2007 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-First Sitting

Tuesday 2 October 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 3.10 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Minutes of proceedings

THE PRESIDENT. – The minutes of proceedings of the second sitting have been distributed.

Are these minutes agreed to?

The minutes are agreed to.

2. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRESIDENT. – I must remind you that the vote is in progress to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The poll resumed at 3 p.m. and will close at 5 p.m.

Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Document 11359 and addendum.

A summary of the arrangements governing the election has been printed in the notice paper.

Counting will take place at 5 p.m. under the supervision of the tellers.

3. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT. – Tomorrow morning, for the debate on globalisation, no amendments have been tabled. Accordingly I propose that we should allow five minutes speaking time in that debate.

This afternoon we will hear an address from Mr Koštunica, the Prime Minister of Serbia, followed by a current affairs debate and two further debates and votes.

The Assembly has already agreed a four-minute limit on speeches in debates.

Questions to Mr Koštunica will finish at 4 p.m.

I propose that, if necessary, we interrupt the list of speakers on the debate on co-operation with the European Court of Human Rights at 5.40 p.m. to leave time for the replies and votes, and for the debate on Moldova.

If required, we will interrupt the list of speakers in the debate on the honouring of obligations by Moldova around 6.45 p.m. in order to leave time for the replies and votes, and a short statement from Mr Lupu, President of the Moldovan Parliament. The results of the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights will be announced at the end of the sitting.

Are these arrangements agreed to?

They are agreed.

4. Address by Mr Vojislav Koštunica, Prime Minister of Serbia

THE PRESIDENT. – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Koštunica, Prime Minister of Serbia. After his address, the Prime Minister has agreed to take questions from the floor.

Prime Minister, I believe that your presence here today is a positive sign not only for your region but for Europe as a whole. I also believe that this reflects the important role of the Council of Europe in ensuring peace and stability across the continent. The terrible conflicts that devastated the countries of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s are often seen as a failure on the part of the rest of Europe – a failure to anticipate, a failure to react and a failure to prevent. But to me, the very terms of that analysis betray a far greater problem of those times – the suggestion that there is Europe on the one hand and the Balkans on the other. I firmly believe that the process of integration of the countries of the Balkans into European institutions is the best protection against renewed instability and violence.

The most important part of this process, of course, is full implementation of the obligations and commitments that your country freely accepted on accession to the Council of Europe. I strongly encourage you to continue your close co-operation with the Assembly’s monitoring procedure, whose work must be seen not as a form of negative criticism but as a source of positive assistance towards fulfilling your country’s European vocation.

In May, I made a public statement welcoming the coalition agreement and, in particular, the renewed commitment to European integration that it embodied. Since then, I have been very pleased to note the progress that your government has made, including resumption of negotiations on a stability and association agreement and improved co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In this latter respect, I must repeat my call for the fugitives from justice, Karadžić and Mladić, to be brought to trial immediately. It is a source of great disappointment to us all that they remain at large even while your country holds the chairmanship of our Committee of Ministers – above all, because through the priorities and activities of your chairmanship, Serbia has shown its growing democratic maturity, its increasingly evident commitment to our common values and its ability to play a full and constructive role in the international community.

I now look forward to hearing more about these and other issues from you.

President Koštunica, welcome to the Assembly: the Floor is yours.

Mr KOŠTUNICA (Prime Minister of Serbia). – Mr President, honourable members of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Secretary General, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, René van der Linden, for granting me the honour of addressing you as the Prime Minister of Serbia at a time when my country is holding the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe.

Serbia took over the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers in May and decided to focus primarily on the fundamental values of the Council of Europe: human rights, democracy and the rule of law, which are the three pillars that form the foundations of European societies. That is why the slogan of Serbia’s chairmanship – “One Europe, our Europe” – expresses our belief that all European states and all peoples wish Europe to be one and speak with a single voice in showing full respect for the three aforementioned crucial values.

In today’s address, I wish first to stress the fact that the Serbian authorities have been working assiduously and constantly above all to ensure the implementation of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. That is best borne out by the adoption of the new Serbian Constitution, which passed the test of a referendum, was approved by the will of the people and fulfilled even the most difficult requirement that over 50% of registered voters should vote in favour of its adoption. In addition, the Assembly of Serbia adopted the document unanimously, which bears witness to full democratic, political and national consensus on the new constitution in Serbia.

I am anxious to point out that the European Commission for Democracy through Law, or the Venice Commission, made explicit its opinion that the new constitution reflects the democratic ideals of the new Serbia. Sixty-three of a total of 206 articles in the constitution contain provisions specifically concerning human and minority rights and liberties. In respect of national minorities, it is particularly important to point to the provisions that ban discrimination on any grounds, and prohibit the incitement of racial and national hatred. I wish in particular to mention the articles in the constitution that prohibit violent assimilation and promote the development of the spirit of tolerance; the provisions on obligations to allow national minorities to be represented on local and provincial government bodies; as well as the provisions requiring that account be taken of the national make-up of the population among people employed by the national administration.

The constitution says that, as well as the rights granted to all the citizens of Serbia, minorities should be granted certain additional rights that fall under the heading of positive discrimination such as the right to elect national minority councils. I wish to inform you that not only the letter of the Serbian Constitution but its legal provisions and actual practices have largely surpassed that, including a grant that is provided for by the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Local and provincial printed and electronic media are broadcast in minority languages. In the autonomous province of Vojvodina, for example, people belonging to the Hungarian national minority can receive tuition in their own language at about 80 primary and 30 secondary schools, as well as at several universities in Novi Sad, Subotica and Belgrade.

I should like to highlight the fact that the leaders of national minorities and the highest representatives of all religious communities in Serbia strongly supported the adoption of the new constitution. Thus in the multi-ethnic town of Novi Pazar, where Bosniacs account for a considerable majority, an exceptionally high number of citizens took part in the referendum. That attests to the character of the new constitution as well as to the trust that national minorities have today in the state of Serbia. That confidence has been built thanks to a number of specific actions undertaken by the Serbian Government to improve the overall status of national minorities and to enhance the participation of people belonging to those minorities in public affairs.

All of that, honourable members of the Parliamentary Assembly, goes to prove Serbia’s full commitment to, and participation in, the building of the three fundamental European values: human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It is precisely in the implementation of those values that Serbia sees a solution to the biggest problem in present-day Europe – the future status of the province of Kosovo-Metohia. You will be fully aware that the new negotiation process, mediated by the international troika, is under way and that direct talks took place between Belgrade and the representatives of Kosovo Albanians several days ago. It is quite natural, given that the negotiations are in progress, for us to talk openly at this august European institution, and I am convinced of the need to jointly support only a democratic and compromise solution.

I wish to reassert explicitly that Serbia is indeed committed without any reservation to a democratic solution based on the three pillars that form the foundation of Europe itself: human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Accordingly, Serbia called on the Albanian side and the international community in Europe to commit themselves to measures that do not resort to violent, unilateral solutions. We firmly believe that everyone concerned should act only in support of a negotiated, democratic settlement.

It is the Council of Europe, which rests on those fundamental values and which is duty bound to safeguard them, that can help us to find a way to reach a democratic solution. That is why, during the course of the New York talks, Serbia proceeded on the crucial issue of granting rights to the Albanian national minority in the province of Kosovo. The essence of the problem is how to settle the status of the Albanian national minority in the province both democratically and in line with international law.

Serbia’s proposal, which it presented in New York, is that Serbia is ready to grant to the Albanian national minority the status of the most privileged national minority anywhere in the world today. Such a status would be secured in the form of the substantive autonomy of the province of Kosovo within Serbia. I trust that members agree that such a proposal can only have at its core the full and free development and prosperity of Kosovan Albanians. There is no intention on the part of Belgrade to limit or in any way curtail the rights of Albanians in the province.

Like any other sovereign and internationally recognised state, Serbia cannot allow the Albanian national minority to create a state within a state and to form another Albanian state in the Balkan region. No national minority anywhere in the world has that right. I ask why only the Albanian national minority should enjoy such a right – and only in Serbia.

In New York, Serbia called on not only the international community but the Albanian side to work together on determining the most privileged national minority status, and to consider the particular rights currently exercised by national minorities in the world today, which can be used as a reliable criterion to settle the dispute. It is important for me to inform you that we are at a turning point today, where the international community must decide which of the two pathways to opt for in tackling the issue of the fortunes of the province of Kosovo and, by the same token, the fortunes of Serbia

One of the two pathways leads to a democratic solution based on the European values of respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The second pathway leads to a highly risky zone and would lead to the setting of the most dangerous precedent in Europe since the end of the Second World War. The cost would be to allow a national minority grossly to violate a valid UN Security Council resolution as well as the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act – to form a new state on the territory of a sovereign and internationally recognised state.

It is my duty to draw your attention to the two arguments put forward in favour of the second extremely dangerous pathway. Top-ranking international officials have said that unless a solution is identified speedily, peace in the province may be jeopardised. That point was immediately echoed by Albanian terrorists, who have said that they will resort to massive violence unless Kosovo is granted independence. Such arguments would deserve no comment, if we had heard a single clear message from the international community to the effect that such threats, rather than being rewarded by granting a state, will be severely sanctioned.

The second argument for moving along the pathway of legal violence and dismembering Serbia should be considered in the context of annexe 11 of the rejected Ahtisaari plan. It was more than telling that all the Albanian representatives in New York repeated again and again that they would fully implement the Ahtisaari plan, when they were fully aware that the plan was not on the agenda. In other words, the Albanians hope that annexe 11 will be implemented, which would achieve their geostrategic, military and security interests, and that certain great powers would agree to recognise unilaterally declared independence.

Members of the Parliamentary Assembly should know that annexe 11 of the Ahtisaari plan envisages no clear civilian control over the international military presence in Kosovo, in the form of NATO forces. That would constitute yet another unheard-of precedent since the democratic world was built. We face the risk that the implementation of annexe 11 will become more important than identifying a democratic solution, which would outweigh the destiny of Kosovo, of Serbia, and even of the entire region.

The two pathways to solving the Kosovo problem that I have outlined merit us stopping to think them over. You can rest fully assured that, in keeping with the UN Charter and its own constitution, Serbia will not abandon the quest for a democratic solution, just as it resolutely rejects the thought that it could allow, for any reason and at any time, the making of a new Albanian state on its territory through legal violence and the pursuit of the policy of force by unilateral steps. I assure you that it is impossible to impose a solution on Serbia, and that any unilaterally declared independence would prove to be unsustainable. Unilaterally declared independence would only aggravate the problem, which would return us to the point where we would have to search together for a democratic and sustainable solution all over again.

Regrettably, it should also be borne in mind that there is a real threat that particular countries – even European countries – would opt for the blatant violation of the valid UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which is binding on all governments and which specifically granted Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and would be prepared to recognise a unilateral act by Albanian separatists on the independence of the province. At the Council of Europe, we must pose the most natural question: if certain European states opt to violate Resolution 1244, what will prevent any European state tomorrow from violating yet another UN Security Council resolution if such a violation were mandated? The real question is whether all those taking decisions today have taken into account all the consequences that could arise in Europe and elsewhere in the world as a result of the use of legal violence and the blatant violation of international law and universally binding UN resolutions.

At first sight, it may appear that it is easier to cut things short, even at the cost of blatantly violating the norms and values of our present-day world. However, all the countries adopting that short-sighted approach should bear in mind that as early as tomorrow they themselves could face a similar threat. In that context, we all know – because we have learned the lessons of world and European history – that any violence and the breaking of universal rules that causes a sovereign country to be dismembered will inevitably produce grave and tragic consequences. Let us ask ourselves how many separatist-minded national minorities in today’s world are watching attentively how the issue of the Albanian national minority in Kosovo will be settled. How can one explain to them tomorrow that first-grade national minorities are allowed to form states but second-grade national minorities are not permitted to do so? Most importantly, would those minorities be prepared to reconcile themselves to that position, or would new problems arise through the formation of new states driven by conflicts and presenting a persistent threat to peace and stability?

I wish to voice my conviction that nobody should stay calm when faced with the fact that it is precisely in Europe, which is so very proud of its achievements in terms of respect for the rule of law, democracy and human rights, that certain countries are thinking of dismembering a sovereign, internationally recognised country by virtue of legal violence and by means of a unilateral solution. We have also seen a powerful non-European country assure us that we should regulate our affairs at the heart of Europe through the use of violence and in direct violation of the UN Charter and argue that such an action would not constitute a precedent but rather a regular and normal state of affairs. It is quite the other way around. Common sense is warning us that we should stick to the time-tested values and not abandon a democratic solution by any means. Europe’s experience is too vast and its commitment to persevere in the quest for a democratic solution too strong for us to dare give in to pressures and too readily engage in undermining the foundations on which the entire international order is based today.

