2008 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-sixth Sitting

Thursday 26 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 Lindblad, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.05 p.m.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Debate under urgent procedure: functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey (resumed debate)

      THE PRESIDENT. – The first item of business this afternoon is the resumption of the debate on the urgent procedure on the report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey: recent developments, Document 11660, which has been presented by Mr Van den Brande on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe.

      In the debate I call Mr Tekelioğlu. You have four minutes.

      Mr TEKELIOĞLU (Turkey). – Since its establishment, the AK Party has participated in three elections. In each of those it published a written declaration containing the policies that we would follow and our priorities if we were elected. After the elections, we kept our promises and followed those plans. The argument that we have a hidden agenda or something at the back of our minds, as the chief prosecutor’s indictment claims, is thoroughly baseless.

      After the last election in 2007, the first thing that the parliament did was to elect the president. With a stable government that is enjoying a strong parliamentary majority and a diverse and representative parliament, the first item on the government’s agenda was to start the process of writing a brand new constitution, which was to be compatible with European norms and standards, empowering the individual in front of the state and answering the needs of all sectors of society. However, both the main opposition parties and established institutions of the system were heavily resistant to the process. When the AK Party wanted to change the current constitution, which was created after a military coup in 1982, the Republican People’s Party defended it. Therefore, that so-called leftist party is the only example on earth of a party that has defended a constitution produced as a result of a military coup.

      Colleagues, you need to understand the main opposition parties in Turkey. They make speeches in which they say that they are pro-European, but the reality is different. When referring to the Turkish opposition parties, Joost Lagendijk, a member of the European Parliament and chairman of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, said: “You cannot claim to be pro-European and vote against all the laws that are necessary to take you in.”

      I want to share a concern with the Assembly. Shutting down so many political parties, as has been done in Turkey, obviously weakens democracy and causes people to lose their trust in the system. We have to keep it in mind that, less than a year ago, the AK party won 47% of the votes – almost one of every two votes. If the party is shut down, the fact that the voters will feel that their voting means nothing will do little to advance or deepen democracy.

      A visible result of the AK Party government is in the area of accumulation of capital and the distribution of wealth. The distribution of income and wealth in Turkey is more balanced now than it was six years ago. Due to the snowballing effect of a growing economy, people who were rich in 2002 increased their wealth. There are now five times as many dollar billionaires in Turkey as there were in 2002, so the exclusive club of billionaires is not a four or five-member club anymore. Interestingly, the new members of that club, and most of the new entrepreneurs, are from Anatolia, the heartland of the country. We call them Anatolian tigers.

      In AKP’s time in government, we ran a very successful privatisation programme of state assets. Thus the state-owned and produced sector of the economy got smaller. That might have caused some disturbances for those who benefited from the involvement of the state in their economic affairs.

In general, in advanced democracies, when the judiciary provides a new interpretation of laws or makes new rulings, it usually does so to increase the individual freedom of the people and to increase their choices. Unfortunately, the trend in Turkey might be in the exact opposite direction. Those are problems that we should overcome in our country, and I believe that, sooner or later, we will do so. Thank you.

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

      Mr BRANGER (France) said that it was a little bit peculiar to be discussing the state of democracy in a country that had been a member of the Council of Europe since 1949; indeed Turkey had been only the 13th state to join the Council of Europe. The political history of modern Turkey was a chequered one. Recently she had again navigated a serious political crisis, arising from the events surrounding the election of a president after a period of instability. But the resolution of that episode was cause for significant confidence in Turkey’s potential for democratic maturity.

      Of course, France had a long-standing friendship with Turkey of more than five centuries, and in fact, modern Turkey was founded under the leadership of Mustapha Kemal on core French republican values and principles, such as the secular state.

      Although Turkey had made significant progress in recent years, structural reform was still required. It was important to applaud and encourage the developments and improvements that had been achieved. One example of the positive developments to occur in recent years was the amendments to the penal code. Amendments to Article 301 of the code, in relation to freedom of expression, were a good case in point. However, freedoms were still infringed. Where such reforms had been undertaken, Turkey should be congratulated on them, but the outcomes were often rather hazy, and needed to be followed up.

      In the case of Cyprus, more work was also needed. A greater degree of dialogue to resolve the situation had to be encouraged. In terms of the Kurdish issue, one needed only to look at the reports from Amnesty International to see how much work remained to be done there. One extreme example was the penalties imposed for the offence by a lawyer of pronouncing the word “Kurdistan” and using the soubriquet “Mister” in front of the name of Abdullah Öcalan. It was important that the training for the police and security forces was reformed to ensure that they abided by the standards of democracy and human rights that had been adopted on paper.

      It was clear that reform in Turkey would take some time to materialise, but, given time, there was no doubt that Turkey would improve and meet the important challenge of setting an example to many of its neighbours.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I see that Mrs Naghdalyan is not here, so I call Mr Kumcuoğlu.

      Mr KUMCUOĞLU (Turkey). – Mr President, the case before the Turkish Constitutional Court against the AKP is sometimes debated with inadequate and misguided information, as we have seen today. We are deeply disappointed about the fact that Mr Van den Brande did not feel the need to consult with the democratically elected representatives of the Turkish opposition. Democratic institutions in Turkey have a history of more than a century, and we have had 62 years of a multi-party parliamentary system, which is a longer history than in many countries represented here.

      Other state institutions in Turkey also have long histories. The current Turkish judiciary has been evolving since the mid-1800s, and our country was an early signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, our judiciary is satisfyingly experienced and competent to handle professionally, and safely pass through, this critical process. Moreover, contrary to some baseless claims, and in spite of undeserved assaults, those in Turkey’s military circles are trying to stay out of this tricky problem. The legal system of every country reflects the historical experience of that country and tries to address its particular sensitivities. In other European countries, local sensitivities with historical roots could be racism, Nazism, fascism or communism. In Turkey, it is any potential threat to the secular democratic order.

      The most important criterion in evaluating a court case is due process. Due process is the tool by which our abstract sense of justice is translated into concrete implementation. The current case against the AKP has followed due process. The public prosecutor and the Constitutional Court have used the authority given to them by law. I therefore consider some of the remarks put forward by one of our Turkish colleagues truly unfortunate. We politicians have to be more conscious of our responsibility and should refrain from acts and statements that would erode respect for, and confidence in, our judicial system. Otherwise it will be difficult to maintain law and order on the street.

      The fact that a party receives 47% of the votes in parliamentary elections should not make it immune to judicial review; we would take issue with such a stance. Giving a ruling party immunity is against the very foundations of the rule of law, democracy and human rights, and against the basic principles of the Council of Europe. As far as our party is concerned, we do not wish to see AKP closed. Party closures penalise the innocent many as a result of the actions of the guilty few. However, we believe that if any institution inside or outside Turkey puts pressure on the judiciary on AKP’s behalf, it is likely to be counterproductive. I cannot help but wonder whether that is the hidden but true aim of the rapporteur and his close associates in Ankara. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Béteille.

      Mr BÉTEILLE (France) said that he wanted to focus on the relationship between Turkey and the European Union as this had important effects upon the development of democracy within Turkey. Turkey began the process of negotiation for accession to enter the European Union on 3 October 2005. Eight chapters had now been opened in the negotiation process; but only one had been closed – the science and innovation chapter, in June 2006. This indicated the very slow pace of progress in the negotiation process.

      Negotiations had been stalled over a number of problems. In December 2006, the European Union Commission had suspended negotiations until Turkey granted free access to its ports and airports. Turkey had also undergone a number of internal difficulties, such as those in December 2007, outlined in the committee’s report. The current appeal by the Constitutional Court to disband the Justice and Development Party only served to add to the difficulties encountered by the negotiation process.

      There had been major reforms in Turkey over the last 10 years, but there was still much progress to be made. Against this backdrop, sadly, the situation had recently deteriorated. A decision in May 2008 by the National Assembly to make a referendum mandatory on the accession of states to the EU had only recently been overturned in the French Senate. There was a need for a more even-handed approach for accession of new member states to the European Union. He added that he would not dwell further on Turkey’s accession to the European Union but that the Assembly should avoid stigmatising Turkey’s societal values. It might be 15 to 20 years before Turkey could accede to the European Union and it was important that further internal difficulties should be avoided to prevent holding up this process for longer than necessary.

