2008 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-first Sitting

Tuesday 24 June 2008 at 10 a.m.

Link to the voting results

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 Kyprianou, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Minutes of proceedings

THE PRESIDENT. – The minutes of proceedings of the Nineteenth Sitting have been distributed. If there are no objections, the minutes are agreed to.

They are agreed to.

2. Examination of credentials

THE PRESIDENT. – The first item of business is the examination of credentials of new members submitted in according with Rule 6.

The names of the Representatives and Substitutes are in Document 11645 Addendum 1. If no credentials are contested, the credentials will be ratified.

Are any credentials contested?

The credentials are ratified.

3. 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 (2008) 5 Addendum 2.

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

They are agreed to.

4. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT. – This morning we have a debate on “The functioning of the democratic institutions in Azerbaijan”, followed by a debate on “Empowering women in a modern, multicultural society”.

We will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the first debate at about 11.05 a.m. and the list of speakers in the second debate at about 12.35 p.m. in order to leave sufficient time for the replies on behalf of the committees and the votes. The second debate will start at about 11.50 a.m.

I remind the Assembly that we have already agreed that the speaking time in debates be limited to four minutes.

Are these arrangements agreed?

They are agreed.

5. Functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan

THE PRESIDENT. – The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan presented by Mr Herkel and Mrs Jivkova on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe, Document 11627.

The list of speakers, which has been distributed, closed at 4 p.m. yesterday, and 22 amendments have been tabled.

I remind you that we have already agreed that in order to finish by 11.50 a.m. we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.05 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

I call Mr Herkel and Mrs Jivkova, co-rapporteurs. You have 13 minutes in total to share between you, which you may divide between the presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – We should ask why we have this report just a little more than one year after our previous report and four months before presidential elections in Azerbaijan. Our concern is about human rights and democratisation. Unfortunately, the human rights situation has deteriorated, especially as regards freedom of expression, a free media and journalism, and that can undermine the positive developments, which we would also like to emphasise.

We welcome the adoption of the revised law on freedom of assembly just a couple of weeks before our part-session. We also welcome the fact that a law on money laundering and to counter the financing of terrorism is under consideration in the Azerbaijan Parliament. We hope that that will be adopted as soon as possible.

A revised version of the electoral code has been adopted. That was one of the basic recommendations that was made by us and the Venice Commission. I must admit that not all the basic recommendations were fully addressed by the parliament and there are still problems about the composition of electoral committees, the Central Electoral Commission and the commissions on territories and precincts. There is also the question of how to resolve complaints, which remains open. That means that the management of the process before elections and during elections will very much depend on the political culture and how democratic principles are followed. Therefore, all was not adopted in the best possible way.

It is very important to emphasise the position of arrested journalists. I would like to repeat in this hall again the names of Eynulla Fatullayev, Ganimat Zahidov and Sakit Zahidov – journalists who have been arrested, sentenced and imprisoned. That is not creating a favourable atmosphere just before the elections. Eynulla Fatullayev was editor-in-chief of two newspapers, Realny Azerbaijan and Gundelik Azerbaijan. For economic reasons, the newspapers have closed down and he has been imprisoned for eight and a half years. The same story applies to the chief editor of Azadliq newspaper, Ganimat Zahidov. That newspaper is still published but the staff has been reduced to a very small number, and a basic problem remains. The satirical journalist, Sakit Zahidov, has also been imprisoned. We list in our appendix the different prisoners whom we visited. There are probably some criminal elements, but there are very strong political accusations. We would especially like to address the issue of humanitarian treatment for sick prisoners, whose names appear in our resolution and in the appendices.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Herkel. I call Mrs Jivkova.

      Mrs JIVKOVA (Bulgaria). – Dear colleagues, may I draw your attention to our report about the democratic institutions in Azerbaijan and our draft resolution on the same topic? The observations and conclusions in those documents are the result of two visits to Azerbaijan in February and May this year.

      In those relatively short periods of time, we managed to become quite well acquainted with the basic facts and tendencies in the country’s political life, thanks to the assistance provided by the Parliament of Azerbaijan and by the chair of the Azeri delegation, Mr Samad Seyidov, and the Justice Minister, Mr Fikret Mammadov. During both visits, we had numerous meetings with representatives of the Azeri authorities, the parliamentary majority and opposition leaders, as well as with non-governmental organisations and individual citizens. We also made visits to, and had talks with, the Azeri delegation. I would like to point out that, during our first meeting with President Ilham Aliyev last February, we demanded the release of prisoners, submitting a list of names that we obtained from the NGOs. Afterwards, on 18 March 2008, President Aliyev signed a decree ordering the pardon of 59 prisoners, five of whom had appeared on the NGO list.

      Those valuable opportunities for the exchange of opinions, as well as for fact-finding, helped us to achieve a high degree of objectivity and impartiality in the report, which we had sought. Also helpful was the experience gained over the years by the Monitoring Committee on Azerbaijan. I am personally grateful for the evaluations, impressions and pieces of advice that committee members shared with us. Although I am fully convinced of the balanced, objective character of the formulations in the report, I would like to share with delegates my deep concern and sense of responsibility as a parliamentarian for the need to create additional perspectives on democracy and human rights in Azerbaijan. The general interference in those processes in Azerbaijan is discouraging. Our conclusion is that the restrictions on the freedom of expression, the arrest of media representatives, restrictions on the freedom of assembly, the lack of a follow-up procedure on alleged cases that have been raised, and conditions in places of detention are matters of deep concern.

      The assessments in the report are balanced and objective, as I said, and it is our duty to try, carefully and responsibly, to convince the Azerbaijani authorities to lay the beginnings of a process of reconciliation, tolerance and dialogue with opposition forces and free media. The period of preparation for the forthcoming presidential elections is suitable for such an endeavour, and provides a great opportunity to set a new tone in the political life of the country, with the support of the international democratic community.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Jivkova. You have four minutes remaining for your contribution to the debate.

      In the debate, I call Mr Hancock, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. I remind you that you have four minutes.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Four minutes is not long enough to do justice, both to the country of Azerbaijan and to the report. We have to start with the premise behind the report, and consider why it was produced. What does it tell us about the state of affairs in Azerbaijan – is it being treated differently from those in other countries? I suggest that it would be a very interesting read if we changed the title of the report, and altered the word “Azerbaijan” to the name of any one of another 10 countries, where similar issues have given cause for concern. No documents on those countries have been worded in quite the same way as the report. There is a slight unfairness – more than a slight unfairness, in fact – because the summary says “the Monitoring Committee underlines that the country cannot afford to fall short again in meeting the Council of Europe commitments and standards for domestic elections.”

      How often have observers returned from an election saying that it was not free and was hardly fair? However, we continue to endorse the country’s membership of the Council of Europe, and we continue to play the game of trying to be critical but helpful, while not saying what needs to be said. As to political prisoners, it is strange that the rapporteur, in his opening comments should say that, when he met them, there was evidence of “some criminality”. If there were such evidence, the state, the security forces or the police should investigate the criminality that led to those journalists going to prison or at least being detained and charged with an offence. We cannot say that they are political prisoners in one sentence, and then say that there is some evidence of criminality in the next. It just does not stack up: no country should have political prisoners: prisoners should all be people who have been convicted of a crime under the criminal statutes, and they should have gone to a court of law, which decided the sentence. Either they are truly political prisoners, or they are not, and we should not, in any way, try to excuse the fact by suggesting that there is some sort of criminality. If there is such criminality, the state has a right to act as it does.

      I was recently in Azerbaijan, and I was mightily impressed by the changes that have taken place, and the way in which the country’s wealth has been distributed. That has been done a lot better than in other countries with such wealth. I was at an NGO-based conference on political prisoners and was impressed by how openly and freely journalists were prepared to question me about the situation in Azerbaijan and about what I thought of the evidence presented at the conference. It was interesting that some of the evidence presented was rebutted by journalists in the meeting who said, “We know about this case but you have to know about what these people were doing elsewhere.”

      We should be careful about being too heavy on Azerbaijan. We let Azerbaijan into this Organisation. We helped it to get in. There is obviously a need for things to change and the country is working on that. I was at the meeting of the Monitoring Committee just now and felt that we did not even give credit for the early stages of changes in the law. We wanted absolute endorsement that Azerbaijan had started the process but we failed to give it even that recognition over the issue of money laundering.

      We should not have double standards. We should treat every country the same and give Azerbaijan the same doubt that we have given so many other countries over the past few years.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Kumcuoğlu on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr KUMCUOĞLU (Turkey). – Mr President, dear colleagues, I start by thanking the co-rapporteurs for their detailed report covering the position of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Azerbaijan.

We have recently noted positive developments in the democratisation process in the country and examples of good co-operation between the Azerbaijani authorities and Council of Europe bodies, in particular the Venice Commission. However, we know that shortcomings exist. As in any other young democracy, transformation will take time. What is important is the fact that we all continue to support and encourage the strengthening of democratic institutions and civil society in Azerbaijan, including efforts to improve the electoral process through constructive dialogue and technical assistance. Therefore, we agree with the rapporteur that the presidential elections to be held in October 2008 will be important in demonstrating Azerbaijan’s adherence to the norms and principles of democratic development. That does not mean, however, that previous elections were not free and fair on the overall count. There were improvements in certain areas and shortfalls in others, so international election observation missions highlighted the progress achieved but put forward a number of recommendations to rectify the shortfalls.

The response of the Azerbaijani leadership to the recommendations was positive and they reaffirmed their commitment to their international obligations and expressed their readiness to co-operate with international organisations to improve their election process. Azerbaijan continues to work with the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission to that end. That is clear evidence of Azerbaijan’s adherence to its undertakings under Council of Europe membership. I am confident that Azerbaijan will make considerable progress in that respect.

Democratisation is a long-term process that needs patience and determination. We believe that the Azerbaijani Administration will stay the course and address the shortcomings in the democratisation process. The international community, particularly the Council of Europe, should continue to support and encourage the aspirations of the Government and people of Azerbaijan to build a democratic, prosperous and peaceful future.

In conclusion, I express my hope for an early peaceful solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the basis of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan and in keeping with UN Security Council resolutions.

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

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – There is no doubt that this is the right time for a debate on the functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan. When we look back, we see that over the past five years many resolutions on Azerbaijan have been adopted to allow Azerbaijan to fulfil its commitments to the principles of the Council of Europe. Looking to the future, I cite our former colleague, Mr Leo Platvoet, who ended his speech to the Assembly on 16 April 2007: “The presidential elections in 2008 will be a new touchstone; we cannot, however, have an endless row of touchstones.”