If Serbia were to yield under such pressure and agree to take part in the making of another Albanian state on its own territory, it would take over gravest possible responsibility for all the far-reaching consequences of such an action. For who is more called upon than Serbia itself to fight for adherence to universal rules when its territorial integrity and its province of Kosovo is at stake? By consistently acting as we do, we have earned the right to call on you, as well, to stand in defence of the highest European values so that we do not allow legal violence to take precedence over a democratic solution in Kosovo, which is at the heart of Europe.

I must say also that, to this very day, nobody has told us what might be wrong with our proposal and why Kosovo should be granted independence. What are the arguments that can challenge Belgrade’s offer on the status of the most privileged national minority? Are there any arguments at all on the legal grounds for taking away 15% of Serbia’s territory in order to create the second Albanian state in the Balkans region? How come the rejected Ahtisaari proposal does not contain even a single word on a legal explanation or justification for such a solution? Lastly, how come nobody has yet thought of at least a single argument in favour of Kosovo’s independence, unless we consider as such an explanation the often-quoted expression, “This is a reality.”?

Honourable members of the Parliamentary Assembly, the only reality recognised by Serbia is the duty of all countries of the world to respect the UN Charter and to act in line with the values underpinning post-war Europe. Respect for that reality has brought peace, stability and prosperity to Europe. Rest assured that Serbia will do everything in its power to have this reality applied throughout its territory by means of a democratic solution; and rest equally assured that Serbia will never accept the reality of the policy of force or recognise any unilaterally declared independence for the province.

Serbia, honourable members of the Parliamentary Assembly, rightfully expects your support in achieving a democratically negotiated settlement for the future status of the Serbian province of Kosovo-Metohia. We remain convinced that, by defending law and justice, the UN Charter, the order of the present-day world and European democratic values, we are not thinking only of our own future, and that by doing so Serbia is not defending only its own sovereignty and dignity. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Koštunica, for your interesting address. Members of the Assembly have expressed a wish to put questions to you. I remind them that question must be limited to thirty seconds and no more. Colleagues should be asking questions and not making speeches.

The first question is by Mr Milo, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr MILO (Albania). – Mr Prime Minister, thank you for giving us the full picture of the Serbian official position, mostly on the Kosovo issue. Based on the fact that the Albanians in Kosovo are the majority and represent 2 million people, and based on the fact –

THE PRESIDENT. – Please, no statements, just questions.

Mr MILO (Albania). – This is a question. Based on the fact that many other nations in the former Yugoslavia are now independent and only Kosovo still is not, I would like to ask you if you are remaining in the old position of the Milošević regime or you are ready to co-operate with the international community to find the solution about the future of Kosovo which will bring to the western Balkans peace, stability and security?

THE PRESIDENT. – Could you conclude, please? Prime Minister, you have the floor.

Mr KOŠTUNICA. – Thank you very much, Mr Milo. What I have stated here may be a Serbian official position, but it is based on Serbia’s full respect for basic international principles engraved in the UN Charter and of course the European values that we spoke about – human rights, democracy and the rule of law. There are many national minorities in existing countries which are concentrated on parts of these countries, but that does not give them the right to secede – to create their own states on the territory of already-existing states. That is leaving aside the wrong statistics about the number of Albanians living in Kosovo.

You spoke also about the international community. The international community does not speak with one voice in the name of one country or a few countries – it is much more complicated.

Finally, coming to the point of your question, I agree that most of the nations in the former Yugoslavia got independence in the 1990s or later on. That goes for all the nations that had not previously had their own nation state. Kosovo Albanians have their state; the name of the state is Kosovo. Those matters have been quite clearly defined in the report of the Badinter commission on the separation or dissolution of the former Yugoslavia at the end of 1991 – namely, that Yugoslavia consisted of six parts and that all those six parts are now independent states, Montenegro being the last one. But that does not mean that something that is a part of one of these independent states – that is, Serbia – should be a new independent state. Quite clearly, we have UN Resolution 1244, the Helsinki Final Act, European values and the report of the Badinter commission.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Omtzigt on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslav still lacks two of its most privileged national guests – Mr Mladić and Mr Karadžić. Are you willing and able to tell the Assembly and to put in writing how you will deal with Resolution 1564 and provide complete compliance with the court? Do you no longer accept the policy of force? I greatly appreciated the fact that you made a statement to that end. Are you willing to take new steps to bridge the gap?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer Mr Koštunica?

Mr KOŠTUNICA. – Serbia is aware of its international obligations, including Resolution 1244, the Dayton Agreement and our obligations to co-operate with the ICTY. Serbia is working hard to fulfil its obligations and complete its co-operation with the ICTY. There are only a few remaining fugitives. Of the names that you mentioned, only one has been connected with Serbia. The other – Karadžić – has been connected in the last few days with the United States. He may have done a deal with some United States officials – for example, Richard Holbrook. Leaving that aside, it is in Serbia’s interest and one of its priorities to complete co-operation. It is a priority of my government and was a priority of the previous government. It is not a matter of political deals but a technical problem. Two differently composed governments faced that problem when trying to achieve our goals. I am sure that we will achieve them.

It is always difficult to solve problems about individuals. I remind you that many countries whose representatives sit here know of problems that they wish to solve but have not been solved. However, there is strong political will in Serbia for completing co-operation with the ICTY.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Lord Russell-Johnston on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON (United Kingdom). – May I follow up Mr Omtzigt’s question, because it is very important? Many years have passed since the awful massacre at Srebrenica, yet the pain and anguish that many feel still bites. Will the Prime Minister say specifically what his estimate is of when Mladić will be apprehended, and what resources Serbia is devoting to that?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer Mr Koštunica?

Mr KOŠTUNICA. – Perhaps this is the moment to remind members of the dialogue that I held with the general prosecutor of The Hague Tribunal, Carla del Ponte. I was asked a similar question. I was asked for the date when Serbia would complete co-operation with ICTY. My choice would be yesterday. In other words, the sooner the better. However, as I said, we are experiencing problems. They are only technical problems.

There are other countries, dear Lord Russell-Johnston, that also have aims and goals that they cannot achieve immediately. There are other places in the world where people suffer crises and wars. Every day, an enormous number of people are killed. We ask the question, when will it come to an end? I will not single out one country on this occasion, but you know what I am thinking about.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Messerschmidt on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr MESSERSCHMIDT (Denmark). – In your speech, you emphasised the necessity of one Europe. I congratulate you on that sentiment, with which I agree. In the parliamentary campaign in Serbia earlier this year, one of the questions was whether to go the Russian way or the European Union way. I would like to know your position on that. Do you feel that Serbia can embrace the Russian Federation as well as the European Union, so that we do not have a division between those blocs with Serbia in the middle?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer, Mr Koštunica?

Mr KOŠTUNICA. – When Serbia thinks about Europe, it envisages all the countries that are sitting together. Serbia also thinks of specific values and standards and has a strong orientation towards becoming a member of the European Union. I remind members that Serbia is close to beginning stabilisation and association agreements. There are different ways of bringing together the people who live in Europe.

We often think of formal organisations in Europe such as the Council of Europe and the European Union, but we also have a broader vision. We consider the Russian Federation to be part of Europe. It is in the Assembly and it is historically and geographically part of Europe. It is in Serbia’s interests to develop good relations with both the European Union and the Russian Federation. The European Union has a strategic partnership with the Russian Federation. We should remember the great French President de Gaulle, who spoke of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – When NATO bombed Serbia because of Kosovo, most members of the Group of the Unified European Left opposed that because we did not see war as a civilised way of solving problems. Nevertheless, Kosovo is a problem that has to be solved, and it must be solved by you. Do you agree that unilateral independence is not the way to solve it? How far will you dare to go to find a negotiated settlement for Kosovo, so that Kosovo’s past no longer blots the future of Serbia and Kosovo? How brave can you be?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Koštunica?

Mr KOŠTUNICA. – Serbia should go as far as necessary to find a negotiated settlement, to find a solution to Kosovo and to find a compromise. I think that it is possible.

Much time has been wasted in looking for that solution. Many of the negotiations up until now that have been conducted by the special envoy of the Secretary-General, Martti Ahtisaari, constituted wasted time because we have not had direct talks. It is perhaps better to say that the negotiations have been one-sided. I believe that it is easy to reach a compromise on Kosovo. The only pre-condition is trying to find a solution in the framework of international law. That means UNSC Resolution 1244. If we try to find a solution according to the standards and principles of international law, it will not be difficult. We will come together. However, if one side supports those standards and principles but the other violates them, it is difficult to reach a solution. It is clear where Serbia stands and what it stands for.

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

Mr BADRÉ (France) asked Mr Koštunica to comment on the situation regarding the repatriation of 100 000 Serbian migrants living in European Union territories.

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

Mr KOŠTUNICA. – Thank you for the question. As you know, Serbia has ratified all the necessary agreements relating to the European Union and its future membership and it is ready to accept EU citizens of whatever nationality who want to come to Serbia, as is normal.

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

Mr NÉMETH (Hungary). – Prime Minister, your parliament recently adopted a law granting citizenship to Serbians living outside Serbia, similar to Croatia and Romania. As you know, Hungarians in Serbia also asked for Hungarian citizenship, especially because of Hungary’s imminent entry to the Schengen system. What do you expect from our law in relation to stability in the region and the inter-ethnic character especially, in the western Balkans?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I ask Mr Koštunica to answer.

Mr KOŠTUNICA. – One of the latest amendments in Serbian citizenship law allows Serbian citizens living elsewhere in the world to use a specific procedure according to their willingness to achieve citizenship. That is the way to bring our compatriots together without putting stability in jeopardy in any way. If there is a country committed to full respect for international law principles, territorial integrity and sovereignty of every state, if there is a country that is developing and improvement good relationships with its neighbours, if there is a country thinking about improving the position of all national minorities, that country is Serbia. I must remind you that Serbia is the most multi-ethnic of all the countries of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I see nothing dangerous in acting to help communication through citizenship for any of our people living in any of the states of the former Yugoslav Republic, in Europe or in the United States and other countries such as Australia and South Africa.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mrs Mitreva.

Mrs MITREVA (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). – Mr Prime Minister, the picture of excellent relations between the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Serbia is seriously damaged by the position of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which denies the existence of the Macedonian Orthodox Church as the canonical successor of the archbishopric. Such an attitude deeply offends spiritual life and the national feelings of the Macedonian people. I am aware that the usual comment on this question is that church and state are separate. Nevertheless, Mr Prime Minister, given your personal authority and close relations with the Serbian Orthodox Church, can we expect your complete and constructive contribution towards solving this issue?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Mr Prime Minister you have the floor.

Mr KOŠTUNICA. – Thank you. I think that some problems should be solved by the subjects concerned – in this case the churches. That is the best way. The problems may have appeared in the previous communist period and the influence of the governments and authorities then. From time to time, there is discussion between the church authorities in Serbia and Montenegro and it is possible to reach agreement and compromise. I would not interfere in that process. On the other hand, I am always willing to support anything that will bring progress in relations between Serbia and Macedonia and I am sincere and frank in all my activities.

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

Mr HÖFER (Germany) asked Mr Koštunica, with reference to his comments on the lack of a perceptive approach by certain European states to the Kosovo situation, which were the countries he was referring to and what he considered their aims to be.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Koštunica to answer.

Mr KOŠTUNICA. – When it comes to the Kosovo issue, Europe is divided, even though one speaks nearly every day about its unity or the necessity of unity. It is good that Europe is divided; first of all because the problem of Kosovo is not an easy one, which means that Europe in the best democratic traditions of its countries is thinking about the problem. There are countries in Europe which think about solving the Kosovo problem in an easy and rash way by dismembering Serbia and accepting pressure from one national minority to create its own state in the territory of existing states. Other countries are aware of the problems and also aware that, in many cases, similar problems could occur in their country. They know that the problem of Kosovo could be imported to their own country so they think differently. It is clear that, at the moment, some countries are extremely sensitive to the Kosovan issue and the dangers of a serious precedent in the form of an independent Kosovo – countries such as Romania, Greece, Cyprus, Spain to some degree, and others. It is important and encouraging that debate is going on in Europe and that perhaps through this debate we will reach something that is in accordance with European values and the principles of international law – giving any existing state the right to be protected and respected in its territorial integrity and sovereignty while not giving rights to national minorities living in those states to create or found their own states.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you very much. The last question will be put by Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that recent press reports had quoted one member of the Serbian Government as stating that Serbia would respond with military intervention to any declaration of independence by Kosovo. In contrast, other press articles quoted another member of the Serbian Government as saying that no military action would be taken in the event of such an occurrence. He asked Mr Koštunica to comment on the truth behind these reports, and to clarify what action would be taken to integrate Kosovan citizens into Serbian society.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Koštunica to answer.