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

      Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – This is a paradoxical situation for me because, during the past 18 years, I have used many critical words concerning Turkey’s development. Today, I am in the position of defending the Turkish Government, and this is one of the first times that I have done so.

      This is also a paradoxical situation for me because I am not a religious person, although I now I am defending a government that is accused of being led by a religious party. At the same time, when I am critical today about certain aspects of the development of Turkish society and certain developments in Turkey’s international policy, such as the continuous occupation of a part of Cyprus, I have to defend the Turkish Government.

I have followed the policy of different Turkish Governments for years – for example, while in the Council of Europe. The prime ministers and presidents were always representing the policy of promises. They were saying that they must make some progress and change the constitution, penal code, party legislation and so on in future. But now we have the first government that is implementing its promises. That is something different. At the same time, we can also notice that there are forces dissatisfied with the present government. They also tried to involve the public prosecutor in their political purposes to create an atmosphere in which the old policy of dissolving political parties could be put into practice again.

We in the Council of Europe must be a little bit self-critical. During the time when many parties faced dissolution in Turkey, we were not quiet, but we had a lot of people who supported such steps. We have voted many times, but this will be the first time when not so many of us support the possibility of closing leading parties, as happened some years ago. We must support the present government because it has made certain reforms.

I agree with those who say that there is a big danger that the pace of the reforms is slowing. In order for the reform policy to continue, we must support and clearly emphasise that the international community cannot support policies whereby the public prosecutor and even the supreme court are used as instruments of some of the old political forces in the police.

I support the rapporteur’s work and the draft resolution. The dissolution of political parties is not a small question. Sometimes in the past, the Council of Europe has not been serious enough in facing such problems. I hope that, today, we realise that it is our duty to support the normalisation of political life in Cyprus, and that requires the removal of the threat to dissolve such parties. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Laakso. I hardly ever agree with you, Mr Laakso, but I do today. I call Mrs Keleş.

      Mrs KELEŞ (Turkey). – Mr President, thank you for giving me the floor.

      Distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly, I am not going to respond to some of the speeches that have been made by Turkish and other parliamentarians because that would take too long. If anyone is interested, I would advise them to study what is going on in Turkey in more detail, especially with regard to the reforms.

      Written declaration No. 409, titled “Judicial proceedings against the Justice and Development Party in Turkey”, is the subject of today’s debate, which is very unfortunate for two reasons. First, this is all about judicial proceedings instituted by the general prosecutor in Turkey. No one can direct the general prosecutor in Turkey. In conformity with the principle of the separation of powers, the judiciary and prosecution are independent in Turkey. Secondly, the judicial procedure has not yet come to an end. According to our laws and our constitution, as in other European countries, to talk about a case during judicial proceedings is forbidden to prevent domestic and foreign interference and influence.

      In our constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law are accepted as the main principles. Every power should be used according to the rules that are cited in the constitution. In addition, the implementation of the principle of the rule of law and all proceedings of the legislative and executive powers are subject to a judicial powers monitoring procedure. What is more, the judiciary decisions of the high courts and Constitutional Court are binding on everyone.

      The other basic principle in the constitution is secularism. Secularism is not just one of the principles but the basis of our constitution. Article 2 of the constitution says that the Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular, social state and it cannot be changed. Article 24 says that the state cannot be based on religious principles.

      Neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nor the European Convention on Human Rights accept the freedom to dissolve the freedom of other people. Sometimes, statements and behaviours that are not democratic but do not employ violence may also be able to change or dilute the democratic order. In such cases, the self-protection procedures of the democratic regime should not be ignored.

      It was deeply disappointing to read the report. It was full of arguments advanced by the Justice and Development Party. It was like a party report or a party political broadcast. The Parliamentary Assembly should be objective with regard not only to different member countries and the party in power but the parties in opposition in each country.

      Some parliamentarians think that the timing of the debate is right. How can it be so when the judicial proceedings are still going on? The report refers to two articles in the European Convention on Human Rights – 10 and 11 – dealing with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and association, but both have second paragraphs, where the list of conditions under which these freedoms can be limited are given.

      The report says over and again how certain decisions will influence the economic, social, and political situation and international relations of Turkey. Can we say that that is not interference or putting pressure on the judiciary? Here and there in the report, the rapporteur says that no influence should be put on the Constitutional Court of the country, but the rest of the text tells us about the consequences of certain decisions.

      Democracy is vital for all people and the rule of law is an international principle. Neither international principles nor international law accept interference in the domestic and legal decisions of another state.

      THE PRESIDENT. – You have gone over the time limit by 35 seconds. That is my limit, so I ask you to end your speech. Thank you. I call Mrs Benaki.

      Mrs BENAKI (Greece) said that she spoke as a member of the Hellenic Parliament and voiced concern about the situation in Turkey as a neighbouring country. Relations between Greece and Turkey had had their ups and downs in the past but Greece was now keen to ensure peace and stability within the region.

      Turkey had stated that it wished to belong to Europe but it was difficult for European political observers to understand the decision of the Constitutional Court’s decision to ban the Justice and Development Party. This was surely a political issue rather than a legal matter. However, a struggle between political parties had somehow been referred to the judiciary, which would have negative repercussions for Turkey-European relations. There was no doubt that this move appeared in principle to be anti-democratic; but in practice the matter was now covered, or legitimised, by the court’s ruling on Turkey’s constitutional law.

      Following the ban by the Constitutional Court, the question was whether the court would proceed to ban the elected party again despite the fact that the apparent reason for the ban had now seemingly been settled. Greece was looking at the situation as a concerned neighbouring country and reiterated the fact that it wished for stability, peace and the rule of law in the region. It would, however, have to express disquiet if the Constitutional Court imposed this ban on the party in the future. and Greece was seriously concerned about the situation.

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

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I ask all those countries that have historically had a beef with Turkey to put that aside. Today is not about old arguments being recycled or other debates on issues that are still current or that are in some instances historically painful for all sides. I ask all politicians to think about this as a political issue which goes to the fundamentals of where people stand when they elect a government to office which has a clear mandate from the people, not once but twice. That is why this is important to all of us. I think the best message that we could send to Turkey would be if the Assembly voted unanimously to say that we see this as a challenge to the right of the people – not the right of the court, a political party or a government – to have the government that they elected.

      Mátyás Eörsi said today that no one is above the law. Of course not, but the law is there to serve the will of the people, as governments are. It is the same for a Constitutional Court and a political party. They have an obligation to respect the will of the people. I find this strange to say the least.

      A Turkish colleague asked why we were doing this now and said that we can leave the matter, as it is still going through the judicial process. We are doing it now because if we leave it, it will be too late. A decision that may be irreversible will have been taken. A democratically elected government could see its president, prime minister and 37 of its members of parliament taken from office for five years. The democratically elected party carries an overwhelming mandate. Very few of us have the luxury of saying that 47% of the population voted for us, not once but twice. That party has a clear duty to serve the people of Turkey.

      I have not seen any evidence from anyone on the pro side of the Constitutional Court’s argument, and I have looked intensively on the net to find out, that there is a case that needs to be proved here. It is a gerrymandered case. Out of 11 judges, nine of them seemed to have a similar opinion – a remarkable achievement in a Constitutional Court that should be above the collective “wisdom” circulated in advance of the judgment. One could suggest that there are hidden forces behind that – not cleverly disguised, and some of them probably wearing uniforms. That is not beneficial to a democratic state if that is what is happening.

      We must understand that Turkey cannot be ignored. It is a huge country of 68 million people who have thrived on democracy and have looked successfully towards the European side of their nation, at all times respecting Islam and the Muslim faith. When Kemal Atatürk formed the new Turkey, he did so to bring the country out of the ruins of a collapsed empire, to bring it together and to give it some unity. The strength of that man will be undermined by the very people who helped bring him to power: the army and the Constitutional Court. We should not be deluded: this is a threat to the very fabric of democracy. This is a case in which a political party has campaigned legitimately on a theme that was commonly known. The origins of the party and what it stood for were not a hidden secret – the people of Turkey had a clear picture, and they knew what to expect. The first time, perhaps they were not so sure, but the second time, a clear, persuasive argument was put to them, and they deserve to be listened to. The law in Turkey, whether it is from the Constitutional Court or the government, should respect the will of the people.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I see that Mrs Pashayeva is not here, so the next speaker is Mr Omelchenko.