Of course, there is a link between developing democracy in Azerbaijan and the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but lack of democracy is more likely to hinder the ability to resolve that conflict than the other way around – that well-functioning democratic institutions in Azerbaijan should hinder anything at all in Nagorno-Karabakh. In Norway, we had one bit of historical luck. We discovered democracy before we discovered oil and gas. There is so much money in oil and gas that it is not only democracy that is needed to distribute those goods for the benefit of all the citizens of a country – anti-corruption work is essential too.

For all energy-producing countries, the management of petroleum resources and the question of transparency is important. To ensure that both present and future generations benefit from petroleum revenues we need to ensure transparency and accountability in the management of those resources. That includes openness about the income generated and how it is spent. The creation of the State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan – SOFAZ – is a good start. The fund will protect the economy against the distortions and inflation that could result from excessive public spending over a few years.

SOFAZ has made a promising start. It was awarded a UN prize for excellent public management last year. On transparency, I stress the fact that Azerbaijan was among the first countries to join the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – EITI. The basic idea is simple. Payments of money to the state coffers from international petroleum companies, as well as the total government revenues from oil and gas companies are to be made public.

Azerbaijan is a regional leader in applying EITI criteria. That praise goes not only to the authorities and the major petroleum countries but to civil society, which is playing an essential role as a watchdog in the coalition between the EITI and non-governmental organisations. It is clear to me that once a country subscribes to the EITI, it also endorses the EITI basic principles of transparency and political accountability. Those principles should underlie all administrative reform, be it in Azerbaijan or elsewhere. Perhaps a new start for democracy in Azerbaijan will be where anti-corruption starts – in the oil sector, which was intended to secure democracy because all should benefit equally.

The UEL Group fully supports the Monitoring Committee’s list of urgent steps that have to be taken.

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

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) thanked the rapporteurs for their work and their excellent report. It could be clearly seen that there had been progress in Azerbaijan’s democratic development, and it was also developing economically, with 25% growth in the last year. It had become independent last year, and domestic investment had exceeded foreign investment. Thousands from the tent camps had now been re-housed. Economic growth had been significant. However, corruption was a reality. Azerbaijan was taking steps to deal with this but could not deal with all the problems overnight.

The President of Azerbaijan was aware of the Assembly’s recommendations. The law on broadcasting and on the civil service had been changed. The Azerbaijan Parliament was working hand in hand with the Council of Europe. Much needed to be done, and the monitoring should assist the process. He asked whether it was right that the authorities should be asked to release specific people. It was up to the authorities, and the courts, to make those decisions. Third parties should not be involved. These people needed to have their cases dealt with appropriately. He said that the criticism made was too harsh. The country and its president had achieved a great deal, more than other countries being monitored. He thanked the authorities for their co-operation.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Slutsky. I now call Mr Pourgourides on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – As we can see from the good work of the rapporteurs, Azerbaijan has made some commendable progress. Of course we must acknowledge that and encourage the authorities to keep going further in the right direction. The good co-operation that they have displayed with the Venice Commission is an encouraging sign, because the Venice Commission, in the most neutral and professional way, is showing them the right direction to take on many specific legal and constitutional issues.

However, there is still a huge gap between words and deeds. It is not enough for Azerbaijan to adopt legislation that meets Council of Europe standards because, more importantly, this legislation must be applied by all competent authorities, at all levels, in good faith. This is especially important in pre-election times. Free and fair elections presuppose a pre-election atmosphere in which the political opposition can freely express its opinions, including through peaceful demonstrations and through the media. Journalists must not fear reprisals of any kind and there can be no impunity for attacks on journalists, opposition supporters or peaceful demonstrators.

In this spirit, one must condemn strongly the continued existence of political prisoners in Azerbaijan, as we would do in any other member country of the Council of Europe. Any attempt to find reasons to excuse the existence of political prisoners is unacceptable. I accept that some cases may be debatable, but others are not. We are very concerned about the latter ones. The very existence of political prisoners makes me concerned about the independence of the judiciary. There cannot be political prisoners in a state with a really independent judiciary, because an independent court will naturally refuse to condemn people on the basis of unfounded politically motivated accusations.

The issue cannot simply be declared as closed just because Azerbaijan is now party to the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore any victim of unfair or politically motivated prosecution can be told that they “can go to Strasbourg.” Member states must do their homework by aligning their laws and practice on the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights is a remedy of last resort, but it is not equipped to, and not meant to, take the place of our national courts in ensuring the rule of law.

I conclude by recalling the EPP’s policy towards all kinds of serious human rights violations everywhere in Europe. The policy can be summed up in two words: zero tolerance. We will continue to monitor the situation carefully and will be ready to help Azerbaijan to achieve further democratic progress. Next October’s presidential elections offer an excellent opportunity for the president and his government to prove that Azerbaijan is becoming a truly democratic state. We expect the election to be free and fair, with no harassment of any kind of those opposing the president.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr. Pourgourides.

The co-rapporteurs will reply at the end of the debate, but I shall ask them whether they want to reply at this stage. That is not the case so I call Mr Loncle.

Mr LONCLE (France) said that he had every respect for the work done by the committee and the rapporteurs. However, he shared the reservations expressed by Mr Hancock. The elections on 15 October should be held in accordance with effective rules for the assurance of democratic processes, as per the draft resolution. The right to freedom of expression had to be implemented by the fair distribution of access to the media with time granted to political parties free of charge and under fair conditions. This was far from the case in many countries in the Assembly. The political authorities in his own country were trying to control the media. There must be a guarantee that the opposition had the right to organise public rallies.

Azerbaijan had also to step up its efforts to deal with corruption and establish an independent judicial authority. Azerbaijan, however, could not do this alone. Co-operation with other countries and organisations should be allowed to contribute without obstacles. The report was excellent. A key issue, already addressed from different points of view – and also mentioned in the resolution – was that in Azerbaijan there was conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, and sustainable democratic development there would be a difficult process. Many countries, including his own, had not implemented or adhered to the relevant United Nations resolution. Member states were dragging their feet, including Russia, the United States and France. They had not reached conclusions on a consensus over an approach to ending the conflict.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Loncle. I now call Mrs Türköne.

Mrs TÜRKÖNE (Turkey). – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, whenever we have the opportunity to discuss the state of democracy in one of the so-called young democracies, especially in the part of the European map that we are talking about, I sincerely believe that it is a genuine opportunity to celebrate the existence of the Council of Europe and the core values that are the foundations of that organisation. The presence of our Azeri colleagues among us is living evidence that ideals linked to democracy, human rights and the rule of law are not confined to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean or the Mediterranean, to the fjords of Scandinavia or the heights of the Alps. They are cherished and upheld by Europeans living in every corner of that area, including on the coasts of the Hazer Sea.

Azerbaijan has undergone an overall transformation since becoming a member of the Council of Europe. That has proved to be a long and difficult process, as would be expected for any young democracy. The effects of such a transformation, accompanied by various reforms, created numerous challenges not only for the state’s structures, but in all spheres of social, economic and private life in Azerbaijan. Since Azerbaijan gained membership of the Council of Europe, the Council of Europe has provided it with valuable assistance in facing those challenges and implementing the necessary reforms to strengthen its democracy and democratic institutions.

So far, the Parliamentary Assembly’s assessment of Azerbaijan’s progress, vis-à-vis the obligations stemming from its membership commitments to the Council, is that it has not proved itself to be at the expected level. That is especially the case with regard to the way in which the previous elections were held in that country. We heard the rapporteurs express similar concerns regarding the upcoming presidential elections in October this year. I urge my Azeri colleagues to follow up this report with their government back home, and to take into account the matters in the resolution during their work on reform of electoral legislation in the Azeri Parliament.

I am sure that the Azeri authorities are well aware of the fact that the presidential elections will be interpreted as a test of the level of maturity of Azeri democracy. I believe that they will take every necessary measure to prepare the ground for free and fair elections to be held in Azerbaijan. I have full confidence that the Azeri authorities will do their utmost to that end. On the other hand, I urge members of our Assembly not to pre-judge the outcome of the presidential elections in October. While expressing our concerns regarding certain problems observed during previous elections in the country, we have to be fair enough to adopt a neutral stand at this moment. We should be careful not to create the impression that whatever steps the Azeri authorities take in the direction of reform, it will not change anything with regard to the conclusions of this Assembly. It is in the interests of all of us if we voice our criticisms constructively and encourage this young democracy to take yet another step in its progress towards becoming a fully fledged democracy. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now give the floor to Mr Rafael Huseynov.

Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan). – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, genuine truths are revealed through comparison, and therefore when exploring the state of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan, one must think of “three Azerbaijan”: the Azerbaijan of 1991, the Azerbaijan of 2001 and the Azerbaijan of 2008. At the end of 1991, Azerbaijan restored its state independence and became free from the Soviet regime which it had endured for 70 years. Living in conditions of isolation and under an anti-democratic system certainly had its negative effects, and although Azerbaijan officially gained state independence in 1991, it had to go a long distance in order to realise its sovereignty. Actually, the process of getting rid of the negative consequences of that anti-democratic environment is still going on today.

In 2001, an important event took place in Azerbaijan: our country acceded to the Council of Europe. The importance of that event for Azerbaijan was not just that it had become a member of another prestigious international organisation. The main political significance of that event was that Azerbaijan gained, speedily and extensively, a new opportunity to get rid of the Soviet regime that it had endured for so many years and to become a modern and democratic state.

Now in 2008, the eighth anniversary of Azerbaijan’s existence with the family of the Council of Europe, we see a quite different state, country and society. Azerbaijan has undergone an incredibly speedy development within those eight years. In fact, one must accept that, regarding the improvement of freedom of expression and of the press, and the state of human rights, as well as the formation of separate democratic institutions in Azerbaijan, the country has done as much as if it had had two or three times that period. When we compare the Azerbaijan of today with the Azerbaijan of eight years ago, and especially the Azerbaijan of 17 years ago, it seems as though they are three different countries.

Our biggest achievements in the political and economic sphere could not have been imagined eight or 17 years ago, so Azerbaijan will always be indebted to the Council of Europe for its achievements and for the progress that it has made towards becoming a democratic country. Positive criticism and analysis are the best means of rendering assistance. We have repeatedly witnessed that in the Council of Europe, and that approach accelerated our development. When we look back over the eight years in the family of the Council of Europe, we see that Azerbaijan has made its contribution to making a better Europe and a more perfect Council of Europe during those years of co-operation. Azerbaijan has always made attempts to build an active partnership with the Council of Europe. The members of the Azerbaijani delegation have always tried to be active in the Council of Europe. The common statistics alone witness that. That obviously shows that Azerbaijan has a positive attitude to democracy, democratic institutions and the Council of Europe.

I talked about three different Azerbaijans; the fourth Azerbaijan, which is supportive of European values and which the Council of Europe, and every Azerbaijani, wants to be stronger, more modern and more democratic, is flourishing due to the ground it gained over the years, and will continue to flourish. All our colleagues who have co-operated, and do co-operate with us, share in that progress. Dear friends, Azerbaijan will always be thankful to you for this co-operation and assistance. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Huseynov. I call Mr Rustamyan.

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) thanked the rapporteurs for their comprehensive report, and said that it was not his intention to talk about the problems of Azerbaijan, as these were thoroughly covered in the report. Also, he was not one for preaching to other countries, especially not as someone coming from one young democracy talking to the people of another. Perhaps members from more long-established democracies were able to take a different view.

      The report before the Assembly included some provisions which were hard to understand. The concept of democracy was an absolute within the Council of Europe’s value system but there were observations in this report that might cast doubt upon this principle. It appeared that political considerations had affected the contents of the report, but it was vital that the Council of Europe did not have double standards, and it was particularly crucial not to be biased with regard to the Southern Caucasus. This was the only way that the Council of Europe would be able to assist with the resolution of the crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh. After all, the United Nations Charter, which was mentioned in the report, emphasised the fundamental right of all peoples to self-determination. The parties in the conflict should be called upon to reach agreement working under the principles of the Minsk Group. Armenia had sought to end the situation unilaterally but, without a cessation of the use of force in the region, no resolution would be possible.

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

      Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Thank you very much, Mr President.

      I also start by thanking the rapporteurs for their efforts. The draft resolution is a road map of the urgent and necessary steps that need to be taken ahead of the 15 October presidential elections. Establishing balanced election commissions and an effective complaints procedure, providing free broadcast time and print space in the state media under equal conditions for all political parties and blocks and guaranteeing the opposition’s right to hold public rallies, are imperative measures for Azerbaijan in fulfilling its commitments regarding free and fair elections.

      We should encourage the Azeri authorities to continue their dialogue with the Council of Europe and in particular, with the Venice Commission, as Mr Pourgourides explained very well, on the state of preparations for the presidential elections. As the parliamentary body of this Organisation, we should contribute in any way that we can to restore the climate of confidence that could lead to dialogue between the ruling majority and the opposition.

      Holding fair and free elections is the key to finding democratic solutions vis-à-vis the problems that Azerbaijan is facing today. Azerbaijan’s success in evolving its economic upswing into sustainable social and political development will depend very much on the functioning of its democratic institutions. Azerbaijan may become the engine to power the whole region and should succeed in transforming the country into a genuine democracy respectful of the rule of law and human rights. The country has the human potential and the economic means to do so.

      Freedom of the media is the linchpin of this transformation process. Securing the freedom of the media will definitely help to restore the climate of confidence, and the atmosphere of pluralism and transparency in the country will flourish.

      Separation of powers is another important component of pluralist democracy. Creating an independent and well-trained judiciary is essential in this respect. The progress made in creating the legislative and institutional framework for the judicial system is promising. The effective and systematic implementation of the law will ensure the proper functioning of the judicial system.

      The completion of the prison reform programme, improvements in detention conditions and the dismissal of allegations of torture or ill-treatment would be further positive steps in the field of human rights. The adoption of a new national strategy and an action plan on increasing transparency and the fight against corruption is an encouraging development.

      Mr President, dear colleagues, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that, in the absence of a definitive settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it is impossible to achieve not only peace and stability but democratic governance in the region as well. I therefore appreciate the interest displayed by this Organisation in the resolution of this conflict and extend my full support to the efforts led by the committee’s work in this respect.

      Before I conclude, I should like once again to stress that Azerbaijan’s ability to pursue its agenda in the honouring of its obligations and commitments depends in large part on our assistance and encouragement. We should therefore continue to enhance our dialogue with Azerbaijan and help the Azeri authorities in their efforts towards a genuine democracy where all its institutions are well functioning. Thank you very much.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Çavuşoğlu. I call Mr Hovannisian.

      Mr HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – Thank you, Mr President. As the representative of the Heritage Party – the sole democratic opposition party in the Armenian Parliament – and as the carrier of a message from Armenian civil society, I have come to this wonderful Hall of Europe, perhaps for the last time, with the intention of approaching the report on Azerbaijan and the report on Armenia tomorrow in an equally critical fashion. But for that, we need ground rules; we need an absolute and even application of standards and European benchmarks.

      But for paragraph 24 of the draft resolution, one might have wished well to our Azerbaijani colleagues in their trek towards European values and democratic development, but it is here that not Azerbaijan’s issue but the integrity, mandate and reputation of the Parliamentary Assembly is on the line. Every nation here represented can bring to the fore from its history and its contemporary affairs a reason why it cannot achieve the standard of democratic Europe.

      No country – not Azerbaijan, not Armenia, not Turkey, or anyone else – should get a free ride. Nobody should be allowed to present excuses for failing democracy’s test. One will say, “Territorial integrity.” The other will say, “Self-determination, past genocide, current blockade.” But those must be divorced from the prime values of the Council of Europe: meeting democratic standards without exception.

      Either we all get an escape hatch or an ability to excuse our democratic deficiencies, or none of us must be allowed to use one. So there is a false conditionality in the report, dear colleagues, between sustainable democratic development and any other provision of international law or position of international politics.

      Paragraph 24.2 in particular flies in the face of the truth. It does not present the whole picture. I look forward to the day when my Azerbaijani and Turkish colleagues, instead of repeating pronouncements on refugees and occupation, will look within and say, “Yes we share your pain.” There are 400 000 Armenian refugees. There are scores of Armenian historic settlements currently under occupation, but who talks of them from session to session? Who talks about the pioneering quest of Mountainous Karabakh to reject the legacy of Stalin and to decolonise in a legitimate way?

There must be no consolation points or “provisions gratuities” for anyone.

      And what can we say about the good-will mission of our rapporteur, Mr O’Hara, who was going to launch his mission to find out facts and prepare a report on the state of the cultural heritage in south of the Caucasus range? Because there is prima facie evidence that in December 2005 on the territory of a member state, armed uniformed Azerbaijani personnel destroyed one by one the cross-stones of the medieval Armenian cemetery at Jugha, Nakhichevan, he has been denied access there. This is not an issue solely for Azerbaijan or Armenia. The integrity and mandate of the Council of Europe and its rapporteur are under fire. The cross-stones are gone for ever but it is within our province today to stay true to the principles of the Council of Europe.

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

      Mrs HAJIYEVA (Azerbaijan). – I am glad to listen to my colleague from Armenia. I hope that, sooner or later, those representatives of the Armenian delegation who are objective and fair members of the opposition, will say that yes, Azerbaijani territory has been occupied; in 1918, we proclaimed our independent statehood, we had no territories so we asked the Azerbaijani Government to compromise Yerevan to proclaim our territorial integrity with the capital there; after that, the city became the Armenian capital; yes we occupied Gekcha and Zangezur, the other Azerbaijani territories, now we occupy mountains and surrounding areas and we have serious plans about occupation and aggression on Nakhchivan. That is a very wrong approach. That approach is inadmissible in the Council of Europe and in European law.

      This is not the first time here in the Chamber that we have discussed the obligations of Azerbaijan. If we compare the situation in the post-Soviet countries, we see the same problems everywhere. There are serious problems in all of them in the spheres of democracy, human rights, corruption, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. However, unfortunately, sometimes we feel that double standards are being applied, a different approach and methodology in investigations of those problems in those countries. Sometimes we lower our standards for countries and sometimes we raise our standards for other countries.

Almost all the ballots held since accession to the Council of Europe have failed to meet basic democratic standards in most post-Soviet countries. Almost all have problems in guaranteeing freedom of expression. Practically in all those countries judicial corruption and the lack of an independent judiciary remain serious problems. That is why all those countries need reconciliation and the restoration of public confidence.

      While discussing those countries, we should be objective. We should not be biased and partial if we want to keep our image as European democrats.

The Committee on Culture, Science and Education expressed concern about the destruction of historical cemeteries in Nakhchivan in the ancient territory of Azerbaijan. It is a Christian-Albanian cemetery. Christian-Albanians are our ancestors. Why would we destroy our own cultural heritage? Why does that committee keep silent when it comes to the destruction and levelling of hundreds – I emphasise hundreds – of Muslim Turkish-Azerbaijani cemeteries in territory occupied by Armenian forces and in the territory of Armenia itself? Many historical monuments were levelled, not only cemeteries, and I would like the committee to be very careful about the situation not only in one cemetery, which is part of our historical heritage, but in others.

      What about the problem of political prisoners? Some people who commit crimes in Europe are considered terrorists, but in the case of Azerbaijan they are called political prisoners. I do not ask you to love us tenderly and sweetly. I ask you to respect us. If we decided to be together, we should respect each other, our identity, our culture and our religion. We should respect each other’s dignity.

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

      Mrs OJULAND (Estonia). – This year, Azerbaijan is celebrating this year its 90th anniversary. Ninety years ago, Azerbaijan was created as the first democracy in the region and it had a flourishing economy. Today, it is independent again and its economy is doing well. I am glad to note that the revenue that is coming from oil in Azerbaijan is invested in the infrastructure, the social sphere, education and other relevant sectors. Azerbaijan acceded to the Council of Europe in 2001 with a certain amount of credit, like many other countries at that time. Some countries have been faster and some slower in implementing their commitments and obligations and introducing high democratic standards, but we have been quite unfair and we have been treating countries differently in checking how they are honouring their commitments.

We have discussed Azerbaijan’s obligations eight times while there are countries that joined in 1996 that we have discussed only three times, and I am pretty convinced that the situation on human rights, the rule of law, and implementing democratic principles are not that much worse in Azerbaijan. That makes me think that we are introducing double standards in the Council of Europe, and that would be a shame for this Organisation. We must treat all countries equally. This is about the reputation of the Council of Europe.

This report has been written in strong language. I have been a member of the Assembly since 1995, and I have not seen such strong language in that time. It reminds me of the statement by George Orwell that some are equal, but some are more equal than others. I should ask why we are doing this. Why cannot we treat all countries equally?

      Other parts of the report have been criticised by the international working group on the implementation of international human rights standards in Azerbaijan. Many colleagues have seen that statement, which has been written by international experts on human rights, many of whose names are well known to us. I would like to quote what they have written: “Therefore, the conclusion of the resolution on the deterioration of the situation with human rights and the fact that it undermines the efforts of the authorities to be in line with the basic democratic standards, seems to be not enough sustained by the facts and casts a shadow of doubt over the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly’s constructive co-operation with Azerbaijan, which we so highly value.” They also said: “it should be noted in the context, that the term, ‘political prisoner’, is not legally defined, and is not included in any international legally binding document.” I was in Azerbaijan last week for the celebrations for the 90th anniversary, and I met many representatives of the authorities, including members of parliament, the Foreign Minister, and President Aliyev – our former colleague in the Assembly – and they all confirmed that they want to co-operate. The only thing that they lack is equal treatment.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Ojuland. I call Mr Akhmedov, who is the last speaker.

