipiński (Poland)

Mr Gülçiçek (Turkey)

Mr Proroković (Serbia)

Reply:

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

4. Monitoring of states’ performance: Progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure

Presentation by Mr Lintner of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Doc. 11214 and Addendum)

Statements by:

Mr Belorgey, General Rapporteur and former President of the European Committee of Social Rights

Mr Palma, President of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Speakers:

Mrs Severinsen (Denmark)

Mr Evans (United Kingdom)

Mr Platvoet (Netherlands)

Mr Pollozhani (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)

Mr Van den Brande (Belgium)

Mr Berényi (Slovakia)

Mr Kosachev (Russian Federation)

Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

Statements by:

Ms Smith Asmussen, President of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance

Mr Phillips, President of the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities

Speakers;

Mrs Wohlwend (Lichtenstein)

Mr Açikgöz (Turkey)

Mr Ivanić (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Replies:

Mr Lintner (Germany)

Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

Mr Marty (Switzerland)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mr Ateş (Turkey)

Mr Lintner (Germany)

5. Organisation of debates

6. State of human rights and democracy in Europe: votes

Votes on draft resolutions, recommendation and amendments

Amendments Nos.4, 9 as amended, 5, 22, 10, 11, 14, 8, 6, 23, 25, 15, 16 as amended, 17, 27, 28, 18, 19 as amended, Oral Sub-amendment 1, 30 as amended, 23 and 21 adopted

Draft resolution, Document 11203, as amended, adopted

Amendments Nos. 13, 6, 2, 9, 12, 10, 4 as amended, 7 as amended, 11 and 17 adopted

Draft recommendation, Document11202, as amended, adopted

Oral amendment and Amendments Nos. 5 and 1 adopted

Draft resolution, Document 11214, as amended, adopted

7. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting