2008 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-fourth Sitting

Wednesday 25 June 2008 at 3 p.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 de Puig, the President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.10 p.m.

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

1. Minutes of proceedings

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I realise that there are still a few committees that have not yet finished their meetings, but we cannot wait for the stragglers any longer.

      The minutes of proceedings of the Twenty-second Sitting have been distributed.

      If there are no objections, the minutes are agreed to.

They are agreed to.

2. Written declaration

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – In accordance with Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure a written declaration, No. 411, “Appeal on behalf of the Burmese population”, Document 11661, which has been signed by 49 members, has been tabled.

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

3. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – This afternoon, we conclude the debate on the state of democracy in Europe, and vote on the draft recommendations and draft resolutions contained in all three reports. That means that we have a lot of work on our agenda. We then have the debate under urgent procedure on the implementation by Armenia of Assembly Resolution 1609 (2008).

We will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the first debate at about 4.15 p.m. in order to allow time for the replies. The votes on the draft recommendations and draft resolutions presented by the three committees will begin at around 4.20 p.m.

The second debate will start at about 5.50 p.m. We will have to interrupt the list of speakers in that debate at about 6.40 p.m. in order to leave sufficient time for the replies on behalf of the committees and the votes before the scheduled finish at 7.30 p.m.

Are these arrangements agreed?

They are agreed.

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

4. The state of democracy in Europe (resumed debate)

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We now return to the debate on the state of democracy in Europe, which started this morning. This afternoon, the business is the presentation of the report from the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Europe and progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure, Document 11628 and addendum, presented by Mr Holovaty, rapporteur, followed by a statement from Mr Miklos Marschall, Regional Director for Europe and Central Asia, Transparency International.

      I call Mr Holovaty, rapporteur, to present the report of the Monitoring Committee. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – This year, I have the honour to present to this Assembly the report on the progress of the Assembly monitoring procedure in my capacity as Chair of the Monitoring Committee.

      I want to thank all members of the committee and, in particular, the country co-rapporteurs, for their input into the report. In fact, in preparing the report, I limited myself to references to texts adopted by the Assembly and reports or other public documents debated in the Monitoring Committee. In the country-specific sections of the report, I did not engage in any analysis or in drawing conclusions beyond what has been proposed by the co-rapporteurs concerned or Assembly observer delegations.

      To provide a meaningful contribution to the debate on the state of democracy, in this year’s progress report the Monitoring Committee decided to address a number of key elements of the functioning of democratic institutions and the rule of law, in particular the separation of powers and the role of parliament; elections and electoral reforms; political parties and their finances; the fight against corruption; media pluralism; local and regional self-government; and conflicts and the role of parliaments in confidence building.

      Separation of powers and an efficient system for checks and balances, free and fair elections and electoral arrangements that ensure a wide representation of the plurality of views in parliament, strong and transparent political parties as key actors in the political process, transparent functioning of public institutions and effective safeguards against abuse of power, media pluralism, and decentralisation and subsidiarity are essential components of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.

      The Assembly’s Monitoring Committee has been closely following developments in these fields in all Council of Europe member states. The report takes stock of developments in 11 countries covered by the monitoring procedure and three countries engaged in the post-monitoring procedure. I also included in the report the information collected by committee co-rapporteurs in the preparation of the opinions about the initiation of the monitoring procedure against the United Kingdom, with respect to electoral fraud, and against Italy, with respect to the monopolisation of electronic media and the possible abuse of power. Finally, the report takes stock of democratic developments in the third group of 11 countries not covered by the monitoring procedure or engaged in post-monitoring dialogue. This report, in fact, completes the three-year general monitoring cycle.

      While welcoming a great number of positive developments in our member states, the findings of the Monitoring Committee allow us to conclude that democratic institutions have to face several key challenges. First, constitutional reforms are strongly needed in several of our member states to ensure the effective separation of powers and the democratic functioning of institutions – for example, for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Monaco, Ukraine and Turkey to comply with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

      Secondly, a good constitutional framework might not be conducive to good-quality democracy if the voters’ interests are not effectively represented in parliament. Therefore, improvements to the electoral process and legislation have to be made to ensure the organisation of free and fair elections in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Montenegro, Moldova, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine and Turkey.

      Thirdly, the electoral framework is only part of the process. Once elected, members of parliament should be free to express their views in the political process. The so-called imperative mandate rules – new to Council of Europe practice and which have emerged only recently in some post-Communist countries, representing the Communist traditions – should be abolished. Members of parliament should account for their actions to their voters and not to a small group of party leaders or to the party leader personally. I have in mind Ukraine, Serbia and Russia.

      Fourthly, political parties are important actors in the democratic process. Their consolidation should therefore be welcomed. At the same time, they should function in a transparent manner, both in political and financial terms. Mechanisms of independent control over political parties and campaign financing should therefore be strengthened in Monaco, Montenegro and Serbia.

      Fifthly, media pluralism needs to be further strengthened, in particular through the establishment of independent and impartial media regulatory authorities. Moreover, censorship, prosecution and imprisonment, intimidation of journalists or even physical threats against them cannot be tolerated on “Council of Europe territory.” They have to be eradicated at once in Azerbaijan, Russia and other countries.

      Sixthly, effective decentralisation in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity should be further strengthened as one of the pillars of democratic society. At the same time, local and regional authorities should constantly improve their capacities to provide better services to citizens. That relates to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, Serbia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine.

      This Assembly should strongly urge all member states to continue their work on those challenges. Our work should help them to overcome remaining difficulties. The Council of Europe is the guardian of European standards for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It has developed a wealth of expertise, which is available to all our member states, as well as to countries beyond the borders of the European continent.

      In that respect, I invite the Assembly to recommend to the Committee of Ministers that it takes account of the findings of our co-rapporteurs, and of the Assembly recommendations, in its own periodic reporting procedures. The Assembly recommendations should become road maps for member states on the path to strengthening democratic institutions. Where appropriate, these road maps should be translated into targeted co-operation programmes that are to be designed and implemented by the Council of Europe, individually or in co-operation with other international partners, especially the European Union.

      Having said that, our recommendations should not remain empty declarations. Their implementation should be closely monitored, not only by our Assembly but by various specific Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms. An effective follow-up at national and international level must be ensured. In that respect, it is of utmost importance to make sure that the findings of the various monitoring mechanisms are fed directly into organisations’ programmes of activities, in particular as regards standard-setting, expert assistance and co-operation programmes. Moreover, Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms and human rights institutions must be given additional means of ensuring follow-up and of checking on the implementation of their recommendations.

      In order to operationalise this process and foster synergies between various monitoring procedures and mechanisms, the Monitoring Committee proposes holding a hearing. It will act as a forum for exchanging ideas and identifying ways and means of moving forward. I count on the Assembly’s support in that matter and look forward to that event, which could provide very valuable input into further discussions. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Holovaty. You have three minutes and 45 seconds to respond at the end of the discussion.

      I now call Mr Marschall, Transparency International’s Regional Director for Europe and Central Asia.

      Mr MARSCHALL (Regional Director for Europe and Central Asia, Transparency International). – Mr President, Mr Holovaty, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the Parliamentary Assembly and comment on the Monitoring Committee’s report regarding the state of democracy in Europe. I believe that the committee and Mr Holovaty have done a good job. Most of the recommendations are in line with what my organisation, Transparency International, advocates. The report highlights seven issues; I would like to touch on two of them. The first is fighting corruption. If time allows, I will also mention party funding.

On fighting corruption, I would like to highlight four lessons that Transparency International has learned in its 15 years. Lesson No. 1 is that anti-corruption reforms work only with macroeconomic, social and political reforms. Looking at this report and many others, such as Transparency International’s corruption perception index and World Bank reports, we see that the countries that score relatively well in the fight against corruption are those that do a good job when it comes to reforms.

If you look at the Transparency International corruption perception index, in which we rank countries according to their perceived level of corruption, you will see that at the bottom of the list are countries that do not have a terrific record when it comes to economic and political reform. Let me list the last countries on the list: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, Armenia, Albania and Moldova are at the bottom of our ranking. Even more embarrassing is the very low position of Ukraine and Russia on that list. Russia has a score of 2.3, on a scale from zero to 10; that indicates a serious problem. One can fight corruption only if the political instruments are available, and if a political system has the necessary checks and balances. That is the first lesson that we have learned over the years.

Lesson No. 2 is that the experience of anti-corruption commission agencies is mixed, to put it mildly. In many cases, where commissions do their jobs well, they sooner or later face conflict with the executive power. I quote the example of Slovenia. There are also many disputes in Romania and Lithuania. It is extremely important to reiterate that those commissions can work only if they have a strong mandate and independence, report to parliament, and are well resourced and well managed.

The third lesson that I would like to share with you is that, from Transparency International’s perspective, there is a strong nexus between the general business climate and the level of corruption. With the notable exception of Georgia and Albania, countries with high levels of corruption score very poorly in the World Bank index on doing business. You have our written reports before you; I have attached a table from the World Bank “Doing Business Report”. You will see that wherever there is a high level of corruption it is extremely difficult to do business. On that list, it is not a big surprise to see that Russia, Albania and Ukraine are the three worst countries.

The fourth lesson that I would like to share with you is that a common characteristic of countries with a high level of corruption is the strong presence of what we call the shadow economy. Let me delve briefly into the issue of that shadow, black, grey or extra-legal economy. I shall refer to a famous Hungarian economist, János Kornai. His lucid analysis helps us to understand why it is so difficult to create real change in the fight against corruption. Kornai reminds us that any well-functioning market economy relies on what we call trust – on an environment in which private contracts, essential for the capitalist economy, are by and large enforced. That enforcement and the security that it brings with it is fundamental for any business and other transactions.

Generally, we can identify three types of enforcing mechanisms in any functioning market economy. The first is the legal-judicial-bureaucratic mechanism that is provided by a well-functioning state. The second is the moral associative mechanism. That relies on common norms and values such as honesty and mutual trust. When those two mechanisms are weak, a third will emerge. I call it the extra-legal enforcement and it rests on bribes, corruption and, in its most extreme form, on violence – on a mafia-type of enforcement that is outside the law. Needless to say, the first and second types of mechanism reinforce each other. Kornai says: “The more a business can trust in legal enforcement of private contracts, the more rarely it will need to resort to judicial proceedings … the greater the mutual trust between business partners, the fewer the court cases. That reduces the pressure on the judiciary and speeds up legal proceedings, which further reinforces the reputation of the legal-judicial-bureaucratic mechanism”. In that situation, there is trust: businesses trust one another, citizens trust the state, and the state trusts its citizens.

      The big problem in most of the transition countries is that businesses do not trust one another, citizens do not trust the state, and the state does not trust its citizens. There is very little trust in those societies. The two mechanisms that I have mentioned are very weak: neither the state nor the established norms can provide the necessary security and enforcement, and a damaging substitution develops. The third mechanism – the extra-legal – will take over. The more that the business world relies on mechanism 3 and resorts to illegal means, the lower the prestige of the law falls. The result is a vicious circle in which damaging processes reinforce one another.

      We need to understand that there are strong incentives that keep bribery and corruption alive. Unless we address these issues, anti-corruption strategies will not work. Look at the security services as a commodity – as a service someone has to provide. In a healthy situation, the state does that. In other situations, those services are not provided by the state, or they are poorly provided, and damaging alternatives will emerge: bribes, corruption and so on. Unless we have strong checks and balances in the political system and unless we have effective public administration and more economic freedom, specialised anti-corruption measures will not work.

      I am running out of time, so I will just touch upon the second issue that I wanted to address: political corruption. I would like to refer to three key accountabilities that any political party funding should include: first, accountability within parties, which is the requirement to use proper internal bookkeeping and accounting systems and to keep party members properly informed; secondly, accountability to the states, which is the requirement of parties and candidates, donors and service providers to report on political finance transactions; and thirdly, accountability to the public, which is the requirement to disclose all relevant information on campaign and party finances.

      Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, I would like to conclude by commending these reports and the Council of Europe for its work in the fight against corruption and supporting good governance. Transparency International, as an independent civil society organisation, also promotes those values, and we also commend the recommendations of the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption. Those recommendations and the recommendations in these reports should be implemented as soon as possible. As a civil society organisation, we are available to work with you.

      The final lesson that I would like to share with you – this might be self-evident – is that you cannot fight corruption without the strong and daily involvement of civil society. The pressure should come from the grass roots – from civil society – and any responsible politician should respond to that pressure. Thank you very much.

      (Mr Biberaj, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr de Puig.)

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Marschall. I now call Mr Van den Brande, who will speak on behalf of the European People’s party.

      Mr Van den BRANDE (Belgium). – Thank you very much, Mr President. Dear colleagues, I want to begin by congratulating the chairman of the committee, Mr Holovaty. We all know that he was being modest when he said that he was just picking up what many other bodies were doing. With reference to the rapporteurs, that might be true, but it is important to notice that for the third time the report focuses on what we are trying to do in this Chamber and also abroad.

      A more general but important reflection is that, when we look at the basic values, we must notice that all state institutions must comply with the standards. We often focus on what governments, parliaments or the judiciary are doing but, exactly as Mr Marschall says, civic society must also play its role. In good democracies, we need social capital. Social capital leads to democratic capital. We often speak in terms of subsidiarity, but we must get away from the illusion of thinking that only institutions can make improvements. We must also trust those who are the actors in our society, and they must comply with the standards.

      I come now to some specific remarks. It is important that we strengthen and improve the separation of power. That does not mean that there is no interaction between powers. However, let us look at some countries. Of course, we have a lot of examples in the report. The main issue – for example, in Russia and Turkey – is simply to preserve the separation of power. Montesquieu is no longer alive, but in any case we have to deal with that point because it is basic to democratic societies.

      On electoral reform, we know that election day is the main day, but the period before and the period after are also important. For example, the Venice Commission has often tried to promote better regulation, but it is also important that free and fair democratic elections take place. Mr Gross, we were discussing what “fair and free” means. That is a question of how much the population is part of the process of real free and fair elections.

      I was really pleased to hear what Mr Marschall said about political parties. Dear colleagues, Mr President, we in the Council for Democratic Elections are working on a code of good conduct for political parties. We should not duplicate what we have already done in respect of good conduct in electoral matters, but it is evident that political party accountability must be in place. There is internal and external accountability, and there is certainly societal accountability.

      Corruption is effectively one of the most important aspects. It is a precondition that there should be no corruption in a country. Corruption is a virus that affects all institutions and all bodies.

      On the media, I fully agree that public broadcasting is important, but something is lacking from the report. We need not only public broadcasting, but an objective, neutral regulatory body in each country.

      On local and regional development, I think that the real issue for the future is that we should opt for multi-level governance, where responsibility is shared between local, regional, state and global levels. That can bring us to a better situation.