Mr AKHMEDOV (Russian Federation) (Translation). – Azerbaijan has always been the gateway between Europe and Asia. Only a few days ago, I was in Baku as a member of the Russian delegation, to mark the 90th anniversary of the formation of the Parliament of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic – the first democratic and secular republic in the Muslim world. While the first republic lasted just two years – in 1920, it fell under 70 years of Soviet domination – democracy has remained a source of inspiration for the country.

Azerbaijan is a peaceful and economically politically stable country that has never attacked any other country. It is a country of religious tolerance, not a home for terrorism and Islamic radicalism. As the gateway between Asia and Europe, it can become the leading example of a stable, modern state moving along the road of democracy. The co-rapporteurs have pointed out that in some aspects the current electoral situation may justify criticism, but it is impossible not to see positive moves. Azerbaijan has sought to ensure that the forthcoming elections comply with all requirements of the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. President Ilham Aliyev was formerly the head of the Azerbaijan delegation to the Assembly.

The electoral process, however, not only implies but demonstrates the existence of organised opposition and the development of political democracy. I remember, as an international observer during the parliamentary elections in 2005, that, on the recommendation of the Council of Europe, President Aliyev adopted the practice of marking voters’ fingers with invisible ink. While his decision was viewed by international organisations as a positive step in democratic development, many voters considered it humiliating and a violation of their rights.

I begin to see a country where freedom of expression, respect for the rule of law and human rights have made significant but not sufficient progress. The mentality of Azerbaijani society has evolved over centuries, but in the past century it has been subject to the influence of totalitarianism. It can hardly be expected to change in two decades. It is fair to say that Azerbaijan is not fully democratic, but it is too early to say that it fully respects all the standards of the Council of Europe. Given the fact that 20% of the country’s territory is occupied, that will obviously cause problems.

I remember Azerbaijan, the land of my birth, which I left at the age of 15 when it was a Soviet state. Now I see the country in a new light, under a young, dynamic leadership, striving – I believe successfully – to establish a stable, economically strong democracy. That democracy is in its infancy, and it is premature to expect a full democracy. After all, we must remember that Rome was not built in a day. Above all, we, together with the OSCE, to hold free and fair presidential elections with dignity.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Akhmedov. We have time for one more speaker, so I call Mr Rochebloine.

Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) thanked the speakers for their speeches and noted that the report was striking as it had been so painstakingly drafted. Within a memorandum of very high quality, there was a critical mass of comment which highlighted breaches of human rights within Azerbaijan. The question was whether there was any capacity to act to address these problems. In his view, the report barely displayed any reason for optimism in regard to hope for improvement. There was a great contrast between the economic wealth of the country and the level of human rights enjoyed by the ordinary people. Economic prosperity did not necessarily signify an improvement in the observance of human rights. Public authorities in Azerbaijan were aware of the problems and the rapporteurs had also recognised the difficulties in allowing freedom of speech. He regretted that there had been a selective amnesty within public authorities and they had convicted criminals only for petty crimes. He felt that greater attention was needed to the efforts of Azerbaijan to rearm. A number of declarations had been made, but not acted upon, and he hoped that the country’s leaders would now act to address the problems.

THE PRESIDENT. – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

I call Mr Herkel and Mrs Jivkova, rapporteurs, to reply. You have four minutes to share.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – I thank all the speakers, even those whose speeches were controversial. I also thank the Azeri delegation who co-operated so well even when things were difficult.

      I have a few remarks about prisoners. We visited 11 prisoners last month and each case is different. If Mr Hancock were to read our resolutions carefully, he would see that we use different wording. We use the words “political prisoners” and I am pretty sure that the three journalists are political prisoners. Fatullayev is a prisoner of conscience. We also use the formulation “alleged political prisoners”. We are also talking about humanitarian grounds in complicated cases where the health conditions are very bad.

      Mrs Ojuland and others mentioned double standards. It is true that we have produced eight reports on Azerbaijan since 2001 while we have made only three reports on Russia since 1996. That is true, but the rapporteurs are holding out for higher standards. Let us implement higher standards in every member state of the Council of Europe.

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

      Mrs JIVKOVA (Bulgaria). – The specific conditions of the political traditions created in Azerbaijan, as well as the growing natural interest of many countries in establishing co-operation with that country and our Azeri colleagues, require the resolution of questions such as the arresting of journalists, better dialogue with the opposition and the amnesty and resolution of the separate cases of the so-called political prisoners on humanitarian grounds. There is a possibility that the Azerbaijani authorities will release some political prisoners, and that is mentioned in our report.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Does the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee, Mr Holovaty, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

      Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – A number of contributors to the debate have asked why the Assembly is making the report only one year after debate of the regular report, and why the Assembly is debating the report only a few months before the presidential elections are to take place. Is the report fair and unbiased enough? Does the Monitoring Committee apply the same approach to all countries subject to the monitoring procedures? What comes out of the report and our key meeting of more than one and a half hours is the fact that questions should be addressed to the Azerbaijani authorities and the Azerbaijani delegation, not put here in this Chamber. This is the seventh or eighth report in the seven years of Azerbaijan’s membership of the Council of Europe.

For the eighth time, we are dealing with situations in Azerbaijan relating to human rights, democracy, the functioning of democratic institutions, the rule of law and other issues such as fundamental values. Before we debate the next report on the country in 2009, I wish the Azerbaijani authorities and the people to avoid situations that are similar to this one so that we do not have to talk about political prisoners, detained journalists or arrested journalists or electoral fraud. Everything is in the hands of the authorities and the parliament in Azerbaijan – to prove that they are committed to the values on which this Organisation is based.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The debate is closed.

      The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution, to which 22 amendments have been tabled.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the Monitoring Committee should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 34.10.

      The amendments are Nos. 2, 5, 13 to 15, 9 and 17 to the draft resolution.

      Are there any objections?

      That is not the case.

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 13 to 15, 9 and 17 to the draft resolution have been adopted.

      The amendments are adopted.

      The following amendments to the draft resolution have been adopted:

Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Samad Seyidov, Ms Ganira Pashayeva, Mr Rafael Huseynov, Mr Sabir Hajiyev, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, and Mrs Gultakin Hajiyeva, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, replace the words “join the path” with the following words: “foster the process”.

Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Samad Seyidov, Ms Ganira Pashayeva, Mr Rafael Huseynov, Mr Sabir Hajiyev, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and Mrs Gultakin Hajiyeva, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14, before the words “amnesty law”, to delete the word: “only”.

Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mr Andres Herkel, Mrs Evguenia Jivkova, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mrs Herta Däubler-Gmelin, and Mr Younal Loutfi, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 16.1 with the following sub-paragraph:

“the Assembly takes note of the adoption of the revised Electoral Code by the Parliament of Azerbaijan but regrets that some of the recommendations made by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) are not fully addressed. For the forthcoming elections to be free and fair, the Central Electoral Commission should now take all measures to ensure that:

1.1. the composition of the Central Electoral Commission, and also of the territorial and precinct electoral commissions, are balanced and not dominated by pro-government forces;

1.2. independent candidates in the Central Electoral Commission and territorial electoral commissions are, to the largest possible extent, agreed upon by consensus;

1.3. the posts of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Secretary of electoral commissions at all levels are fairly distributed;

1.4. an efficient complaints and appeals procedure is guaranteed;”.

Amendment No. 14 tabled by Mr Andres Herkel, Mrs Evguenia Jivkova, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mrs Herta Däubler-Gmelin, and Mr Younal Loutfi, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 16.1, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“the Assembly underlines that the rules of the electoral campaign should be clear long before the beginning of the campaign itself. In this regards, to date the President of Azerbaijan has not yet signed the law on the revised Electoral Code and according to the law currently in force the electoral campaign should have started on 16 June, which is not the case. The ambiguity of this situation is a serious subject of concern for the Assembly;”.

Amendment 15 tabled by Mr Andres Herkel, Mrs Evguenia Jivkova, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mrs Herta Däubler-Gmelin, and Mr Younal Loutfi, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 16.2 with the following sub-paragraph:

“the Assembly welcomes the adoption on 30 May 2008 of the amendments to the revised 1998 law on freedom of assembly by the Parliament of Azerbaijan, in compliance with the recommendations of the Venice Commission, and urges the authorities to take appropriate measures to ensure that the prompt implementation of the relevant legislation respects fully Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (hereafter the Convention), as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights;”.

Amendment No. 9 tabled by Mr Samad Seyidov, Ms Ganira Pashayeva, Mr Rafael Huseynov, Mr Sabir Hajiyev, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, and Mrs Gultakin Hajiyeva, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 20.3 with the following paragraph:

“the Assembly welcomes the adoption of codes of conduct for both judges and public prosecutors in accordance with the 2006 Decree on the reform of the judiciary and in line with the Council of Europe expert recommendations.”

Amendment No. 17 tabled by Mrs Evguenia Jivkova, Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mrs Herta Däubler-Gmelin, and Mr Younal Loutfi, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 24.3, after the words “solution to the conflict”, add the following words: “in compliance with the standards and principles of international law;”.

      We will now consider all the amendments to the draft resolution. They will be taken in the following order: 1, 3, 4, 12, 6 to 8, 10, 11, 16, and 18 to 22.

      I remind you that speeches on amendment are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that Amendment No. 1 is to be withdrawn.

      We come now to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Samad Seyidov, Ms Ganira Pashayeva, Mr Rafael Huseynov, Mr Sabir Hajiyev, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and Mrs Gultakin Hajiyeva, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5, add the following sentence:

“The Assembly regrets that the main opposition parties, despite a formal invitation, decided not to participate in a discussion of amendments to the Electoral Code of Azerbaijan concerning the composition of the electoral commissions and the complaint and appeal procedures.”

I call Mr. Seyidov to support Amendment No. 3. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan). – I support the amendment. We took the amendment from the position expressed in the Venice Commission opinion on the electoral court – regret that the main opposition parties, despite a formal invitation, had decided not to participate. That is why we are in favour in including the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

      I understand that Mr Herkel wishes to propose two oral sub-amendments on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

      First, to leave out the words “at the end of paragraph 5, add the following sentence”, and to insert the words “after paragraph 5, add the following paragraph”.

      Second, to leave out the words “despite a formal invitation, had decided not to”, and to insert the word “did not”.

      The effect of the oral sub-amendments would be to add a new paragraph reading “The Assembly regrets that the main opposition parties did not participate in a discussion of amendments to the Electoral Code of Azerbaijan”, and so on.

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

      That is not the case.