Mr OMELCHENKO (Ukraine) said that he would like to address specifically our friends from Turkey. The situation in Turkey was so complex, and sensitive, that it was not possible to solve it with a one-size-fits-all recipe. It was for Turkey to resolve it. Also, the important role of the armed forces in Turkey had to be remembered. Turkey was a great country and its path was already laid down for democracy and human rights. One branch of public administration did not have the right to suppress results and certainly not to change election results. He was a lawyer himself, and upheld the principle of not interfering with the judicial process.

The position in Ukraine had depended on a decision of the Constitutional Court. The president there could stand only twice. It was a blessing that Kuchma had now gone. He had had the opportunity to stand for a third time, but then the constitutional situation had been changed. He wondered what would have been the consequences if Kuchma had been allowed to stand again. The country would have been on the brink of breaking up, but constitutional reform had prevented this situation from arising. With reference to Turkey, it was most important that the matter should be tackled peacefully and constitutionally.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I am pleased to call Mrs Türköne

Mrs TÜRKÖNE (Turkey). – I should like to set out the background to what the AK Party has done. As everyone knows, on 14 March 2008, the Chief Prosecutor of the Turkish Supreme Court asked the Constitutional Court to close down the ruling Justice and Development Party on the grounds that it had become a centre for anti-secular activity. He asked it to ban 71 officials, including Abdullah Gül, Prime Minister Erdogan, four Ministers and 39 MPs from politics for five years. Before I go any further, I must state that the AK Party categorically denies all those claims.

The AK Party was established in August 2001. Little more than a year after its foundation, in the November 2002 general election, it received 35% of the vote and a clear majority in parliament. Turkey has been run by AK governments for six years. During that period, the policies of those governments have been tested twice more: first, in the 2004 local elections, when it received 42% of the popular vote; and, secondly, in the 2007 general election, when it received 37% of the vote. In its first three years in power, because of changes and reforms to the system, the Parliamentary Assembly decided to end the monitoring procedure for Turkey. Those reforms were acknowledged by the Assembly in Resolution 1380, which said that “Turkey has achieved more reforms in little more than two years than in the previous ten.” As a result of those reforms, Turkey could start accession negotiations with the European Union.

All those reforms are intended to advance democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Turkey. Significant progress has been achieved in that area, and I shall remind the Assembly of what we have done. Nine legal reform packages and comprehensive constitutional amendments have been adopted. Amendments to the law on political parties and the law on the fight against terrorism, the adoption of a new civil code and a penal code, and a new law of association are some of the cornerstones of our legal reforms.

The ratification of the amendment to Article 301 of the Turkish penal code is an important milestone in overcoming the obstacles to freedom of speech. The law on foundations makes important improvements to the rights of minorities living in Turkey. In addition, equality between women and men has been made a fundamental constitutional principle, with an emphasis on the state’s obligation to maintain such equality. Moreover, the supremacy of international human rights treaties over domestic law in cases of conflict between the two has been established as a constitutional principle.

Dear colleagues, I have to tell you that it is not easy to express my thoughts and feelings. On the one hand, the subject of discussion is my country, and I am very unhappy that the reason for that discussion is a case of political party closure, which is a very rare thing for advanced and developed democracies. On the other hand, the party that is in court is my party, and I am proud to be a part of it. I am proud of what it has been able to achieve in making my country a better place. Nevertheless, all institutions of the member states are bound by the obligations, commitments and principles of the Council of Europe. Taking into account the separation of judicial and political powers, we must underline the fact that judicial authorities, too, have to respect those standards and principles, and act accordingly.

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

      Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – The basic expectation of the Turkish people is simple: security and prosperity, just like the rest of the earth’s people. In our life, we live, work, learn, teach, migrate, form unions and join councils – just to achieve prosperity and security and maintain them for the next generation.

      As our Secretary General, Mr Davis, reminded us yesterday, Abraham Lincoln told us that the will of the people is “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. Adhering to the principles of democracy has rewarded Europe with a higher level of prosperity and security. The AK Party firmly believes that people will prosper and be secure through the institution of those basic European principles. The mission of the party, therefore, was declared to be European Union membership. Its transparent agenda was designed to follow European guidelines to implement the necessary amendments to our democratic institutions. Those guidelines are helping to create an environment that protects our basic human rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of education, freedom of religion and freedom to assemble, as well as secularism.

      As a result of our dedication, the six-year record of the AK Party government is full of accomplishments, as mentioned by my colleagues. Our party government addressed the will of the people and delivered it. For instance, the empowerment of all women was a major target. The criminal law was amended to treat all women as independent individuals free from traditionally attributed characteristics. The promotion of measures to increase the schooling of girls and to get women out of their villages and into public life has become a grassroots democratisation movement.

Exemplary measures have been taken to combat violence against women. The powerful women’s branch of the party has been instrumental in the inclusion of women in public and political life. Long-deserved stability has been maintained, people are more prosperous and feel more secure, and Turkey has become a major tourism and investment destination.

      Last July, in the second parliamentary elections since the AK Party was founded seven years ago, one in every two people voted for it. The elected representatives are from 80 of the 81 cities, and 75 of the 340 representatives are of Kurdish origin. The Turkish people have been exercising the power of their will for many years. They have developed a stronger affinity to the power of their will and a stronger sense of democratic values through the fight to overcome the obstacles on their way. As we see among Europeans, once people are imbued with those values and enjoy their outcomes – prosperity and security – there is no giving up on them.

      The will of the people makes democracies thrive. The will of the people produces ruling parties and opposition parties – their existence and survival should be up to the will of the people.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I do not see Mr Vareikis in the Chamber, so I call Mr Keskin.

      Mr KESKIN (Germany) thanked the President and said that the idea of banning a political party was difficult to conceive of, and presumably difficult to implement. It would endanger the political stability of a country. There had been a number of episodes of concern in relation to the Justice and Development Party of Turkey, and he cited a few examples. First, there the redrafting of the constitution by a number of “yes men” close to the government; and what they agreed had magically become the new constitution.

      Secondly, the government had tried to bring the universities under its own regime, also education, and even parts of the media; so that public service broadcasters virtually became organs of the state. This was of great concern to him and to millions of people in Turkey.

      Turkey was a secular state inhabited by a large number of Muslims. That it was secular was beyond question. When a state in Islamic countries was not secular, we could see what happened. It had come to his notice that political scientists had expressed concern about the division of powers. There was the executive and there was the independent judiciary which examined what the executive did, and that was what the judiciary was seeking to do in this case. There were sacrosanct principles to be upheld, as well expressed in Article 20 of the Basic Law, the German Constitution: “All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive, and judicial bodies; The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice; all Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.”

      THE PRESIDENT. – That concludes the list of speakers.

      I call Mr Van den Brande, rapporteur, to reply. You have one minute and 20 seconds remaining for your reply. However, as a few speakers did not appear, I shall be lenient and you will have four minutes.

      Mr Van den BRANDE (Belgium). – President, your generosity is unbelievable and I shall pay tribute to it in terms not of seconds but minutes.

      I have two preliminary reflections. First, some colleagues gave the impression that we had not been working in a totally neutral way. I cannot accept that – either from the oral statements or written statements I have received in the past few hours. If people use such things for their own purposes, that is their responsibility, not ours.

      Secondly, one colleague made reference to one of the court decisions. The report notes that the conditions in which the court made its decision about the Refah Party were totally otiose. At the time, the so-called party did not exclude resorting to force. The court noted that there was a coalition government, but the party had said that once it had a majority, it would take measures. There are two completely different approaches to the situation we face. A ruling party with an absolute majority should not have recourse to force or other violent measures.

      I am grateful to everyone who contributed to this important debate. As I said, it is not about some theory, but about real democracy. I have just a few remarks to make. First, I was pleased that no one was in favour of banning the ruling party. That is important to acknowledge. Secondly, the judiciary can never be used for political purposes. It is important that we say clearly to our Turkish friends in all institutions that that has to be the case.

