2011 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(First part)

REPORT

Sixth sitting

Wednesday 26 January 2011 at 3.p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.

Mr Zingeris, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.05 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Written declarations

THE PRESIDENT – In accordance with Rule 52 of the Rules of Procedure, we have two written declarations: No. 465, on “common memorials of humankind”, which has been signed by 23 members (Doc. 12500); and No. 466, on “executions in Iran”, which has been signed by 20 members (Doc. 12501).

In accordance with Rule 52.3, any Representative, Substitute or Observer may add his or her signature to the written declarations in the Table Office, Room 1083.

2. The protection of witnesses as a cornerstone for justice and reconciliation in the Balkans
The obligation of member states of the Council of Europe to co-operate in the prosecution
of war crimes
Reconciliation and political dialogue between the countries of the former Yugoslavia
(resumed joint debate)

THE PRESIDENT – We will now resume the adjourned debate on the three items under consideration: the protection of witnesses as a cornerstone for justice and reconciliation in the Balkans (Doc. 12440 rev); the obligation of member states of the Council of Europe to co-operate in the prosecution of war crimes (Doc. 12454); and the reconciliation and political dialogue between the countries of the former Yugoslavia (Doc. 12461).

We now come to the replies to the debate this morning on the reports from the Political Affairs Committee and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the Balkans.

I call Mr Dorić, rapporteur, to reply. You have seven minutes.

Mr DORIĆ (Croatia) – Dear colleagues, I first thank you for your contributions to the discussion and for your good ideas and suggestions. As you know, this is only the first step in implementing all the conventions that I mentioned in my introductory speech. I also thank the non-governmental organisations that contacted me and helped me with their good ideas and suggestions. I thank once again the heads of the delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Croatia for helping me to prepare the data for the report, the resolution and the recommendations.

As you will see from the recommendations, I have mentioned several bodies of the Council of Europe, and I shall mention some of them again: the European Committee on Crime Problems, the Committee of Experts on the Operation of European Conventions on Co-operation in Criminal Matters, the Group of Experts in charge of revising and modernising the European Convention on Extradition and the Committee of Experts on Impunity of the Steering Committee for Human Rights. We expect those committees to continue the work that we will start today if we adopt the resolution and recommendations.

I also thank the speakers who said that the way in which we have worked today, and our very detailed reports, should be a model for co-operating in the prosecution of war criminals in other conflicts. We must do good work in the future, and the way in which we have dealt with the Balkans issue in the past year should be adopted as a model for our future work. I especially wish to accept the principles on which Mr Ivanji based his intervention. I thank him very much. That is the way in which we should think and work in the future. I also wish to thank Mr Slutsky and others for their fine contributions.

Finally, two hours ago, Mr Tadić said that we need to continue the healing process. I truly believe that we can contribute to the healing process in the Balkans by adopting these recommendations and the resolution.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Marcenaro, rapporteur, to reply. I am sorry but you have only two and a half minutes.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that two minutes would be more than enough time for him to say everything he wanted to say. He thanked everyone who had spoken in the debate. Mr Gardetto’s work had been essential. President Tadić had elegantly summarised the situation earlier in the day, and he thanked him for coming to the Assembly to make his contribution. It was now for the Assembly to agree the report and the resolutions.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Marcenaro. I call Mr Gardetto, rapporteur, to reply. You have seven and a half minutes.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) thanked his colleagues for their fruitful contributions to the debate. He particularly thanked his fellow rapporteurs and paid a deep compliment to the witnesses who were the subject of his report. He also thanked the Serbian, Bosnia and Herzegovinian, Montenegrin and Kosovan authorities, as well as the delegations in the Assembly and the contribution made by the Political and Legal Affairs Secretariat.

Witness protection was the cornerstone of reconciliation because the judicial process could not operate without it. It was important to stand up against impunity. If the citizens of Europe were to have confidence in their institutions, they needed better to protect witnesses. One could not rely on the judges alone because, in some countries, the judiciary remained unstable.