      I call Mr Herkel to support the oral sub-amendments.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – Thank you, Mr President. You have already set out the position clearly. We want to be more precise but not to take a strong position as to who was guilty, the opposition or the government.

      THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment? Mr Seyidov is in favour of the oral sub-amendments.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour of the oral sub-amendments.

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

The sub-amendments are agreed.

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

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

Amendment No. 3, as amended, is agreed to.

We now come to Amendment No. 4. I call Mr Seyidov to move the amendment.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan). – It is withdrawn.

THE PRESIDENT. – Amendment No. 4 is withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mrs Anne Brasseur, Mr Edward O’Hara, Mr Andrew Mcintosh, Baroness Gloria Hooper, Ms Åse Gunhild Woie Duesund, Mrs Sinikka Hurskainen, Mrs Anta Rugāte, Ms Elvira Kovács, Mr Jan Kaźmierczak and Ms Christine Muttonen, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly regrets the repeated lack of cooperation from the Azerbaijani authorities over the organisation of a study visit on cultural heritage in the South Caucasus. The intention of this study visit was to promote cooperation and mutual understanding in this field along the lines of Assembly Recommendation 1599 (2003) and also to investigate claims of damage to cultural property including the deliberate destruction of a historic cemetery in Nakhichevan. The Assembly calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to give evidence of their good will over this matter in the light of the proposed meeting of Ministers of Culture in December this year.”

I call Mr O’Hara to support Amendment No. 12.

Mr O’HARA (United Kingdom). – The amendment stands apart from the others in that it is entirely concerned with the interests of this Assembly. I am the general rapporteur for cultural heritage of this Assembly. Since December 2003, I have repeatedly been mandated to make a study visit to various locations in the South Caucasus where there are allegations of destruction of cultural heritage. After enormous expenditure of time and effort, have repeatedly had to abort the mission due to lack of co-operation. In the context of this report, I have systematically been denied access to a location, Nakhichevan, in a member state, Azerbaijan. This is an important point of principle for this Assembly. This amendment seeks support from this Assembly in condemning and seeking an explanation for this denial of access to its officially appointed representative.

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

I call Mrs Hajiyeva to speak against the amendment.

Mrs HAJIYEVA (Azerbaijan). – It is a cynical amendment. We are in favour of co-operation because we are interested in investigating the cultural situation in all occupied Azerbaijani territories, including hundreds of Azerbaijani cemeteries, mosques and historical monuments. Moreover, the amendment mentions only Nakhichevan. We are interested in deeper and wider investigations. We are open to organising such visits through Azerbaijani territories because Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan.

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

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – It is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 12 is rejected.

I call Mr Seyidov to support Amendment No. 6.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan). – It is withdrawn.

THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 7 falls because Amendment No. 15 has been agreed to.

We now come to Amendment No. 8 tabled by Mr Samad Seyidov, Ms Ganira Pashayeva, Mr Rafael Huseynov, Mr Sabir Hajiyev, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and Mrs Gultakin Hajiyeva, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 17.2 with the following paragraph:

“welcomes the fact that on 13 June 2008 the Parliament adopted in first reading the Law on Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism in line with Council of Europe experts recommendations, and calls on the Parliament to adopt the Law on Conflict of Interest and the Law on Responsibility of Legal Persons for Corruption Offences.”

I call Mrs Hajiyeva to support Amendment No. 8.

Mrs HAJIYEVA (Azerbaijan). – In paragraph 17.2 the Assembly urges the parliament to adopt the law on money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism. We have already adopted those laws. That is why we want the Assembly to take into account the fact that the laws have been adopted in the first reading.

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

I call Mr Herkel to speak against the amendment.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – I said that the step was a positive one, but I want to emphasise that the laws have received only their first reading. Therefore, we cannot change the text because we are still waiting for them to be adopted at the parliamentary level.

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

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – It is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is rejected.

I understand that Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 16, tabled by Mrs Evguenia Jivkova, Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mrs Herta Däubler-Gmelin and Mr Younal Loutfi, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 21.2 with the following sub-paragraph:

“the Assembly calls upon the Azerbaijani authorities to consider the release of Natiq Efendiyev, Rasim Alekperov, Ruslan Bashirli, Akif Huseynov and Telman Ismayilov on the basis of humanitarian grounds;”.

I call Mrs Jivkova to support Amendment No. 16.

Mrs JIVKOVA (Bulgaria). – The amendment was adopted in the committee. We think that the text will give the authorities of Azerbaijan a greater opportunity to release prisoners on humanitarian grounds.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – It has been unanimously agreed.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 16 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mr Grigori Margaryan and Mr Avet Adonts, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 24.1.

If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment No. 19 falls.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No 18.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The democratic benchmarks and standards of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are absolute. They should not be excused away. We are not talking just about Azerbaijan or Armenia, or other independent countries. This is a PACE issue. There can be no derogation from our standards and we should not allow our pan-European forum to be turned into a service for partisan interests and into a mockery of the very same democracy and human rights for which we stand. I urge you to support the amendment.

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

I call Mr Hancock to speak against the amendment.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – No democracy can thrive in a country which has part of its territory occupied by an alien force in a sense that many of its people have been denied their human rights to live in their homeland, on their own land, in their own home. The paragraph is correct. I hope that the Assembly resists the temptation to follow the line taken by our Armenia colleague, because it would take us in the wrong direction, whereas the paragraph in the report examines the truth of the situation rather than what might be.

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

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – It is against.

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

Amendment No. 18 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 19.

      I call Mr Adonts to support Amendment No. 19.

      Mr ADONTS (Armenia). – I withdraw the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment is withdrawn.

      We now come to Amendment No. 20, tabled by Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Grigori Margaryan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Davit Harutyunyan, and Mr Avet Adonts, which is in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 24.2.

      If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 fall. I call Mr Hovannisian to support the amendment.

      Mr HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – Thank you. Contrary to the opinion kindly given by our distinguished colleague from the United Kingdom, Mr Hancock, let me say that the provision flies in the face of the historical record, denies the human rights of Armenians and others living in the territory in question, and prejudices an ongoing negotiating process being co-chaired by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Those OSCE co-chairs voted against the unrelated UN resolution, with 39 of 192 states voting in favour. We are mixing apples and oranges, and trying very cleverly to insert into our values alien forces. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Seyidov.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan). – Thank you, Mr President. We discussed the amendment at the Monitoring Committee’s Kiev meeting, and that committee was not in favour of the amendment. The general assembly adopted the resolution. This is an international Organisation, and we are talking about international law. We have to take into account international law and the rules of those organisations. For that reason, we are absolutely against the amendment.

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

      Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is against.

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

      Amendment No. 20 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment No. 21, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mr Grigori Margaryan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan and Mr Avet Adonts, which is in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 24.2. with the following sub-paragraph:

“the Assembly takes note of the European Parliament Resolution on a more effective EU policy for the South Caucasus: from promises to actions (2007/2076(INI) of 17 January 2008, which, inter alia, takes the view, that further delay in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will not benefit either of the sides involved but will jeopardise regional stability and hamper regional and economic progress, reiterates its respect and support for the territorial integrity and internationally recognised borders of Azerbaijan, as well as for the right to self-determination, in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, and reiterates strong support for the OSCE Minsk Group;”.

      If the amendment is agreed to, Amendment No. 22 falls.

      I call Mr Adonts to support Amendment No. 21.

      Mr ADONTS (Armenia). – Thank you, Mr President. As there is an article in the resolution on the UN resolution, which has nothing in common with the European approach or vision, or even with the European Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, we suggested an amendment on the European Parliament resolution, which reflects fully and comprehensively the European vision. Thank you.

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

      I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to speak against the amendment.

      Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Thank you, Mr President. The paragraphs represent facts accepted in the resolutions of different organisations, including the United Nations, and this Assembly. I kindly ask my Armenian colleagues not to abuse or ignore the facts. I am against the amendment.

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

      Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is against.

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

      Amendment No. 21 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment No. 22.

      I call Mr Adonts to support the amendment.

      Mr ADONTS (Armenia).– I withdraw the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment is withdrawn.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11627, as amended.

      The draft resolution in Document 11627, as amended, is adopted, with 114 votes for, 9 against and 10 abstentions.

      (Mrs Jazłowiecka, Vice President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Kyprianou.)

6. Empowering women in a modern, multicultural society

      THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report on empowering women in a modern, multicultural society, presented by Mrs Circene on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Document 11612, with an opinion presented by Mr Pollozhani on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Document 11621.

      The list of speakers, which has been distributed, closed at 4 p.m. yesterday, and 10 amendments have been tabled.

      I remind you that we have already agreed that in order to finish by 1 p.m., we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 12.35 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

      I call Mrs Circene, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.

Mrs CIRCENE (Latvia). – Thank you, Madam President.

      In July 2006, I presented a motion for a resolution on the subject of the role of women in modern society, including intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. In December 2006, I was appointed as a rapporteur. I should like to stress that this item is really very complex. During this year, we organised some hearings about this issue in Riga and a meeting of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in Istanbul in December 2007. That allowed us to refine our proposals and to identify concrete measures to empower women in society and to promote the contribution of women to intercultural and inter-religious dialogue.

      At the committee meeting held on 17 April this year, the title of the report was changed to “Empowering women in a modern, multicultural society”. On the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, we would like to remember the importance of women’s rights, equal opportunities and combating discrimination and violence against women.

      Every day, the importance of women in political, public and economic life in Europe is growing. The role of women is closely connected to different cultural, historical and religious conditions. International documents, conventions, resolutions and recommendations constitute an umbrella for all Council of Europe member states. For example, Assembly Resolution 1466 of 2005 stresses that states must not accept any religious or cultural relativism in respect of women’s human rights.

      One of the problems identified was that, in many cases, it is not necessary to change the legislation, but it is not easy to realise such things in real situations. It is a matter of implementation and a balanced attitude without stigma and stereotypes. We must therefore work more with municipalities and the NGO sector to avoid stigmas.

      Gender equality gives double dividends. Healthy, well-educated women raise healthy, well-educated children. That is another reason to combat all forms of discrimination and violence, such as forced marriages and the sexual mutilation of women.

      In many member states, women are seriously under-represented in parliaments, governments and other senior positions in the decision-making process. Discrimination against women in the labour market is the norm in many countries. Even their access to the labour market is not guaranteed. In many countries, women with higher education often choose to stay at home to fulfil their obligations as a mother, or they work a reduced working day. For example, in the Netherlands, one in 10 professional women with children works full-time compared with nine out of 10 professional men who have children.

      Promoting greater participation of women in the labour force brings measurable dividends in terms of economic growth. Governments should pay attention to the role of education. I am referring in particular to the Assembly’s text on respecting the principle of gender equality in civil law, women and religion and access to safe and legal abortion in Europe.