Mr KOŠTUNICA. – Today, we have heard the official position of the Serbian Government. If the Serbian Government thinks of intervention, you may conclude that it would be intervention only through law, with full respect for international law and, most of all, UN Security Council Resolution 1244. That is a clear position.

On the other hand, we must consider how we integrate Kosovo with Serbia. Kosovo has been part of Serbia for a long time. History is not made in a few years; it is carved out and developed over decades and centuries. I am aware that Serbs and Albanians can live together with the different institutional arrangements that have been operated by the Serbian Government. They have done that for such a long time, why should they leave tomorrow?

As I address the Parliamentary Assembly, I cannot but think that one of the crucial European democratic values is multi-ethnicity. Who can doubt that multi-ethnicity is possible in Serbia when Serbs already live with many minority groups? There are under 30 of them in Serbia, and many of them live in the northern part of the country. Why should that not be possible when it comes to Albanians? I am more than sure that it is possible. I believe in that possibility. I believe in multi-ethnicity. I believe in the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of existing states. I believe in the possibility of different people living together.

THE PRESIDENT. – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Koštunica. On behalf of the Assembly, I thank him most warmly for his address and for the extensive answers he has given to questions.

I hope sincerely that you will continue your successful chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and, in particular, that we can bring the conflict in Kosovo to a peaceful solution. I encourage you to make full use of the Council of Europe’s experience and institutions.

I thank you once again for addressing the Assembly.

5. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRESIDENT. – I must remind you that the vote is in progress to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The poll will close at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

This morning we elected Mr Haibach as teller, but he is unable to participate in the counting. That means that we have to elect a new teller. We will do so immediately.

Mr Brajović is the new teller. Is he here? Yes. You get the very important task of counting the votes for the judges. Congratulations.

6. Current affairs debate - the looming crisis facing the European Court of Human Rights:

urgent action needed

THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this afternoon is a current affairs debate on the looming crisis facing the European Court of Human Rights: urgent action needed.

Speaking time in the debate is limited to four minutes for all members except the first speaker, who is allowed ten minutes.

The list of speakers, which has been distributed, closed at noon today. In the debate, I first call Mr Marty. You have ten minutes.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) thanked the President and colleagues for attending the debate, and said that his committee had grave concerns regarding the European Court of Human Rights and had requested the debate to express its irritation and indignation at the passive attitude of member states who were watching the European Court disappear into a quagmire.

One of Europe’s crowning achievements was the ability to let its 800 million citizens appeal directly to the European Court of Human Rights. Problems had been experienced within the Court for a long time. Protocol 14 had been an attempt to solve some of these difficulties. However, the Russian Duma had singularly failed to ratify the protocol and, as a direct consequence, the European Court had been forced into increasing the number of its judges within a very short period of time. This was a serious situation and the existence of the Court was at stake.

New resources and new protocol were desperately needed. The increase in cases referred to the European Court of Human Rights implied an alarming human rights situation within the member states. The Court was not intended to act in place of an incompetent state judiciary. He noted that some states had great disregard for human rights and failed to protect applicants to the Court from intimidation.

Member states and the Committee of Ministers clearly did not recognise the need for independent and highly qualified judges. Last year, the Court took 20 000 decisions. However, 104 150 applications were pending. Some states were frustrated by the judges who properly criticised their human rights records in the course of their judgments.

He thanked the judges of the European Court and their staff for working under such increasing pressure. The work they did was invaluable. He believed that Europe was experiencing a dismantling of human rights. The current generation of members of parliament had an obligation to support and extend the rule of law in this regard.

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

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Marty. I remind speakers that they have four minutes in which to speak. I call Mr Margelov on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr MARGELOV (Russian Federation). – First, may I thank Dick Marty for his timely initiative in raising this important issue? We have all suffered in this session trying to vote for 12 judges, as we have to consider 36 candidates in a short period and I doubt whether we can do a good-quality job.

The issue of the European Court of Human Rights is a key topic on the present agenda and in our work in general. Assembly members are prepared to co-operate constructively with the aim of reforming that important European institution. The functioning of the Court is our unquestionable priority. The number of applications to the Court from all European countries has steadily risen, and in its current form it cannot handle such a load. Meanwhile, it is the last hope for Europeans who have not found justice in their national courts. Our common task is to contribute to the renewal of the Court and enhance its efficiency. All obstacles hampering that task should be removed.

Of course, the subject of today’s discussion extends beyond Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court requires more profound reforms than anticipated by that document. Nevertheless, we still need to discuss the ratification of the document. The Russian Government was timely in introducing a draft law relating to ratification in the State Duma, the lower House of the Russian Parliament, but the relevant committee in the Duma made a terrible mistake in preventing that law even from being considered. That is not only my personal opinion but the view of the EDG, on whose behalf I speak. It is a shame.

Among the obligations that Russia took on when entering the Council of Europe was one of co-operation with this Organisation and participation in its priority projects. Russia is a European country. In any case, its values are not the antithesis of those professed by nations to the west of Russian borders. The Russian side was among the initiators of Protocol No. 14 and actively worked on it, introduced proposals and so on. Experts managed to find a compromise on its “non-comfortable” clauses. During the 3rd Summit of the Council of Europe’s member states in Warsaw, Russia agreed to ratify the protocol in 2006. But the State Duma decided not to do so. As a result, Russia became the only member country in the Council of Europe not to ratify the protocol. The same thing happened with Protocol No. 6 relating to the abolition of the death penalty – that, too, is a shame. What harm to Russia’s interests does the lower Chamber of the Russian Parliament see in those protocols? It remains a puzzling question.

Protocol No. 14 is only a small part of the alterations required by the Strasbourg Court. The Court itself agrees that a long-term strategy to overcome the crisis should be put in place. What is the sense of blocking the triggering of badly needed reforms? I believe that the Parliament of the Russian Federation should return to the issue of the ratification of the protocol. Its rejection raises doubts in European minds as to Russia’s European choice.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Laakso on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – What should be done to get the European Court of Human Rights to function properly and what is its proper way of functioning? The Court’s main task is to implement the European Convention on Human Rights in all member states of the Council of Europe. As we know, the Court has a unique place in human rights mechanisms in Europe, because it gives all individuals in our member states the right to apply to it. That right is special, and there is no need to compromise that basic right. The proper way of functioning means that the right of appeal is genuine and can be implemented not only in theory but in practice, without interference or pressure by the authorities in any of our members states.

The Court’s role has changed completely over the years. When it was established, there were only 10 member countries that ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953. When my country, Finland, became a member of the Council of Europe in 1989, there were only 23 members in the Council of Europe. The nature of the cases in Court has undergone a dramatic change. In 1975, there were only 466 complaints to the Court. Today, as we know, there are about 100 000 cases, and the figure is still growing. That is a tremendous change. Naturally, we have to live with those changes.

There are many discussions and proposals to make the Court’s work more effective. My political group, the UEL, thinks that the streamlining of the Court’s activities should not take place at the expense of the basic right enjoyed by individuals in our member countries to apply to the Court. The opportunity to make an application is the Court’s strength, and there must be no compromises on that question. As we know, there are many complaints that the processes in our national courts take too long. Here in Strasbourg, we face the same problem if adequate resources are not reserved for the Court’s activity. The Court implements the rights of individuals in 47 member countries.

The budget of the Court is smaller than that of the court of the European Union. Our governments have increased resources for the Court, which, as we know, will be implemented next year. Frankly, resources will still be far too limited, and they must be increased in the near future.

The Court needs more resources to function properly. In the view of the Group of the Unified European Left, we cannot implement that policy at the expense of other duties of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Bartumeu Cassany on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr BARTUMEU CASSANY (Andorra) said that the Socialist Group was concerned about the European Court of Human Rights, and the figures showed the difficulties that it faced. In 2000, there had been 30 200 appeals, whereas in 2006, this had risen to 51 300. The majority of appeals came from only five member countries. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights defined what nations had to do. Nevertheless, some countries contravened it and seemed to think it was acceptable to have double standards. For example, the Russian Federation had been reluctant to ratify Protocol 14. He urged new parliamentarians from the Russian Federation to work towards ratification as soon as possible. An information campaign was needed in all countries to prevent the emergence of a two–tier human rights protection framework. This would affect the credibility of the Council of Europe in all member countries.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Lintner on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that the European Court of Human Rights was unique, and defined the protection of human rights in Europe. It could not be praised highly enough. It was the basic substance and cornerstone of the Council of Europe. If the Court’s work were blocked, parliamentarians would have to do as much as possible to make sure that it functioned properly again. The European Court of Human Rights was of vital importance to the 800 million people who lived in Europe. It was necessary to do as much as possible to publicise and preserve it.

The additional Protocol 14 had been put forward and needed to go ahead. Forty-six out of the 47 member countries had ratified the Protocol: only Russia had failed to do so. Russia was responsible for blocking the work of the Council of Europe in its most important activity. The Russian explanation as to why it had not ratified Protocol 14 did not hold water. With 240 million inhabitants, Russia was the largest member state. It had the most applications to the European Court of Human Rights, although the majority were not acceptable. In 2006, Russia had been 17th behind Sweden with 102 cases. Now it was in sixth place behind Italy. Russia already benefited from the filter on applications. This procedure would be strengthened by Protocol 14 so it was incomprehensible that Russia was not ratifying it. That refusal placed the Council of Europe in a dilemma regarding the most important part of its organisation. He urged Russia to do everything possible to ratify the protocol.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger on behalf of the Alliance of Liberal and Democrats for Europe.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) thought that the European Court of Human Rights was the lodestar of the Council of Europe, and that it gave hope and confidence to people and the opportunity for justice. The European Court on Human Rights made up for shortfalls in national justice. If a state was being heavy handed, for example, by means of torture, deportation or intimidation, the European Court of Human Rights was the last resort for its citizens. It had been a success story.

At present, the European Court of Human Rights was not in a position to deal with all the applications and there was a bottleneck. There were 40 000 cases in a logjam with 90 000 applications behind that. It was necessary to think about the individuals behind those applications. There were pensioners who had no money and invalids who were being denied their rights. Civil judgments were not being implemented and disappearances were taking place.

The European Court of Human Rights needed more expert positions as well as filling vacant posts. Protocol 14 governing the work of judges had to be implemented. Russia was the only state that refused to ratify the protocol, leaving the Council of Europe with 22 judge positions to fill. Protocol 14 extended the term of office of judges from six years to nine years and guaranteed their independence by means of elections. It was being held up by one member state. Mr Margelov had said that he was in favour of the protocol. He needed to persuade his colleagues in the Duma.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Before I call the next speaker, I remind members that the voting for the judges of the Court continues for a further 30 minutes until about 5 o’clock. I now call Mr Slutsky.

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation shared the values of the Council of Europe and was very interested in the European Court of Human Rights. The Russian President had submitted Protocol 14 to the Duma. His parliamentary colleagues, many of whom where new to the Duma, had not understood the protocol and did not know whether it was appropriate. All the Russian delegates to the Council of Europe were working to convince the Duma to ratify the protocol. Mr Marty had said that the Russian Federation was playing a “democratic game”. Those words were meaningless. There was no plot to weaken the Council of Europe. The debate was simply an attack on the Russian delegation. The Russian Federation needed help to get the protocol ratified quickly. Upcoming elections complicated the situation.

The Russian Federation was in close contact with the European Court of Human Rights with the hope of expediting ratification. Reform of the European Court of Human Rights needed to continue. Protocol 14 was only one part of this reform. What had happened in Russia was the result of democracy, like the votes on the European Union Constitution in France and The Netherlands. Sometimes, people voted against an issue and it was impossible to criticise this, instead, the Russian Federation needed constructive assistance. The Russian Federation was in favour of an effective European Court of Human Rights and did not think it should be politicised, although this was a separate issue. Russia was prepared for dialogue.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Slutsky. I call Mr Haibach.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) said that the European Court of Human Rights was a success story that had collapsed because of its own success. By 2010, it was estimated that there would be 200 000 outstanding cases. Between 90% and 95% of applications were not accepted, but the procedures were long and affected the credibility of the Council of Europe. The procedures needed to be changed and the problem would be solved only if the necessary measures, including Protocol 14, were adopted. International law was complex, and parliamentary work often proceeded slowly. The Council of Europe had been talking about the protocol since 1998. Only one country had not ratified it and it was not clear why.