      Lastly, Mr President, I think that the hearing that has been proposed is a good idea, but it is also a good idea to have the in-house debates, as mentioned in the report. However, we also need to refer things back to the countries. I am in favour of a new publication on the contributions made in this debate and what has been set out in the report. Thank you very much.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Van den Brande. I now call Mr Hancock, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Thank you very much indeed, Mr President. I was delighted to see that the speaking time has been extended from four to five minutes from now on – so I will try to keep within that time frame.

      First, I wish to say to Mr Van den Brande that public broadcasting is fine, but it must be paid for. In the main, it is paid for by governments or through licence fees as in the United Kingdom. That is a very controversial issue, so we should not talk about these things glibly, as though you can just invent a public broadcasting system without wondering how it can be implemented. Once again, we should not say things that cannot be properly implemented without giving a justification for how things should be done.

      I say to our colleague from Transparency International that corruption can never be fought from the bottom up. If the people who are corrupt are at the top, you have to start by ending their corruption and then things filter down. If you talk to anyone who has been confronted by a policeman asking for money for his lunch – [Interruption.] That is my phone – a policeman is asking me for his. We must be careful. Transparency International may think that the fight against corruption will start from the people in the street who are punished most, but that is not impossible, because the people with their snouts in the trough are so well established.

Unless there is a political imperative that forces corruption to be tackled, it never will be. If you wait for the people to rebel against it, you will wait for ever because the forces that lead corruption are too powerful. A political imperative is needed to shift that. You are in cloud-cuckoo-land if you think anything but that.

      Mr Holovaty always makes the point about the imperative mandate and the fact that we should do something about it. You can only do so if you get elected by people directly in a one-for-one election. If you are given priority in a list by a political party and then decide to skip the party, you will have some obligations to that party and the party has a right to remove you from parliament. It is only when you are directly elected that you have the right to say, “I will take my case to the people.”

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be No. 1 on the list and then demand that that does not have any obligations. The people did not decide where you were, Mr Holovaty, on the list of the party when you were elected on a party list, and they did not make that decision for many others. You cannot have it both ways. It falls short of democracy to say the least because if anything is undemocratic it is about a party list being produced by the leaders of a political party.

We have lost colleagues in this Chamber because they devoted time to the Assembly and were taken off the party list and lost their seats. We cannot have the sort of system that you want, Mr Holovaty, where the politician wants it both ways. Democracy is not about that. It is about seeing transparency at all levels, including the party list.

      This report is like a surreal book. It is a joke. There are no obligations in here that say to any of the countries that have been warned about their position that, if they do not comply, action will be taken. What is the point of monitoring a country and saying its system is useless and does not meet the test of freedom and fairness if you say after the election, “Welcome back, we will take it through in the next four years and let us see how you do next time”? What is the point of that? It is nonsense.

      I have just come from the Monitoring Committee, which took the big stick to Monaco. The same issues arose in relation to Liechtenstein, but we caved in over Liechtenstein. Erik Jurgens and I went there. I think he bowed, and I did not do anything, to the prince. We came back with a report that said that Liechtenstein has no right to be in here. But this Assembly said, “Scrap the report, we want Liechtenstein here.” Today the things that apply to Liechtenstein, which we failed to do anything about, apply to Monaco. Today in the committee we could not even debate the fact that again the Council of Europe was going to make itself look so damned stupid. Why do you do it? You have double standards the whole way. If you are going to have monitoring, have monitoring that means something. Do not tell me that the law has changed. If the law has changed, it is only as good as the benefit it gives to the people. If the people do not benefit, they do not deserve that law and the law should be changed. I am just coming up to my five minutes, Mr President. I am very grateful.

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

      Ms WOLDSETH (Norway). – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Holovaty, for his report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Europe and the progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure. There is no question about the necessity of monitoring different countries. Monitoring is what we do to assist members in reaching democratic standards. It is our responsibility.

      Many of the countries that are monitored are so-called new democratic countries and they need advice and guidance. However, we should take into consideration that we perhaps should not look only at the new democratic countries. Even the old ones sometimes need both supervising and monitoring. We seem to think that everything is perfect in western Europe but unfortunately the story is not always so. Prisoners are held without fair trial, immigrants are not treated as they should be, and is the justice system always independent, fair and free of corruption? Does all of western Europe have a truly free press and is there transparent financing of political parties? Those questions should be asked but perhaps are not so simple to answer.

      Therefore it is important that the democratic development of countries such as mine are also monitored. The report and recommendations relating to Norway that we find in the addendum to the report should be an important tool for my authorities.

      We need efficient monitoring procedures. Council of Europe member states face many challenges: corruption, the lack of a fair trial and of freedom of speech; trafficking in human beings; drugs; and weapons. All of those are important issues to follow closely.

      One issue bothers me a bit when it comes to our practical monitoring work. The fact that we nominate one or two rapporteurs for each country, and that the same people seem to remain rapporteurs for that country until they leave the Council of Europe, is not in my opinion the best way of doing the job.

      I have recently learned that a former member of the Assembly and rapporteur got a job from the country that that person used to monitor. There may be nothing wrong with that per se, but we still need to raise some critical questions. When a rapporteur has been monitoring a country for three, four or even more years, is he or she still truly independent or is the relationship perhaps getting too close and friendly with the authorities in that country? I do not say that that is always the case but there is a danger there.

      Of course I recognise that a rapporteur who has been doing that job for some years has developed useful knowledge and contacts over time but I think that we can find a method of work that takes care of both concerns: that of experience and knowledge and that of objectivity and impartiality.

I therefore suggest that the rapporteur and the chairperson of the Monitoring Committee, Mr Holovaty, should discuss with the committee the issue of greater circulation in the task of monitoring, thus ensuring more mobility and turnover. That would not only better ensure rapporteurs’ objectivity and impartiality, and thus improve our work, but it would also better involve and engage the whole committee. It is a question of our internal working methods. It is important that we address them, and I am sure that together we can find a solution that allows us to strengthen the monitoring procedure even further. That, I believe, is what we all want.

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

Mr LECOQ (France) thanked the President and said that today’s debate provided a healthy jolt, reminding us of the triptych of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The clear objectives for a modern assembly were outlined in the report. Joining the Council of Europe was not an end-point; there had to be involvement of members on a daily basis. Monitoring was there to ensure that we were in tune with modern democracy. This applied to all members – no doubt France would be part of a future report.

He wondered whether there was a need to reinforce the monitoring process. The system was liberal, but democracy constituted a perpetual work-in-progress. Popular sovereignty was of great topicality. The Council of Europe should look at its own experience; the purpose of the exercise was not to exclude or isolate the states concerned. All the efforts should be seen as contributions to an improved system for the future. Also, careful attention should be paid to the feedback from the affected states. If there was found to be cynicism there, it would be necessary to be aware of it, and to act. He thanked Mr Holovaty for the recommendations, and invited the Assembly to think about what action was necessary. Although it was efficient, there was some fragility in the monitoring process, and modernisation was needed.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Lecoq. I now call Mr Wodarg on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr WODARG (Germany) thanked Mr Holovaty for his excellent report and also thanked all colleagues who had participated in the monitoring process. He wanted to make a basic comment about monitoring. It was based on history and we had wanted to use the yardsticks of yesterday. But other things were happening more quickly. Prices in the food market had rocketed. Societies were affected by what the market did. In the past, there had been colonisation, other countries were exploited and Europe grew rich. Now, the rich countries were defending the advantages that they had accrued. And they were still continuing to exploit other countries, as for instance with the diamonds from Africa. On migrants, people had been happy to leave their homelands, but more information was being produced about the effects than about the causes of migration. If there was not to be another “middle ages” we need a form of transnational democracy. We would need more time to establish such a concept. What was needed was a sustainable social model for it.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Wodarg. I now call Mrs Goryacheva.

Mrs GORYACHEVA (Russian Federation) thanked the President and said that she had perused the draft resolution. The Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly did useful work in relation to national legislation. On monitoring, she quoted a Russian saying that “other people have a clearer view than you have of yourself”. She sometimes had a nagging thought that monitoring was not always objective. The criticisms which were made were very much taken to heart. But she asked why there was one set of criteria for Russia, and another for the Baltic states. There were now 150 ethnic groups in Russia; people who were born and bred there, but what was going on in their own countries? For some incomprehensible reasons, the Baltic states had been taken off the agenda. She had wanted to weep into her handkerchief at what the rapporteurs had said about what was satisfactory there, because others had a different story to tell. There was only room for one truth. She ended by quoting what had been said earlier in the Assembly’s deliberations by Mr Lipiński that “we have to be beyond reproach”.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Goryacheva. I now call Mrs Tevdoradze.

      Mrs TEVDORADZE (Georgia) said that human rights and dignity appeared to have been forgotten in some areas of Georgia. In those areas, when people were not being bullied by the bureaucracy, they were being bullied by the Russian military. Russian soldiers, who had been sent to the area as peacekeepers, were not behaving as such. The local population was being given orders “with a gun to their head”. She had heard many tales from locals of Russian soldiers behaving like an occupying army. And on the 19 June, just last week, she had read in the Russian press that Russian soldiers posted to the region did not need to spend their wages because their fridges were full of food and drink. One could but ask oneself where all those provisions came from?

      The basis of democracy was human rights, but there needed to be laws to uphold those rights and principles. All the members of the Council of Europe had to live by the same standards of democracy. The report said that Georgia was moving in the right direction but, in her view, it should be clear for anyone to see that many serious problems remained. Democracy in Georgia could flourish only once the integrity of her borders had been restored. The Council of Europe had a crucial role to play in helping to establish dialogue and co-operation, enabling players to resolve the difficult problems.

      One had to ask oneself why the Russians had sent paratroopers as peacekeepers? How could this be justified? She was grateful to the rapporteurs for their excellent work.

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

      Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said the monitoring procedure was at the very heart of the Council of Europe. It was the core of its work, and it was what made the Council of Europe different from other institutions. Countries were monitored right through until all the standards of the Council of Europe had been applied, and countries were not allowed to forget areas where they did not comply with the standards expected. But there was a divide between those countries which had entered the Council of Europe before the adoption of Resolution 1500 of 2001 on democratic legitimacy, and those which had entered afterwards.

      He thanked the rapporteurs for this excellent report, which had provided a real vision for the future as well as a detailed analysis of the situation on the ground today. However it was very important to remember that the monitoring procedure needed handling with great care. If double standards were allowed to creep in, if some countries were taken out of the monitoring system without being fully in compliance with the conventions, the system would lose credibility.

      As regards Russia, the number of areas covered by the monitoring regime were progressively increasing. And with regard to the previous speaker – Mrs Tevdoradze, who was a great friend – it was always worth remembering the importance of parliamentary diplomacy. Where angry words might be uttered in different spheres, the Assembly remained a place where issues could be resolved diplomatically. In summary, the monitoring procedure was not a long-established procedure, and it was crucial to ensure that it was not corrupted by double standards.

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

      Mr WACH (Poland). – The current report, which covers the period from April 2007 to June 2008, is a wide and thorough document concerning all the major issues relating to the functioning of democracy in the 11 countries under the monitoring procedure and the three countries engaged in the post-monitoring process. The draft resolutions treat the matter systematically, one issue after the other, starting with the separation of powers and the role of parliaments, then electoral problems followed by political parties, their funding and so on.

      In those major requirements for democratic rule, the resolution finds some progress in several of the countries examined, but more often lack of change and sometimes substantial deficiencies. As such, we may regard the continuing “imperative mandate” in the Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine, as well as legislative provisions in Serbia and Montenegro that allow political parties to change the order of candidates on party lists after the elections. Such legal solutions give political parties too much power over individuals. They may disregard the will of the people and in fact establish a master-slave dependency between candidates or subsequent members of parliament and political leaders.

      Another problem is corruption. The draft resolution is concise about that subject in the member states under scrutiny; paragraph 7 consists only of two general sub-paragraphs and a third specific one, which relates to Ukraine. Such brief treatment of the issues relating to the fighting of corruption may mislead the reader and suggest that it is a lesser problem. However, the explanatory memorandum covers the issue in much more detail. There, the fight against corruption is presented country after country, with an analysis of the state of legislation and the degree of engagement of the state and of co-operation with GRECO – the Group of States against Corruption.

      I shall comment on two issues in the report that are not at the forefront of the problems presented, but that seem to me important or even fundamental to the democratic functioning of member states. The first is the existence of unresolved conflicts and the role of parliaments in building the confidence that could assist in their peaceable resolution. The draft resolution correctly states that in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova, democratic developments cannot be consolidated until the territorial integrity of those countries is restored.

In Georgia, the conflicts involving Abkhazia and south Ossetia are even more intensive, with the number of incidents growing. Regrettably, the Assembly has very limited power in this field, as the report says, and can only appeal for and foster a positive climate for further negotiation.

      The other important subject that is presented at the end of the report is the state of local and regional democracy. The report rightly notes that decentralisation reforms should be stepped up in the countries that it mentions. It also declares that more power and greater financial means should be directed to a local and regional level accompanied by proper legislation.

      The explanatory memorandum is much more specific on the subject, showing which countries follow and implement the recommendations of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities and which of them signed the European Charter of Local Self- Government. We should always stress that the welfare of citizens and their positive attitude to the democratic system is estimated and judged from the local point of view, which reflects the state of law concerning self-government and its implementation in a given country.

      With these remarks, which reflect my personal perception of the report, I would like to support it and to congratulate the rapporteur warmly on his work.

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

      Mr TURCAN (Moldova) thanked the rapporteurs for their excellent report. Moldova was one of the countries monitored, and the reports of the monitors had led to very important reflections and discussions in his country. It was clear that the problems of countries such as his could be resolved only with close co-operation with the Council of Europe. Moldova had been the subject of close attention by the monitors, and the resolutions of October 2005 and 2007 had provided a good impetus for improvements.

      The current parliament in Moldova was coming to the end of its term, so this was a very good time to reflect on the achievements of that parliament. Several laws – for example, those enhancing the independence of judges, reforming broadcasting, and increasing the autonomy of local authorities – had been passed in this legislative period, and other progressive acts would hopefully be brought on to the statute books before the end of the term. But, while it was important to adopt the right legislation, it was equally important to ensure that this legislation was implemented.

      The report’s recommendations regarding Moldova would be read with great care and his country was open to any suggestions and comments from the Council of Europe. He hoped that the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe would continue to support Moldova. He would also like to emphasise that the hearings that had been held at the Council of Europe were both helpful and excellent. It was important for a country at this stage of democratic development to listen and learn from others. The next task was to ensure that the next parliamentary elections were free and fair.