      We know that there was a longstanding problem in the country in that there were some “hidden” institutions. The army is not the same as the military. It is important that one of the reform packages goes in the opposite direction in terms of the Security Council. It is no longer possible for the institution in question to be “hidden” by the military. As we stressed in the draft resolution, an important principle in a democracy is the principle of proportionality. If a situation goes against a constitution, we have to bear in mind not only the principle of subsidiarity but the principle of proportionality, because the punishment must be proportionate.

      As colleagues said, the people have a responsibility and they must act through the institutions. It is important that there is international as well as European recognition of the democratic institutions, which was not the case in 2001-02. I hope that everyone agrees to the draft resolution. As I said in 2004, the Turkish people must believe in themselves and must have confidence in themselves, as reflected through their own democratic institutions.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Van den Brande.

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

      Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – First, this report is not political. Secondly, this report is not an act of interference by the Assembly in the domestic affairs of Turkey. Thirdly, this report is not an act of pressure on the judiciary in Turkey. This report is an expression of concern. This concern is accompanied by a precise and strong message: any state that has voluntarily become a member of the Council of Europe must recognise its highest value. Even the constitutional design, constitutional practice and constitutional jurisdiction – the action of parliament, the action of government, the action of the president – are subject to its values of the rule of law, human rights and real democracy. If the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court does not comply with those values, the state has not fulfilled the terms of article 3.

Values such as the rule of law, human rights and genuine democracy are well defined by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The report is simply a reminder of the values. That reminder is not just sent to the state of Turkey. It is also sent to other member states of the Council of Europe, reminding them that the highest values in the territory covered by the Council of Europe are the three principles of rule of law, genuine democracy and human rights. I think that the report would be accepted by other state members, too.

THE PRESIDENT. – The debate is closed.

The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution, to which two amendments have been presented. They will be taken in the order in which they relate to the text, namely 2 then 1.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mr József Berényi, Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr József Ékes, Mr András Kelemen, Mrs Tina Acketoft, Mr Terry Leyden and Baroness Gloria Hooper, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly stands firm for secular states in the Council of Europe member countries. However, the criteria of secularism cannot be applied to political parties, as political parties based on religion are widely spread in most of Council of Europe member countries. When a religious party is in government, and the government passes anti-constitutional decisions, the lawsuit should be carried against the specific decision of the state being in breach of constitution, and not the political party being beyond such decision by the state.”

I call Mr Eörsi to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – Although I agree with my Turkish colleagues about the power struggle, I hope that they agree with me about secularism. The amendment relates to how we perceive a secular state. It is important to stress that we have no problem with parties that have religious links. We have such parties in Europe, and of course we can have Muslim parties as well. I hope that the amendment serves its purpose.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that the Monitoring Committee wishes to propose two oral sub-amendments to this amendment. We will consider and vote on these two sub-amendments before completing our consideration of the main amendment.

The first reads as follows: “in Amendment No. 2, to leave out the words ‘based on’ and insert the words ‘animated by the moral values of a’.”

Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Van den Brande to move the oral sub-amendment.

Mr Van den BRANDE (Belgium). – I agree entirely with the essence of the amendment. However, as we discussed this morning, it is good to use the wording that the court has used many times. It is adequate to speak effectively about “animated by the moral values” of a religion instead of “based on”.

      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 first sub-amendment is adopted.

      The second oral sub-amendment reads as follow:

      “in Amendment No. 2, to leave out the last sentence of the amendment and to insert the following sentence: ‘When such a party is in government and the government passes anti-constitutional decisions, legal action should be taken against the political party.’.”Do

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

      That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Van den Brande to move the second oral sub-amendment.

      Mr Van den BRANDE (Belgium). – In line with what Mr Eörsi has drafted, and maintaining the essence of the amendment, I think that we need to highlight, as we did in the first part of the amendment, when legal action should be taken against a government for making anti-constitutional decisions. It should not be taken against the political party that is behind the government. The original amendment spoke about the decision of the state. In this case, we have decided to go for decisions by the government and to distinguish between decision-making and political parties.

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

      I call Mr Hancock to speak against the oral sub-amendment.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – It is completely illogical to say that in a secular state if a party has a religious base, it can be prosecuted for making a wrong move, but if a party that has no religious base does it, it will not be prosecuted. How on earth can the Council of Europe get itself into such a mess? Just read what it says. The oral sub-amendment is nonsense. If the Assembly votes for it, it should be ashamed of itself. It says that people in political parties can be prosecuted for their actions only if they are against the constitution. What on earth are we talking about?

      THE PRESIDENT. – The committee is in favour.

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – Logically, Mr Hancock is right, but the amendment should be put in the context of the report. I do not think that anybody would misunderstand what we are saying, given that context. I am in favour of consensus, and I very much support Mr Van den Brande’s amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 2, as amended.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I never miss an opportunity to speak against nonsense. Mr Eörsi, it does not matter that people in this Chamber understand the context. The Council of Europe does not prepare its papers for people in this Chamber. Or perhaps it does; perhaps I have been mistaken and we are here only for our own benefit. It is okay for us, because we have Mr Van den Brande and Mr Eörsi here to explain things for us all, but the people in Turkey and the press do not have the advantage of having those people alongside them. If we want to say something to a nation about the way that their country is being governed, it should be clear and precise. If any party, irrespective of its beliefs, breaks the constitution, it is the breaking of the law that should be challenged, not the party. However, the amendment says that that will happen only when the organisation concerned is a religious organisation, and that cannot be right.

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

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Axel Fischer, Mr Holger Haibach, Mr György Frunda, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Eduard Lintner, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 17, to insert the following paragraph:

“All institutions in the Member States are bound by the obligations, commitments and principles of the Council of Europe. Taking into account the separation of the judicial and the political powers we must underline that the judicial authorities also have to respect these standards and principles and to act accordingly.”

I call Mr van der Linden to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr VAN DER LINDEN (The Netherlands). – In paragraph 17, it says that we urge all state institutions to respect each other’s competences, but we do more than that. All institutions of the member states – not only their governments, politicians and judiciary – have to respect the standards and principles of the Council of Europe, and that is what the amendment says. Even if there is a separation of powers, bodies cannot say, “Because there is a separation of powers, we can do whatever we want.” They are bound by the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – The Monitoring Committee has brought forward an oral sub-amendment, which is in Amendment No. 1, leave out the word “must”.

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

That is not the case, so I call Mr Van den Brande to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – As Mr van der Linden was saying, given the framework and the approach taken, it would be best to delete “must”, and to instead say that we will do what is proposed.

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.

We now come to Amendment No. 1, as amended.

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

The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1, as amended, is adopted.

We shall proceed to vote on the draft resolution, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11660, as amended, is adopted, with 65 votes for, 3 against, and 3 abstentions.

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

2. International Committee of the Red Cross

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The second item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report of the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Document 11608, presented by Mr Hancock, rapporteur, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. There will also be a statement by Mr Jakob Kellenberger, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross. I call Mr Hancock, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of your report and your reply to the debate.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President. On behalf of the Assembly, may I welcome President Kellenberger? I had the great pleasure of meeting him once before, and it is another pleasure to re-acquaint myself with him today. I was very impressed with his executive leadership of his organisation, but I was even more impressed by the organisation itself.

I must apologise to colleagues; I am rather hoarse, not because I have been talking too much in the Assembly, but because I went to the Turkey-Germany game last night, and got rather over-excited. At one stage, I thought there was a chance that Germany might lose. As I come from England, which has often lost to Germany, particularly in close encounters in championships, I was over-eager to see Turkey win, and I think that I am suffering the consequences today.

      This report tries to address an issue that affects an important organisation. If we close our eyes and the words “crisis”, “catastrophe”, “humanitarian disaster” or “war zone problems” come to the front of our brains, which two words do we associate with it? I suggest that the overwhelming majority of people would say that those two words are “Red Cross”. The ICRC links the two arms of aid across the world: the Red Crescent, which does an equally wonderful job throughout the world, and the Red Cross.

Those organisations need to be commended for the action that they take. They deal with those issues and those people who are so often highlighted in newspapers and on television but so easily forgotten. Today’s headline is tomorrow’s fish and chip wrapping, as we say in the United Kingdom. The ICRC is there for the duration. It does not have the ability that the journalists of CNN, the BBC and others have to take the film, highlight the situation, raise people’s awareness, but those journalists disappear once they have done that.