It was important to think beyond the protocol; for example, the German Parliament had accepted his proposals regarding the translation of judgments into national languages and the implementation of judgments. Money was always an issue and there was a need for more funds and for more posts to be filled. The current situation could not be allowed to undermine the work of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. The Assembly had a contribution to make in the appointment of judges, but it also had other roles, such as deciding whether judges had the right qualifications to do the job so that they were not rejected.

Having the will to act to protect human rights, whether at work in national parliaments, in the Council of Europe as a committee chairman or as President of the Assembly, was the most important tool.

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

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – In the 16 years that I have been a member of this proud Assembly, we have often held debates in which we discuss a big report with many members present, but are completely powerless to act. The most important institution of the Council of Europe is the European Court of Human Rights, and we are not powerless about that. We appoint its judges—we are now going through that difficult process. With the Committee of Ministers, we determine the Court’s budget and we can make changes so that it can work better than it has done. However, we need the ratification of all the member states to achieve those aims.

We are in a peculiar situation. Forty-six states have ratified, and one state has not. We have been in discussions since then to try to tackle that. Tovarich Slutsky said that the current of affairs was against the Russian delegation. That is not the case. We are trying to draw public attention to the problem. We are doing that not by attacking the Russian delegation but by highlighting the problem and hoping that that will be reported in the Russian press. I hope that that will be seen as support for the Russian delegation. All members of the delegation say that they are in favour of Russia’s ratification of Protocol No. 14. That is a good thing. However, in my country, if all the members of our delegation supported something, it would mean that all the parties in our parliament supported it, and ratification would happen because all parties agreed. Mr Sharandin will speak later, but I would be interested in hearing an explanation of how it is possible for something that is supported by a delegation composed of all parties of the Duma and the Federation Council not to be supported by their parties in the Duma. That is interesting.

If I understood Mr Slutsky correctly, perhaps Russia supports more changes and reforms to the Court. I would be interested to hear about them because we should all discuss them. We should discuss such matters with not only Russia but any country that has ideas for making the Court better. During discussions on Protocol No. 14, such discussions happened all the time and the Russian Government participated in them and signed the protocol. What reform, which the Russian Government or the Federation Council want so badly, has not been included in the protocol? It would be interesting to know, and to discuss the matter. Perhaps it could constitute the next phase of the reform. In the meantime, we ask Russia to ratify the current reform, and then we can begin the next discussion on further reforms if the Duma and the Russian Government would like that. That is perfectly normal.

I emphasise that we are not attacking the Russian delegation, but trying to help. I hope that the debate will help and that the Russian delegation can tell us what it believes the next phase should be. If Russia ratifies, that would be a tremendous result.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that mechanisms were required to ensure that the European Court of Human Rights protected not only individual citizens but its constitutional task. The capacity of the Court to respond to applicants was being undermined as a result of its own success. There had been an exponential increase in the number of individual petitions received. In 1999, over 22 600 petitions had been received; in 2006, more than 50 000 petitions had been submitted. Today, over 90 000 cases were in abeyance. These included 25 000 cases waiting to be dealt with and 22 000 cases waiting for a chamber decision.

New procedures needed to be introduced to deal with inadmissible or repeated applications. Although the 2004 reform had gone some way to improve the situation, the delay in implementing Protocol 14, following the failure of the Russian Federation to ratify the protocol, was having a deleterious effect on the 800 million potential applicants to the Court. The delay was also having a negative effect on the renewal terms of office for judges.

The Assembly needed to take practical steps to ensure that full reform of the Court took place as soon as possible. This would require improved financing of the institution. The Assembly should note that the European Union spent €1 million each year on translation services, but only €200 000 on translation services for the Court. This was impractical given the number of languages in which applications were received.

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

Mr SHARANDIN (Russian Federation) said that the European Democrat Group had agreed that Mr Margelov would take the floor in representation of the group, but that as many representatives of the Russian Federation as possible would also speak in the debate given the importance of the subject.

He was in full support of ratification of Protocol 14 of the 2004 reform of the European Court of Human Rights. The main value of the Court could be considered in terms of its significance to the individual, the legal community and governments. For the citizen, a judgment of the Court gave the joy of individual rights having been protected. For the legal community, a judgment provided a new legal basis for future Court rulings. For governments, a legal ruling could be a bitter pill to swallow. However, like a bitter pill, a judgment of the Court could allow a state to return to health with improved immunity and the avoidance of future disease.

The Court was a unique hybrid of the continental and case law systems. He did not accept that a judgment in favour of the citizen against the state was a failure for a government. Instead, this presented a win-win situation. After all, governments came and went but states remained for ever or, at least, for a very long time. He thanked the Assembly and the Legal Affairs Committee for never expressing criticism of the Russian Federation’s democratic decision not to ratify Protocol 14; and he hoped the Assembly and its committees would continue to act in this way.

THE PRESIDENT. – That concludes the list of speakers.

I remind you that at the end of a current affairs debate, the Assembly is not asked to decide upon a text; but the matter may subsequently be referred by the Bureau to the responsible committee for a report.

7. Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRESIDENT. – It is now nearly 5 p.m. Does any member still wish to vote in the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights?

The ballot for electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights will close at 5 p.m. The counting of votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers. I invite them to go at once behind the President’s chair. The results of the election will be announced by the end of the sitting.

I am advised to stop for a moment, but I am concerned about the number of speakers who want to speak in the next debate and time is tight so if there is no objection I shall go on.

8. Member states’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report on member states’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights presented by Mr Pourgourides on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (Document 11183 and Addendum).

The list of speakers, which has been distributed, closed at noon today, and one amendment has been tabled. I remind you that we have already agreed that if necessary we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.40 p.m.

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

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – Dear colleagues, all states party to the European Convention on Human Rights have undertaken not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of the right of individual application. This Assembly has always defended that right as a cornerstone of the system of human rights protection in Europe, against all threats. We warded off calls to restrict the right to appeal to the Court because of the flood of applications, opting instead for reforms aimed at rationalising procedures and for an increase in the Court’s resources, however insufficient they may still be. But the right of individual application is also threatened when applicants, their families, their lawyers and non-governmental organisations supporting them become victims of pressure or acts of retaliation of different kinds as described in detail in the report.

To put it bluntly, the duty of member states to co-operate with the Court includes the duty not to kill, wound, or otherwise harm applicants. That should go without saying, but unfortunately it does not. As the cases presented in my report show, terrible things have happened to applicants. Some were too frightened even to allow me to mention their names and details of their case in our report, or in my letter to the authorities concerned asking to be informed about action taken to prosecute the perpetrators of those acts. Illicit pressure has also been brought to bear on lawyers who defend applicants before the Court, including trumped-up criminal charges, discriminatory tax inspections and threat of prosecution.

No court in the world can accept that its authority is challenged in such a way that applicants are “punished” for applying to it by the very perpetrators of the violation for which they seek redress, or by the refusal of respondent states to assist in establishing the facts of the case.

As I have shown in my report, the European Court of Human Rights has developed some excellent case law to deal with such challenges. That includes, inter alia, finding violations of Article 34 in the case of threatening behaviour by state officials vis-à-vis applicants, interim measures under Article 39 of the Court’s rules and granting priority to cases where applicants can substantiate allegations of undue pressure on them.

The Legal Affairs Committee encourages the Court to go further along that path. Our Court in Strasbourg could draw inspiration from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has long been confronted with applicants threatened by nasty military juntas and paramilitary groups. That court has developed original injunctions, such as demanding transmission of the name, address and phone number of a high official to be held personally responsible for the safety of an applicant, or placing guards before the entrance of the applicant’s house.

It is not for us to tell the Court what to do, but it can rest assured that it has the Assembly’s support for taking bold measures to assert its authority to protect the human rights of the citizens of all member countries.

Let us not forget that most member states co-operate very well with the Court, as the Court’s representative said at our committee’s hearing when we took evidence from experts and witnesses. As a Cypriot, I do not want to hide the fact that although much of the case law described in the report developed from Turkish cases dating back to the 1980s and 1990s, Turkey has made great progress since then, at least when it comes to cases that originate within Turkey. That makes me optimistic that the country that currently gives rise to the vast majority of problems – the Russian Federation – will also be able to address the systemic problems that are the root cause of so many violations of different aspects of the duty to co-operate with the Court. In this context, I draw the Assembly’s attention to the addendum to this report. It updates the report and covers the period since its adoption by the Legal Affairs Committee in January.

Our resolution and recommendation are very practical. They address the different aspects of the duty to co-operate and make concrete recommendations to the member states. It is most important that a clear signal is sent by the law enforcement bodies that pressures of any kind on applicants, their families and their representatives will not be tolerated, and that any violations will be met with robust investigation and punishment.

Last but not least, our Assembly should defend not only the authority of the Court, but its own. I was recently informed that two of the Russian scientists whose liberation we requested by legal means in our resolution on fair trial issues in cases involving espionage and state secrets – Mr Sutyagin and Mr Danilov – suffered a serious deterioration of their conditions of detention and, consequently, of their health after we had discussed our report in April. I should therefore like to use this opportunity to call on our colleagues from the Russian Duma to intervene with the competent authorities in their country to right these wrongs, in the interests of justice and the authority of this Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Laakso. He is not here. I call Mr Jurgens on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – This is the second occasion on which, in such a short space of time, I have spoken in a debate on the European Court of Human Rights. This is also the last time that I shall speak in this Assembly after serving here for 16 years.

I am glad that the debate is about the Court because it is the most important European institution. I have been very active in trying to support the implementation of its decisions and my views are very close to those set out by Mr Pourgourides in his report. The second implementation of decisions would be made much easier if fewer cases were repeated. It is in repetitive cases that a great deal of pressure is put on applicants, NGOs and lawyers. They are regarded as a nuisance and pressure is applied so that the cases do not go forward. That often happens because of a structural problem in the country in question which is not being solved. One such problem is the overcrowding of prisons. Another is Chechnya.

There are many such problems in all member states. Italy has the greatest number of cases that are not being implemented. Such problems undermine the Court’s authority. I want to stress that the Court has power not only if the member state is willing to implement its decisions and to allow people freely to access the Court. If the decisions of a Russian or a Dutch judge were not upheld by their states, the judge’s authority would be gone in no time. That is the case not just for national judges, but for international judges as well. They, too, need the support of the member state. It must be accepted by all government authorities that it is normal for people to access the Court in Strasbourg and that they should not be harassed for doing so.

I want to stress that the report contains many instances of cases in the Russian Federation. Again, it is not an attack on the Russian Federation. We know that it is a country in transition and that is very large country. Some 80% of the cases pending relate to 10 countries, and 20% of the cases are Russian.

We have an immense problem to solve, and we should do that together with our Russian colleagues. When I visited Russia last year and spoke to people high up in the judiciary, I was struck by the very strong feeling that they wanted to make changes. If that is the case, and if we accept that our friends in the Russian delegation are pushing for it and that the government is doing its best to support what they are doing, it sometimes means that we have to say strong things, as Mr Pourgourides does in his report. We must be honest with each other, but that involves recognising that that country has the problem now and that we want to help to solve it. It cannot be an attack on a proud nation such as the Russian Federation. It is important to stress that in all our debates. It is no good doing otherwise in our Parliamentary Assembly. We are all colleagues and want to achieve the same goals of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Haibach on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) congratulated the rapporteur, Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of his party group, and said that it was clear that the issues affecting the Court must be addressed or the existence of the Court would be threatened. There should be measures implemented to protect it. The 47 members states had a duty to defend the Court, the credibility of which was based on the success of its activities. There were many countries producing inadequate national legislation and their citizens were appealing to the European Court before completing their national judicial process. The Court should help people in this situation. He said that Protocol 14 must be ratified and he insisted that national legislation worked effectively. He thanked the rapporteur for all his work.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the report was excellent and contained an impressive list of what worked and what did not work within the European Court. The report was desperately needed and that was why it had been produced. The rapporteur had worked hard continually to update the report before publication. This was the final chance for the European Court of Human Rights.

People who applied to the Court were experiencing physical threats designed to prevent them from attending. It was important to remember that the European Court of Human Rights was not just a court where national courts were judged. Some people risked life and limb in order to bring a case to Strasbourg. She was pleased that the report contained the details of these specific cases. The American court system, although different to the European judiciary, clearly demonstrated that witness protection programmes and other protection measures could be used successfully. Any applicant to the Court should not be placed under pressure. The debate was ongoing and would not end today.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Sharandin on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr SHARANDIN (Russian Federation) said that the rapporteur had put his whole heart into producing an excellent report. It was vital that applicants to the European Court did not encounter any obstacles. Those who attempted to harass applicants should be tracked down and brought to justice. The Court should be looked at in broader terms. Once an application had been accepted, the applicant should be notified that it was possible to resolve the case with an early settlement. Such settlements would reduce the work-load of the Court. He was concerned to see how governments reacted to the actions of the Court. The question arose whether governments considered new case law and new precedents when promoting national legislation. He believed that appropriate legal analysis was required. Such an approach would be useful to the Court.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Durrieu.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that Europe should be proud that it had been able to provide all Europeans with access to the European Court. It was vital to defend the rights of the “man in the street”.