      Gender equality and women’s rights do not necessarily have to come into conflict with a country’s traditions as long as those traditions are interpreted in a spirit of tolerance and openness from a religious and cultural point of view. Most of our societies can be characterised as more or less patriarchal. Such patriarchal, cultural and religious traditions are stronger in rural areas.

A positive agenda should be based on common values, cultures and religions. That agenda should also include the active participation of women in promoting intercultural and inter-religious dialogue if we talk about strengthening the role of women in society.

I should like to welcome the motion for a resolution tabled recently by Mr Mendes Bota to involve men in achieving gender equality. On a global scale, I should like to suggest that the Assembly, in accordance with Recommendation 1716, supports efforts to hold the fifth United Nations World Conference of Women no later than the year 2010 and to invite the governments of Council of Europe member states to support that initiative.

At the same time, the Council of Europe has published a White Paper on intercultural dialogue, which will set out the Organisation’s main policy orientation in this field and provide policy makers and practitioners at national, religious and local levels with guidelines and analytical and methodological tools. The PACE Committee on Culture, Science and Education was involved in the consultation process, and we also have some amendments that were approved.

The North-South Centre of the Council of Europe organised a consultation dedicated to the theme of women in intercultural dialogue in Geneva in April 2007. At the same time, the Council of Europe held a European conference on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue in San Marino, also in April 2007. The representatives of religious and civil society stress the importance of such dialogue. In the recommendations, we invite people to strengthen the role of women to combat all cultural and religious relativism, discrimination and gender-based violence and to make women a priority issue to improve the balanced participation of women and men in political, public and economic life.

We also had discussions in our committee meetings about those priorities and positive discrimination. In many cases, we have to support that part of society, which is not so strong. Sometimes those involved are afraid that they are not strong enough to take part in the fight for good education, for good jobs and for an appropriate role in society without stigma. We invite policy makers to develop programmes aimed at promoting the participation of women in intercultural and inter-religious dialogue and to hold a major Council of Europe conference on this subject. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Circene. You have six minutes remaining for your contribution to the debate.

I call Mr Pollozhani to present the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education. You have three minutes.

Mr POLLOZHANI (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). – Thank you very much, Madam President.

Distinguished parliamentarians, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Culture, Science and Education supports the view that states must protect women against violations of their rights. In that context, I should like to say that no religion is against the education of women and all religions highly regard the role of women in the family and society. Therefore, there is no justification for the violation of their rights in the name of religion.

Unfortunately, discrimination against women is still widespread in the world today, despite all the positive actions envisaged at worldwide level to eradicate it. The United Nations adopted, 30 years ago, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. Some 20 years ago, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Minsters adopted the Declaration on the Equality of Women and Men, and 10 years ago, the Assembly created the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. On the 10th anniversary, it is a good opportunity to assess again the importance of active policies by the states against the violation of women’s rights.

As a committee, we think that it is very important that those policies should be sustainable and rooted in the educational and cultural activities of new generations. That is why we support the draft resolution and draft recommendation in the document, which contains such actions in the fields of education, culture and the inclusion of women in intercultural and inter-religious dialogue, especially in multicultural societies.

As is stated in the document, it is necessary to take actions to raise awareness among the representatives of religions and civil society in the field, while rejecting all cultural and religious relativism, which undermines women’s fundamental rights. We also think that it is very important to have a mechanism for periodic monitoring of the progress towards achieving this aim. Thank you very much.

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

      Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Circene, on tackling an important issue. There is much in the report with which I agree, but I disagree with the proposition that women’s rights should be promoted by the introduction of positive measures such as quotas and other such mechanisms. That is covered in draft resolution 1.2. Quotas smack of social engineering and it is unwise.

      Happily, we have advanced so much from the bad old days, when women were regarded as second-class citizens, subservient to men, denied the vote, and discriminated against in terms of educational opportunities, property rights and career prospects.

      Today, through ability alone, women have reached the top in many fields: in politics we have Margaret Thatcher, our former Prime Minister, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the Presidents of Finland and of Ireland and others, all of whom reinforce the proposition that, as a female, talent alone can and will take you to the top without any extra help. I say to female colleagues here today, you are here because of ability, not because of quotas, and you would not want it any other way, would you?

      In so many worlds, universities and education, business, politics, the judiciary and the church, gradually women have increased their numbers and have risen to the most senior levels. They have done it through merit, not quotas.

      I think the general public would disapprove of quotas and other false mechanisms because advancing the role of women by those methods is likely to cause resentment – quotas mean bias. In short, we should strive for equality of opportunity rather than equality of benefits for the sake of it.

I note with some regret that a few years ago the Norwegian Government ordered that at least 40% of company board members should be women. That was a ridiculous idea. Not surprisingly, given the duty to shareholders and the need to promote on the basis of talent alone, fewer than one in five publicly owned companies have so far met that requirement. No doubt those who did not will be punished and that is wrong. Therefore, while we need legislation to ensure equality of treatment in so many areas such as freedom of worship, the right to vote, the right to work and property rights, we do not need legislative measures to give an unfair and unnatural advantage, which undoubtedly quotas would do.

      I applaud the initiative explained to me by my good friend Mr Seyidov, leader of the Azerbaijan group, who tells me that the Azerbaijani first lady, wife of the president, recently organised in conjunction with UNESCO a conference of 200 leading females from throughout the world to discuss the expanding role of women. That was an excellent measure and very successful but it does not involve recommendations for legislation on quotas.

      Other aspects of the report are excellent. The reference to combating violence against women is sensible and much needed. Domestic violence in the United Kingdom is on the increase and cannot be tolerated but, please, while we strive to increase opportunities for women at all levels, we should not introduce positive quotas that are themselves the enemy of merit and the greatest insult to our female colleagues.

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

      Mr LECOQ (France) thanked his fellow speakers, and the rapporteurs for introducing this important topic. He noted that women were not the same as men and were subject to a variety of different policies. Around 51% of the European population were women but they were not empowered to the same level as men. The fortunes of women had improved over the last 50 years; but even so their roles in society were still limited. Only around 23% of members of the European Parliament were women, and women only constituted around 10% of board members in the top 50 companies in Europe. Appointing men was the default position in many areas, both stereotypically and in practice.

      There was a general feeling that women’s roles had been distorted over the last 50 years. Some felt that women had abandoned the home and this had been the cause of many of society’s problems. However, there was now a backlash against these views. Many laws highlighted the inequality between men and women. The Council of Europe had recently examined abortion, which obviously only affected women. Many women often worked part time and so therefore only received partial pensions. There was now a growing feeling that these inequalities needed to be addressed.

      Europe had created an environment in which women were subordinated. The fundamental charter of human rights had addressed many inequalities but the position of women had still not been fully addressed. Legal standards could be applied to empower women but the culture of society also had to be addressed. The Council of Europe had recently led a number of campaigns on this subject which should be applauded; but many more should be undertaken. This, he felt, was in the spirit of the report and the resolution, which he supported.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Yazdanfar, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mrs YAZDANFAR (Sweden). – I thank the rapporteur for doing an excellent job under difficult circumstances. I have not been a member of this Assembly for that long but I have been told by my colleagues that the process concerning the report has been quite complicated.

      The report is very broad. It considers everything from so-called honour crimes to women’s opportunities to participate in economic and political life. It handles everything from women’s health concerning HIV and AIDS to the so-called glass ceiling that is and has always been hindering women as they attempt to succeed in public life.

Is it possible to be concrete and stringent when you discuss all those matters in 10 pages? It depends on what you aim to use the document for. It is an excellent start for further discussions both in the Assembly and in member states on how to empower women. Those discussions have to be followed by progressive political decisions. It must not be the case that, as so often with women’s rights, it stops with politicians stating that that is a problem. We need a whole lot of brave, political decision making as well.

      The most important statement in the report is that women’s rights are human rights, and that those rights are unquestionable. The rapporteur quotes the Assembly resolution on women and religion: “It is the duty of the member states of the Council of Europe to protect women against violations of their rights in the name of religion and to promote and fully implement gender equality. States must not accept any religious or cultural relativism of women’s human rights. They must not agree to justify discrimination and inequality affecting women on grounds such as physical or biological differentiation based on or attributed to religion.”

      The struggle against cultural and religious relativism must be as central as the responsibility of ethnic majorities always to reach out for intercultural dialogue, including the religious dimension. As a social democrat and a feminist, I can see the structures that are at work. Class, gender and sexuality are among the many factors that work together to hinder women in their efforts to obtain equal power. It is therefore necessary to fight those structures to empower women. There is discrimination, for example, in the labour market, where patriarchal structures favour men. Why not use positive measures to empower women, which is one way forward? Finally, I want to underline the fact that I am in favour of the report, which marks the start of further discussions and the brave decision making that is important.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Yazdanfar. I call Mr Mendes Bota to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.

      Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) thanked his fellow speakers for their contributions. He noted that enhancing the role of women was one of the major challenges facing society today. Many international agreements had already been implemented on empowering women and progress had been made, but there was still much more to be done. In general, women were poorer than men and did not have such good access to food. Two-thirds of all illiterate people in the world were women, which disadvantaged not only them but their children. Women also experienced less access to health care and more obstacles to finding employment or housing.

      One area in which women were the primary target was as victims of domestic violence. Many women suffered from domestic violence and the report needed to go further in addressing this problem. The independence of women could be achieved only once they had been empowered, and this was dependent on giving them access to advice and assistance in family planning and reproductive health. Thus, efforts should now be made to give women greater access to health care and advice on these matters. Efforts also needed to be made to address domestic violence and women should be given help to defend themselves and advice on how to deal with the situations in which they found themselves.

      The report coincided with the 10th anniversary of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. Quoting Condoleezza Rice, he noted that “democracy is not democracy if half of the people do not have the same rights as the other half”.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Mendes Bota. I call Mrs Memecan to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – I congratulate Mrs Circene on this extensive report on empowering women. The solution to many of our problems lies in the empowerment of women and simply providing them with equal opportunities.

      I would like to tell you about the recent opening of the first public ladies room in Sason, a small town in south-eastern Turkey. It opened on the demand and request of the village women, who started coming to the town for their monthly visit to the bank. Every month, they come to Sason to withdraw the money that the government pays them to send their children to school. As they have many children, the money means a great deal to them.

      That creative social campaign is aimed at promoting the schooling of children, with girls in particular being targeted. More money is paid for every girl who is schooled. The money is paid only to the mother, not to the father. The mothers therefore have to leave their village to go to town and open a bank account. They have direct access to money, and a sort of control of money for the first time. Their regular monthly visit to town turned into a shopping and trading day, and necessitated a ladies room for urgent needs. That is a concrete example of empowering women by exposing them to opportunities, promoting their participation in public life, and modernising their lifestyle. The ladies room is therefore a symbol of the liberation of those women, as it is a grass-roots democratisation movement.