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

      Mr SASI (Finland). – First, I want to congratulate Mr Holovaty on once more doing such a good job. I welcome the report, which deals with the whole area covered by the Council of Europe and also the 33 countries that are not monitored every third year, which guarantees that we get a balanced picture. It is one way of ensuring that we do not apply double standards to any country in our family.

      Let me address two things: the electoral process and party finances. As far as the electoral process is concerned, the report rightly states that it is not acceptable for the party leadership to withdraw an elected MP from the party list. However, it is even worse than that if the party leadership can change the order of people on the list and select who is elected to parliament, because that is not democratic. We saw that clearly in the Serbian elections. Those countries have to change their practices and go back to normal democracy.

      What is democracy, as far as elections are concerned? A citizen must have the right to vote for a person and a party. The party should decide the political line, and the citizen must have the right to choose a person in whom he can trust. Clearly, those are the basic rights. It is not democratic if the citizen can vote only for a party, and the party leadership decides who is on the party list. Many democracies have that list system, and we should address that issue in this Assembly; we should go through the matter clearly and ensure that people have the right to choose a person, too.

      If people are selected to be on a party list, it is important that the process be democratic. The party leader should not have the right to choose who is on the list. There should be an election among party members – locally or nationwide – in which party members select the people who will be on the party list from among the candidates who are willing to stand. Those basic principles should be applied clearly by this Assembly.

      It is very good that the subject of party finance is addressed in the paper that we are considering. Everyone has to have the right to donate money to parties for political campaigns; I think that that is one of our basic rights. If we put in place limitations, we must be very careful with them, and they must be very clear. Why should not we allow a person to give their inheritance to a party campaign? Why should we impose any upper limits? However, it is important that there should be full transparency. People must know who has given money to candidates or parties, so that they know whether there are any links between donors and candidates. Of course, not every cent given need be announced. A donation of €5 is not interesting. However, if we are talking about €2 000 or €10 000, that is certainly of great interest to the electors.

      I strongly support the recommendation that all countries should have an independent, strong, specialised mechanism to monitor party and candidate financing. In Finland, the Ministry of Justice was that mechanism, and we had great problems. It must be an independent organ that plays that role. We have to support the third round of work done by GRECO. It goes to different countries and reports its findings. Parliamentarians should give full support to GRECO.

      We in Europe should adopt the American way of giving money. Many people could then give small amounts – €5 or €10 – to campaigns. A big amount of people could give a small amount of money. I think that that would be the best way to achieve democracy as far as party finances are concerned. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Dorić is not here, and Mr Vrettos is not here either, so I call Mr Herkel.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – Thank you Mr President. Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, this morning, when we started our long discussion about democracy, Mr Gross set out a paradox: everybody wants democracy, but nobody is satisfied with democracy. Now we are discussing the progress of our monitoring procedure. Let me paraphrase Mr Gross: every state wants to be democratic, but sometimes there is no consensus on what democracy actually is, as there are different opinions. Of course, we can continue to discuss democratic values and contemporary human rights, universal or otherwise.

Sometimes, we hear about the concept of sovereign democracy, both in Council of Europe member states such as the Russian Federation, and in the non-member states that we deal with, such as Belarus. Of course, we all know about the well-known concept of ancient values; they are quite different from what we see as democratic values and the principles of human rights. Fortunately, we in the Council of Europe have very strict and fixed rules, and we have fixed our values. It would be simple to open the files and look at what is going on. Unfortunately, in reality things do not always work as they should. I must admit that yesterday, in the discussion on Azerbaijan, I was struck when several people raised the issue of double standards. It was a good point. I do not agree with the way in which the question was posed or raised, but yes, there are double standards.

I would like to make two simple proposals today. The first is that we open the documents in the Monitoring Committee’s files on the state of procedures and see how many reports there have been on each country that is under the monitoring procedure. If we see that other countries have similar serious problems, we should ask why some of them have not been the subject of many Monitoring Committee reports, while others are the subject of a lot of reports. My proposal is that we intensify our work. We should not have fewer reports on countries that have serious problems; we should have more.

The second proposal is on special reports, political prisoners, the freedom of the media and so on. If we have reports on one country with regard to those issues, we must have such reports on countries with similar problems. That would be simple; it would mean more co-operation between and within committees. Thank you.

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

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – I spoke this morning, so I do not wish to speak now.

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

Mr OMELCHENKO (Ukraine) thanked the president and his dear colleagues, saying that it was a pleasure to be in the Chamber. He expressed praise for his colleague, Mr Holovaty, a fellow Ukrainian, and also Mr Marschall, for their efforts to combat corruption. Standing in one of the most important European institutions, it was vital to discuss the independence of the judiciary and other important elements of democracy. The three branches of power, government, the judiciary and the legislature – should always be equal and should always be independent of each other. If this were not the case, the situation was effectively tyranny.

      Coming from Ukraine, he knew what it was like to live in an authoritarian state where the government had overpowered the judiciary and the legislature. He therefore hoped that Ukrainian parliamentarians would take on board the recommendations in the report about corruption and recognise a political mandate for themselves. For many years, he had been working to combat political corruption. As a member of the European Parliament for 15 years, he had helped to put together a package of legislation to combat corruption.

      Corruption had been the reason for the Ukrainian elections being delayed; a situation from which a number of conclusions could be drawn. It was important to recognise that future work must be based upon three basic values: the rule of law, freedom of speech and democratic elections. At the Council of Europe, it was therefore crucial to work together to eradicate the mistakes of members’ own countries. This would need political will at the top and new laws to punish those who were corrupt.

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

      Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – Mr President, we must do some evaluation of our monitoring work, which is without doubt one of the most important parts of our mission. In some countries under monitoring, there has been no real progress. We usually exaggerate the importance of minor steps in order to show to the outside world that our work has produced satisfactory results. In many countries under monitoring, corruption is worse today than when they joined the Council of Europe, and the media and NGOs are under worse harassment.

We lay emphasis on the adoption of some pieces of legislation by those countries, but we largely ignore the fact that the legislation in question will not be applied in good faith by the authorities. Therefore, we are really talking about irrelevant legislation if it is not applied in good faith.

When a government under monitoring knows that its abuses will receive only some oral condemnations from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, no substantial improvement is to be expected. Without effective sanctions, such abuses will continue or even deteriorate. If you hold a stick over the head of someone who misbehaves or breaks the law and he is sure that you will never hit him, he will take no notice of your presence.

Mr Holovaty’s report is a good one overall – he has worked hard and brought together many important things – but I want him in any similar endeavour in the future to concentrate on the issue of more effective sanctions being taken by the Assembly when we are faced with cases of countries where there has been no improvement and a clear-cut case of deterioration. Otherwise, in the near future, all the countries under monitoring will not take us seriously. They will say, “There is a lot of talk but no action.” Therefore, we may become nothing more than a place of reference. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call the last speaker on the list, Mr Izetbegović.

Mr IZETBEGOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina). – Mr President, dear colleagues, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Holovaty, for a detailed and comprehensive report that referred several times to the state of democracy in my country, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In my contribution, I will try to point out the main problems that slow down the development of democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina and possible ways of solving them. The main burdens are a Communist past, a war that devastated the country in the recent past and the imperfections of the Dayton Agreement. Fifty years of the Communist regime, with a one-party system and effective control over freedom of thought, has produced inertia in the way that people think and behave.

Not only has the war caused physical devastation in the country, but years of conflict have also resulted in the segregation of Bosnia and Herzegovina society, in distrust among the people, chauvinism, and a tendency for domination in territories where only one people is in a majority, as well as in crime and corruption.

The Dayton Agreement stopped the war and the destruction, but it has also established state institutions incapable of functioning without constant interventions by the Office of the High Representative and the international community.

Taking account of the obstacles that I have mentioned, we could say that the state or the development of democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not that bad. Attacks on returned refugees have stopped; elections have been conducted peacefully; and the media are free to criticise, to write the truth – or often untruth – without consequences. The fight against crime has been intensified. Despite all the challenges, peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina will obviously survive and democracy will make progress.

Members of the different Bosnia and Herzegovina peoples and religions have lived together in peace for centuries, and they confronted each other only when the flame of war had been imported to Bosnia from the east or from the west.

In order to foster positive progress, earlier commitments must be fulfilled and new reforms must be adopted. Only 10% of annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement concerning the return of minorities has been implemented. Approximately 130 000 people have been waiting to return. The Bosnia and Herzegovina Constitutional Court’s decision on the constitutional status of peoples and proportional representation in state institutions has been only partially implemented. The fulfilment of those two obligations would reduce the effects of “ethnic cleansing”, segregation and partition in Bosnia and Herzegovina society. However, if those obligations are not implemented, the result will definitely be an ethnically segregated state, including its institutions, municipal authorities, courts and the police.

I believe that each document that analyses the state of democracy and human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina has to emphasise that problem and to insist on its solution. If people are, to a huge extent, deprived of the right to return to their homes and to participate in the authority bodies, which clearly represent violations of the constitution, laws and decisions of the OHR, the story that is told about the state of democracy becomes absurd. The most important reform is, of course, constitutional reform – it will pave the way to other reforms and accelerate Bosnia and Herzegovina on the way to European integration.

As time is short, I shall reduce the length of my speech. So, finally I would like to inform you that only a few days ago, a verdict from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Constitutional Court unblocked the problem of a public broadcasting service entity, which is mentioned in item 177. A request of the Croat caucus has been rejected and possibilities for the establishment of a unique public broadcasting system with state level management, in accordance with item 178, have been created. Establishing a unique public broadcasting system is one of the major conditions for Bosnia and Herzegovina in its negotiations with the EU in the stabilisation and association process. It is also an obligation from annex 9 of the Dayton Agreement that should at last be fulfilled. So that is good news for our rapporteur. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers. Would you like to reply very briefly, Mr Marschall?

Mr MARSCHALL (Regional Director for Europe and Central Asia, Transparency International) . – Thank you very much, Mr President. I should like to use these few minutes to address three issues. I would like to respond to Mr Hancock. Yes, I agree with you that political will at the top is needed to fight corruption. Indeed, good policies cannot be executed without a strong political will at the top of government. However, public pressure is also necessary.

Both are absolutely necessary to combat corruption successfully.

      If we want to single out one key factor that is crucial in fighting corruption, it should be the rule of law and the existence of clear enforceable norms. In some ways, corruption is a deviation from certain norms. The problem in many transition countries is that the rule of law does not prevail so people have to use alternatives – private ways to secure contracts and business transactions. If we do not understand the basic incentives for corruption – the poverty of the state, its poor performance and the ineffectiveness of the rule of law – we can have hundreds of action points, lots of strategies and many commissions but we will not be successful in the fight against corruption.

      I think there is one issue that does not appear in the report: the statute of limitation, which is important. Corruption is related to high-profile, white-collar crime, and sophisticated business transactions. Some high-profile criminals use the statute of limitation through complicated legal procedures to postpone the legal process and then the statute expires. It is important to consider corruption as a high profile crime, so the statute of limitation should be applied with a lot of care in relation to corruption-related crime.

      Thank you again, and I am pleased that you allowed Transparency International to speak here.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Holovaty. You have three minutes and 30 seconds.

      Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – I thank all speakers who took part in the debate, especially those who praised the report. All the praise should go not to the chairman of the committee, but to the secretariat. I would like to send your praise to the secretariat of the committee, especially Martine Fritsch and Mrs Chatzivassiliou.

I thank our special guest, Mr Marschall, for his informed opinions and I also thank the co-rapporteurs who worked for three years on the items reflected in the report. I agree with Mr Van den Brande that the report should be published in the way we have published reports in previous years. I agree that the issue of the duration of the co-rapporteurs’ mandate deserves special attention, study and discussion, and I agree with the comments of Mr Pourgourides.

I cannot say that it was a pleasure for me to be strongly criticised by the only political group to which I belong, expressed by Mr Hancock, who has supported the imperative mandate. I think that he is the only member of the group who supports that because, if the group supports it, at the next meeting, it will have to exclude me from the ALDE. I cannot accept the idea that was put into practice by Lenin and the Bolsheviks and exists in Communist China, Communist Korea and Communist Cuba and supported by Mr Hancock.

On Mr Pourgourides’s proposal, the monitoring procedure was set up in 1997. The Assembly has been doing that for 12 years and we have produced a number of reports. There are countries that have been discussed in the Assembly annually: some, after seven years’ membership, have had eight reports; others are countries that have been members for 12 years and had 10 reports. We must think how the monitoring procedure is to be improved and how it could be made more efficient.

The Venice Commission produces a lot of opinions on constitutional developments, the state of democracy, human rights and electoral systems but they are still opinions. That is why the key element of our proposal in the draft resolution is to hold a special hearing. I express my gratitude to all our partners who co-operated, especially the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers, the GRDM, the group on Armenia-Azerbaijan, the European Committee of Social Rights, the commissioner for human rights, GRECO, MONEYVAL, CPT, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance and the European Commission for Democracy through Law, the Venice Commission experts. All will participate in the hearings that we are planning if the resolution is adopted. The hearings will take place at the end of this year and we will think how to start the new phase of monitoring, not only within the Assembly but within the Council of Europe in general, with all our partners who are involved in the process at this stage and will be in future. I thank all of you again for your participation in the debate.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

The debate is closed.

We will now proceed to the votes on the draft resolutions and draft recommendations presented by the three committees.

We will begin with the draft resolution presented by the Political Affairs Committee in Document 11623, to which 36 amendments have been tabled.

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

The Amendments are Nos. 18, 19, 10, 11, 29, 12, 30, 32, 35 and 14 to the draft resolution.

Is that so Mr Lindblad?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – That is correct. All those were adopted unanimously, so there is the possibility of taking them without any vote here if the plenary so decides.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – On a point of order, I listened carefully to the list that was read out, which does not equate to the list that was read out and agreed at the Political Affairs Committee this afternoon. More than the number you read out were unanimously agreed at the beginning of the meeting.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Wilshire. We are treating the resolution and recommendation separately, so we will approve the resolution with the proper amendments and we are going to discuss the recommendation later.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – Further to that point of order. I did not hear you read out Amendments Nos. 33 and 34, which are part of the resolution, not the recommendation. I think that there are more. I would be interested to hear from Mr Gross, who read the list in the first place.

THE PRESIDENT. – Those amendments are consequential to, and related to, the other amendments. They are connected and we will deal with them one by one.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – According to the decision in the Committee, I think Mr Wilshire is right. We did unanimously deal with those amendments. When it comes to the recommendation we start with Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 36. The others are in relation to the resolution. The numbers have changed. The ones we discussed in the committee are not the ones in the final version.

THE PRESIDENT. – There are perhaps some technical mistakes.

      Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – It may assist the Assembly if I read out the list of amendments that I wrote down very carefully when Mr Gross read it out: Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 41, 10, 11, 29, 40, 12, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 14, 60 and 70.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Wilshire. According to the Rules of Procedure, it is okay for amendments that have been unanimously approved to be approved here.

      I must inform the Assembly that if no Assembly member objects, the amendments that have been listed and which have been unanimously approved by the Political Affairs Committee should be declared as adopted by the Assembly. The amendments are Nos. 18, 19, 41,10, 11, 29, 40, 12, 30, 32 to 35 and 14 to the draft resolution.

      Are there any objections? That is not the case.

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 41,10, 11, 29, 40, 12, 30, 32 to 35 and 14 to the draft resolution have been adopted.

      The amendments are adopted.

      The following amendments to the draft resolution have been adopted:

Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, before the word “diversity”, to insert the following word: “cultural”.

Amendment No. 19, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, to replace the words “a permanent feature of” with the following words: “an inevitable development in”.

      Amendment No. 41, tabled by Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Albrecht Konečný, Mr Vilmos Szabó, Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mrs Tineke Strik, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, second sentence, replace the words "At the very least" with the following words: "For example".

Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 11, to add the following sentence: “These barriers need to be removed.”

Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 13, to add the following sentences:

      “Easy access and motivation for language learning should be provided to migrant women. Cultural and educational policies should be developed to make migrant women aware of constitutional values and the principles of human rights.”Am

Amendment No. 29, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins, and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17.1.1, delete the words “by easing regularisation requirements where such requirements are too restrictive”.

Amendment No. 40, tabled by Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mrs Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Dick Marty, Ms Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 17.1.2 with the following sub-paragraph: "consider, when appropriate, removing restrictions on dual citizenship where such restrictions exist in national legislation, except in cases of possible misuse of dual citizenship by those charged with war crimes in order to escape justice;"

Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 17.1.4, to insert the following sub-paragraph: “consider giving migrant women a legal status independent of that of their spouse.”

Amendment No. 30, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins, and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17.2.1, replace the word “grant” with the following words: “consider granting”.

Amendment No. 32, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins, and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17.3.1, replace the word “remove” with the following words: “consider removing”.

Amendment No. 33, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins, Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17.3.2, replace the word "support" with the following words: "consider supporting".

Amendment No. 34, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins, Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17.3.2, after the words "on the", insert the following word: "peaceful".

Amendment No. 35, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins, and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17.4.1, replace the words “the registration of migrants and the granting of” with the following words: “applications for the registration of migrants and for the”.

      Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 17.4.2, to add the following words: “, including gender-disaggregated data”.

      The remaining amendments to the draft resolution will be taken in the order in which they relate to the text. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I call Mrs Memecan to support Amendment No. 7 on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. You have 30 seconds.

      Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – I wish to move the amendment formally.

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

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The interests of migrant women should be accepted and integrated, as is the case in the amendments that have been agreed. We have set a general outline on diversity and democracy, so the proposal would be misleading in the context of the whole document.

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

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 7 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Amendment Nos. 20 and 21 need to be read together. If Amendment No. 20 is rejected, Amendment No. 21 falls, so I will therefore invite Mr Wilshire to speak about both amendments.

We now come to Amendment No. 20 tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, to replace the words “Today they are not always able” with the following word: “Adapting”.

      With this we may take Amendment No. 21, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, after the words “diverse societies”, to insert the following words: “can be a complex and difficult task.”

      Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – Amendment No. 21 is consequential on Amendment No. 20, so I shall not speak to it, because all that it does is make the English read properly. As for Amendment No. 20, the way in which paragraph 5 is worded is negative and critical. It says that people cannot do this or that, and all that the amendment seeks to do is make a paragraph factual and neutral rather than critical, but it says the same thing.

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

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – We do not think that it is better English – on the contrary, with all due respect to Mr Wilshire. We should act and not only adapt to one another, otherwise we cannot make progress with democracy.

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

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment Nos. 20 and 21 are rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 22, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, to replace the last sentence with the following sentence: “Failure to adapt can have serious consequences.”

I call Mr Wilshire to support Amendment No. 22.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – It was interesting to hear Mr Gross speak about the word, “Adapting”. Adapting is action, and the paragraph as it stands says that it is a shortcoming not to address the status quo. The problem arises from the fact that the world moves on. It is not a shortcoming – we must adapt to the way in which the world changes. That makes more sense, and that is what we are trying to say. The amendment seeks to express it in that more accurate language.

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

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – Mr Wilshire wants to delete that sentence because he does not like to be reminded that when democracy is not functioning we risk violence. However, we have to say that sentence, because whenever violence takes place it is a sign that there are shortcomings in democracy. That is exactly what we want to overcome.

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

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 22 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 23, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, to replace the words “all human beings in a country” with the following words: “the citizens in a country and all migrants.”

I call Mr Wilshire to support Amendment No. 23.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – The paragraph as it stands talks about “all human beings in a country” effectively having the same problems and the same rights. That is not so. The citizens of a country have particular rights and concerns, and the immigrants to that country raise different issues. Simply to say “all human beings” is to miss the point that the citizenry has a right to its interests, as well as the immigrant. Democracies, as we know, arise from the concept of citizenry.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – In my world, citizens and migrants are all human beings. That reminds me of my trip to Tehran, where I met the director of the directorate of human rights and women. The distinction is the same. I am against the amendment, and the committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 23 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Ulrich Adam, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Holger Haibach, Mr Axel Fischer, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Arthur Loepfe, Mr Gebhard Negele, Mr Rony Bargetze, Mr Ingo Schmitt and Mr Aristotelis Pavlidis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, to replace the last sentence with the following words:

“This situation can be remedied, e.g. by facilitating access to citizenship.”

I call Mr Lintner to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that he simply did not know any state authorities that would be prepared to say that they did not have responsibility for this area.

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

I call Mr Keskin.

Mr KESKIN (Germany) said there were many questions relating to this issue. Acquiring the citizenship of a new home country without renouncing the citizenship of the former home country was not always possible. There were many reasons why people might not want to follow that course.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment No. 24, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins, Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, to replace the words “must be remedied by facilitating access to citizenship or extending political rights, including voting rights, to non-citizens” with the following words: “needs to be addressed”.

I call Mr Wilshire to support Amendment No. 24.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – The paragraph as it stands completely undermines the concept of citizenship by calling for voting rights for non-citizens. The paragraph correctly identifies a very real issue that needs addressing, but not by undermining the concept of the citizenship of a nation. That is dangerous stuff. It is interfering in how human society works and it needs to be vigorously opposed.

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

I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The amendment is dangerous. If we want to reduce exclusion from democracy we have to be precise. If we want to open up democracy, there are only two ways of doing so: citizenship or voting rights for non-citizens. We should never impose on people something they do not want.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 24 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – As Amendments Nos. 39 and 2 are identical, we shall consider only Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Ulrich Adam, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Holger Haibach, Mr Axel Fischer, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Arthur Loepfe, Mr Gebhard Negele, Mr Rony Bargetze, Mr Ingo Schmitt, Mr Aristotelis Pavlidis, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 9.

I call Mr Lintner to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that there were obvious consequences in this area when a country became a member of the European Union.

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

I call Mr Keskin.

Mr KESKIN (Germany) said that there had to be an element of political co-decision. If migrants’ right to participate in municipal elections could not be contemplated, how could we expect them to participate in the processes of civil society at all?

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is rejected.

Amendment No. 39 therefore falls.

We come to Amendment No. 25, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins, Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 10, to add the following words: “among its citizens”.

I call Mr Wilshire to support Amendment No. 25.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – This provision goes right to the heart of why I fundamentally disagree with Mr Gross. We have a statement that everybody in a country, irrespective of their status, should have the same political rights. No. Everybody in a country should have the same right to apply and be considered for citizenship and to be a citizen. Political rights flow from citizenship, not simply from where people live. The provision is dangerous. It undermines the entire concept of democracy in this continent.

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

I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – Excuse me, but Mr Wilshire appears to be speaking to a different paragraph. Here we are talking about opportunities for people who have rights, not about establishing rights. We want to ensure that all those who have rights have equal opportunities to use them. That is completely different from what Mr Wilshire said.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 25 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 8 (rev), tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 10, add the following sentence: “Equal opportunities must also be given to migrant women, irrespective of their legal, marital or financial status.”

I call Mrs Memecan to support Amendment No. 8.

Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). –The amendment speaks for itself.

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

I call Mr Gross to speak against the amendment.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). The resolution deals with rights for everyone and not just migrant women. If we add a sentence relating specifically to women, it will exclude everyone else, reducing the scope of the provision. We should not introduce it in this context.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, after the words “in political life”, to insert the following words: “, especially of migrant women,”.

I call Mrs Memecan to support Amendment No. 9.

Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – We all accept that migrants are under-represented in political life, and migrant women are especially under-represented. The amendment emphasises that reality.

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

I call Mr Gross to speak against the amendment.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – Again, I apologise, but we want to address all communities that are affected by low participation rates. To add migrant women would mean leaving out migrant young people and migrant men. That is why we want to leave the wording open and not reduce the scope of the idea. We will come to women later.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 9 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 26, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, to replace the words “must raise questions about the barriers to their more active involvement in the democratic process” with the following words: “need to be addressed”.

I call Mr Wilshire to support Amendment No. 26.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – This paragraph correctly identifies the problem of low turnout and low representation in respect of the immigrant community. However, it then says that it is caused by barriers to things. There may be some barriers, but there are also such issues as lack of interest, which is not a barrier. The problem is real. We want to open up the consideration beyond simply blaming other people for putting problems in the way. That is what the amendment would do.

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

I call Mr Gross to speak against the amendment.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – This morning’s debate showed us how many barriers migrants face and how they are disadvantaged. The idea is not just to address the issue but to overcome the barriers. That is why we should stick to the original wording.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 26 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Ulrich Adam, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Holger Haibach, Mr Axel Fischer, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Arthur Loepfe, Mr Gebhard Negele, Mr Rony Bargetze, Mr Ingo Schmitt and Mr Aristotelis Pavlidis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, to delete the last sentence.

Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Adam, and Amendment No. 27, tabled by Mr Wilshire, are identical. We will therefore consider only Amendment No. 3.

I call Mr Lintner to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that he believed that assimilation could be the result of successful integration, but the current draft of the resolution suggested that the two were incompatible.

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

I call Mr Lindblad to speak against the amendment.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The amendment’s proposer is completely confused. Assimilation and integration are completely different. I often speak about making people part of something and I do not use the word “assimilation”. We should not have it. The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is rejected.

|Amendment No. 27 therefore falls.

We come to Amendment No. 28, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15, delete the last sentence.

I call Mr Wilshire to support Amendment No. 28.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – My amendment relates to an issue that appals me, and I hope that it appals everyone in the Chamber. The sentence claims that national democracy has failed and that the democracies that we know and love must be wiped away and replaced by something that Mr Gross calls “transnational democracy”. That is the end of the nation state and the end of what we believe in. It will create an artificial concept which, in the European Parliament at least, has failed.

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

I call Mr Gross to speak against the amendment.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The sentence forms one of the backbones of the whole idea. A double crisis needs a double reform. One reform is to introduce democracy that is above the nation state. If we introduce it above the nation state, that should relate also to the local level. There are many democracies, on four different levels. That is why we should stick to the idea.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 28 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Ulrich Adam, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Holger Haibach, Mr Axel Fischer, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Arthur Loepfe, Mr Gebhard Negele, Mr Rony Bargetze, Mr Ingo Schmitt and Mr Aristotelis Pavlidis, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 17.1.2.

If Amendment No. 4 is agreed, Amendment No. 40 falls.

I call Mr Lintner to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said all this had been the subject of extended discussion; but one could not have two citizenships without also having split loyalties.

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

I call Mr Gross to speak against the amendment.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) said that Germany just needed to look at its neighbours to see that this was possible.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Ulrich Adam, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Holger Haibach, Mr Axel Fischer, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Arthur Loepfe, Mr Gebhard Negele, Mr Rony Bargetze, Mr Ingo Schmitt and Mr Aristotelis Pavlidis, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 17.2.

I call Mr Lintner to support Amendment No. 5.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that there were two issues here. Residing in a country should not mean that one automatically qualified for citizenship. Citizenship required a much closer engagement with the country than just residence there.

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

I call Mr Lindblad to speak against the amendment.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – This is the same argument about voting rights and we have just voted on an amendment on those. This idea is wrong now just as much as it was wrong before. The committee is against it.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 31, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins, and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17.2.1, delete the words “as the first step before granting such rights to all lawfully resident foreigners irrespective of their country of origin”.

I call Mr Wilshire to support Amendment No. 31.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – This is about the right to vote. The amendment says that the right to vote should be given to all resident foreigners. If ever I have come across a recipe for trouble in a homogeneous nation, this is it. Simply to say that everybody, whether citizen or non-citizen, has the right to vote, is dynamite, and it should not be in this report. The society that Mr Gross wants to build is a society of which I am terrified.

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

I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – It is absolutely not necessary to be terrified, because the idea is to extend citizens’ rights to the people of the Council of Europe, and we are also thinking about perhaps extending them to those who do not yet belong to the Council of Europe. We should avoid a nationalism, in the sense of a nationalism of the Council of Europe states.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 31 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 42 tabled by Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mr Bjørn Jacobsen, Mr Tiny Kox, Mrs Tineke Strik, and Mr Boriss Cilevič, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17.3.1, replace the words “who are lawful foreign residents” with the following words: “regardless of their status,”

I call Mr Elzinga to support Amendment No. 42. You have 30 seconds.

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands). – This amendment is a matter of principle. Irregular migrants should not be excluded from human rights. International human rights standards guarantee international freedoms, especially freedom of association, to all migrants. UN bodies such as the Human Rights Committee are very clear about that. That is why I have moved the amendment.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 42 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Ulrich Adam, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Holger Haibach, Mr Axel Fischer, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Arthur Loepfe, Mr Gebhard Negele, Mr Rony Barrgetze, Mr Ingo Schmitt, Mr Aristotelis Pavlidis is, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 17.3.2.

If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 fall.

I call Mr Linter to support Amendment No. 6. You have 30 seconds.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that everybody was well aware of the good reasons for such restrictions, especially in dangerous situations such as cases of terrorism and racial hatred. It was therefore vital to have such restrictions in place.

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

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – Article 16 of the European Convention on Human Rights addresses the possible restrictions on the political activities of “aliens”, as it puts it. That is the heritage of the Cold War and we should at least consider deleting it. That is what we ask for.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 6 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 13.

I call Mr Wilshire on a point of order.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – According to a list that I read earlier, Amendment No. 13 was agreed to unanimously in committee this morning.

Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – I withdraw Amendment No. 13.

THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment is withdrawn.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11623, as amended.

The draft resolution in Document 11623, as amended, is adopted with 70 votes for, 14 against and 7 abstentions.

The Political Affairs Committee has also presented a draft recommendation, to which 6 amendments have been tabled. I understand that the Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments to the draft recommendation, which were unanimously approved by the Political Affairs Committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 34.10.

The amendments are Nos. 16 and 17 to the draft recommendation.

I must inform the Assembly that if no Assembly member objects, the amendments which I have listed and which have been unanimously approved by the Political Affairs Committee shall be declared to have been adopted by the Assembly. Are there any objections? That is not the case.

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 to the draft recommendation have been adopted.

The amendments are adopted.

The following amendments to the draft recommendation have been adopted:

Amendment No. 16, tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3.3, after the words “length of required residence”, to insert the following words: “, also considering the ‘dependent’ status of many migrant women, “.

Amendment No. 17, tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3.6, before the word “research”, to insert the following word: “gender-sensitive”.

The remaining amendments to the draft recommendation will be taken in the order in which they relate to the text.

We come to Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 3.2, to add the following words: “, taking into account the specific ‘dependent’ status of many migrant women”.

I call Mrs Memecan to support Amendment No. 15.

Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – We believe that migrant women should be able to get independent legal residency status, which may be different from their husband’s dependant immigrant status. We would like migrant women to be independent individuals.

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

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – My committee agrees totally with the idea behind this amendment. That is why we accepted Amendment No. 16. There, we are talking about foreigners residing lawfully in the long term, in Council of Europe member states and under their legislation. However, it would be too cheap to include the words in the amendment at this point of the document. That is why we accepted the change in another part of the document. I ask colleagues to reject Amendment No. 15.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 15 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 36, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3.3, to delete the words “less restrictive access to citizenship”.

I call Mr Wilshire to support Amendment No. 36. You have 30 seconds.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – This paragraph seeks to say that it is right for us to interfere in what I consider to be a sovereign matter for an individual society, which should decide on its own rules on access to citizenship. It is not for us to lecture an independent society; it is for the people in that society to decide for themselves what sort of society they are and how they admit people to it. They are willing to admit people, but they must be allowed to determine the terms and conditions.

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

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – Mr Wilshire is opposing anything that he does not like. We set a standard because we think that it is in everyone’s general interest. It is up to every country to decide how it positions itself in respect of the standard.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 36 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 37, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3.3, to delete the words “, as well as the criteria for defining the degree of integration of a person concerned”.

I call Mr Wilshire to support Amendment No. 37. You have 30 seconds.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – This is the same argument as I used just now, but this time it is about setting standards and requirements for integration and telling independent societies what they must or must not do. Mr Gross is disingenuous when he says that this is only setting a standard. It will be Mr Gross who comes back with a motion that condemns people for not meeting his standard. That is not just setting something out; it is the first step to interfering in the sovereign rights of the country to decide on its level of integration and its standards of citizenship.

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

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – I would like to ask Mr Wilshire not to underestimate even those who disagree with him. This is nothing to do with imposing anything. We would just like to find a general possibility for our integration capacity.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 37 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 38, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr Humfrey Malins and Mr Christopher Chope, which is, in the draft recommendation, to delete paragraph 3.5.

I call Mr Wilshire to support Amendment No. 38.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – This is the last time that you will hear from me this afternoon, Mr President. I now have the most absolutely unanswerable case: the committee agreed with me – just think about it – and even my great sparring partner over there, Lord Tomlinson, had to put his hand up in favour of Wilshire, and I thank him for it. It is a one-off occasion. May you do it again.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – Surprisingly, the committee was in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 38 is adopted.

I call Mr Wilshire on a point of order.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – If anyone in this Chamber does not believe in miracles, they have just seen one.

THE PRESIDENT. – Yes, that is true.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11623, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation, as amended, in Document 11623 is adopted, with 67 votes for, 11 against and 8 abstentions.

We will now consider the draft resolution presented by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population in Document 11625, to which 15 amendments have been tabled.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 34.10.

The amendments are Nos. 4 to 12, 16 and 17 to the draft resolution. Is that so Mrs Jonker? As the committee was working very late before the meeting, we need some clarification.

Mrs JONKER (Netherlands). – That is correct.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

I must inform the Assembly that if no Assembly member objects, the amendments which I have listed, and which have been unanimously approved by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, shall be declared to have been adopted by the Assembly. Are there any objections? That is not the case.

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments Nos. 4 to 12 and 16 and 17 have been adopted.

The amendments are adopted.

The following amendments to the draft resolution have been adopted:

Amendment No. 4 tabled by Mr John Greenway, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mr Hakki Keskin, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mrs Tineke Strik, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, at the end of the first sentence, to insert the following words: “and such participation favours integration”.

Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr John Greenway, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mr Hakki Keskin and Mrs Tineke Strik, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 4, to add the following sentence: “Democratic participation for migrants in their countries of origin is also important.”

Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr John Greenway, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mr Hakki Keskin and Mrs Tineke Strik, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9.1.7, to insert the following sub-paragraph: “applying a policy of employing migrants in public sectors, such as the health sector, the education sector and public administration;”

Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr John Greenway, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mr Hakki Keskin and Mrs Tineke Strik, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9.1.7, to insert the following sub-paragraph: “signing and ratifying the International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families;”

Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr John Greenway, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mrs Tineke Strik, Mr Boriss Cilevičs and Mr Hakki Keskin, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.2.6, after the word “lifting”, to insert the following words: “ – in accordance with international standards on the rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression – “.

Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr John Greenway, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mr Hakki Keskin and Mrs Tineke Strik, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.3.3, after the words “encouraging the media to portray a fair”, to insert the following words: “and positive”.

Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr John Greenway, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mr Hakki Keskin and Mrs Tineke Strik, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.3.5, after the words “supporting research”, to insert the following words: “, including by migrants,”.

Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr John Greenway, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mr Hakki Keskin and Mrs Tineke Strik, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 12, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly invites trade unions and employers’ associations to continue and strengthen their commitment to promoting the integration of migrant workers and their families.”

Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr John Greenway, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mr Hakki Keskin and Mrs Tineke Strik, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 12, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly invites political parties to step up their efforts to involve persons from different ethnic backgrounds among their candidates at all elections.”

Amendment No. 16, tabled by Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mrs Doris Barnett, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Vilmos Szabó, Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mrs Tineke Strik and Mr Boriss Cilevičs which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.1.3, to replace the words “protecting rights and guaranteeing safety and stability” with the following words:

“ensuring equal protection and recognition before the law, as well as taking action against racially motivated violence to guarantee the access of victims to effective legal remedies and the right to seek just and adequate reparation, regardless of their immigration status”.

       Amendment No. 17, tabled by Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mrs Doris Barnett, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Vilmos Szabó, Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mrs Tineke Strik and Mr Boriss Cilevičs, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.1.3, after the words “and intolerance”, to insert the following words:

“– including any tendency by officials, educators and the media to target, stigmatise, stereotype or profile members of ‘non citizen’ population groups –”.

The remaining amendments to the draft resolution will be taken in the order to which they relate to the text.

We come to amendment No. 15, tabled by Mrs Tineke Strik, Mr Jean Huss, Mr Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt, Mr Ellert B. Schram, Mr Michael Hagberg, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Ms Ana Blatnik, Mrs Michaela Sburny, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 9.1.2, to add the following sentence: “Requirements on language skills may not constitute an obstacle for the exercise of the right to family life.”

I call Mrs Strik to support Amendment No. 15. You have 30 seconds.

Mrs STRIK (Netherlands). – The goal of this amendment is to state that integration conditions and measures should not interfere with admissions policies. So integration requirements should be applied only after admission if the migrant has already arrived in a country in Europe. Such things can then be a common responsibility for society and the migrant together.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

I understand that the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment: in Amendment No. 15, to leave out “may” and insert “should”.

Do ten or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Greenway to move the oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President. The committee agreed with this amendment but felt that it should be strengthened. It is the old argument, which the Secretary General of the Council of Europe will be familiar with from his House of Commons days, about whether we should say “may” or whether we should say “shall”, or “should”. In the end, we have decided on “should”. So I think that the oral sub-amendment makes the point more strongly.

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

Mrs STRIK (Netherlands). – I agree.

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

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 15, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs JONKER (Netherlands). – The committee is unanimously in favour of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 15, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Ulrich Adam, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Holger Haibach, Mr Axel Fischer, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Arthur Loepfe, Mr Aristotelis Pavlidis, Mr Ingo Schmitt, Mr Gebhard Negele and Mr Rony Bargetze, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 9.2.1.3.

I call Mr Lintner to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said this was about an issue raised earlier, so he referred the Assembly to what was said earlier.

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

I call Mr Keskin.

Mr KESKIN (Germany) said that this had been talked about earlier more than once, and the issue had been voted on. It could not be said that by being granted citizenship one became entitled to vote, which was why there was a strong objection.

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

Mrs JONKER (Netherlands). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Ulrich Adam, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Holger Haibach, Mr Axel Fischer, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Arthur Loepfe, Mr Gebhard Negele, Mr Rony Bargetze, Mr Ingo Schmitt and Mr Aristotelis Pavlidis, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 9.2.4.

I call Mr Lintner to support Amendment No. 2.

      Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that this issue had already been talked about. The wording went far beyond what was already granted; that was to say, having rights after five years’ residence.

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

I call Mr Keskin.

Mr KESKIN (Germany) said that this was referring not to a general right to vote but only participation at a regional level. Citizenship was normally required for national elections, but in many countries migrants could vote in local elections.

      Mr LINTNER (Germany) said the wording was quite different in the English version. What it meant in German was an absolute right but he did not know what it meant in the English version.

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

Mrs JONKER (Netherlands). – The committee is unanimously against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Ulrich Adam, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Holger Haibach, Mr Axel Fischer, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Arthur Loepfe, Mr Gebhard Negele, Mr Rony Bargetze, Mr Ingo Schmitt and Mr Aristotelis Pavlidis, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 13.

I call Mr Lintner to support Amendment No. 3.

      Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that there was difficulty in understanding this wording. One had to be a member of a national parliament in order to be eligible for the Assembly, and the rules of the Procedure Committee granted no room for manouevre.

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

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – The point that we are making is simply that there is a feeling that this Assembly does not adequately reflect the ethnic balance of the people whom we represent. The proposal does not suggest a solution. It simply asks that the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which as you know I chair, look at the matter. I cite what has happened over the past two years when the committee was asked to look at the gender balance in the Council of Europe. We did so and we produced a response, a result that has been adopted, which is not compulsory but voluntary. There is a possibility that we will do the same. If we vote this down, the prospect of doing anything about it will be lost. We are not saying yes or no to anything. We simply have an open mind, so I hope that the amendment will be rejected.

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

Mrs JONKER (Netherlands). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11625, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11625, as amended, is adopted with 63 votes for, 4 against and 5 abstentions.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has also presented a draft recommendation, to which two amendments have been tabled.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population wishes to propose to the Assembly that both the amendments to the draft recommendation, Nos. 13 and 14, which were unanimously approved by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 34.10.

Is that so Mrs Jonker? That is so.

I must inform the Assembly that if no Assembly Member objects, both Amendments, Nos. 13 and 14, which have been unanimously approved by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, shall be declared to have been adopted by the Assembly.

The amendments are adopted.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mr John Greenway, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mr Hakki Keskin and Mrs Tineke Strik, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.5, after the words “to evaluate the democratic participation of migrant women and men”, insert the following words: “of all ethnic origin”.

Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr John Greenway, Mr Hakki Keskin, Baroness Gloria Hooper, Mrs Özlem Türköne and Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.3, after the words “examine the restrictions on the political”, insert the following words: “and other fundamental”.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11625, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11625, as amended, is adopted, with 62 votes for, 3 votes against and 7 abstentions.

We will now consider the draft resolution presented by the Monitoring Committee on Document 11628, to which 11 amendments have been tabled. I have also received notice of two oral amendments. They will be taken in the order in which they relate to the text.

We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Ştefan Glăvan, Mr Mircea Mereuţă, Mrs Cornelia Cazacu and Mr Bernard Marquet, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.1, to delete the word “, Monaco”.

I call Mr Gardetto to support Amendment No. 6. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the amendment was motivated by Monaco having seen an increase of rights in 2002 with the possibility of ratifying international treaties.

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

      Mr DREYFUS-SCHMIDT (France) said that the decision had been made to vote for the amendment but there was also an amendment to the next paragraph to delete the word “Monaco”. It was excessive to focus on Monaco and urge it to proceed to urgent reform. It was wrong to mix different categories of problems.

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

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 6 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – I have received an oral amendment from Mr Holovaty, which reads as follows:

“In paragraph 4.2 of the draft resolution, replace the word ‘urgently’ with the word ‘strongly’.”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

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

I call Mr Holovaty to support the oral amendment.

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – In some countries, there is an urgent need, but in others, that is not the case. That is why we propose to use the common word “strongly” in paragraph 4.2.

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

The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Jean-Guy Branger, Mr Denis Badré, Mr Georges Colombier, Mr Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt, Mr Bernard Marquet and Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.2, to delete the word “, Monaco”.

I call Mr Branger to support Amendment No. 5. He is not here, so does anyone wish to support the amendment? I call Mr Gardetto. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said he was concerned about Monaco; it was important to preserve the delicate balance there, and constitutional reform was neither necessary nor opportune.

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

I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – I am against the amendment, because the Prince has enough powers, and the resolution is correct. We must speak about a constitutional monarchy and not a dictatorship.

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

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

      Mr DREYFUS-SCHMIDT (France) said that because earlier on he had defended the amendment, he thought it had been submitted and adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – I think you are wrong, Mr Dreyfus-Schmidt. Perhaps we can obtain clarification from Mr Holovaty.

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – In the case of Amendment No. 6, the committee was in favour, and we adopted it. We are now discussing another amendment. In this case, the committee is against the deletion of the word “Monaco”, and we agree with Mr Pourgourides.

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

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to amendment No. 1, tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, Mr Ertuğrul Kumcuoğlu and Mr Mustafa Ünal, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.2, to delete the second sentence.

I call Mrs Memecan to support Amendment No. 1.

Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – There is no European Court of Human Rights judgment implying non-compliance, which is why we would like the sentence deleted.

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). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Ştefan Glăvan, Mr Mircea Mereuţă, Mrs Cornelia Cazacu and Mr Bernard Marquet, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.3, to delete the word “, Monaco”.

I call Mr Gardetto to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that he wished to remove the word ‘Monaco’. The Monegasque judiciary was independent and directly answerable only to the Prince of Monaco. Both French and Monegasque judges were employed in the judiciary. So clearly there was no need to question the independence of the Monegasque judiciary.