The Balkans and countries of the former Yugoslavia did not have a monopoly on war crimes, which, sadly, had occurred in other countries too. The countries involved similarly needed to co-operate and co-ordinate if they were to resolve the situation. This message had been confirmed earlier that day by President Tadić, who had said that all these countries needed to work on their dialogue. He wholly agreed with the sentiment that the past had to heal before one could move forward. The protection of witnesses and fair trials were key, as was social reconciliation, with an emphasis on young people. There needed to be greater emphasis on education and the Assembly had a role to play in reaching out to young people. He advocated a better legal framework for the protection of witnesses in order to help build society on the firm foundations of the rule of law.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gardetto.

Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Mr Pourgourides, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – I shall take much less time than that, Mr President. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights strongly supported both reports. We greatly appreciate the work done by the two rapporteurs on two sensitive and delicate issues. Given that sensitivity and delicacy, it was very difficult for the rapporteurs to find the right balance, but they did so successfully. If those to whom these messages are addressed listen to them carefully, peace, prosperity and happiness will prevail in the whole region in the near future. I hope sincerely that that is so.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Pourgourides. Does the Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee, Mr von Sydow, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – The debate speaks for itself, as do our decisions. The Political Affairs Committee comes to the Chamber after an exchange of views with Ms Nataša Kandić, director of the Humanitarian Law Centre. She is now a spokesperson and a leading personality in a new organisation in the former Yugoslavia where there is commitment to care not only for victims in their own country but in others.

We were moved by an intervention from Mr Hancock, who told us of his personal experience. Things are moving. Our eyes will be on our own countries and the countries concerned, as, with the Committee of Ministers and our Secretary General, we support these endeavours, which will be continued by our contributions today.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr von Sydow.

The debate is closed.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution on the protection of witnesses to which six amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

We shall deal first with the draft resolution.

I understand that Mr Pourgourides wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

The amendments are Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 1 to the draft resolution.

I understand that Amendment 5 will be withdrawn.

Is that so, Mr Pourgourides? You may speak for 30 seconds.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – The amendments were unanimously accepted.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Haibach, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Elzinga and Ms Schuster, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 16.1.8, after the word “measures”, insert the following words: “, including gender sensitive witness protection for the victims of war crimes involving sexual violence,”.

Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Haibach, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Elzinga and Ms Schuster, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 16.1.8, after the word “prosecutors”, add the following words: “, where they exist, and in the police units responsible for the investigation of crimes under international law”.

Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Haibach, Mr Pourgourides, Mr Cilevics and Mr Vareikis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 16.5.1, after the words “Witness Protection Unit”, insert the following words: “ensuring that the new unit is established according to professional standards, with suitably qualified and trained staff, in order to ensure the impartial operation of the unit, free of political or other interference,”.

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Gardetto, Ms Wohlwend, Mr de Vries, Mr Cilevics, Mr Haibach, Lord Tomlinson, Ms Bemelmans-Videc, Mr Marcenaro, Ms Feric-Vac, Mr Marty, Mr Chope and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 16.5.1, add the following words: “and from the Victim and Witness Support Unit”.

We will now consider the rest of the amendments to the draft resolution. They will be taken in the order in which they affect the text. I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come now to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Haibach, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Elzinga and Ms Schuster, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 16.2.2, add the following sentence: “Similar legislation should be enacted and adequate resources should be provided, in order to provide witness protection in criminal proceedings before the courts in both entities.”

I understand that Ms Wohlwend wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights as follows: “In Amendment 4, replace “in both” with “in all”.”

I call Ms Wohlwend to support the oral sub-amendment.

Ms WOHLWEND (Liechtenstein) said that the courts were present throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina; instead of the word “both” it should therefore be the word “all” as proposed by the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the rapporteur?

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – In favour.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 4, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 4, as amended, is adopted.

We come now to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Haibach, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Elzinga and Ms Schuster, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 16.3.1, replace the words “in circumstances where witnesses may be at risk use one of the four principal courts” with the following words: “refer war crime cases to the four special chambers”.

I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment 5. He is not here. I call Mr Haibach.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) (Translation) – We shall not move the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – The amendment is not moved.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12440 rev., as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12440 rev., as amended, is adopted with 104 votes for, 0 against and 3 abstentions.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12440 rev.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12440 rev. is adopted unanimously with 107 votes for.