      Unlike a man, when she is empowered, a woman uses her power to empower her husband, her children, and her extended family, who then become the building blocks of powerful societies. Confident women raise confident children. Boys and girls who grow up believing in themselves learn to respect one another and become more productive. It is the powerful woman who challenges the status quo, who takes risks and supports the taking of risks. The giving and caring nature of empowered women benefits the whole society and moves it forward. The state of societies in which women have no power and no say proves the significance of the role of empowered women.

      It should be on the agenda of every society to empower women in every part of that society. Concrete measures should be taken to empower women of different social and economic standing. First and foremost should be access to education. Educated women and men have more access to opportunities and are better prepared to benefit from them. Education is essential for integrating with the rest of the world.

      I started with an example from Turkey and I end my words with a Turkish saying, which is factual and meaningful in many ways. Its translation is, “It is the female bird that makes the nest.” If we have able birds we will have better nests.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does Mrs Circene wish to reply at this stage?

      That is not the case. In the debate, I call Mrs Gjul.

      Ms GJUL (Norway). – Thank you Madame President.

      I thank the rapporteur for a very important report. Gender equality and balanced participation in our society are questions of democracy. It is important to make use of all human resources in our countries.

      It is obvious that all European countries have experienced a backlash against gender equality. Women face discrimination in all European countries, but the seriousness and scale of the problems and challenges vary. Nonetheless, women have some common experiences. Women throughout Europe have less power and income than men and are exposed to discrimination.

      Economic independence and paid work are crucial to women’s empowerment and thus a priority in their own right. The issue is a question not only of gender equality but of using all human resources and capacity in society. No society can afford to waste the contribution of half its inhabitants.

      In the near future, the majority of European countries will have labour shortages and a growing population over 65. The proportion of the employed population may be too small and Europe faces two main challenges in the years ahead: to ensure, first, that more children are born and, secondly, that more people work and work longer. The solution to those challenges lies in viewing family and equality policy in close combination with labour market policy and thereby as part of a larger modern growth strategy for the region.

      The Nordic countries experience a positive correlation between female employment and fertility. Norwegian women have one of the highest birth rates in Europe, and at the same time labour force participation for Norwegian women is one of the highest in Europe, together with Iceland and Sweden. Eight in 10 women with small children participate in the work force.

      How is that possible? Because Norway and the other Nordic countries have introduced good public arrangements for families with small children, which makes it possible to combine work with childcare. The Nordic countries have invested in extensive maternity leave provision with high economic benefits, and kindergartens for all small children. Our experience is that it pays to give women work opportunities and to implement gender equality measures.

Empowering women gives a competitive advantage. Building kindergartens gives a competitive advantage. Improving women’s educational opportunities gives a competitive advantage. The World Economic Forum gives the Nordic countries top rating in its competitive advantage reports, so it seems clear that countries offering equal opportunities are the most competitive, and yield the best economic performance.

      Equal opportunities for women are crucial not only for women but for the development of our society and the continent as a whole.

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

      Mrs CAPARIN (Croatia). – I wish to express my deepest appreciation for the decision to tackle this topic. I congratulate Mrs Ingrida Circene, my party group colleague, on her work. As vice-chair of the committee on gender equality of the Croatian Parliament, I am deeply concerned about the subject.

      It seems that there has been a backlash against gender, equality and women’s rights for some time. We have only to look at the motions for recommendation in this part-session to see that: Document 11650, “Is virginity the determining factor for a marriage?”; Document 11613, “Migrant women: at particular risk of domestic violence”; Document 11611, “The wage gap between women and men”; Document 11633, “Cases of sexual violence against women in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo” or Document 11619, “Report on women in prison”. Is that Europe in 2008 in the 21st century?

      The topic of the report and the debate is “Empowering women in modern, multicultural societies” and I stress the words “modern, multicultural societies”. All the titles I have listed apply to problems we are trying to overcome or at least diminish. We are all living in the world at the same time, but obviously not in the same age. Very often, the rights of women are simple human rights. We are all aware that it is easier to regulate than to implement, but we have to keep devising new ways to induce implementation. It is important to make the wider public aware of the importance of implementation.

To pick up on the draft resolution and recommendations, we should be aware that, on the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, we are obliged to look back at what has been done. Looking further ahead, combating gender discrimination will unfortunately be part of our work for many years to come.

      The Council of Europe could organise a regional conference to prepare for the fifth UN Conference on Women, combined with appropriate action in national parliaments. That is not only a good and wise idea, but a very necessary one. Women should take an active part in all that work but we would like many men to join us. We are all humans together, and we should fight for overall human values.

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

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report. It says everything that needs to be said and more, because it poses a number of questions that I hope members of the Assembly take on board. I also congratulate our Norwegian colleague on her fine speech. I think that it was one of the best speeches that I have heard for a long time in this Assembly. She spoke well about the issue and obviously knows an awful lot about it. We should read her comments carefully because she answered a lot of the possible criticisms that will be made.

      I was rather surprised by the point made by my colleague Mr Malins from the United Kingdom. He defeated himself when he was speaking. He said that he was against quotas and positive discrimination in favour of women, but then went on to list a number of successful women. Mr. Malins, did you realise how quickly you stopped listing them? You quickly ran out of names that came to the fore. That is the problem, is it not? He says, with a smile on his face, that he did not have time, but that is the problem, is it not? Men never have time for women unless they want them. That is the issue. It is about politicians deciding that they will make time to listen to women’s views and will take note of what is being said. The problem that we face is that the one power at women’s disposal – the power of their vote – is not exercised in delivering for them what they deserve to have, which is an equal share, whether it be of power or in the business community, the political arena, the home or their educational development.

A basic human right is that everyone should be allowed, where possible, without exception, to achieve their true potential. How many women have not had that opportunity? How many women in our continent of Europe still do not have that opportunity? Yet there is not a country here where the majority of voters are not women. Why is it that women’s votes have not been harnessed by women across Europe to deliver the women’s agenda – the agenda of fairness and equality? Is it too much to ask?

As a man, I expect to be given equal treatment by other men and, for that matter, by women. I find it unbelievably obscene in a political sense that we still have this nonsense of women having to fight every inch of the way to deliver even a small step of advancement for their rights. Women’s rights are no different than my rights. Why is it that men do not deliver when they have the opportunity to do so in the parliaments where the power is in the hands of men? Why is it that men deny their fellow citizens – their sisters, mothers, wives and daughters – the same rights that they take for granted? It is because there is no incentive for politicians to give up power.

Power is about holding on to it if you can. The problem is that men have held the power for too long. They do not want to give it up. Therefore, they resist at every opportunity, even when the ability to do so is there for them, on a plate, and made easy for them. They resist the temptation to say yes to something because someone is standing behind them, niggling them, saying, “Hold on, mate. This is our power we are giving up. Do we really want to do that?” My answer is of course we do, and the sooner the better.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I call Mrs Genner.

Mrs GENNER (Switzerland) commended the rapporteur for the report, and thanked her. She said that the report examined the range of measures that were needed for achieving equality between men and women. This was something which affected everyone. It was a cross-cutting objective, and everybody needed to make their contributions and be active wherever they could, whatever their situation. She wanted to remind people that the achievements of the past needed to be defended. Nothing lasted for ever. There was a risk of backlash, and therefore a need to be vigilant. Society was in constant development. It was not good enough just to say that women had equal rights.

She wanted to commend Mrs Gjul for her work in promoting good opportunities for women. In Switzerland, there was a slogan for women, “take your place, madam, in society”, so men were making room for them. Germany too had a slogan that women must move from the kitchen and make room for men there. So each sex was making space for the other. She asked why there was a difficulty. Men gravitated towards support for other men in public life, so why did not women behave the same way and support other women? It did not make sense to object to positive measures. At all levels it was important to look at development policies, and grant women the place they deserve. It was question of equal rights “full stop”. She thanked the committee for its work and helping towards implementation of such important policies.

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

Mrs VOLOZHINSKAYA (Russian Federation) started by thanking Ingrida Circene for her multifaceted account, and said that the urgency stemmed from the need to protect women from violations of their rights. The most important aspect was to get the right balance between the traditional role of women – doing what others could not – and empowering them and creating spaces for them in the mainstream of economic and political life. Their most important role must, however, not be weakened or devalued; we the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater. Women had to be given the right to self-fulfilment, and the definition of self-fulfilment depended on the individual woman, whether working, studying or having children. Bringing up children was hard work, and the value of parents should be recognised; they should receive payment. For the Russian Federation, this was of primary importance, making women more equal in the family and raising women’s profile.

      One way, monitoring as in the CDEG, meant that countries must report every four years. This was discussed in human rights organisations. She asked whether it was sensible for the Council to duplicate initiatives under way elsewhere.

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

      Mrs KELEŞ (Turkey). – Thank you. I thank the rapporteur for writing such a comprehensive report on a very important subject. Empowering women is a very important subject because it is directly related to democracy and human rights, which, together with the rule of law, are the main principles of the Council of Europe. The proposal to support the efforts to hold a fifth United Nations World Conference on Women is therefore very important. When I think of the Beijing conference, its outcomes and repercussions, I come to the conclusion that the fifth UN conference will have wider effects and much more popularity. It will serve well to spread policies that will help to solve the inequality problem, and it will increase sensitivity to the issue.

      In the report, there are too many references to intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. I think that that is not necessary. There is no doubt that both those dialogues are important, but they do not lead to gender equality, because the core of the problem is not a lack of intercultural and inter-religious dialogue but insufficient regard to democratic and human rights practices. It is interesting that intellectuals and writers who think and write a lot about democracy and human rights do not give a high enough place to gender inequality, and do not explain its direct relation to democracy and human rights. It is important, not only for women but for the whole of society, that women be given an equal chance, with regard to education, jobs and politics. Unfortunately, however, the subject is usually considered to be a women’s issue.

      Women are not educated as much as men, simply because families who have limited resources or incomes prefer to spend it on their boys, thinking that girls, once married, do not need jobs. Educated girls cannot find jobs as easily as boys and, in many cases, they are paid less because the owners of businesses may think that they will leave their job when they are pregnant or have newborn babies. The opportunity to be educated, to have a job and to take part in elections, both as a voter and as a candidate, is important democracy and human rights issues.

      For women, the aim is not to benefit more from democracy and human rights, but is, and should be, to have equal chances, and equal status with men in the family, in education, in professional life, in politics and when it comes to representing one’s country. We need absolute gender equality, and dialogue cannot provide that: it is rather a matter of attitude and law. Intercultural and inter-religious dialogue will help to increase discussion, but to reach gender equality in every field, we need administrative, legal and political measures. We should welcome such measures, and we should formulate policies that will lead to gender equality.