The European standard of justice was a minimum entitlement.

During his address to the Assembly on the morning of 2 October, the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia had said that Christianity was the single court of the European conscience. This was not true: rather, it was the European Convention on Human Rights. It was there in that melting pot that the European conscience was founded. The Assembly was discussing member states’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights. It was more than a duty; it was an obligation. Unfair pressure was being exerted on citizens and usually in the same countries each time: the Russian Federation and Moldova. Some 60% of the cases came from those countries and others such as Turkey and Romania. Unjustifiable pressure took the form of harassment, threats and police brutality. Those countries needed to obey the laws.

The European Court of Human Rights was overloaded with more than 100 000 applications coming in. Protocol 14 was intended to improve efficiency, but it was incumbent on the states committed to the Convention to ratify it. It was a mystery why such a great country as Russia would refuse to comply with its commitments and block this reform. The trampling of individual rights in Russia needed to be denounced. She could now not imagine electing a Council of Europe president from one of those countries which hindered its citizens because that person would not gain respect. The Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia had said that human rights should be defended through the moral high ground. She could not agree more.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Bemelmans-Videc.

Mrs BEMELMANS-VIDEC (Netherlands). – The European Court of Human Rights is the cornerstone of the house that is the Council of Europe. We need to address all our efforts to providing the Court with the means to function to its full effect. Today’s debate underlines the urgent need for us parliamentarians, through our united efforts, to keep the Court solidly in place as a cornerstone.

I hope that our colleagues in the Duma will no longer be deaf to our repeated requests for their help in realising their government’s commitment to Protocol No. 14, which dates back to the Warsaw Summit.

Since the Convention forms part of the national law of member states, the remedies available at a national level must be effective, well known and accessible to citizens. Indeed, they form the first and – in the spirit of subsidiarity – most important line of defence of the rule of law and human rights. The report from the Committee of Wise Persons also addresses that issue.

The report on member states’ duty to co-operate with the Court expresses this Assembly’s deep concern, given the apparent lack of domestic mechanisms to redress violations of the Convention and the obvious lack of willingness effectively to investigate serious allegations. This excellent and courageous report draws a disturbing and distressing picture of the serious intimidation of applicants and potential applicants who are initiating cases before the Court. As has been said, that is an exception, because most countries work closely with the Court, including countries mentioned in the report in many other cases.

The Court is the cornerstone of this House. A sense of justice that pervades all the veins of a society is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Unless such acts of intimidation are investigated and counteracted effectively in a society, that society will never develop a sense of justice being given, instead of justice being denied.

I hope that our colleagues in the parliaments of those countries will, like the report, speak up insistently and courageously against those unacceptable practices for the sake of democracy.

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

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – May I say how nice it is to see you in the Chair, Mr President? However, as nice as it is to see you there, it is sad to say farewell to Erik Jurgens, who made his last speech in the Hemicycle today. His commitment to human rights and the Court has echoed around the Hemicycle over the years in which he has been here.

The report is interesting. It discusses the obligations of nations to the Court, but it is a two-way affair. The Court has an obligation to member states to inform them about what is happening in a way that is coherent and clear. Member states should be able to report back to their parliaments on a regular basis about the working of the Court. When the Court was set up, those member states that signed up to it had to accept the obligations that went with that. It is obvious from the report that there has been a major failure on the part of some states to do just that.

The report speaks for itself, does it not? Up to this point, all speakers have made it clear that there is a failure to understand the obligations that member states undertook when they signed up. If member states do not want the Court, that is fine and they should say so. It should be made abundantly clear that they have no obligation to stay – they can walk away. If they are denying access to the Court, why bother? In a way, that is what the report tries to say. There comes a point at which one draws a line in the sand, which involves both finance and the expertise that goes with it.

When the Court was set up, it was made clear that its functioning was dependent on the co-operation of member states.

That was right there from day 1. In the first or second line, there was an implicit obligation to provide co-operation in terms of the Court’s ability to work on behalf of the citizens of Europe. The failure to do that is a stain on this Assembly and on the workings of the Court, because it means that the Court is unfair. Some people will get the justice that they deserve while others will be denied it because countries that were party to setting it up, funding it and allowing it to continue denied their citizens the opportunities that they themselves supported.

On the issue of how priority is given to certain cases, the Court has an obligation to explain to citizens the way in which that priority is decided. The report suggests that priority is given to cases involving applicants subjected to undue pressure. Who makes the judgment on undue pressure? The report does not tell us. The Court has an obligation to inform this Assembly about failure to co-operate with its work of investigating the facts. When one reads the report and then the Court’s own version of events, it is very unclear what obligations states actually have, because they cannot be forced to do anything. The report says that that can be interpreted and has been interpreted, but lawyers in this Assembly will tell us that they challenge interpretations time and time again in the Court. If it is not clear, there is a failure.

We cannot just blame each other as member states – we have to look at the obligations that the Court has to this Assembly and to those members who signed up to it and to have clearly defined points. If it has the right to sub-poena and to investigate, let us give it so that there is no ambiguity. If it demands to have the proper documentation to support a case, let us give it that right. Let us give the Court the tools that it needs, but, more importantly, let us give the countries who signed up for it a chance to succeed for all of the citizens of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Graf.

Mrs GRAF (Germany) said that the European Court of Human Rights needed the support of the Council of Europe through the resolution under discussion, particularly in what was a time of crisis. National authorities needed to work with the European Court of Human Rights to assist its work. This was the ideal, but it did not always happen in reality, particularly in Russia in respect of Chechnya where the Russian Federation’s actions had fallen well short of the principles to which it ought to aspire. The Russian Federation had put pressure on non-governmental organisations and on lawyers. Applicants were prevented from presenting their petitions properly. This situation was untenable. The courage of the Chechen People’s Group in pursuing its case was admirable. The speaker would not have had such courage herself. She was not without hope, however, after discussing the matter with her Russian colleagues.

The long waiting lists at the European Court of Human Rights were also a problem and made the situation harder for petitioners and lawyers. The delay also made it easier for nations to silence petitioners and witnesses. The authority of the Court needed to be strengthened in member states and its judgments needed to be enforced. The improvement of enforcement was the best way to help citizens and national politics generally. Translation of judgments into national languages needed to be more rapid. A recent case reported on by Human Rights Watch concerned torture in Grozny. The delight of the individual when their case was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights was amazing. There was not enough justice in member states and successful petitioners did not always receive proper compensation or the enforcement of their judgment. The speech of Mr Sharandin had given her hope and she thanked Mr Pourgourides and his colleagues for a report which would be a good starting point.

THE PRESIDENT. – That concludes the list of speakers.

I call Mr Pourgourides, rapporteur, to reply. He has four minutes.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – I thank all colleagues for their support and for their determination, which has been shown so clearly and so strongly. The determination expressed particularly by my Russian friend, Mr Sharandin, makes me optimistic about the future. I strongly believe that, with the help of our Russian friends and the support of all other members, we can look forward to rapid improvements in the Russian Federation as well as where we are facing problems as regards the matter under discussion.

Before concluding, I feel duty bound to warmly thank Mr Jurgens. I do not know if this was one of his last speeches in this Assembly – it probably was because he is leaving us pretty shortly. He has been a pillar in this Assembly for so many years that I, for one, feel obliged to thank him. In so many years, I learned so many things from his wisdom and from his approach to many difficult matters, which has always been of great help to all of us in the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does the chairman of the committee, Mr Marty, wish to speak? If so, he has four minutes.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said that it was hard to add anything new to the debate. The Council of Europe had spent 100 minutes debating the most important and delicate issue, namely the European Court of Human Rights. Its thoughts must now have consequences. Delegates needed to lobby their own parliaments and governments. The report was important, courageous, clear and objective. It would assist him in his future work.

It tied in perfectly with the hard work of Mr Jurgens on the execution of decisions. He expressed immense gratitude and respect for the work of Mr Jurgens. It had been a privilege to chair a committee that contained members of the stature of the rapporteur and others. However, consideration of the Court was core business and it was disappointing that so few members of the Assembly had attended the debate. After all, upholding the values of the Court was upholding democracy itself.

THE PRESIDENT. – The debate is closed, but I hope that you will not mind if I, as the newest member of this Assembly, having been here for only two days – although I attended 30 years ago – express the appreciation that members clearly feel for the work of Mr Jurgens. You have spent a long time doing a very good job here in this Assembly. That was reflected in this afternoon’s debate. Being a member of the same group, I know that we share much. On behalf of everyone here, I wish you well and thank you for all your work, especially on the important matter that we have been discussing.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which one amendment has been tabled, and a draft recommendation in Document 11355.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

We now come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Mrs Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc, Mr Erik Jurgens and Mr Dick Marty, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 17.5., insert the following sub-paragraph:

"in all cases where applicants are represented by duly appointed legal representatives, channel all communications with applicants related to the case before the Court, including offers of friendly settlements, through their representatives."

I call Mr Pourgourides to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – The amendment is self-explanatory. We simply want governments to communicate any offers or documents through the applicants’ representatives to avoid the risk of putting pressure on the applicants.

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.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11183, as amended. A simple majority is required.

The vote is open.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole draft recommendation contained in Document 11183. A two-thirds majority is required.

The vote is open.

(Mr Schmied, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Prescott.)

9. Honouring of obligations and commitments by Moldova

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Moldova, presented by Mrs Durrieu and Mr Vareikis on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Document 11374).

The list of speakers, which has been distributed, closed at noon, and 10 amendments have been tabled. I remind you that we have already agreed that if necessary we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 6.45 p.m.

I call first Mrs Durrieu, the co-rapporteur. You have eight minutes to be shared with Mr Vareikis.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) noted that she was speaking in the presence of the Speaker of the Moldovan Parliament. Moldova had joined the Assembly in 1995 and the Assembly’s last monitoring report had been adopted in 2005. Much had advanced during this time and it might be that the current level of monitoring would be deemed excessive in the near future. Political stability in the country was now a given, with real strides having been made to complete legislative reform. Moldova was well on the road to having a real democratic system in place.

The main supplier of oil, gas, and other commodities continued to be Russia. Moldova enjoyed an increase in gross domestic product of 46% but the annual growth rate was only in the region of 4% to 8%. Negotiations over the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict continued to be stalled with progress remaining to be seen in the issue of withdrawal of the Russian army and weapons. Embargoes on the import and transit of goods from the region were to be in place. The Transnistrian conflict continued to be a serious problem that weighted heavily on Moldova’s future.

The European Union neighbourhood policy would not be enough to deal with those problems. The Assembly needed to do more through its assistance programmes to support Moldova’s development. She wished Moldova well in its future progress.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Vareikis, the co-rapporteur, who has the balance of the speaking time.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania). – Thank you very much. I want to add a few important things to what my colleague said. The resolution and recommendation of 2005 were taken seriously by Moldova. The country declared ambitious goals to take on board the recommendation and resolution and to finalise monitoring in what was possibly a rather short period of time. The list of 19 laws was prepared and the country decided to implement them, taking into account consultations with the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission.

After two years, many of the promises have been fulfilled, but nevertheless there have been delays. Because of that, implementation was late and there was no opportunity for us to see how the laws were really functioning. That is one of the reasons why we cannot say that everything is okay.

Some serious problems persist in the country, as my colleague has already mentioned. The country still does not have media freedom. According to the Corruption Perceptions Index the country is still highly corrupt. In terms of economic freedom, it is only partially free. The data are improving but we would like to see a brighter picture as soon as possible.

There are positive developments in the country; it is now trying to be more active in international relations. A few years ago, the country was forgotten by Europe and was in the shadow of international events. Now, it is becoming more active in international forums. That is a positive signal that perhaps next time we shall be able to say much better things.

In my view the report is optimistic. It permits the country to try to work with the support of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you Mr Vareikis. In the debate, I call Mrs Hajiyeva on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.

Mrs HAJIYEVA (Azerbaijan). – Mr President, distinguished colleagues, today we are discussing the obligations and commitments of Moldova – our colleagues who joined our influential organisation in 1995. If we compare that year with the achievements of the country today, we can see that it has achieved crucial success in democratisation. Moldova has advanced significantly in democratic reforms covering all spheres of life – economic, social and judicial. Moldova has signed and ratified 63 Council of Europe Conventions.