We now come to the second report, on the obligation of member states of the Council of Europe to co-operate in the prosecution of war crimes (Doc. 12454).

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution to which six amendments have been tabled.

I understand that Mr Pourgourides wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

The amendments are Nos. 3 to 7 and No. 1 to the draft resolution.

Is that so Mr Pourgourides?

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – Every single amendment to this report was accepted unanimously by the committee. There were no objections

THE PRESIDENT – Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The following amendments have been adopted.

Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Haibach, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Elzinga and Mr Gardetto, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, fourth sentence, replace the word “Seven” with the following word: “Six”.

Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Haibach, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Elzinga, and Mr Gardetto, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, after the fourth sentence, insert the following words: “Eleven member states have not yet ratified the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court”.

Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Haibach, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Elzinga, and Mr Gardetto, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.3, after the word “nationality”, insert the following words: “or refugee status”.

Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Haibach, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Elzinga and Mr Gardetto, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11.1, after the word “legislation”, insert the following words: “by bringing it in accordance with international standards and”.

Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Haibach, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Elzinga, and Mr Gardetto, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 13, add the following words: “, in particular within the European Network of Contact Points in respect of persons responsible for Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, set up by EU Council Decision 2002/494/JHA of 13 June 2002”.

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Dorić, Mr Karski, Mr Hübner, Mr Strässer and Ms Beck, which is, in the title of the draft resolution, after the word “member” insert the following words: “and observer”.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12454, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12454, as amended, is adopted unanimously with 108 votes for.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has also presented a draft recommendation to which three amendments have been tabled.

I understand that Mr Pourgourides wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

The amendments are Nos. 8, 9 and 2 to the draft recommendation.

Is that so, Mr Pourgourides?

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT – Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The following amendments have been adopted.

Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Haibach, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Elzinga and Mr Gardetto, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1.2, after the word “assessment”, insert the following words: “– in transparent consultation with civil society – ”.

Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Haibach, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Elzinga and Mr Gardetto, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 1.3, add the following words: “and invite civil society to contribute to the consideration of this point”.

Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Dorić, Mr Karski, Mr Hübner, Mr Strässer and Ms Beck, which is, in the title of the draft recommendation, after the word “member” insert the following words: “and observer”.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12454, as amended. I remind the Assembly that a two-thirds majority is required.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12454, as amended, is adopted unanimously with 114 votes for.

Finally, we come to the report on reconciliation and political dialogue between the countries of the former Yugoslavia (Doc. 12461).

The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution to which two amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which three amendments have been tabled.

We will deal first with the draft resolution.

I understand that Mr von Sydow wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

The amendments are Nos. 1 and 4 to the draft resolution.

Is that so Mr von Sydow?

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – That is correct. They were unanimously adopted.

THE PRESIDENT – Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Marcenaro, Mr Marty, Mr Santini, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Stolfi, Mr Farina, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, replace the words "from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia" with the following words: "from the region".

Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Badea, Mr Corlatean, Mr Popescu, Mr Agramunt Font de Mora, Mr Zingeris, Mr Frunda, Mr Volontè, Mr Minashvili, Mrs Guţu, Mr Nastase, Mr Preda, Mr Tudose, Mrs Stavrositu, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 7.5, add the following words: "and to investigate fully and in a timely manner all reported incidents of violence, intimidation and harassment against members of minority groups".

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12461, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12461, as amended, is adopted unanimously with 110 votes for.

The Political Affairs Committee has also presented a draft recommendation to which three amendments have been tabled.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Kalmár, Mr Koszorús, Mr Ékes, Mr Gruber, Mr Hoppál, Ms Kovács, Mr Popescu, Mr Toshev, Mr Gaudi Nagy, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 3.6, add the following sub-paragraph: "urge member states to use, as a guideline, statistical data of 1990 when discussing problems related to the ethnic composition of different areas of former Yugoslavia."

I call Mr Kalmár to support Amendment 2.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – In the territory of the former Yugoslavia there are problems regarding the ethnic composition of the territory, and for some local decisions it would be helpful to take as a guideline the ethnic composition in statistical data from 1990, before the war.