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

I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – A judiciary almost under the control of the police is not independent. A judiciary must make decisions independently of the wishes of the police, as has been happening in most European states since the Middle Ages. Since then, the judiciary has been truly independent and I strongly oppose the amendment.

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

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

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr György Frunda, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Claudio Azzolini, Mr József Ékes, Mr Kornél Almássy, Mr Vasile Ioan Dănuţ Ungureanu and Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 4.3., to insert the following paragraph:

“Regarding Monaco, the Parliamentary Assembly acknowledges that the Constitution Reform of 2002 done on the basis of the recommendations of the Council of Europe has given more powers to the National Council and has reinforced the balance between the branches of powers. The Assembly recommends not to stop and to continue the reforms in order to strengthen even more the role of the National Council and to improve the system of checks and balances.”

I call Mr Frunda to support Amendment No. 10. He is not here.

Does anyone else wish to support the amendment?

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – The amendment relates to Monaco. The Assembly acknowledges that the constitutional reform of 2002 went some way to meeting Council of Europe standards, but not far enough. The Assembly recommends that the Monegasque authorities should not stop there but should carry forward the democratisation of Monaco.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the situation in the principality was perfectly democratic, and no further powers were sought by the National Council.

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

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 10 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to amendment No. 2, tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu and Mr Mustafa Ünal which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.3, to delete the words “and Turkey”.

I call Mrs Memecan to support Amendment No. 2.

Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – Parliamentary elections were held in Turkey in July 2007. They were observed by international observers who were very impressed with the organisation and conduct of the vote. There was high voter turn-out so we do not think that it is necessary for Turkey to be on the list for electoral reform.

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). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – I have received an oral amendment from the Monitoring Committee, which reads as follows: “In sub-paragraph 5.3.1, leave out ‘that the electoral threshold, which remains too high, be lowered’ and insert ‘The electoral threshold remains too high,’; and move the sub-paragraph to after ‘Turkey.’ in paragraph 5.3.”

Is that correct, Mr Holovaty?

I see that it is.

I remind the Assembly of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or oral sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more Members to it being debated.

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

That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Holovaty to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – This is simply a matter of editing. We moved the sub-paragraph a little higher to 5.3, where there is a reference to the reforms that are still needed. Turkey is mentioned there. This is a technical rather than a substantive 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 vote is open.

The oral amendment is agreed to.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to amendment No. 3, tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu and Mr Mustafa Ünal, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.3.1, to delete the words “and Turkey (10%)”.

I call Mrs Memecan to support Amendment No. 3.

Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – The recent European Court of Human Rights decision relating to the 10% threshold is that there is no threshold, so we would like the provision changed accordingly.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

Does Mr Holovaty wish to give some clarification?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – Amendment No. 3 was withdrawn in the committee as a result of the oral amendment we have just adopted. As it was withdrawn, there is no need to put it to the vote.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

In any case, the Assembly has to approve what was agreed in the committee. Is it agreed that the amendment be rejected?

Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – I withdraw Amendment No. 3 and accept the revised provision.

Amendment No. 3 withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mrs Nursuna Memecan, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, Mr Ertuğrul Kumcuoğlu and Mr Mustafa Ünal, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.3, to delete the words “and Turkey”.

I call Mrs Memecan to support Amendment No. 4.

Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – Turkey has vibrant media, with newspapers, magazines, internet sites and numerous television stations. The Turkish penal code was recently amended to remove any obstacles that might be in the way of freedom of expression by journalists, so their freedoms were expanded. Turkey should not be on the list.

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). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 8, 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, to delete paragraph 10.1.

If Amendment No. 8 is agreed, Amendment No. 9 falls.

I call Mr Rustamyan to support Amendment No. 8.

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that democracy was an absolute value. If the original text were to be retained, the Assembly would commit a grave error. It would create an obstacle to democracy, and a perfectly superfluous one to boot.

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

I call Mrs Hajiyeva to speak against the amendment.

Mrs HAJIYEVA (Azerbaijan). – Supporting this amendment would mean supporting the illegal and out-of-control regimes in Abkhazia, south Ossetia, mountainous Karabakh and Transnistria. By supporting the amendment, we would support the division of Georgia, Armenia and Moldova. Moreover, it would allow the region to have even greater impunity. I am totally against the amendment.

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

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

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mr Grigori Margaryan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Artashes Avoyan, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 10.1, to add the following words: “and the rights of peoples concerned by the relevant conflicts are not respected”.

I call Mr Rustamyan to support Amendment No. 9.

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that there was no real democracy without respect for territorial integrity and the guarantee of individual rights.

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

I call Mr Rivolta to speak against the amendment.

Mr RIVOLTA (Italy) said that the Assembly had voted on a similar subject yesterday. Countries that were at war, be it a “live” or a “frozen” war, tended to have difficulty in meeting all of the conditions of full democracy.

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

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee has not had a chance to debate Amendments Nos. 9, 11, 12 and 13. Therefore, I cannot give you the committee’s opinion. However, as a rapporteur, I would like to keep the text as it is, without the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 9 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Dick Marty, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Andros Kyprianou and Mr Egidijus Vareikis, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 21 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly reiterates that national parliaments have a special role of democratic oversight of governmental action. This includes the need to ensure that:

21.1. recommendations of Council of Europe monitoring bodies are complied with; 21.2. judgments of the Strasbourg Court are speedily and fully implemented, especially where legislative corrective measures are required; 21.3. neither national security nor state secrecy be invoked indiscriminately to shield unlawful activity of state officials from robust parliamentary and judicial scrutiny.”

I call Mr Marty to support Amendment No. 11. As Mr Marty is not here, I therefore call Mr Pourgourides to support the amendment.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – The amendment would improve paragraph 21 so that it specifies what national parliaments should do. It is a useful amendment. It would improve the text and should be adopted.

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

As Mr Holovaty explained, the committee has no opinion.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 11 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained Document 11628, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11628, as amended, is adopted, with 54 votes for, 5 votes against and 4 abstentions.

The Monitoring Committee has also presented a draft recommendation, to which two amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they relate to the text.

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

We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mr Eduard Lintner and Mr Egidijus Vareikis, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1.3., before the word “work” to insert the following words: “continue to”.

I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment No. 12.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – The amendment simply says that the Committee of Ministers is already working with the programmes in question. We recommend that it continues that work.

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

As we understand it, the committee has not discussed the amendment.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 12 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mr Eduard Lintner and Mr Egidijus Vareikis, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1.3., to replace the words “of the possibilities within the framework of the various European Union financial instruments;” with the following words: “of the financial instruments of other international organisations, especially those of the European Union;”

I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment No. 13.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – This is a rather technical amendment. It would give us the opportunity for greater co-operation with international organisations, and not only the EU.

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

The committee has no opinion.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 13 is adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT. – We shall proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 11628, as amended.

      The draft recommendation in Document 11628, as amended, is adopted, with 51 votes for, 1 against and 6 abstentions.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you all very much. That was a long but successful session. We are sorry about the technical problems, but as the committees work very hard, we have to work very hard, too.

      (Mr de Puig, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Biberaj.)

5. Debate under urgent procedure: implementation by Armenia of Assembly Resolution 1609

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Our next item of business is the debate under urgent procedure on the report on the implementation by Armenia of Assembly Resolution 1609 of 2008, in Document 11656, presented by Mr Prescott on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitment by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee).

      I remind you that we have to finish the examination of the text, and votes on it, by 7.30 p.m., so we shall have to interrupt the list of speakers at about 7 p.m. in order to leave time for the committee’s response and to proceed to the necessary vote.

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

      Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President. I present the report on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, my co-rapporteur Mr Colombier, and myself. It concerns the implementation by Armenia of Assembly Resolution 1609, passed by this Assembly in April 2008. In the report, Assembly members can see the detail of the actions that have been taken. A major committee was established in Armenia, under the president, to implement that resolution. Indeed, that committee recognised the possibility that if it failed to persuade us that it was taking convincing actions to implement and meet the requirements of that resolution, our body could decide to put in place sanctions. In our visit of 16 and 17 June, we met all the people and parties involved in the matter whom we had met previously, and we discussed with them the latest situation and the Assembly’s resolution.

      As I say in the summary, two months is not enough time to implement all the changes for which we called. Many of them are changes to legislation, and as all parliamentarians will recognise, it is very difficult to make such changes immediately. The authorities have made and suggested changes to their laws and have submitted them to the Venice Commission. That is the proper action to take, but that will take time. We were convinced, from the things that had been done, that the country was on the way to making the changes for which the Assembly had asked.

      We think that advances have been made, and essential changes to legislation are on the way – provided, of course, that the Venice Commission gives them clearance. The reform of the judiciary is an important part of the process, and the prime minister has taken that reform in hand himself. Changes to legislation concerning the role of the opposition will be quite important. We have found that constantly in debate here. It is often thought that, if a majority of members in an assembly agree to something, that is democracy, but opposition is a role and has a function. That has to be recognised. Indeed, it is only if opposition can play a valuable role that we can avoid people resorting to the streets, as they did in Albania, which is a difficult and dangerous position. Recommendations have been made on changing and strengthening the opposition, on making changes to electoral law, on ensuring a more independent media, with access for the opposition, on ensuring greater accountability, and on the right of the public to protest. Indeed, there was a city-centre protest last Friday, and I am glad to say that there were no problems.

      We believe that Armenia is going in the right direction, and changes are being made. As I say, reform of the judiciary is now being undertaken by the prime minister himself; he has called the people together. That reform is what they want. However, as we say in my country, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and as there is general suspicion about whether the reforms will be carried out, there is a need for us to continue the monitoring process through our Monitoring Committee. However, we believe that enough has been done for us not to recommend that the Assembly should determine sanctions.

On two areas of major concern, we are not satisfied. Insufficient evidence or information has been made available to us about them, so we are not confident about the direction that has been taken. One of them is the Assembly’s requirement that an independent inquiry be established to consider the situation and the circumstances of the terrible events of 1 March. In the report, we made it clear that we want an inquiry that is independent, transparent and credible, and we would have to judge it against those standards. An inquiry has been established by the National Assembly of Armenia, and it is now holding an investigation into the causes of the events. It is not too much concerned with the circumstances, and we feel quite strongly about that. The cause of the events may have been influenced by the circumstances, and any fair inquiry would have to take into account circumstances as well as causes.

It has been decided that the only people who will sit on the inquiry are members of the national assembly, and they are the only people who will have a vote. However, those conducting the inquiry invited people to give evidence, including an ombudsman, who prepared a tremendous report on the circumstances. They also invite us, as an independent body, to give evidence. I do not think that that is sufficient, and my opinion, and the opinion of Mr Colombier, is that that is not felt to be sufficiently independent. In our resolution, which we will vote on later, we therefore recommend sending an independent expert from the Secretary General’s office to look into those matters, to look at the framework of the inquiry and to see whether he is satisfied that enough is being done to meet the requirements of the Assembly. I know that you, Mr President, are visiting the country in a fortnight’s time; I think that that could concentrate minds on a response to what we say today about our reservations. Hopefully, something may improve as a result of that.

The second concern has to do with the resolution and the problems identified in paragraph 4.7 of the report. They are about whether we are dealing sufficiently well with the people who were arrested on that day. We have had difficulty finding out the facts. We did ask how many people were in jail, but the figure tended to change a bit. We asked how many people had been released and we were told that something like 50% of those concerned had been released from jail, and that 50% had pleaded guilty. I must say that I feel a bit wary about that; it is as if, all of a sudden, 50% recanted, and so those who were innocent became guilty. The charges tended to vary from the merely criminal to that of usurping the role of the state. As you can well imagine, that might concentrate the mind. I have no evidence for saying that; I just have a gut feeling – a little suspicion about it. We were not able to assess the evidence properly.

Let me give colleagues another example. Three members of parliament were put in jail. There is a fourth, but he has not returned. On the three who went to jail, I asked the president of the national assembly whether he had sufficient evidence to lift their privileges. He said that he had been given the evidence by the prosecutor. When we asked the prosecutor, “Why have you not brought charges against these MPs? It has been almost three months,” I was told that there was not sufficient evidence to take the case to court. We have to ask whether there are two levels of evidence: one for lifting the privileges of MPs – a very serious matter indeed – and another if you do not feel that you have the evidence to take people to court.

When I asked why we have not got the evidence, he said, “Well, these three members are not co-operating.” Well, I am bound to say that I hardly find it surprising that anyone who is accused might not co-operate, but the point that I want to make to the Chamber is that we were not sure; we did not have enough evidence. We wanted someone seriously to look at that matter.

There were issues about people saying that their sentence had been suspended but they are still being kept in jail. We were told by one authority, “No, they’re all out.” We were told by others and given names that they are still in prison. I think that we need someone seriously to discover what exactly is the position of those people in prison.

I say to the Chamber that, basically, we must settle this business of whether the way that these people were treated in the circumstances was fair or unfair. Unless we do, whether there were 100 or 110, this will deny us the consensus and agreement that is necessary for all the forces to work together, for the opposition and government to work properly.

I hope that I do not do him any damage by saying that the report of the Human Rights Ombudsman who has been established in Armenia is excellent. It is a serious report, which investigates the individual cases themselves. I want to quote to put on the record what he says. I have a great deal of respect for this man. It is important that we bear in mind what he says in his report. He makes it clear that, today, Armenian society faces a choice: to develop by reinforcing democratic values and institutions, or to reinforce authoritarian trends in power, thereby widening the gap between the authorities and the society. He went on to say that, given the need to ensure that the authorities function in the framework of public accountability, and to secure a strong opposition, the authorities should no longer be able to subordinate society to their will. As a result, the opposition will have to go on to the streets to voice their concerns, which they are not able to do through legal and political means.

Progress is being made. Indeed, I am glad that Mr Hammerberg is here. I have discussed with him whether he could go to Armenia to talk to the Armenians about what the circumstances are there and the fears that we have got and to see whether we get a response. I would like that response to be given to the Monitoring Committee before September. It is important that we take the poison out of the system in Armenia and get the country back to a system of more democratic accountability. If accepted and implemented in Armenia, our recommendations will be a major step towards that goal.

(Mr Lindblad, Vice-President of the Assembly took the Chair in place of Mr de Puig.)

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Prescott. You have three minutes and 18 seconds to reply to the debate. I now call Mr Adonts, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr ADONTS (Armenia). – Mr President, dear colleagues, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I would first like to express our great appreciation of the excellent job done by Mr Prescott and Mr Colombier and the genuine effort that they have put in to producing the present comprehensive report.

      When the 2007 parliamentary elections in Armenia received a good evaluation, there were sufficient preconditions in place for holding equally good presidential elections, which actually took place in February 2008. But the post-election events developed in a difficult way.