Yesterday in this Chamber, we discussed a report on the activities of the International Organization for Migration. During our discussions, we called on all Council of Europe countries who are not part of the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings to ratify the convention. It is with great satisfaction that I underline the fact that Moldova is one of the countries that has signed and ratified the convention, and I hope that that will serve as an example to other countries to do the same in the foreseeable future.

Moldova implemented many of its obligations and honoured many of its commitments to the Council of Europe, and that is an important part of Moldova’s fidelity to its obligations. I want to underline the fact that the country is now passing into the next period of implementation and fulfilment of the legal framework that has been adopted. Having a solid and sustainable legal framework is important in pushing forward democratic reform, but it is equally important to have practical fulfilment of adopted laws.

I would like to congratulate my Moldovan colleagues, the members of the Parliamentary Assembly delegation, on their tremendous contribution to co-operation with the Council of Europe and their participation in all the negotiations and steps undertaken by the state. I also want to underline some important issues. Moldova established an office for the European Commission delegation. The European Union appointed a special representative for the country. Those steps were undertaken for European integration by our colleagues in Moldova. At the same time, the European People's Party stresses that additional measures should be undertaken as soon as possible, including the adoption of new legislation on the judiciary, on the general prosecutors office and political parties, and acceptance of the concept of education and local self-government.

Finally, I call on my Moldovan colleagues to push forward in the fight against corruption – that scourge not only of Moldova but of some other countries of the former Soviet Union – and to do their best to honour all their obligations to the Council of Europe.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Hancock on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. I remind all speakers that they have four minutes.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Mr President, I am grateful to the rapporteurs for their work. The previous speaker referred to Moldova’s 12 years’ membership of the Council of Europe and the 63 conventions, but the report does not go beyond that. It has not found out whether the people of Moldova have actually benefited from Moldova’s membership of the Council of Europe and the 63 conventions.

Rules and conventions are good only if the people of the country feel comfortable with them and can use them, will not be abused because of them and are able to have a better life because of them. There is not a shred of evidence in the report of that for the average Moldovan.

I was in Moldova before it joined our Assembly. I am confident of the robust nature of the Moldovan personality to overcome many of the things talked about in the report, but surely we are entitled to know whether the political system in Moldova is robust enough to give people a reason for staying there. Moldova has been singled out time and again in this Assembly as the place to go when there is a problem.

Surely the people of Moldova deserve better than that. If babies, organs and women are being trafficked, the first port of call in most instances is Moldova. If the Assembly is so concerned about Moldova, we should have a Council of Europe office there so that our representatives can work with the Moldovan people and NGOs to make the dream that is associated with membership of this place a reality.

The lives of many innocent people in countries such as Moldova have been affected by the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union. We should have given them the confidence that their rights would be better protected than they were before, but that was not the case and the report should explain why. As I said, signing conventions is meaningless if they are not implemented to the benefit of the people on whose behalf they are signed.

The political system in Moldova cannot deal with many of its problems without a huge amount of outside assistance from the EU, us and others – long may we continue to do that – but we need a co-ordinated approach. There has never been a satisfactory explanation of why the Russians went back on their agreed position of withdrawing their troops and disarming Transnistria. Surely the Assembly is owed an explanation of why that has not happened. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of President Putin and his executive to give us the reason why. We continuously write about it, but never get an explanation. The report once again falls short of explaining to the Assembly the reasons for that.

Moldova needs and deserves the full support of this Organisation. Parliamentarians – some of them against the odds – and locally elected officials such as my friend Mr Serafim Urechean are worthy of support. They have tried to do what they set out to achieve, which was, as I said this morning on another issue, to make a difference in Moldova. The people of Moldova deserve that and we as an Assembly should be working to create that situation. Sadly, however, this report denies the reality of the situation. It addresses the legality, but it ignores the reality.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I call Mr Solonin on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr SOLONIN (Russian Federation) said that the report of the Monitoring sub-committee had been based on a thorough study of the issues continuing to affect Moldova. His group agreed with the general assessment of the report and saw that Moldova needed to continue to take steps forward with the democratically implemented legislation to ensure that its commitment to the Council of Europe became a reality. One problem raised in the report was that of the Transnistrian conflict. It would be better to allow the involved parties to find a way of tackling the conflict together. He could not agree that the Moldovan solution to the conflict was the only possible solution and therefore wished to amend the report to reflect this. He pointed out that the referendum held in Transnistria demonstrated the opinion of a high percentage of the population, a fact which could have been made clearer in the report. However, there were other useful areas in the report.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Solonin. I call Mr Platvoet on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – As Mr Vareikis said, the report has an optimistic ring to it. I agree, but my line in life is to be optimistic about the future and realistic about the present. One of the positive things mentioned in the report is the economic growth in Moldova, which has reduced the number of people who live below the poverty line from 75% in 2001 to 24% in 2006. It is not an official figure, but if it is right, it is a big achievement. I hope that it is also to do with the politics of the government. Perhaps the committee can reflect on that.

The report says that many things are better. Mr Hancock is right: we cannot just look at the situation on paper; we must also look at the reality. There are developments in the broadcasting sector and the media.

On the other hand, however, there are many things still to do, as was mentioned in the report. I shall not repeat them except to say there is a great emphasis on local government – a great deal of attention is paid to that issue, which is remarkable if one looks at all the other monitoring reports. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, only a few months ago, local elections were held in Moldova. I want to ask the rapporteurs whether they believe whether the running of things on a local level creates a genuine obstacle to the democratisation of Moldovan society.

May I emphasise another issue? Moldova has been a member state since 1995 as I said, but it is still subject to the monitoring procedure after 12 or 13 years. We should all agree that that cannot last for ever. In real life, one cannot be a child for ever, and that cannot happen in politics either. We in the Council of Europe should not mix up the ending of a monitoring procedure with the desire to accede to the European Union. That has sometimes happened in the past, for example, in Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey, where the ending of monitoring was more or less used as a tool for accession to the European Union. I do not think that that is right. The Moldovan monitoring committee should consider what to do with the monitoring procedure if it takes too long. Is it realistic for it to last for ever or – this is my question for the rapporteurs – should we be more precise in our expectation of what the country involved should improve within a certain period to end the monitoring procedure? What measures should the Moldovan authorities take to pursue that opportunity and open the window to end the monitoring procedure? Can the rapporteurs be more precise and concrete on that question?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. We will now hear from delegates speaking as individuals. I call Mr Nessa.

Mr NESSA (Italy) said that it had been a few years since the Assembly had last considered a resolution on Moldova. In 2005, Moldova appeared to be a tragic country without hope for the future. However, two years later it had moved forward on a path assisted by the Council of Europe and had consolidated many of its achievements in the areas highlighted by the Assembly. The authorities had made huge efforts to increase human rights protection. Moldova should be allowed to take full membership in the Council of Europe and should be assisted with advice as necessary. Moldova was part of Europe and it sought to be integrated with the rest of the continent. Moldova recognised that it had to resolve the outstanding social issues and its parliament had done much to assist this. There was concern that the country may shortly be in danger of division. He reminded the Assembly that history had not shown successful separations of nations. Moldova was a multi-ethnic, multi-linguist society that should learn to exist as a country without division.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Nessa. I call Mr Rigoni.

Mr RIGONI (Italy) said that, since 2005, Moldova had taken great strides forward in making major democratic reforms. That demonstrated the major role that the Council of Europe had in developing this former Russian state. It was good to recognise that such progress was possible. Moldova had improved its legal system, increased the freedom of its media and improved the human rights of its citizens. There were many areas that required further improvement, but legislation had been brought forward to address those issues. The democratic reform process in Moldova still needed support.

As colleagues had said, there was still abject poverty in Moldova, but the country was heading in the right direction. It was an excellent report on the monitoring role played by the Council of Europe. It was time for the Council to show support and solidarity for Moldova and to recognise achievements while encouraging it to do more. The Council of Europe needed to show faith in Moldova, to bring its monitoring role to a close and to move towards a post–monitoring status. Moldova had done enough to deserve this and in any case, it would not mean the end of oversight.

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

Mr CUBREACOV (Moldova) thanked the rapporteurs for their work and said that Moldova supported the resolution and recommendations, which reflected the progress of Moldova and would encourage the reforms to continue. There was only one sensitive and regrettable aspect of the report, in paragraph 51 of the explanatory memorandum. This stated that national minorities were not represented in parliament because there was only one constituency. The Moldovan system had a central electoral commission which decided on constituencies. The conflict in Transnistria covered 12% of the country’s territory. The Moldovan Parliament wanted to reflect the whole country and not to exclude the occupied territory. This was why there was one constituency.

In parliament, the percentage of representation for minorities was higher than that in the general population and the percentage belonging to the majority ethnicity was lower. That had to be unique in the Council of Europe. In the last parliament, there had been 101 members of parliament, of whom 61% were Moldovan-Romanian and 39% were minorities. In the present parliament, the figures were 77% and 23%. Other Council of Europe countries such as France and Lithuania could not claim to have done this well. The Moldovan delegation rejected any aspersions on this matter.

The biggest problem for Moldova was the foreign military presence in the east, the Transnistrian Russian-Moldovan conflict. He urged Russia to withdraw its troops. The Russian Federation had obligations to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and to the Council of Europe which had never been honoured. Moldova still had to make an effort to complete the monitoring process, but all parties, including the opposition, were aware that more dialogue with the European Union was needed so that Moldova could become a fully fledged member of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. In order to achieve this, Moldova needed the encouragement and support of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Cubreacov. I call Mr Çavuşoğlu.

Mr Çavuşoğlu is not here. I call Mr Cosarciuc.

Mr COSARCIUC (Moldova). – Thank you, Mr President.

I want to thank the rapporteurs for doing a good job and producing an optimistic report. We had the opportunity to present observations and proposals during the drafting of the report. Some of those points have been taken into account, but some observations were not included. In particular, I refer to the distortion of the pro-European political partnership in the Moldovan Parliament and the conceptual defects of the reforms adopted in recent years, which deviate from Council of Europe recommendations and expertise. That has resulted in problems involving the law, the judiciary, the media and press freedom, the development of civil society and the political system, and freedom of cultural identity, including the language and history of the ethnic majority.

I will discuss the issues in the order in which they are presented in the report. It is wrong to confuse the term “Presidential majority” with the political partnership in the Moldovan Parliament. Without exception, all political groups support the European integration option. Relations with Romania are periodically strained, but Romania is the most convenient way to get closer to the European Union.

Settlement of the Transnistrian conflict has not been achieved. Russia has stopped withdrawing troops, weapons and equipment from Transnistria, something that it had agreed to do at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe summit in Istanbul in 1999. That is also one of the commitments that Russia took on when it joined the Council of Europe – a commitment that was reaffirmed by the Assembly in its Resolution 1455 on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation. To emphasise the need to change the situation, I have tabled amendments to the draft recommendation.

On the basis of the assessment criteria laid out in the OSCE code of good practice I consider that the local elections in June 2007 were unfair and not free. Despite that fact, 21 out of 32 districts were taken by the coalition of democratic parties.

The imperfections in reforms of the media, especially in the audio-visual sector, have been illustrated by recent disturbances. The Broadcasting Co-ordination Council, which is allegedly independent, has refused to recognise the degree of political domination. The main criticism of the TeleRadioMoldova company, which has been confirmed by the monitoring of independent experts, is its lack of pluralism in its informative broadcasts.

On the modification of the history curriculum, the introduction of “integrated history” has an obvious ideological connotation. Its introduction was forced by pressure from the current authorities. Such practices are suggestive of the character of that regime – they are totalitarian, and should be reformed. That is why I am convinced that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe must be more trenchant in ascertaining the realities in Moldova and accelerate the fulfilment of commitments to the Council of Europe.

Why have I spoken so critically about the problems of our country? I wanted to prove that we are aware of the remaining problems and will try to promote the fulfilment of the Republic of Moldova’s commitments to the Council of Europe. After the 2009 parliamentary elections, we will launch post-monitoring procedures. I hope that the report, resolution and recommendation will be used in the interests of the Republic of Moldova and not in the interests of propaganda by those in power.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Postoico.

Mrs POSTOICO (Moldova) thanked the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for its support and assessment of the reforms in Moldova, and said that Mrs Durrieu and Mr Vareikis had played a special role as rapporteurs. Their report represented the situation in Moldova. Since its entry into the Council of Europe more than 10 years ago, Moldova had taken many positive steps closer to European values and standards. The Council of Europe needed to be aware of the facts to assess its progress.