The ICRC has the real job of trying to work out such situations for people. For that reason, if for no other, we should be eternally grateful to it. Its historic record, which goes back over decades, is one of which anyone associated with that organisation, the country of Switzerland and, indeed, all those who have given generously to its activities across the world, should be mightily proud. The Parliamentary Assembly should also take great pride in the fact that we are also associated with the ICRC and that we work with it in such a way that we are ourselves are glowing in the glory of its work and achievements.

Many of us thought that the issues that the ICRC has to deal with were solved long ago. When I went there, I was very sceptical about its work with regard to the missing. But, my God, I was there for less than 10 minutes before the people whom I was talking to convinced me how stupid I was to believe that that issue was diminishing. Within an hour, they had convinced me that it was such a vital part of their work and was so deserving of success that the sense of closure and peace that that can bring, just by clearly identifying what has happened to someone who was loved and cherished but who might have died in a humanitarian disaster or in an act of war, was something that no one should underestimate. I was stupid enough to think that it was a thing of the past, and I was amazed at the commitment of that organisation to deliver that comfort to families right across the world, particularly in the war-torn areas of the Balkans.

Many of us know only too well the situation of the unnamed dead there and in many other crisis parts of the world, such as the Caucasus. In many areas, lost souls have simply disappeared and their families have no knowledge of what has happened. They do not even have the satisfaction of knowing whether someone is alive or dead, or whether they are in grave or just dumped in a waste tip somewhere. I am very personally grateful to the ICRC for the enlightenment that I got, and I hope that my report contains some of those sentiments.

I am standing alongside Olga, who accompanied me on my mission to Geneva. I am sure that Olga had been on many missions in many of the places where the ICRC works. She would know only too well of such experiences because we both spoke at length about the effect of that visit. It had an immense effect on me personally and presumably on Olga. Much of what she wrote in this report, along with what I put into it, really did reflect what we had found out.

This report does not rubber stamp Mr Slutsky’s previous report – an excellent report in its right – but tries to give a new view of the ICRC’s work, such as that on detention. It would be interesting – would it not? – if we all looked around and considered how many of our countries give unfettered access to the ICRC to see those who are detained, many of them without charge. Many of them have no visits or assistance whatsoever, except that provided by the ICRC. It is willing to take on that task, so surely our willingness as an Assembly should be to ensure that every member state has an obligation to ensure that the ICRC gets that unfettered access, so that it can carry out that function.

The ICRC carries out humanitarian assistance with us. How easy it is for a humanitarian crisis to affect people who are starving and who are cold because the weather is closing in around them or those who have been in flooded or war-torn areas. The infrastructure of a country can be destroyed by war, and people suffer. That humanitarian situation very quickly turns into a human rights situation for those people. Their rights are seriously undermined. That is why the ICRC’s contribution is so important.

The ICRC plays a role in helping those suffering in armed conflicts. Going back to the two great wars that this continent faced, I ask: how many of the service personnel in our nations would have been grateful for the visit of the ICRC to ensure that their loved ones at home knew where they were and at least knew that they were in a prison camp? They were grateful for parcels that the ICRC delivered and for the help that it brought.

I am being told that I should keep some time to use at the end. As I advocate rapporteurs being able to respond to what people say, I think that that is very good advice, Olga – not for the first time. Thank you. So I will try to keep my comments brief, but I would like to end by saying that this whole issue is about not honouring an organisation – it is beyond honouring – but giving total recognition by the Assembly on behalf of all its member states to the commitment of the ICRC.

I am delighted to have been able to write this report. I hope that the Assembly will do justice to it. I hope that members take the time to read it and that the ambassadors of the countries of this Assembly take back the message that the ICRC can only do what it does if countries co-operate with it. Its edge is that it is above politics, and I hope that its neutrality is beyond criticism. That is what makes it so invaluable to our community in Europe and across the world, and that is why it is worthy of support.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – thanked Mr Hancock for his speech and noted that he had a few minutes left in which to reply to speakers at the end of the debate. He thanked him for underscoring the excellent co-operation that existed between the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Assembly’s Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. The co-operation agreement of 1995 between the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the ICRC recognised their common interest in defending human rights and dignity and promoting humanitarian law.

      A few weeks ago, he had taken part in a conference organised in Buenos Aires by the Latin American Parliamentary Assembly, where the main focus was the promotion of international and humanitarian law. In his address to that conference, he referred to today’s debate but stressed that it was not only a sign of the importance the Assembly attached to the ICRC but evidence of the importance that the Assembly attached to dealing with international humanitarian law issues.

      The Assembly was honoured that the President of the ICRC had found the opportunity to address the Assembly and to carry on the tradition of co-operation which existed between the Assembly and the ICRC and their respective staff. Mr Kellenberger had served for many years in the Swiss diplomatic service, accomplishing important missions, including from his position of the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Political Director. In this capacity, he had acted as co-ordinator and chief negotiator for the bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the European Union.

      For the last eight years, Mr Kellenberger had headed the ICRC, which was one of the most independent and neutral organisations working for humanitarian protection and providing assistance for victims of war and armed violence. It was a pleasure that the President of the ICRC was present and the Assembly had the honour of hearing his statement. He gave the floor to Mr Kellenberger.

      Mr KELLENBERGER (President of the International Committee of the Red Cross) thanked the President for his kind words and said that it would be challenge to follow Mr Hancock after such a comprehensive speech.

      (The speaker continued in English)

It is a great honour to have the opportunity to address this Assembly. The adoption by this Assembly of a recommendation and resolution on the ICRC and the drawing up of a related report attest to our organisation’s credibility in your eyes and the confidence that you place in it. I would like to particularly thank Mr Hancock who, at the request of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, has been named rapporteur for this matter. I greatly appreciated the authenticity of your warm words.

      The initiative taken by the Assembly to deliberate again on the work of the ICRC is part of a long tradition of co-operation between the Council of Europe and our organisation. Although they have different mandates and responsibilities, our organisations share essential goals involving the protection of human dignity. Our respective efforts to ensure respect for that dignity constitutes the basis that secures our co-operation.

      Safeguarding human rights and fundamental human liberties is at the heart of the Council of Europe’s mandate. For the ICRC, that place is occupied by international humanitarian law which is applicable to armed conflicts and adapted to the reality of the situation. In fact, those two bodies of law often complement each other and the ICRC frequently works in situations where the legal framework is constituted by human rights law. Human rights law has also been of help in interpreting certain rules of humanitarian law, for example those regarding respect for traditional guarantees.

      The ICRC carries out its assistance and protection activities across the world in countries affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Most of our work is done outside the borders of the Council of Europe member states. The five largest humanitarian operations of the ICRC are in Sudan; Iraq; Somalia; Israel and the Palestinian territories; and Afghanistan. We have an overall total budget of $1.2 billion. We nevertheless continue to have operations in the Balkans and in the South and North Caucasus, as described by Mr Hancock in the report.

The ICRC also closely follows developments regarding humanitarian law and humanitarian principles and pays special attention to the role that the state and other international actors such as the Council of Europe can play in connection with armed conflict and other situations of violence. Our dialogue with the various bodies of the Council of Europe about matters of shared interest is of course governed by respect for the principle of confidentiality according to which the ICRC always seeks to solve problems by means of bilateral and confidential discussions between it and the party concerned. However, that rule does not prevent us from keeping the world informed of the activities that we carry out and to bring to the attention of the international community the plight of the victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence.

      Although your work primarily concerns peacetime, it can and must continue to be applicable should violence explode. The ICRC is therefore grateful for the repeated instances of action taken by this Assembly and its various committees not only to promote international humanitarian law but to ensure that people affected by armed conflict and other situations enjoy the most effective protection possible. I think that Mr Hancock has described that very well.

      I would like to take the opportunity to discuss three other subjects about which various bodies of the Council of Europe, particularly this Assembly, have deliberated in recent years and concerning which you will continue to have an essential role to play in the years to come. Those subjects are missing persons, cluster munitions and the struggle against terrorism.