      In Armenia, at all levels, Resolution 1609 is taken very seriously. We welcome the fact that, in the immediate aftermath of the adoption of Resolution 1609, several high-level representatives of the authorities, including the President of the Republic and the Speaker of the Parliament, publicly expressed their will and intention to give effect to the requirements set out in the Assembly’s resolution.

      The report from our rapporteurs refers, among other things, to the tangible steps taken in Armenia to date. In particular, amendments to the law on public rallies and assemblies, the revision of the rules of procedure of the National Assembly, the establishment of an ad hoc committee to conduct an independent inquiry into the events of 1 and 2 March, with the participation of extra-parliamentary political forces and international experts, as well as several other measures, have been duly brought into effect.

      However, there is no doubt about the fact that much still needs to be done. In considering the criteria for further assessment, one needs to address two specific issues: the volume of the anticipated reforms and the further action that needs to be taken, and the time required for substantive progress against which further objective assessment can be made. That is the context in which we agree with the view of the rapporteurs that the time given to the Armenian authorities was short and therefore that the Assembly will review at its January 2009 part-session the extent of Armenia’s compliance with the requirements of Resolution 1609.

      I wish to reflect upon three further points that are mentioned in the report. First, the requirement for the inquiry committee to be independent, transparent and credible is of considerable importance. In that respect, while we welcome the inclusive nature of its composition, as well as the invitation extended to national and international experts, the credibility of the committee needs to be supported while it carries out its substantive work. Secondly, open, constructive and serious dialogue between all the political forces to overcome the crisis of confidence needs to be addressed without delay. It is regrettable that part of the opposition continues to reject the calls for a dialogue, including those reflected in Resolution 1609. Such political technique cannot be justified given the priority to overcome the existing tensions. Finally, while due legal and judicial process needs to be respected, political motivation should be excluded from the conduct of such a process. Those are the requirements of the Council of Europe, which binds its members and sets its democratic standards.

      I will conclude with the following point of an axiomatic nature. If a government pursues genuine democracy and sustainable democratic development, nothing can get in its way in any circumstances. That is a fundamental principle of this Organisation, which allows no derogation whatsoever. As an Armenian delegate, I wish to underline the fact that that is what Armenia has adopted.

      The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe welcomes the report and appreciates Mr Prescott’s and Mr Colombier’s efforts. Thank you, Mr President.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Chernyshenko, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr CHERNYSHENKO (Russian Federation) said that on this occasion he was speaking more as a member of the Russian Parliament than on behalf of the EDG. In that capacity he had attended the elections in Armenia and met the party heads. His proviso was that dealing with the problems in Armenia depended on democratic change, and the leadership was currently working towards this. On the task of seeing how the Council’s recommendations had been met, he thanked the rapporteurs who had undertaken this unexpected task. A high-level working group had been set up to make the recommended changes. A committee had also been established on reform of the media, among other steps. A whole range of measures had been adopted, which gave grounds for hope for the future.

All the recommendations proposed by the Venice Commission were enshrined there. There were positive steps in favour of media independence, and promoting co-operation with NGOs and other bodies.

There was a need for further development and much remained to be done. One most important shortcoming, which had been referred to by Mr Prescott, was an analysis for the reasons for violations of the law, in the terrible events which had led to people dying. The work in progress was still very tentative and fragile, like a three-month old baby, but it was a positive signal to Armenians wherever they lived.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. You were five seconds away from me switching the microphone off. I now call Mr Jacobsen, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – We passed a resolution here in April. Something has happened since then; there has been a little progress. This afternoon we are giving more time to Armenia to take another step towards democracy. Six months is not much time when you consider that it can take centuries to develop democracy, but with the help of the Council of Europe and others, it is possible.

      I have visited Armenia twice. It is a beautiful country with a people who are enthusiastic about creating democracy. I hope that politics in Armenia will be about how to solve everyday problems for the people, and not a struggle between political elites.

      I do not want to take up much more time because it will be interesting to listen to other colleagues and members of the Armenian delegation in this afternoon’s debate. Perhaps we will make a good start already this afternoon, with real evidence of a willingness to support reconciliation and to put democracy into practice. After all, the Council of Europe is the training centre for democracy for all. The group welcomes the report.

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

      Mr ROUQUET (France) thanked the President and said that, once again, the Assembly was having an emergency debate on Armenia. Mr Colombier and Mr Prescott had drafted a high-quality report, taking on the task which had been set just two months ago. He did not challenge the legitimacy of this debate but questioned whether it was justifiable to look again at Armenia, which was now a member state of the Council of Europe. Its membership could not be challenged. He was grateful to the rapporteurs for their conclusions.

The political climate was difficult in Armenia and although no one contested that the progress made fell short of what was ideal – and officials may not have done enough – he was glad that some recommendations of Council of Europe Resolution 1609 had been accomplished. The rallies that had been held were in conformity with the Council of Europe resolution and an inquiry had been set up into the events of 1 March.

Progress needed to be made, for example, in relation to the detention of certain individuals, about whom the committee was particularly concerned. Now more than ever, it was necessary to help the authorities and other parts of civil society in Armenia along the path to democracy. He pleaded for the Assembly to recognise the progress that had already been made. More was needed, but some had been achieved and he urged the Assembly both to vote for the report and keep a watchful eye on what was happening, ready for review next January.

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

      Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) congratulated the committee and the two co-rapporteurs on the quality and precision of their draft report. The report was particularly right in calling for the parties to break out of what was a vicious circle. There could be no constructive solution without all the political forces entering into an overall dialogue. It was also important for those imprisoned on political grounds to be released. He understood that the rapporteurs were pressing the authorities to take on a democratic role. However the time granted them to comply with the Venice Commission conclusions had been very short.

Resolution 1609 had been passed only in April 2008, which made for a very short timeframe. It would be wrong to criticise hastily assembled or overloaded processes and then to ask the Armenian Parliament to rush to measures like freedom of assembly. The report did not refrain from making detailed suggestions. Adaptation should be undertaken with determination but without rushing; and Armenia should be given a realistic and adequate timetable against which to achieve compliance. Its leaders had declared they had been inspired by the Organisation’s resolution.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Prescott, would you like to respond at this point or comment at the end?

      Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – I shall wait until the end.

      THE PRESIDENT. – In that case, I call Mr Rustamyan.

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) congratulated the rappporteurs on their comprehensive report and said that it was necessary to separate the different questions tackled in the draft resolution. First, a general strengthening of the reform process was needed; and secondly the post-electoral crisis needed to be brought to an end. The Armenian authorities had had a very short time in which to act and had not done enough to satisfy the Assembly; but they were going in the right direction. To implement all the relevant recommendations, and in order to overcome the crisis of confidence, specific measures had been taken; for example the setting up of a working group to promote implementation. The head of the opposition had been invited to that. Also, there was an ad hoc commission to investigate the events of 1 March. Necessary amendments had been made to the rules of national procedure. Progress had been made, much work was under way, but more time was needed. This discussion was an important contribution to this process and more progress was being made.

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

Mr HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – There is no shame in accepting the truth. For Azerbaijan, it is the right of mountainous Karabakh to live in liberty on its ancestral lands, owning up to the barbaric attack on the Armenian, thus European, heritage at Djulfa, Nakhichevan. The Council of Europe stands by in geopolitical silence, even offering special concessions to select, well-caressed members.

There is no shame for Turkey in facing the truth. Hopefully, in tomorrow’s debate and beyond, someone will see the imperative and have the political courage and moral fortitude to analyse the issues in a broader context. The philosophy of the state, as well as the exclusivist legacy of the Armenian genocide and the great Armenian dispossession of 1915, demonstrate the importance of community rights, human rights, Article 301 and the freedom of speech.

This is a truly European opportunity for our Turkish colleagues – not a problem or a threat or a challenge. It is in their interests for the future, and we wish them well. The same could be said of our friends in Georgia, who could do a better job in respecting Armenian, Azerbaijani and other minority rights, and taking care of the properties that belong to the communities. None of the aforementioned should ever be used to excuse Armenia’s democratic shortcomings. It is clear – Armenian civil society demands that we address this – that Armenia has not passed democracy’s test on all counts. Scores of prisoners of a political character remain detained and incarcerated, and they must be released forthwith, not in January.

Several politically active citizens continue to be harassed for their political point of view. The 1 March government crackdown on peaceful demonstrators and the fatal opening of fire that killed eight civilians and two policemen have not led to the opening of individual criminal cases. To date, there are no suspects: no-one is alleged to have ordered the firing or to have executed them. That is a travesty of the judicial process. We all know the famous quote by the Polish author: if you want to see a county’s true face, look at how it tries its citizens. Even private hotels have been pressured not to allow meetings of civil groups and opposition parties.

Finally, the right to assembly, free association and free speech remains at the discretion of security agencies and, later, a judiciary that is far from independent. To date, there has been no meaningful dialogue on the Armenian scene. It has been merely window dressing. Each and every initiative of the Heritage Party to launch a dialogue, in process and in substance, has been refused.

      I do not know about the Assembly and its criteria, but it is evident that for the time being the Republic of Armenia and the Council of Europe do not deserve each other. Hence, I wish you success in your future deliberations, your voting and your future monitoring, but I hereby suspend my participation in the affairs of the Assembly until such time as Armenia meets standards – its own and Europe’s – and Europe rises to the realisation of its own values, rights and benchmarks.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Rafael Huseynov.

      Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan). – Both the Armenian people and the Council of Europe wish Armenia to be a state that observes the laws and principles of democracy. However, members can be sure that Azerbaijan wishes that much more than the Armenian people and the Council of Europe. First, because Armenia is Azerbaijan’s closest neighbour and what happens in that country has an effect on the social and political life of the region. On the other hand, Armenia has kept 20% of Azerbaijani territory under its occupation for 16 years –

      Mr HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – That is false.

      Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan). – See you again.

      That occupation violates the elementary rights of 1 million people who have been made refugees and internally displaced persons. That ignores international law and legal norms.

      Armenia is the most unique state among the 47 member states of the Council of Europe. That undesirable uniqueness is the tragedy of the Armenian people and state. The uniqueness is that Armenia is the only member state of the Council of Europe whose state sovereignty is of an entirely symbolic and conditional character. In fact, the country acts as a frontier post, as has been declared; it cannot pursue independent policies and it is being ruled from outside.

      One of the main demands of the resolution on Armenia adopted by the Assembly is that the authorities of the country should enter dialogue with the opposition – that is with the people. Unfortunately, that is not happening and the situation in the country is deteriorating; polarisation and antagonism between the authorities and the people is increasing.

      When Azerbaijan and Armenia joined the Council of Europe in 2001, the Organisation made the same demands of both countries – to settle conflict through peace and constructive dialogue. Azerbaijan has been making efforts to achieve that dialogue, with results. However, as members can imagine, it is hard to enter dialogue and achieve results with authorities that are not keen to engage in such dialogue with their own people.

      I raised a question and prepared a proper document regarding the incompatibility of Armenia, which is conducting a policy against its people and neighbours that contradicts the principles of the Council of Europe, and is ruled by a criminal regime, being a member of such an authoritative organisation. However, as Armenia is becoming a bigger and bigger source of danger to democracy in the region, such a step cannot be taken. It would give the Armenian authorities, with their criminal nature, a better opportunity to act more freely and perpetrate their crimes more easily. On the contrary, attention to the control of Armenia should be increased and debates on the country should be held regularly.

      The establishment of the ad hoc committee to deal with the situation on human rights in Armenia could be expedient. The events that have taken place in Armenia over the last few months are a mirror that reflects the genuine substance of the internal and external policies of the state.

      What I have said is clear evidence and an alarm signal for those who do not realise the danger of the regime in Armenia, which is connected with the world terror network. Given what I have said, I invite the Assembly to come to a conclusion and take resolute steps for the future safety of Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The last speaker will be Mr Seyidov.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan). – Our discussions on Armenia today are very important. We must take into account not only the problems in Armenia but the problems here in the Council of Europe about our member states. We organise debates not just for the sake of discussion but for the implementation of resolutions. During one of the Monitoring Committee meetings in Kiev, a respected member of the Council of Europe, Mr Dick Marty, said that day by day we are witnessing a surrealist approach to the two countries, as we saw yesterday and have seen again today.

      Only yesterday, we discussed questions about Azerbaijan in this Assembly and even though all members of the Assembly were in favour of the Azerbaijani position, Azerbaijan had accepted the recommendations of the Venice Commission, and people throughout the world can see real economic progress in Azerbaijan; the report included tough phrases and expresses a tough attitude towards Azerbaijan.

      In the case of Armenia, however, we see the reverse. The situation in the country is very difficult. members of parliament are in prison. There are violations of human rights, as our rapporteurs mentioned. We can see much to welcome in the report so why at the end are there questions about the suspension of the rights of the Armenian delegation in January? If that provision were withdrawn, we would welcome the report.

The approach is not merely surreal, it involves double standards. Over the last few days, members of the Council of Europe have repeatedly talked about double standards in this Organisation. Until we stop applying double standards to countries, such that one country is discussed more than eight times while another is discussed only three or four times, we shall have a biased rather than an objective approach. Despite the attempts of the rapporteurs to assess the situation – they tried to do their best – in general things are not going the right way. That is why we have to help Armenia to join democratic countries and societies. We should do our best to take the same approach to every country. That is how we will do our best for democracy. If we cannot do that we will see no real progress in Armenia – not in the autumn, not in January and not in the future. We may see progress in the documents that will be adopted in the Assembly, but not real progress in the country.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

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

      Mr Prescott, do you wish to reply on behalf of the Monitoring Committee?

      You have three minutes and 18 seconds to reply.

      Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – I am grateful for the warm response to our report. Even the last speaker said that we have to get that good feeling into Armenia and get the Armenians working together. However, I have to say to Mr Seyidov that the approach is not a double standard – it is twin-track. Where there is advance, we should credit it and give congratulations. Where there are difficulties that might prevent the completion of the first part of the recommendations, such as the arguments about prisoners, we should say that we want an answer now, not in January. That is what we have done and it is practical.

      I thank everybody for a good response to our report. Mr Hovannisian has walked out – no doubt he will get press attention tomorrow morning – but that is not the way to deal with democracy. You stay, you put your case, and you continue to do so. You do not walk out of the Chamber. It is easy to use rhetoric and walk out – I have done it myself from time to time – but these matters are serious. We had great difficulties in Northern Ireland for decades but we kept talking. In fact, Mr Hovannisian is operating in government; he is in the national assembly and he is playing a positive part, so I congratulate him on that. However, what he did today is not the way forward, frankly.