The resolution welcomed the political stability that had emerged after the 2005 elections and its recommendations comprised a list of reforms for full compliance with the Council of Europe’s standards. The Moldovan Parliament had brought in a range of measures and implementing them was a priority for the Government. Over the last two years, the main achievement had been political stability, but work had also taken place on partnership with the European Union concerning Transnistria and the promotion of democracy, judicial reform, electoral legislation, freedom of the press and parliamentary procedure. The parliament had decided to publish a verbatim report of its proceedings on a website and now many other organs of the state were doing the same. The opposition had a majority in the central court and the central electoral commission.

There was still work to be done. In the autumn session of parliament, there would be legislation on political parties, education and other Council of Europe recommendations. In September 2007, Moldova had met representatives of the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co–operation in Europe in Brussels to discuss corruption and to assess the progress made so far. This was an important issue. It was not sufficient just to have good laws, they also needed to be enforced. There were still some problems concerning judicial independence and the separation of powers, but the Bar Association would be given independence. She hoped that the level of stability achieved since 2005 would be maintained and that legislative reforms would be successful.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Postoico. I call Mr Pozzo di Borgo. He is not here. I call Mr Lotman.

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). – Let me first congratulate the rapporteurs on their thorough work. For me, the overall impression of the report is that Moldova is doing a great job and moving in the right direction. There are still several obstacles to be overcome but in most cases it is clear that Moldova is going to do it by simply continuing on the path that it is treading now – the path of democratic development. Most of the obstacles seem just items to be solved by continual adherence to its present course – that is, all obstacles but one. The one and only obstacle to be a significant challenge to Moldova is the Transnistrian problem. That problem is the most significant one because the solution, sadly, is not in the hands of the Moldovan authorities, however committed they might be to finding a way out.

The main cause of the continued crisis, I am sad to say, is the presence of the Russian troops – the so-called peacekeeping army in the region. As far as my knowledge goes, these troops have no legal mandate whatsoever. We therefore now face the situation whereby armed forces of a Council of Europe member state are illegally occupying part of the sovereign territory of another member state, and by doing so, standing in the way of the member state in question in fully implementing the Council of Europe’s recommendations.

This absurd situation must be resolved and it must be resolved now. Russia has to withdraw its troops from Moldovan territory immediately. I therefore fully agree with the resolution and with Amendment No. 7, which urges Russia to withdraw its forces and arms from the territory of Moldova. I am sad to say that it again speaks in negative tones about Russia, but it is not meant just to be critical but to show the way to a solution. Of course, I would like to wish the Moldovan authorities good luck and unceasing commitment to the democratic development of the country, so that what depends on them will be solved and solved fast.

THE PRESIDENT. – That concludes the list of speakers.

I call Mrs Durrieu and Mr Vareikis, rapporteurs, to reply. They have four minutes.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that the Assembly agreed on many things including that Moldova still had progress to make. Optimism was like happiness: it was all relative. The Council of Europe needed to be realistic and to compare Moldova’s situation with that of 10 years ago. Major progress had been made. Section 16 of the resolution listed the further improvements needed, particularly in the area of justice. More local autonomy was desirable as well as decentralisation. This was difficult but vital. Legislation on education and a proper debate on that subject had not yet occurred. Further progress was needed on corruption.

She thanked colleagues for their comments on Transnistria and said that a solution was difficult to find. The international community could not do any more about this frozen conflict. Russia needed to act and, at present, there was not enough pressure for it to do so. Moldova needed to be assured of its territorial integrity. It was an important time for Moldova, leading up to the next elections. The last elections had not been entirely satisfactory, but the experience of the recent local elections had demonstrated that democracy was starting to penetrate into all areas of the country.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mrs Durrieu. Does Mr Vareikis wish to speak?

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania). – I want to respond to Mr Solonin, who suggested that Moldova and Transnistria should take part in bilateral talks to solve the problem. That is impossible because of the legal differences between the two entities. It is not possible to have negotiations between one legal state—Moldova—and an illegal, even criminal, regime.

I want to mention pessimism and optimism. Here, we often discuss ways of avoiding new dividing lines in Europe. We must avoid creating dividing lines between successful and unsuccessful countries. We must do what we can to help those countries that are still under the monitoring procedure and do not have full democracy to catch up as soon as possible, and thus make them more optimistic.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Vareikis.

Does the chairperson of the committee, Mr Lintner, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that this report was another example of how helpful monitoring reports could be. The report provided a check list for improvements to be made and also set out in the medium to long term the progress that was required in Moldova. He thanked the co-rapporteurs and the Secretariat for their work on the report, which would assist Moldova in its efforts to meet its obligations to the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The debate is closed.

The Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe has presented a draft resolution in Document 11374, to which eight amendments, two sub-amendments and one oral amendment have been tabled. They will be taken in the following order: 2 and a sub-amendment, 3, 4 and a sub-amendment, 8, 9, 10, 1, 5 and oral amendment 1.

A draft recommendation has been presented in Document 11374, to which two amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled, which will be taken in the order: 6 and 7 and a sub-amendment.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

We now come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr Vlad Cubreacov, Mr Antti Kaikkonen, Mrs Minodora Cliveti and Mrs Angela Leahu, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace the words "The Assembly appreciates the efforts of the Moldovan authorities to pursue decisive, comprehensive and hopefully irreversible reforms." with the following sentence:

"The Assembly considers that now is the right moment for the Moldovan authorities to complete the ongoing reforms with regard to the implementation of democratic standards and practices."

I call Mr Cosarciuc to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr COSARCIUC (Moldova). – We presented this amendment to stress to the Assembly that now is the right moment for the Moldovan authorities to complete their ongoing reforms on implementing democratic standards and practices. We ask our colleagues to support the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We come to Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mrs Josette Durrieu, on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), which is, in Amendment No 2, replace “The Assembly considers that now is the right moment for the Moldovan authorities to complete the ongoing reforms with regard to the implementation of democratic standards and practices” with the following:

“The Assembly appreciates the efforts of the Moldovan authorities and considers that now is the right moment to complete the decisive reforms which are being carried out in order to implement the essential democratic practices.”

I call Mrs Durrieu to support the sub-amendment.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that Amendment No. 2 had incorporated part of the original text. She considered the co-rapporteur’s wording to be satisfactory and it had been agreed by the committee.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr COSARCIUC (Moldova). – We discussed the sub-amendment in the Monitoring Committee today and we agree with Mrs Durrieu’s proposal.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 2, as amended?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

We now come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr Vlad Cubreacov, Mr Antti Kaikkonen, Mrs Minodora Cliveti and Mrs Angela Leahu, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, replace the sentence "It requests the mediators (Russian Federation, Ukraine and OSCE), the parties concerned (Moldova and the separatist region of Transnistria), and the EU and the US as observers to spare no efforts to resume the search for a solution, despite the obstruction by the Tiraspol separatist leadership." with the following sentence:

"It requests all the participants in the negotiations (Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine, US, EU, OSCE and the illegal administration of Tiraspol), to spare no efforts to resume the search for a solution, despite the obstruction by the Tiraspol separatist leadership."

I call Mr Cubreacov to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr CUBREACOV (Moldova) said that the co-rapporteurs’ version of this paragraph referenced the Russian Federation as only a mediator whereas the European Court of Human Rights’ rulings, and indeed reality, suggested that the Russian Federation was one of the participants in the negotiations. This amendment aimed to ensure that the parties involved were listed without categorisation.

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

I call Mr Vareikis.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania). – I have nothing against what Mr Cubreacov is saying. He is right in theory but, in writing the resolution, we tried to stick to the existing format of the talks, which is 5 plus 2. We included the names of those in the 5 plus 2 format in the report, so we would like to keep the text as it is.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany) (Translation). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr Vlad Cubreacov, Mr Antti Kaikkonen, Mrs Minodora Cliveti and Mrs Angela Leahu, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 18.1., after the words "freedoms and pluralism of the mass media" add the following words:

", through the transformation of TeleRadioMoldova into a genuine public service broadcaster, as defined in Assembly Recommendation 1641 (2004) on public service broadcasting;"

I call Mr Cosarciuc to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr COSARCIUC (Moldova). – We presented the amendment to strengthen the freedom and pluralism of the mass media in Moldova through the transformation of TeleRadioMoldova into a genuine public service broadcaster. I want to insist on the amendment because, since 2002, different resolutions of the Council of Europe have included a clause about transforming TeleRadioMoldova.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We come to Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mrs Josette Durrieu, on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), which is, in Amendment no 4, replace “, through the transformation of TeleRadioMoldova into a genuine public service broadcaster, as defined in” with the following:

“within the framework of a genuine public broadcasting service, as defined in”.

I call Mrs Durrieu to support the sub-amendment.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that earlier texts had referred to TeleRadioMoldova, but, after consideration, it had been agreed to refer to the media in general terms. The committee had agreed that morning to refer to the framework of the genuine public broadcasting service.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr COSARCIUC (Moldova). – Our position is to vote for the amendment as proposed.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 4, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mrs Angelika Graf, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mr Doug Henderson, Mr Denis MacShane, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Abdülkadir Ateş, Mr Indrek Saar, Mr György Frunda, Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger and Mr Boriss Cilevičs, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 18.2., insert the following sub-paragraph:

“to implement without delay the plans to transfer responsibility for pre-trial detention from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Justice in order to ensure the separation between investigatory and custodial functions and to ensure that detainees who are remanded in custody are not returned to the custody of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for questioning or other investigative work;”

I call Mrs Graf to support Amendment No. 8.

Mrs GRAF (Germany) said that this amendment called attention to the plans to transfer responsibility for pre-trial detention from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Justice. It was important to ensure that individuals were not returned to police custody from pre-trial detention.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mrs Angelika Graf, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mr Denis MacShane, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Abdülkadir Ateş, Mr Indrek Saar, Mr György Frunda, Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger and Mr Boriss Cilevičs, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 18.2., insert the following sub-paragraph:

“to ensure that all allegations of police ill-treatment or torture are subject to prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigations and subsequent prosecution where appropriate;”

I call Mrs Graf to support Amendment No. 9.

Mrs GRAF (Germany) said that this amendment raised the issue that all allegations of police ill-treatment or torture should be subject to prompt, independent and impartial investigation.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mrs Angelika Graf, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mr Denis MacShane, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Abdülkadir Ateş, Mr Indrek Saar, Mr György Frunda, Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger and Mr Boriss Cilevičs, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 18.2., insert the following sub-paragraph:

“to implement fully and without delay all recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) and to establish a National Preventative Mechanism that satisfies the requirements of the Optional Protocol of the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT), which has been ratified by Moldova;”

I call Mrs Graf to support Amendment No. 10.

Mrs GRAF (Germany) said that often the most effective deterrence to inhumane treatment against prisoners was to visit the prisons concerned. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment had paid nine visits to prisons in Moldova. Moldova had recently ratified the Optional Protocol of the Convention Against Torture, and it was hoped that the Assembly would participate in more monitoring in future.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

I understand that Mr Cosarciuc would like to withdraw Amendment No. 5 in light of an oral amendment tabled by Mr Lintner on behalf of the Monitoring Committee. Does anyone else wish to move it?

That is not the case. It is withdrawn.

We come to amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr John Austin, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Gianpaolo Silvestri, Mr Paul Flynn and Mr Dirk Dees, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 18.3., insert the following words:

“, including sexual minorities;”

I call Mr Austin to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr AUSTIN (United Kingdom). – I am moving this amendment because this is an area where little or no progress appears to have been made. With regard to the amendment that has just been withdrawn, the Council of Ministers has indeed praised Moldova on the progress it has made. Where there has not been progress however, has been on the continued harassment and persecution of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gender community. It is right that we highlight their fundamental human rights too.

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

I call Mr Vareikis.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania). – There are several reasons to reject the proposal. One is that the text of the report stated that the rights of all minorities were respected. This seems to be a matter of fashion. Sexual minorities are now fashionable. Ten years ago, everybody talked about ethnic minorities and five years ago they talked about religious minorities; now it is sexual minorities. Why not cover everyone under one provision?

Secondly, today we heard the speech of the Russian Patriarch who told us what he thinks about sexual minorities. I think a lot of people would agree with him, so I suggest that we reject the proposal.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

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

In the draft resolution, in paragraph 18.4, after the words “national minorities”, replace the words “in particular” with the following words: “through the promotion of studies in these languages and the improvement of state language study in schools, and”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 34 which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more Members to it 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. I therefore call Mr Lintner to support oral Amendment No. 1. You have one minute.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that this amendment was a logical restructuring of the text for linguistic reasons.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – 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.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11374, as amended.

The vote is open.

We now vote on the draft recommendation to which there are two amendments and one sub-amendment.

I call Mr Cosarciuc to move Amendment No. 6.