      (The speaker continued in French)

On the subject of disappeared persons, he agreed that more could be achieved, and the parties concerned should be persuaded to pursue this work. The ICRC had been working not only to prevent disappearances, but to provide more information to the families of missing persons. In the South Caucasus, the ICRC had collected evidence of disappearances for many years, and pressure was being asserted on the relevant authorities to take effective steps to investigate allegations of disappearances. In the North Caucasus, the ICRC was assisting the authorities and giving them the benefit of the organisation’s expertise.

      The ICRC also noted with satisfaction that the efforts of other actors in this area served to strengthen its work. Among these other players, he would particularly emphasise the importance of the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which had worked ceaselessly to improve the situation. The adoption of the 2004 and 2007 resolutions specifically addressing the issue of disappeared persons were a testament to the dedication of the Assembly to this issue. These resolutions, which had particular reference to the Balkans, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, had been particularly important. Equally, the adoption of a resolution and a recommendation on the situation in Chechnya had also covered this important subject. The ICRC had been pleased with the attention given by the Assembly to this area, and was grateful for the support given to the it. The work, led by the Assembly, was essential in order to push the agenda forward, and put pressure upon the relevant authorities to take concrete steps to improve the situation for the families of those who had disappeared.

      The importance of the work of the UN Commissioner of Human Rights and the development of case law should also be recognised, as it played a crucial role in shedding light on disappearances and preventing further cases. All these efforts coming together served to resolve current cases and prevent future ones. The ICRC would encourage the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, along with other Council of Europe bodies, to pursue their efforts to examine and support the families of the disappeared.

      Moving on to cluster munitions, he emphasised that these weapons had been a persistent problem for decades. Even though these weapons had been used only in a handful of conflicts over the past 50 years, thousands of civilians had been killed and injured in the war zones concerned.

They had characteristics that made them extremely dangerous from the moment when they were used and also after the end of the conflicts. In Kosovo, for example, they had been used with terrible consequences. The ICRC had considered it necessary to look at the issue over some years. It was essential to have a new treaty and a treaty had been adopted in Dublin on 30 May 2008 prohibiting the use, manufacture, purchase and storage of landmines. The ICRC asked that all states signed the convention, which would be open for signature in Oslo from the beginning of next December. The ICRC also encouraged the Assembly to take all possible measures to encourage the largest possible number of states to sign this instrument.

      He ended with the subject of combating terrorism. The ICRC emphatically condemned all indiscriminate violence affecting wider populations. It had condemned such acts of terrorism, particularly after the events of 11 September 2001 in the United States. The fight against terrorism needed legitimate objectives. But the means and the ends must respect the fundamental guarantees of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which had taken so long to be established over time and set out in different legal documents.

      He applauded the efforts of the Assembly and the other branches of the Council of Europe over recent years to establish guarantees in respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In the context of the fight against terrorism, he urged that these efforts continue. While it was essential to halt acts of terrorism, it was no less essential that the fight should be undertaken with strict respect for the fundamental guarantees of the rule of law recognised by all. He remained personally convinced that respect for human dignity was the best long-term investment in security.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Kellenberger, for your statement, which was of great interest to our colleagues.

I now call the first speaker on the list, Mrs Däubler-Gmelin, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany) expressed thanks to the President, Mr Kellenberger and colleagues, and to Mr Hancock for his excellent report and presentation, and said that the Group supported the ICRC for three reasons. There was the scope of its work, which the report dealt with well, and that work showed wide variety. The ICRC was active in international projects. All had benefited from the its work in the past to prevent breaches of international law. As Mr Kellenberger had underlined, much remained to be done. It was not well known that the second President of the ICRC had said that human rights needed to be seen in the context of international humanitarian law. The ability to bring individuals to book was of vital importance; otherwise it would not be possible for humanitarian conventions to be enforced. It now was possible to prosecute individuals for breaches.

      Not all countries were active in the ICRC work, not even all members of the Council of Europe, and he was pleased that this had been made clear in the report.

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

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Däubler-Gmelin, I now call Mr Branger, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr BRANGER (France) wanted to stress the high quality of the report and its comprehensiveness, and he welcomed Mr Kellenberger’s attendance. It was natural that the Assembly, as part of an important human rights body, should look at the activities of the ICRC. The ICRC had been nominated for the inaugural Nobel Peace Prize in 1901, with the founder of the Red Cross winning it in that year. Naturally, there were limits when the ICRC was called on in connection with promoting respect for international humanitarian law; the problem was that too many states trampled on basic rights. The Assembly should, of course, support the ICRC.

ICRC activities in as many as 80 countries illustrated how human rights were under attack; there were atrocities all over the planet. The ICRC did not give in to media pressure. It also intervened in old, and sometimes forgotten, conflicts. This included help for refugees and finding missing persons. Its other activities should be made more visible. The report illustrated the ICRC’s capacity for flexibility and adjusting to different demands; for instance, when it dealt with natural disasters. He could not conclude without referring to the 13 500 persons who worked under the Red Cross banner, all round the world in often difficult and dangerous conditions, making it possible to protect the human dignity of victims.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Branger. I call Mr Reimann of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr REIMANN (Switzerland) said he had taken a critical look at, and applauded, the thoroughly topical report, which he endorsed unreservedly. However, he had some comments, which might be deemed critical. The ICRC had abided by neutrality and independence and kept politics at arm’s length. But the report commented that the arm’s length principle was not complied with; this was not dealt with coherently. Although he agreed with them, he felt that the passages relating to prosecution of war criminals should not be in this report, and the ICRC had no mandate in respect of legal migrants. He endorsed the plea made to give more financial support to the ICRC and the requirement that the states should assist the ICRC in feeding material into the core curriculum in schools. In 20 or 25 years time, today’s pupils would be in power and would hopefully see less conflict. Some countries did not feel bound by the Geneva Conventions. One question was whether we should be building on, or extending, the conventions? He noted with satisfaction that the recommendations did point in that direction.

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

      Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – I am delighted to make a brief contribution to the debate on behalf of the European Democrat Group. Of course, we congratulate my parliamentary colleague, Mike Hancock, and the Secretariat of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population on an excellent report, but this afternoon our real thanks and congratulations should go to the ICRC and Mr Kellenberger and his team for their tremendous work. As Mike Hancock said, wherever humanitarian disaster strikes, for whatever reason – climate, natural disaster, war or armed conflict – we know instinctively that the Red Cross will be on the scene, quietly and unspectacularly but hugely effectively getting on with the job.

      I agree with the rapporteur that it should be a matter of pride for the Assembly that we work in such close partnership with the ICRC. Its key aims of providing humanitarian aid and our key objective of upholding human rights are in many ways one and the same, because they are founded on respect and concern for the individual. We talked a lot about that in our debates on the democratic process yesterday. As such a close partner of the ICRC, a key issue for us must be what more we can and should do to help and support the ICRC, not just to make it more effective, but to support its aims and objectives. In a brief exchange with Mr Kellenberger in the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population this afternoon, I put that question to him. It is typical of the man and the organisation that he said, “There’s nothing spectacular we want you to do. Just give us political support. Political will is what is needed to help us solve intractable problems.”

      Mr Kellenberger mentioned two of those problems in his address – missing persons and internally displaced persons. I agree with other speakers who said that the key to the success and acceptance of the ICRC efforts is the organisation’s impartiality and independence. Mr Kellenberger rightly said that we in this Assembly are not just giving political support; we are sending a message about the importance of ratifying conventions and agreements and upholding proper standards. We are also sending a message about co-operation – about authorities co-operating in sharing files and information about missing persons. All those things are critical and I hope, Mr Kellenberger, that you will leave here today content in the knowledge that we indeed want to lend you that support.

      The issue of cluster munitions is highly controversial, but it is right that we should consider it, as that is long overdue. That we are doing so is due to the persuasive efforts of the ICRC. We want much more participation in the agreement when it is signed in November.

      The one surprise in your comments, Mr Kellenberger, which I shall talk about briefly in the remaining few seconds of my speech, is that you mentioned the importance of combating terrorism. Although we clearly have strong security objectives, we must respect basic guarantees. We began this week by taking a decision in the Bureau that we should refer to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for report and debate in the Assembly the issue of 42-day detention in the United Kingdom. You did not say that was what you were referring to, but that is the message I took. It is easy for us as British parliamentarians – not as the government – to think that we are being party political, but I believe that we are not. It is right that we should look at the issue and your comments about it today will galvanise us to the resolve we need to make a critical report on the subject if that is required.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you for your contribution on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      I call Mr Kox, on behalf of the Group of the unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands). – I do not feel sorry for Mr Hancock’s physical state because he was lucky enough to watch Turkey play Germany live in the stadium whereas I was obliged to watch it on a television in a Turkish cafe where the transmission was interrupted far too often. We lacked the last two minutes, so until I have further proof, I do not believe his story that the Turks lost. We will see.