      However, even that is not enough, because most economic, social, cultural and political policies increase gender inequality. The allocation of resources among sectors, the way a factory is used after privatisation, the amount of a budget that is allocated to health and education, and many other policies all influence the equality problem. The presence in national assemblies of a commission for the equality of women and men is very important. All legislative activities should be studied from the perspective of their effect on gender equality.

      Women’s access to public, political and economic decision-making posts through the introduction or increase of quotas and other mechanisms should be encouraged. If we are to achieve that, education is crucial. “The Rights of Today’s Girls: The Rights of Tomorrow’s Women” is a very important report from that point of view, and it will supplement other reports in a very satisfactory way. I congratulate the rapporteur and all the other parliamentarians who contributed to the report. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Keleş.

      I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who were present during the debate, but who have not been able to speak, may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

I call Mrs Circene, rapporteur, to reply. You have six minutes.

      Mrs CIRCENE (Latvia). – Thank you. I thank all the speakers. Some 51% of society are women, but most of you agree that only 10% of high-level posts are held by women. Those figures show the situation very clearly and precisely. Every day, many of us see in society well-educated, nice women, including female colleagues, who are politicians, scientists, ministers and prime ministers. Mr Malins spoke about nice ladies and women who have reached the top, and disagreed with positive discrimination measures to promote gender equality. I have to ask: what about the other 40% of high-level posts? Why are not 50% of ministers, prime ministers and presidents women? The same is true in the field of jobs, and in trade. Equally, why are there not more women in enterprise? I can answer that: it is because women are working twice over.

      The stereotype is that in jobs and in enterprise there is a democratic process for all, but what happens when women come home from work? They have to work another full day in their home. They have to take care of their children and their house. They have to do everything that is necessary for their family. Meanwhile, in many – but not, of course, all – cases, men have their weekend, holiday or free time. That is real life. We are not discussing what is in legislation. In most of our laws, it is rightly written that we have equality, and the same legislation applies to all. However, stigmas and stereotypes in the basic system point to what is happening in real life. Legal standards can focus our attention on quotas. We have already discussed the issue many times, including in our committee. Today, the issue will be passed to the Venice Commission, so that it can discuss what is right and what is not, how to use such quotas, and how to achieve a result.

      It is important to take special action to empower women in society and to promote the holding of a fifth United Nations World Conference on Women, in accordance with Recommendation 1716 from 2005, and to organise a preparatory European regional conference. Only together can we realise our aims and balance the development of society. Only if we have a society in which women are happy in their family life and in their jobs will we have a healthy, educated next generation. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Circene.

I understand that Mr Pollozhani does not wish to speak.

I call Mr Sigfússon. You have two minutes.

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – Thank you. I have two points to make. First, I want to discuss the issue of quotas and other positive mechanisms, which the first gentleman who spoke in the debate, Mr Malins, was against. Of course, the idea of quotas can be disputed, but to dismiss it altogether as a possible alternative, or as a tool of last resort, would be unwise. We can, of course, all agree that it would be best if we reached full equality, and ensured full and equal participation of both sexes, without any such measures, but that simply is not happening, and we cannot wait for ever. We cannot wait while generations pass without taking action. We need progress now, and radical measures are necessary. The reference to quotas in the draft resolution, mainly in paragraph 112, is very modest to my mind, so I strongly recommend the Assembly to adopt that text.

      Secondly, I want to recall that we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of the committee’s establishment, as is mentioned in the first paragraph of the draft resolution. Of course, the report is one of the highlights of this year, but I briefly want to mention the general working programme of the committee, which deals with a lot of other important issues, such as the following up of the campaign to stop domestic violence against women. We think that it is important to empower women in modern society, but we also think that it is very important to involve men, so we have ongoing work in that field as well.

      I like to think that the overall working programme of the committee is very thorough and provides comprehensive coverage of the issue. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Sigfússon.

      The debate is closed. The Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men has presented a draft resolution to which seven amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which three amendments have been tabled.

      I understand that the Chairperson on the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 34.10.

      The amendments are No. 3 to the draft resolution and Nos. 1 and 9 to the draft recommendation. Are there any objections? That is not the case.

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendment No. 3 to the draft resolution and Nos. 1 and 9 to the draft recommendation have been adopted.

      The amendments are adopted.

      The following amendment to the draft resolution has been adopted:

      Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Mr Robert Walter, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr James Clappison and Mr David Wilshire, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 1.4, to add the following sub-paragraph: “educational opportunities for all females, both children and adults.”

The following amendments to the draft recommendation have been adopted:

Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr José Mendes Bota, Mr Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, Mrs Darinka Stantcheva, Mrs Nursuna Memecan, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mrs Olha Herasym’yuk, Mrs Ingrida Circene, Mrs Mailis Reps and Mrs Dangutė Mikutienė, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 3, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to create a Council of Europe Special Rapporteur on Women’s Rights (modelled on the United Nations Special Rapporteurs), to be responsible, in close collaboration with the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, for monitoring the progress of women’s rights in fields including that of action to combat violence against women.”

Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Azis Pollozhani, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 5, to replace the words “intercultural and inter-religious dialogue” with the following words: “intercultural dialogue including its religious dimension”.

We will therefore proceed to consider first the rest of the amendments to the draft resolution. They will be taken in the order in which they were tabled, starting with Amendment No. 2. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Mr Robert Walter, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr James Clappison and Mr David Wilshire, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1.2, delete the words “through the introduction of positive measures (quotas and other mechanisms)”.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. I very much doubt whether I will get much support for this amendment, but I hope that at least one other person will support me. Quotas mean social engineering and they mean bias. If anyone is seriously suggesting that, because women make up 51% of the world, they should have 51% of all jobs, I think that they are stark staring mad.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I think that Mr Malins continuously shoots his toes off, does he not? He is going to have a job to walk home in a minute. No one is suggesting that we should have 51% [Interruption.] It is your wife ringing you.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – It is your phone.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Yes, it is my phone, but I think that it is your wife telling me to give you some stick and to tell you to get your act together.

No one suggests in the report that women should have 51% of jobs. The report says that women should have at least 50% of opportunities – whether for a job or whatever. That is what the report is about, Mr Malins. It is not about quotas; it is about giving people opportunities and ensuring that this happens.

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

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – As you might guess, the committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Mr Robert Walter, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr James Clappison and Mr David Wilshire, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, to delete the words “(including those carried out in the name of religion)”.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. This is only a drafting point. Reference to violations of course includes all violations, including those in the name of religion, as well as many other matters. I do not see the need to draw particular attention to one violation.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment No. 5. I call Mr Malins.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – I wish to withdraw this amendment please, Madame President.

THE PRESIDENT. – I have received an oral amendment from Mrs Circene, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which reads as follows: “In paragraph 6.1, after ‘constitutions’, insert ‘or, where no constitution exists, into law’.”

I understand that this oral amendment is intended to achieve compromise, and is proposed instead of Amendment No. 6.

In that case, Amendment No. 6 must be withdrawn. If Amendment No. 6 is not withdrawn, the oral amendment cannot be considered.

Is there any objection to Amendment No. 6 being withdrawn? That is not the case.

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 ten 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 Mrs Circene to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

Mrs CIRCENE (Latvia). – Thank you, Madame President. We have already discussed this at our committee meeting, and all our committee members agreed that the amendment is an improvement. I support the amendment.

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

The committee is obviously in favour.

I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.

The oral amendment is agreed.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Mr Robert Walter, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr James Clappison and Mr David Wilshire, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.4, to delete the word “positive”.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – Again, this relates to quotas. We are being asked to introduce positive measures to achieve balance in political life—not, Mr Hancock, opportunity, but balance in political life. Mr Hancock is occasionally quite sensible, but he has got this entirely wrong. We are being asked here for quotas for balance in political life. Such a prospect is wrong.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Austin.

Mr AUSTIN (United Kingdom). – When I was first elected to parliament, John Major was the Prime Minister. There were more Johns in the British House of Commons than women. My party introduced a system of positive measures in the selection of candidates, which led to a dramatic increase in the representation of women on the Labour Benches. Mr Malins’s party rejected such an offer. Now under the leadership of David Cameron there are more men called David in his shadow cabinet than there are Tory women MPs. I ask you to reject the amendment.

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

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Azis Pollozhani, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.6, to replace the words “intercultural and inter-religious dialogue” with the following words: “intercultural dialogue including its religious dimension”.

I call Mr Pollozhani to support Amendment No. 8.

Mr POLLOZHANI (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). – The terminology must be harmonised. Intercultural and inter-religious dialogue are part of one context. We think this wording is better and in harmony with previous terminology that has been adopted.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11612, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11612, as amended, is adopted, with 63 votes for, 3 votes against and 7 abstentions.

We come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Azis Pollozhani, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 5.2, to delete the words “and inter-religious”.

I call Mr Pollozhani to support Amendment No. 10.

Mr POLLOZHANI (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). – I move the amendment formally.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 10 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11612, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11612, as amended, is adopted, with 66 votes for, 5 against and 2 abstentions.

7. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

      THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the agenda which was approved yesterday.

      Are there any objections? That is not the case.

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

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Minutes of proceedings

2.       Examination of credentials

3.       Changes in membership of committees

4.       Organisation of debates

5.       Functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan

Presentation by Mr Herkel and Mrs Jivkova of report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe, Doc. 11627

Speakers:

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Kumcuoğlu (Turkey)

Mr Jacobsen (Norway)

Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)

Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

Mr Loncle (France)

Mrs Türköne (Turkey)

Mr Rafael Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Rustamyan (Armenia)

Mr Çavuşoğlu (Turkey)

Mr Hovannisian (Armenia)

Mrs Hajiyeva (Azerbaijan)

Mrs Ojuland (Estonia)

Mr Akhmedov (Russian Federation)

Mr Rochebloine (France0

Replies:

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mrs Jivkova (Bugaria)

Mr Holovaty (Ukraine)

Amendments Nos. 2, 3 as amended, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 adopted.

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.

6.        Empowering women in a modern, multicultural society

Presentation by Mrs Circene of report of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Doc.11612

Presentation by Mr Pollozhani of opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education. Doc. 11621

Speakers:

Mr Malins (United Kingdom)

Mr Lecoq (France)

Mrs Yazdanfar (Sweden)

Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal)

Mrs Memecan (Turkey)

Ms Gjul (Norway)

Mrs Caparin (Croatia)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mrs Genner (Switzerland)

Mrs Volozhinskaya (Russian Federation)

Mr Keleş (Turkey)

Replies:

Mrs Circene (Latvia)

Mr Sigfússon (Iceland)

Amendments Nos. 3, 1, 9 and 8 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted

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