Mr COSARCIUC (Moldova) (Translation). – We have decided to withdraw Amendment No. 6.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to take over this amendment? Apparently not. Amendment No. 6 is withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr Vlad Cubreacov, Mr Antti Kaikkonen, Mrs Minodora Cliveti and Mrs Angela Leahu, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 7.1., after the words “at the 1999 OSCE Summit in Istanbul”, replace the words “as well as” with the following words:

“and to urge the Russian authorities to take measures with regard to the withdrawal of the Russian military forces and their equipment (weapons) from the territory of Moldova, carrying out this withdrawal, which should have been completed by October 1997, without further delay, as well as to become fully involved”.

The Monitoring Committee has submitted a sub-amendment. I call Mr Cosarciuc to move Amendment No. 7.

Mr COSARCIUC (Moldova). – The amendment is important for Moldova. We want to urge the Russian authorities to take measures to withdraw Russian military forces from the territory of Moldova. That withdrawal should have been completed by October 1997 and should happen without further delay. A ministerial meeting in December 2006 failed to adopt a declaration on Moldova for the fourth time in a row because Russia opposed a reference in the text to its commitments under the Istanbul Agreement.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We come to Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 7 tabled by Mrs Josette Durrieu, on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), which is, in Amendment No. 7, replace the words “and to urge the Russian authorities to take measures with regard to the withdrawal of the Russian military forces and their equipment (weapons) from the territory of Moldova, carrying out this withdrawal, which should have been completed by October 1997, without further delay, as well as to become fully involved” with the following:

“and to urge the Russian authorities to withdraw Russian military forces and their equipment (weapons) from the territory of Moldova in line with existing commitments”

and add these words at the end of paragraph 7.1.

I call Mrs Durrieu to support the sub-amendment.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that the committee had accepted the idea in the report but wished to adapt the language. The amendment was a different way of saying the same thing.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr COSARCIUC (Moldova). – We have discussed the sub-amendment and agree with it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The committee is obviously in favour. The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 7, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11374, as amended. I remind the Assembly that a two-thirds majority is required.

The vote is open.

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

10. Statement by Mr Marian Lupu, President of the Moldovan Parliament

THE PRESIDENT. – We now have the honour of hearing a statement by Mr Lupu, President of the Moldovan Parliament. I thank him for his constructive co-operation with our Assembly and for the co-operation that we encountered in our many talks and visits.

Mr Lupu, you have the floor.

Mr LUPU (President of the Moldovan Parliament). – Thank you, Mr President, for offering me the opportunity to make a short address to the Assembly.

I thank all members of the Assembly for the positive vote on the draft recommendation and resolution on Moldova. In particular, I want to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Durrieu and Mr Vareikis. I must say that their requirements were often very tough, but I well understand that being tough in that sense reflects their goodwill in wanting to assist the country on its way towards consolidating democracy in Moldova, towards integration, towards building up the rule of law, and towards consolidating the system for respecting human rights.

What the Moldovan Parliament has achieved over the past two years is a result of the efforts of all Moldovan MPs, irrespective of their political colour. Together we have engaged in a complex but important exercise to promote democratic, political, economic and social reforms in our country. It is due to their efforts that Moldova managed to achieve results in those last two years that are much more important than those that we managed to achieve in the previous fifteen years, since we became a member of the Council of Europe in 1995.

In the framework of this exercise, it is important to say that everything that the Moldovan Parliament did to reform legislation was not done to give pleasure to somebody. We did it because those reforms were important for the country itself – for our society and the population of the Republic of Moldova. In fact, the Council of Europe and European standards are our models for economic, democratic and social development, and there are no alternatives. That is why we are motivated and keen to continue the process of adjusting our legislation and the functioning systems in our country, bringing them in line with European standards.

There is another aspect to the exercise which is no less important. Two years ago, we made some concrete commitments in this Assembly. Now we can say that we have fulfilled those commitments in a serious way, and that is because of the co-operation of all political parties, irrespective, as I said, of their political colour. At this stage, the Moldovan political élite – the political class – is fully aware of the importance of consolidating our success if we are to achieve our three key objectives: the integration of the country, the reintegration of Moldova and the promotion of democratic reforms.

I thank all members of the Assembly, the Monitoring Committee and its chairman for the huge amount of work that they have done to support the Republic of Moldova.

The two documents on which you voted in the Chamber send an extremely important political signal. It is a much-needed message of political encouragement for my country, its political élite and for society as a whole which on European Union integration for the Moldovan Republic.

(The speaker continued in French) He said that the Moldovan Parliament was grateful for the decision taken by the Council of Europe today. He realised that there was much more work to be done and that it was important to move forward as quickly as possible. Moldovans wanted to take great strides towards achieving post-monitoring status in the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. The Assembly of the Council of Europe very much appreciates the fact that you were present during the debate, and especially the fact that you gave your personal commitment to the obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe, including your underlining of the need to look at the way in which those commitments are implemented in citizens’ daily lives. Thank you very much. I wish you all the best, and your country, too.

11. Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRESIDENT. – I will now announce the results of the ballot in the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. I shall announce the result in respect of each country in turn, in alphabetical order.

Albania

Numbers of members voting: 190

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 21

Votes cast: 169

Absolute majority required: 85

The votes cast were as follows:

Mrs Evis Alimehmeti: 30

Mr Ledi Bianku: 136

Mr Armand Skapi: 3

Accordingly, Mr Bianku, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, I declare him elected a member of the European Court of Human Rights, for a term of office starting on 1 February 2008 and ending on 31 January 2014.

Andorra

Numbers of members voting: 190

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 22

Votes cast: 168

Absolute majority required: 85

The votes cast were as follows:

Mr Josep Casadevall Medrano: 143

Mrs Maïtena Manciet Fouchier: 19

Mr Marc Vila Amigó: 6

Accordingly, Mr Casadevall Medrano, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, I declare him elected a member of the European Court of Human Rights, for a term of office starting on 1 November 2007 and ending on 31 October 2013.

Armenia

Numbers of members voting: 190

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 20

Votes cast: 170

Absolute majority required: 86

The votes cast were as follows:

Mrs Alvina Gyulumyan: 148

Mrs Nelik Haroutiounyan: 13

Mr Gevorg Kostanyan: 9

Accordingly, Mrs Gyulumyan, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, I declare her elected a member of the European Court of Human Rights, for a term of office starting on 1 November 2007 and ending on 31 October 2013.

Austria

Numbers of members voting: 190

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 16

Votes cast: 174

Absolute majority required: 88

The votes cast were as follows:

Mrs Ursula Kriebaum: 22

Mr Stefan Rosenmayr: 14

Mrs Elisabeth Steiner: 138

Accordingly, Mrs Steiner, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, I declare her elected a member of the European Court of Human Rights, for a term of office starting on 1 November 2007 and ending on 31 October 2013.

Cyprus

Numbers of members voting: 190

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 24

Votes cast: 166

Absolute majority required: 84

The votes cast were as follows:

Mrs Elena Efrem: 32

Mr George Nicolaou: 131

Mr George A Serghides: 3

Accordingly, Mr Nicolaou, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, I declare him elected a member of the European Court of Human Rights, for a term of office starting on 1 February 2008 and ending on 31 January 2014.

Denmark

Numbers of members voting: 190

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 16

Votes cast: 174

Absolute majority required: 88

The votes cast were as follows:

Mr Stig Glent-Madsen: 12

Ms Nina Holst-Christensen: 37

Mr Peer Lorenzen: 125

Accordingly, Mr Lorenzen, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, I declare him elected a member of the European Court of Human Rights, for a term of office starting on 1 November 2007 and ending on 31 October 2013.

Georgia

Numbers of members voting: 190

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 21

Votes cast: 169

Absolute majority required: 85

The votes cast were as follows:

Mr Irakli Adeishvili: 21

Ms Nona Tsotsoria: 138

Mr Konstantine Vardzelashvili: 10

Accordingly, Ms Tsotsoria, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, I declare her elected a member of the European Court of Human Rights, for a term of office starting on 1 February 2008 and ending on 31 January 2014.

Hungary

Numbers of members voting: 190

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 24

Votes cast: 166

Absolute majority required: 84

The votes cast were as follows:

Mr Jenő Kaltenbach: 54

Mrs Erzsébet Kardos-Kaponyi: 18

Mr András Sajó: 94

Accordingly, Mr Sajó, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, I declare him elected a member of the European Court of Human Rights, for a term of office starting on 1 February 2008 and ending on 31 January 2014.

Italy

Numbers of members voting: 190

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 19

Votes cast: 171

Absolute majority required: 86

The votes cast were as follows:

Ms Mariavaleria Del Tufo: 30

Mr Guido Raimondi: 10

Mr Vladimiro Zagrebelsky: 131

Accordingly, Mr Zagrebelsky, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, I declare him elected a member of the European Court of Human Rights, for a term of office starting on 1 November 2007 and ending on 31 October 2013.

Romania

Numbers of members voting: 190

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 18

Votes cast: 172

Absolute majority required: 87

The votes cast were as follows:

Mr Corneliu Bîrsan: 142

Mr Gheorghe Buta: 9

Mrs Elena Cârcei: 21

Accordingly, Mr Bîrsan, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, I declare him elected a member of the European Court of Human Rights, for a term of office starting on 1 November 2007 and ending on 31 October 2013.

Spain

Numbers of members voting: 190

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 46

Votes cast: 144

Absolute majority required: 73

The votes cast were as follows:

Ms Concepción Escobar Hernández: 25

Mr Luis López Guerra: 112

Mr Alejandro Saiz Arnaiz: 7

Accordingly, Mr López Guerra, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, I declare him elected a member of the European Court of Human Rights, for a term of office starting on 1 February 2008 and ending on 31 January 2014.

“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

Numbers of members voting: 190

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 20

Votes cast: 170

Absolute majority required: 86

The votes cast were as follows:

Mr Zoran Gavriloski: 18

Mrs Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska: 142

Mrs Gezime Starova: 10

Accordingly, Mrs Lazarova Trajkovska, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, I declare her elected a member of the European Court of Human Rights, for a term of office starting on 1 February 2008 and ending on 31 January 2014.

These are the results for the 12 elected members of the European Court of Human Rights.

12. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT. – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2007) 7 Addendum 2.

Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

They are agreed to.

13. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT. – In accordance with Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure a written declaration No. 401 on Patriarch Alexy II’s opposition to freedom of assembly for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people (Doc. 11403), which has been signed by 37 members, has been printed.

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

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

THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly holds its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the orders of the day which were approved on Monday 1 October.

Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The orders of the day of the next sitting are therefore agreed.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 7.20 p.m.)

Contents

1.       Minutes of proceedings

2.       Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights

3.       Organisation of debates

4.        Address by Mr Vojislav Koštunica, Prime Minister of Serbia

Questions:

Mr Milo (Albania)

Mr Omtzigt (Netherlands)

Lord Russell-Johnston (United Kingdom)

Mr Messerschmidt (Denmark)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Badré (France)

Mr Németh (Hungary

Mrs Mitreva (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)

Mr Höfer (Germany)

Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

5.       Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights

6.        Current affairs debate

Mr Marty (Switzerland)

Mr Margelov (Russian Federation)

Mr Laakso (Finland)

Mr Bartumeu Cassany (Andorra)

Mr Lintner (Germany)

Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (Germany)

Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)

Mr Haibach (Germany)

Mr Jurgens (Netherlands)

Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

Mr Sharandin (Russian Federation)

7.       Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights

8.       Member states’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights

Presentation by Mr Pourgourides of report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (Doc. 1183)

Speakers:

Mr Jurgens (Netherlands)

Mr Haibach (Germany)

Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (Germany

Mr Sharandin (Russian Federation)

Mrs Durrieu (France)

Mrs Bemelmans-Videc (Netherlands)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mrs Graf (Germany)

Amendment No. 1 adopted.

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation adopted.

9       Honouring of obligations and commitments by Moldova

Presentation by Mrs Durrieu and Mr Vereikis o report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by member States of the Council of Europe

Speakers:

Mrs Hajiyeva (Azerbaijan)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Solonin (Russian Federation)

Mr Platvoet (Netherlands)

Mr Nessa (Italy)

Mr Rigoni (Italy)

Mr Cubreacov (Moldova)

Mr Cosarciuc (Moldova)

Mrs Postoico (Moldova)

Mr Lotman (Estonia)

Replies:

Mrs Durrieu (France)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Lintner (Germany)

Amendments Nos. 2 as amended, 4 as amended, 8 to 10 and 1, and oral Amendment No. 1 adopted.

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.

Amendment No. 7, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted.

10.       Statement by Mr Marian Lupu, President of the Moldovan Parliament

11.       Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights

12.       Changes in the membership of committees

13.       Written declaration

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