      The Group of the Unified European Left compliments Mr Hancock on his report. It is a clear and interesting document on the International Committee of the Red Cross, and it is followed by several important proposals to us and our governments so that we increase the effectiveness of the Red Cross. I shall return to some of the proposals later.

      I have to salute President Kellenberger, his assistants and, via them, the grand army of the International Red Cross. It is an army of millions of volunteers worldwide who try, sometimes desperately, to restore, or at least ease, what other forces have destroyed with their wars and armed conflicts not only far away, but also here on this continent, where there have been far too many awful wars in recent years.

      The Red Cross is a great organisation in the eyes of my political group and I think in the eyes of everyone. It is a great organisation in an anything but perfect world. It was a wise decision to grant the Nobel prize twice to this oldest and largest humanitarian network in the world. Perhaps the relevant institutions should consider granting the prize for a third time.

      After the good news about the recent signatures of the remaining countries, the Geneva Convention is now signed by all countries, which makes it the first international treaty to be endorsed worldwide. I congratulate the Red Cross in particular on its work on that.

The work of the Red Cross is becoming ever more difficult. Since the end of the Cold War, it has been obliged to tackle the massive and horrible effects of several new wars and armed conflicts involving millions of victims of ever-developing devilish techniques of hurting, humiliating, terrifying, terrorising and killing citizens and soldiers. The war on terror declared by President Bush is one of the new armed conflicts that has had unforeseen effects on the work of the Red Cross. There is a horrible war in Iraq and an endless armed conflict in Afghanistan. There are also illegal and secret prisons, and a return of the use of torture as a means of fighting wars.

I want President Kellenberger to elaborate on the idea that the Red Cross should use more ways of making facts public, as happened with Guantánamo Bay and Burma. Furthermore, I ask him to inform us about secret detention centres on this continent, which were mentioned in Dick Marty’s report – or does confidentiality prohibit the Red Cross from telling us what we really want to know?

Returning to Michael Hancock’s proposals, my group supports them all. In fact, we go further than that. We are actively campaigning for signatures to the convention on cluster munitions. I very much appreciate President Kellenberger’s plea that all countries sign it as soon as it can be signed.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

The rapporteur prefers to reply at the end of the debate, so I call Mrs Kiuru.

Mrs KIURU (Finland). – The report shows how the ICRC organises relief operations, runs assistance activities for the population that has not taken part in the conflict and undertakes other humanitarian activities during armed conflict. Its mandate is based on international humanitarian law – four Geneva Conventions and three additional protocols to which states are committed.

In article 3 of the draft recommendation, the Assembly asks the Committee of Ministers to instruct the Steering Committee for Education of the Council of Europe to examine ways to support the ICRC so that we include knowledge about international humanitarian law in the school curriculum. This is an excellent objective and more should be done. The Council of Europe should take a leading role in promoting the teaching of humanitarian law and supporting the ICRC and the member states in their activities in teaching humanitarian law.

One of the most important target groups is that of the armed and security forces.

      The Council of Europe should recommend taking concrete measures to ensure that each soldier knows the basic principles of humanitarian law in their territory, whether they are on a national or international operation. It is equally important to share information and organise training for the decision makers who are responsible for crisis management operations. International humanitarian law should be promoted through school education and training. Even in non-conflict countries, school kids and students read and hear of armed conflicts through the media. Our youth should have the tools to understand that rules exist, even in wars. Many countries already work very effectively with the Red Cross or Red Crescent national societies and the ICRC. The Council of Europe could have a crucial role in supporting an exchange of experiences and best practice by member states in that field.

In conclusion, I remind colleagues that only impartial and independent humanitarian action can provide protection for all victims on both sides of a conflict. It is therefore tragic that lately some states have used humanitarian aid to promote their political and military goals. In future, the Council of Europe should do more to ensure that reducing human distress is the principal objective of humanitarian help. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I see that Ms Banović and Mr Huseynov are not here, so I call Ms Pashayeva.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan). – Ladies and gentlemen, first, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Hancock, for his comprehensive report. I listened attentively to the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mr Kellenberg, and would like to speak about the serious problems that my country, Azerbaijan, faces as a result of the occupation of 20% of its territories by Armenia, and about the people who have suffered as a result. Members of the Assembly have been informed about the policy of ethnic cleansing conducted by Armenia in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. About 1 million Azerbaijani refugees and internally displaced persons have not been able to return to their native lands and homes for more than 15 years. Wide information about that is contained in Resolution 1416, adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

      However, today I would like to speak about a tragedy affecting more than 4 000 families, which has continued for more than 15 years. I wish to inform Assembly colleagues that 4 264 Azerbaijanis went missing as a result of the occupation of Azerbaijani territory by Armenia. Some 47 of them are children, 262 are women and 359 are aged. They have been registered as missing by a state committee of Azerbaijan, which was established in 1993 in order to carry out activities connected with people who have been taken prisoner, are missing, or have been taken hostage, and for whom we are still searching.

Since the beginning of the occupation, 1 396 Azerbaijani citizens have been freed from captivity. Some of them were freed as a result of the mediation of the International Committee of the Red Cross. I greatly regret to say that most of those people were kept in inhumane conditions and lost their health. I could show all interested members of the Assembly pictures that testify to the tortures suffered by Azerbaijani women and children who have been released from captivity in Armenia, having been held hostage. Unfortunately, despite the fact that we have repeatedly declared that those problems exist, no strict measures have been taken to prevent them.

International organisations suggested establishing direct relations between the state committee of Azerbaijan and the state committee of Armenia in order to increase the effectiveness of searches, clarify what has happened to missing persons, and hold meetings. The state committee of Azerbaijan agreed to that proposal, taking into consideration the fact that the problem was connected to human rights and is absolutely of a humanitarian nature. It accordingly held meetings and discussions in Tbilisi and Brussels in 2005 and 2006. However, we regretfully note that, even after those meetings, Armenia did not change its attitude to Azerbaijani captives.

I have with me a book that contains a great deal of information about, and pictures of, people who were taken hostage and captured by Armenia, as well as about missing persons. We are ready to present the book to any interested members of the Assembly. Its title is “Rescue us from captivity”. That call, or scream, is addressed to the Council of Europe, its Parliamentary Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Mr Kellenberg. We expect you to increase your efforts to rescue those people from captivity. Even I have friends among those captured, taken hostage in Armenia or missing. For me, the most difficult thing in the world is finding an answer to a mother who asks when her child, who remains in captivity, will be freed.

Thousands of families wake up every morning hoping to receive good news, and fall asleep with the sadness of “no news again today”. We urge members of the Assembly not to be indifferent to the destiny of those people and to use all their influence and apply every pressure for their release.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers. Mr Kellenberger, would you like to respond briefly to the debate?

Mr KELLENBERGER (President of the International Committee of the Red Cross). – Yes, I should like to make one or two points. I can only agree with all those who said how essential it is that the ICRC remains a credible, independent, neutral and impartial organisation. By independent, I mean independent of all states. That is an important point. As for the reference made to the report and to the International Criminal Court, I simply say that it is part of international humanitarian law that people who have committed serious violations of that law have to be prosecuted according to internationally maintained law, either in a national court, or – if a national court is not willing, but the country has ratified the Rome statute – internationally; that is a possibility. It is part of international humanitarian law that gross violations of internationally maintained law have to be prosecuted in a criminal court.

Assembly members will understand that the ICRC will never function as the witness in court procedures. That would not be compatible with its overall status. A rather interesting point was made about the opportunity at new state conferences to talk about internationally maintained law. Internationally maintained law is always developing. The last convention on munitions is just one example. One might always wish for the best of all worlds, but if I had to choose a priority, I would say that what really matters is doing the utmost to ensure that existing laws are respected. If existing rules were just a little bit better respected, we would make great progress. However, there is always a need to develop, and to be more precise in definitions.