We have to keep talking. All political parties that are in opposition have shown that we can reach a common agreement on the fact that we want to help the people of Armenia. That is what we seek to do. That is why I have asked the Commissioner for Human Rights to go there now, to talk to them about the difficulties and to see whether we can ensure that the good will continues and whether there is more that we can do. I want him to report back to us by September. Let us extend the hand of friendship. We need to make progress on this matter and to understand the difficulties of transferring democracy from a central political system to greater democratic accountability.

      The situation is not unique to Armenia. As we heard in debates this week, other countries are going through a process of change. Our job is to extend the hand of friendship to show them what democratic accountability is like. Let the people themselves work through the difficulties. That is the challenge. That is the spirit that we see today. That is the way forward.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr. Prescott.

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

      Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – I want to echo my co-rapporteur’s comments that the debate and the report do not relate simply to Armenia. Other countries also need to learn lessons from it. We are dealing with what one of the members of the Armenian opposition said was the philosophy of state or the philosophy of relations between the individual and the state. We cannot tolerate people exercising one set of human rights and fundamental freedoms – namely, the right for free and fair elections – if it leads to the suspension of other freedoms and human rights, such as peaceful demonstrations and freedom of expression for the media in Armenia. Individual security is also important. It is not right to imprison people and deprive them of their rights. There have been dozens of deaths on both sides. That is what the report is about.

      I agree that two months was perhaps too short a time. However, this is the second debate in one year. In the two months, some things were done very well. The Venice Commission has recommended a change to the law on peaceful demonstrations, and that was implemented. However, it is suspicious that, within the same period, the authorities have proposed amending the criminal code with new articles that are too vague and will give wide discretionary powers on possible arrests and detention. Those things cannot be tolerated. It is not compliance with Council of Europe standards when people are detained for a long time without going before a court.

      I shall not repeat what has been said, but I hope that we will not deal with the same issue in the third report.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The debate is closed.

      The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution, to which 27 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. 4, 6, 10, 16, 17, 22 and 23 to the draft resolution.

Is that so, Mr Holovaty?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. – I must inform the Assembly that, if no Assembly member objects, the amendments which I have listed, and which have been unanimously approved by the Monitoring Committee, shall be declared to have been adopted by the Assembly.

Does anyone object?

As there is no objection, I declare that amendments Nos. 4, 6, 10, 16, 17, 22 and 23 to the draft resolution have been adopted.

The amendments are adopted.

The following amendments to the draft resolution have been adopted:

Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts, Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.3, after the number “1” insert the following words: “and 2”.

Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts, Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.5, replace the first sentence with the following sentence: “considers that, as a result of the recent constitution of the inquiry committee, the Assembly cannot evaluate, at this moment, the criteria of independence, transparency and credibility.”

Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts, Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 4.5.4.

      Amendment No 16, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts, Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 4.9.

Amendment No. 17, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts, Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 4.11, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“as regards compliance by the opposition with the demands set out in its Resolution 1609 (2008), the Assembly”:

1. regrets that not all opposition forces have recognized the Constitutional Court’s decision, which confirmed the results of elections as announced by the Central Electoral Commission;

2. regrets that also as a result of the decision of part of the opposition to boycott the dialogue with the authorities, participation of the opposition in the formulation of these initiatives has been somewhat limited.”

Amendment No. 22, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts, Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 9.1. with the following sub-paragraph:

“the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to speed up the procedure for the appointment of a new Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe (SRSG) in Yerevan and to liaise on a permanent basis with the inquiry committee through the SRSG’s Office in Yerevan.”

Amendment No. 23, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts, Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.2., after the words “events of 1”, insert the following words: “and 2”.

      The remaining amendments to the draft resolution will be taken in the order in which they relate to the text.

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

I understand that Amendment No. 2 has been withdrawn. Does anyone want to move the amendment? That is not the case.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.2., replace the second sentence with the following sentence:

“It therefore insists that the Armenian authorities should ensure that no undue restrictions are placed on rallies organized by the opposition in compliance with the law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations.”

      Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The amendment reflects the fact that the authorities should follow the recently adopted law on assembly, which the Venice Commission considered to be in compliance with European standards.

      THE PRESIDENT. – There is a proposed oral sub-amendment from the Monitoring Committee, which is: “at the end of the sub-amendment, to insert the words ‘especially with regard to the venues requested”.

      Do 10 or more members object to this? That is not the case.

       I call Mr Prescott to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – I am in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

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

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – In favour.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

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

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

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

      The committee is in favour.

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

      The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 3, as amended, is adopted..

      As Amendment No. 3 has been adopted, Amendment No. 25 falls.

I have received an oral amendment from the Monitoring Committee, which reads as follows: “in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.3, place quotation marks around the phrase ‘to conduct an inquiry into the events of 1 March 2008 as well as the circumstances that led to them’.”

      I call Mr Prescott to support the oral amendment.

      Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – I am in favour of the oral amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT. – I remind the Assembly of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

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

      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 vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      We come to amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.3, replace the word “circumstances” with the following word: “causes”.

      I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 5.

      Mr Harutyunyan (Armenia). – This a more correct translation of the term used in the decision by the National Assembly of Armenia.

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). – The committee is in favour.

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

      The vote is open

      Amendment No. 5 is adopted.

      Amendment No. 7 has been withdrawn. Does anyone wish to move it? That is not the case.

      We come to Amendment No. 8 tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.5.1., replace the first sentence with the following sentence:

      “as a rule, the committee should to the largest extent possible aim at a consensual decision-making process in its working methods and voting should be avoided, in particular as regards the subjects the committee wishes to investigate and persons it wishes to hear”.I

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 8.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The minority rights of the members of the committee are already guaranteed. They can present a dissenting opinion, which will be included in the final report. The proposed language aims to end the deadlock.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that the Monitoring Committee wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is:

“In the amendment, leave out the words ‘the committee should to the largest extent possible aim at a consensual decision-making process in its working methods and voting should be avoided’ and insert the words ‘the committee should aim at a consensual decision-making process in its working methods and voting should be used only as a last resort’”.

Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

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

Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – I am in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

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

The committee is apparently in favour.

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

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

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

The committee is in favour.

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

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8, as amended, is adopted.

      I understand that Amendment No. 9 has been withdrawn. Does anyone wish to move it?

That is not the case.

      I understand that Amendment No. 11 has been withdrawn. Does anyone wish to move it?

That is not the case.

      We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 4.7.1. with the following sub-paragraph:

“the cases still under investigation should be closed or promptly brought before courts to ensure the right to fair trial within a reasonable time in compliance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights;”

      I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 12.

      Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The intention of the drafters of the sub-paragraph is clear: they are not requesting that we close cases relating to deaths in cases where the persons who committed the crime are not yet revealed. We propose more realistic language in line with the European Convention on Human Rights.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 12 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 4.7.2. with the following sub-paragraph:

“the cases under Articles 300 and 225 of the Criminal Code should be dropped unless there is strong evidence that the accused have personally committed acts of violence or ordered, abetted or assisted to commit them;”

      I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 13.

      Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The intention of the drafters of the sub-paragraph is clear: they do not request that we drop the cases against those who ordered, abetted or assisted in committing acts of violence. We propose more realistic language. That is important because the sub-paragraph was addressed to the law enforcement agencies.

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). – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 13 is adopted.

      I have received an oral amendment from the Monitoring Committee, which reads as follows: “in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.7.3, leave out the words ‘or independent witnesses’.”

      If this oral amendment is agreed to, Amendment No. 14 will fall.

      I remind the Assembly of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

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

      I therefore call Mr Prescott to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – I am in favour.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      Amendment No. 14 therefore falls.

      We come to Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 4.7.4. with the following sub-paragraph:

“the National Assembly should take into account the opinion of the Venice Commission on the proposed amendments to Articles 225, 225(1), 301 and 301(1) of the Criminal Code.”

      If Amendment No. 15 is agreed to, Amendment No. 26 falls.

      I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 15.

      Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The proposal to change the criminal code will affect several articles. The opinion of the Venice Commission is negative, so the proposals mainly aim to fulfil and correct the text.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The Monitoring Committee has an oral sub-amendment, which is, before the word “opinion” insert the word “negative”.

      I remind the Assembly of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

      In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case, so I call Mr Prescott to support it.

      Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – I am in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – I see that the committee is in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We now come to Amendment No. 15, as amended.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 15, as amended, is adopted.

      Amendment No. 26 therefore falls.

We come to Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, to delete the first sentence.

      Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – Before we come to Amendment No. 18, which was rejected by the Monitoring Committee, I would like, in the spirit of compromise, to propose an oral amendment concerning paragraph 5. The issue in question is that during the events of 1 March, several serious criminal offences were committed. The detention and conviction of the persons who committed those crimes cannot be a point of contention, so I propose changing the words “persons” in the first sentence of paragraph 5 to the words “opposition supporters”. If we adopt this amendment, Amendment No 18 will fall.

THE PRESIDENT. – We have an oral amendment in place of Amendment No. 18, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, leave out the word “persons” in the second sentence and insert the words “opposition supporters”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

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

That is not the case, so I call Mr Prescott to support it.

      Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – I am in favour.

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

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Amendment No. 18 therefore falls.

      I understand that Amendment No. 19 has been withdrawn. Does anyone wish to move it? That is not the case.

We come to Amendment No. 20, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, to replace the second sentence with the following sentence:

“The Assembly urges the Armenian authorities to consider all legal means available to them, including amnesty, pardons and dismissal of charges with respect to all persons detained or sentenced by a court in relation to the events of 1 and 2 March 2008, with the exception of those who have personally committed acts of violence or ordered, abetted or assisted to commit them or those who committed other serious criminal offences, as an expression of good will in order to foster confidence in the society and dialogue between all political forces.”

If Amendment No. 20 is agreed to, Amendment No. 27 falls.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 20.

      Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The main purpose of the amendment is not to limit the legal means to amnesty and pardons. The exception was proposed in line with the language on which we already voted in relation to Amendment No. 13.

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). – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 20 is adopted.

      Amendment No. 27 therefore falls.

We come to Amendment No. 21, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 6 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly recalls that there is a need for a pluralistic electronic media environment in Armenia and, referring to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the denial of broadcasting license to a media outlet, calls on the licensing authority to ensure an open, fair and transparent licensing procedure, in line with the guidelines adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 26 March 2008 and with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.”

      I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 21.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The licensing procedure is clearly prescribed in law, so it is impossible to grant a broadcasting licence bypassing the law. Our proposal would stress the importance of open, fair and transparent licensing procedure in line with the guidelines adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – We have an oral sub-amendment from the Monitoring Committee, which is, in Amendment No. 21, leave out the words “to a media outlet, calls on the licensing authority to ensure” and insert the words “to A1+, calls on the licensing authority to now ensure”.

I remind the Assembly of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

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

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

      That is not the case.

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We now come to Amendment No. 21, as amended. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 21, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Ms Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin, Mr Egidijus Vareikis, Mrs Danuta Jazłowiecka, Ms Anna Lilliehöök, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, second and third sentence, to replace the words “January 2009” with the following words: “Autumn 2008”.

I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin to support Amendment No. 1.

Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden). – Mr President and dear colleagues, if you consider nothing else, please consider those political prisoners who have already been in prison for four months. Should they stay in prison for another six months? Support Amendment No. 1, and do not give the Armenian authorities until January 2009. Instead, the deadline should be autumn 2008, as we suggest.

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

Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – I think that the honourable lady knows that, given the circumstances in Armenia, we have set two timetables. One is for 2009, when all the legal changes will be made. We are waiting for the Venice Commission to act; we have to allow time for that. As for the timetable relating to the prisoners, we will ask the Human Rights Committee to visit, have a look and assess the situation. We have visited two or three times, and it is not easy to get to the truth. I oppose the amendment and I suggest that you adopt our recommendations.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that the committee is against.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 24, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Artashes Avoyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.2., to delete the words “and the circumstances that led to them, should the conditions mentioned in paragraph 4.5. be met.”

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 24.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – If the work of international experts is linked to all conditions mentioned in paragraph 4.5, it will create a real obstacle to their work. We propose to delete those preconditions.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that the Monitoring Committee wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which reads: “at the end of the sub-amendment, to leave out the words ‘mentioned in paragraph 4.5 be met’ and insert the words:

‘regarding independence, transparency and credibility be met. The Assembly invites the Human Rights Commissioner to inform the Monitoring Committee, at its meeting in September 2008, on the progress regarding the inquiry committee as well as the release of detainees.’”.

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

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

Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – I support the oral sub-amendment.

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

The committee is obviously in favour.

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

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

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.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 24, as amended, is agreed.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11656, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11656, as amended, is adopted, with 24 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

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

THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday 23 June.

Are there any objections? That is not the case.

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

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 7.35 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Minutes of proceedings

2.       Written declaration

3.       Organisation of debates

4.       The state of democracy in Europe (resumed debate)

      Presentation by Mr Holovaty of report of the Monitoring Committee

      Statement from Mr Marschall, Regional Director for Europe and Central Asia, Transparency International

      Speakers:

      Mr Van den Brande (Belgium)

      Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

      Ms Woldseth (Norway)

      Mr Lecoq (France)

      Mr Wodarg (Germany)

      Mrs Goryacheva (Russian Federation)

      Mrs Tevdoradze (Georgia)

      Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)

      Mr Wach (Poland)

      Mr Ţurcan (Moldova)

      Mr Sasi (Finland)

      Mr Herkel (Estonia)

      Mr Omelchenko (Ukraine)

      Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

      Mr Izetbegović (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

      Replies:

       Mr Marschall, Regional Director for Europe and Central Asia, Transparency International

      Mr Holovaty (Ukraine)

Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 41, 10, 11, 29, 40, 12, 30, 32 to 25, 14 and 41 adopted.

      Draft resolution in Doc. 11623, as amended, adopted.

Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 38

      Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted

Amendments Nos. 4 to 12, 16, 17, 15 as amended, adopted

      Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

Nos. 13 and 14 adopted

      Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted

Amendment No. 6, oral amendment, Nos. 1, 10, 2, oral amendment, Nos. 4 and 11 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 adopted

Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted

5.       Debate under urgent procedure: implementation by Armenia of Assembly resolution 1609

      Presentation by Mr Prescott of the report of the Monitoring Committee

      Speeches:

      Mr Adonts (Armenia)

Mr Chernyshenko (Russian Federation)

      Mr Jacobsen (Norway)

      Mr Rouquet (France)

      Mr Rochebloine (France)

      Mr Rustamyan (Armenia)

      Mr Hovannisian (Armenia)

      Mr Rafael Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

      Mr Seyidov (Azerbaijan)

      Replies:

      Mr Prescott (United Kingdom)

      Mr Holovaty (Ukraine)

      Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 10, 16, 17, 22, 23, 29, 3 as amended, 5 as amended, 8 as amended, 12, 13, oral amendment, 15 as amended, oral amendment, 20, 21 as amended, 24 as amended, adopted

      Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

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