I think I owe an answer to you, Mr Kox, even if your question was on a wide topic. In a way, the way that you asked your question shows that you knew that I could not answer all of it. You brought up the important issue of confidentiality and asked when we would speak out publicly. You gave two examples, one of which was Myanmar; you may remember that we did in fact speak on the subject last summer – and in fact it was I who did so. We were quite explicit about the violations of internationally maintained law. That was typical of the cases in which we do speak out. We do so only in cases where there are repeated, serious violations, where our interventions are to no avail and show no effect, where we are witnesses of what has happened, and where we feel that speaking out is the best thing that we could do. I underline that, and I think that you will understand that point. And yes, I think that that is a value-added.

We have extraordinary access at the highest levels in the most delicate situations. Naturally, we have that because people trust in our confidentiality. There is nothing mythical or legendary about that confidentiality. Confidentiality is a tool to get access to people in need of protection and assistance. It is not unconditional, but we will only renounce it if doing so will achieve our goals.

      We have visited Guantánamo from the start. We have carried out more than 40 visits to Guantánamo. Every visit takes between two and five weeks. I have had regular dialogue on this at the highest level on the US side. I would not even claim that we are the only ones who have contributed to improvements, but we certainly have contributed to them. We have certainly also contributed to resolving some legal questions, but that was only possible because we were disciplined about confidentiality. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Kellenberger, for your response. I call Mr Hancock, rapporteur, to reply. You have four and a half minutes, but we have time so you can use a couple of minutes more.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I am very grateful to you, Mr President. I would not be one to turn that offer down.

      First, I want to thank the people whom I neglected to thank earlier. I would like to thank two of the ICRC’s staff who were very good – Symeon Autoulas and Ana Ruiz. Both of them were splendid in what they did. I would like to say to you, President Kellenberger, that no matter what question we asked of any member of your staff, they did not have to think too long about answering. They were people on top of their game. When asked a question, sometimes provocatively and sometimes mischievously, they were able to answer really quickly and honestly. So you should be rightly proud of your staff.

      I also want to thank those members of the Assembly who have spoken. Our German colleague, Mrs Däubler-Gmelin, was obviously very well briefed and knowledgeable about the issue. She was right to link human rights with humanitarian law and humanitarian aid. That says a lot about her knowledge of such things, and her understanding is much appreciated.

      As always, my old friend, Mr Branger, made an eloquent and purposeful speech. How right he was to identify the ICRC’s 13 000 field staff. I was recently in Bangladesh during the time of huge devastation caused by the cyclone. The Red Crescent, not the Red Cross, was involved. I met a young lady who had been instrumental there. She was a young cadet in the Red Crescent. She had been trained in a town many miles from where the disaster took place. She went into the water at great personal risk and saved people’s lives. She was still there, working as a volunteer and trying to put people’s lives back together. Goodness me, if I had done as much in the whole of my life as that girl had done in one week, I would be extraordinarily proud of myself. I was absolutely amazingly proud just to meet her. One of the nicest pictures that I have in my office in the House of Commons is of that young lady, some of her colleagues, myself and another member of parliament. It takes pride of place because these people really do put their lives on the line. Mr Branger, you were right to echo that in your comments.

      I refer my Swiss colleague, Mr Reimann, who is also my political colleague, to paragraph 40 of the report, which states: “IDPs are a primary concern to the ICRC. International displacement is mainly due to armed conflicts and other situations of violence.” Consequently, civilian populations have only one place to look for aid in such circumstances: the ICRC. So the ICRC is not doing work that it should not be doing. It is there doing the job that people require it to do, because there is no one else there to do it. So I hope that that answers the question.

      I thank Mr Greenway for his help. He was right in the final part of his contribution, when he asked what the Assembly could do. We can be grateful for the association. We can be proud of the ICRC, and we can talk in glowing terms. But at the end of the day, we must recognise that, for this organisation to do its work properly, it needs the support of member states at government level. It needs such support and the political will to generate positive support and action. We should not put obstacles in the way of an organisation whose only ambition is to improve the lot of the people affected by one disaster or another.

      I thank Mr Kox for his question and for the way that he talked about the thousands of volunteers – not the ICRC’s staff, but all those countless hundreds of thousands of people who do the work on the ground. I am referring not only to those who help and offer their services for free, but to those who rattle tins to raise money for the organisation to try to generate the funds that it desperately needs. We should be grateful to this organisation for its links right across societies throughout the world. It constantly raises money and awareness of the need for such work. I only hope that some governments listen to what the ICRC says.

      Our colleague, Mrs Kiuru, was right when she spoke about the need for education. No one denies that education is fundamental, and I hope that the ICRC will continue in that role. It is important to get the message across.

      I understand the concerns expressed by my Azerbaijani friend and colleague, Ms Pashayeva, but another battle needs to be fought about the accuracy of the figures. The report was not meant to slight anyone or to give the wrong impression. It was simply intended to give an idea to members of the figures involved. I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of that conflict. I only wish that there was a way to find salvation for all those people and a lasting solution. However, this report is unable to do that; it is able only to report the facts as accurately as possible.

      My last point is to urge all member states and all of us to take home the message about cluster munitions. We must not avoid our obligation. It is far easier for us to avoid our obligations to sign, ratify and implement a ban on cluster weapons than it is for children and others to avoid them when they have been dropped in civilian areas. Too many people are hobbling around this planet because of cluster munitions. Too many families have been denied the right to work and to have a decent life because of them. We have a right to demand that our governments not only sign and ratify but actually live up to the commitments that have been given, and I only wish that the United States and others would do the same.

      With those few words and your generosity in giving me extra time, Mr President, I would like to commend the report and the amendment to the Assembly. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak?

      Mrs JONKER (Netherlands). – I will not repeat the comments that have just been made, or the deserved warm words about the ICRC. I want to thank the ICRC and the Red Cross national societies for their intensive co-operation with our committee. I especially thank Mr Kellenberger for coming here today and Mr Antoulas and Mrs Ruiz for their ongoing presence at our committee meetings. I also thank Mr Rocio, who I see upstairs and who represents the French Red Cross. We look forward to the two-day joint seminar in Geneva in November this year. Next year, the French Red Cross will organise with the Council of Europe a conference on humanitarian law and migrants in this room, inviting all Red Cross and Red Crescent societies in the 47 member states.

What Mr Greenway said is correct: we are proud to have such a close relationship with the ICRC. I thank the rapporteur for the report. I also thank Mrs Kostenko, who does not work for the committee any more, so I am grateful that she is here today and supported our rapporteur and the committee on this wonderful report.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

      The debate is closed.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has presented a draft resolution, to which one amendment has been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled.

We will consider first the amendment to the draft resolution.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Michael Hancock, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraphs 9.3 and 9.4 with the following paragraph: “sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions when it is opened for signature on 2 December 2008 in Oslo, Norway, and take the necessary steps to ratify the Convention as soon as possible;”

I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I move the amendment formally.

THE PRESIDENT. – 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. 1 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11608, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11608, as amended, is adopted, with 34 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11608.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11608, is adopted, with 33 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

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

THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly holds its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the 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 5.32 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey (resumed debate)

Speakers:

      Mr Tekelioğlu (Turkey)

      Mr Branger (France)

      Mr Kumcuoğlu (Turkey)

      Mr Béteille (France)

      Mr Laakso (Finland)

      Mrs Keleş (Turkey)

      Mrs Benaki (Greece)

      Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

      Mr Omelchenko (Ukraine)

      Mrs Türköne (Turkey)

      Mrs Memecan (Turkey)

      Mr Keskin (Germany)

      Replies:

      Mr Van den Brande (Belgium)

      Mr Holovaty (Ukraine)

      Amendments Nos. 2 as amended, and 1 as amended, adopted

      Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

2.       International Committee of the Red Cross

Presentation by Mr Hancock of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population Doc. 11608

Statement by Mr Kellenberger (President of the ICRC)

Speakers:

Mrs Däubler-Gmelin (Germany)

Mr Branger (France)

Mr Reimann (Switzerland)

Mr Greenway (United Kingdom)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mrs Kiuru (Finland)

Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)

Replies:

Mr Kellenberger (President of the ICRC)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mrs Jonker (Netherlands)

Amendment No. 1 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation adopted

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