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

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that his report already emphasised the threat from ethnic division but it was ridiculous to suggest that the situation be compared to that of 1990.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – The amendment was rejected.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Gaudi Nagy, Mrs Székyné Sztrémi, Mr Kalmár, Mr Ékes, Mr Vejkey, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 3.6, add the following sub-paragraph: "strongly urge all member states to ensure the right to internal self-determination (territorial autonomy) in accordance with the relevant international standards, especially the resolutions of the Council of Europe on national communities living on their territory."

I call Mr Gaudi Nagy to support Amendment 3.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – This amendment is very important in connection with diminishing a right that was blocked in the former Yugoslavia, and very bloody conflicts arose. Therefore, it is very urgent that we strongly urge all member states to ensure the interests, rights and territorial autonomy of, for example, Hungarians in Serbia, Serbs in Kosovo and so on. If we do not stop this movement, bloody conflicts will arise again. I ask you to support this amendment.

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

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that, as rapporteur, he was against the amendment. It was one thing to suggest that steps be taken to protect minorities and grant them greater autonomy, but it was quite another to suggest they should have full self-determination with territorial autonomy.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – The amendment was rejected.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Badea, Mr Corlatean, Mr Popescu, Mr Agramunt Font de Mora, Mr Zingeris, Mr Frunda, Mr Volontè, Mr Minashvili, Mrs Guţu, Mr Nastase, Mr Preda, Mr Tudose, Mrs Stavrositu, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 3.6, add the following sub-paragraph: "maintain the issue of non-discrimination and protection of national minorities on the agenda, especially when it reviews the honouring of obligations and co-operation activities with the Council of Europe of all the countries of the former Yugoslavia concerned by the present report.”

I call Mr Badea to support Amendment 5.

Mr BADEA (Romania) said that the amendment sought to strengthen the role of the Council of Europe in relation to monitoring whether the countries of the former Yugoslavia were complying with their obligations.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – Unanimously in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation solution contained in Doc. 12461, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12461, as amended, is adopted, with 124 votes for, 0 against, and 1 abstention.

3. The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
and
Preventing harm to refugees and migrants in extradition and expulsion cases
in respect of Rule 39 indications by the European Court of Human Rights
(Joint debate)

THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the joint debate on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Doc. 12455), which is presented by Mr Pourgourides on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights; and on preventing harm to refugees and migrants in extradition and expulsion cases in respect of Rule 39 indications by the European Court of Human Rights (Doc. 12435), presented by Mr Darchiashvili on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, with an opinion presented by Mr Cilevičs on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (Doc. 12471).

The rapporteurs have 13 minutes in total to present their reports, which they may divide between presentation of the reports and replies to the debate.

I call Mr Pourgourides to present the first report.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – Paragraph 2 of the draft resolution of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights gives a clear indication of the basic thrust of what this afternoon’s discussions should be about. We know that the Committee of Ministers has the principal task of supervising Strasbourg Court judgments; that is clearly laid down in Article 46, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights. But what if, despite the efforts made by our diplomatic colleagues, states are dilatory or simply not willing to comply speedily with Strasbourg Court judgments? Are we, the representatives of the legislative organs of the 47 countries, meant to sit back while the greatest achievement of the Council of Europe collapses under the weight of its own work or of the inability of the Committee of Ministers to force a number of states to comply rapidly and fully with Strasbourg Court judgments?

Of course, we cannot let that happen. I understand that there are more than 9 700 – yes, you heard me right, 9 700 – cases pending before the Committee of Ministers right now. Many of those cases concern grave human rights violations and a substantial number relate to major structural problems that have not been resolved for more than five, 10 or even 20 years.

The countries responsible for that unacceptable situation are Italy, with more than 2 500 unexecuted cases; Turkey, with more than 1 600 cases still pending before the Committee of Ministers; Russia, with nearly 1 000 unexecuted cases; Poland, with more than 760 such cases; Ukraine, with nearly 700 such cases; and Romania, with more than 630 such cases. All that gives one the impression that those countries are dragging their feet in not dealing speedily with the implementation of the Strasbourg Court’s judgments.

The Assembly and national parliaments are therefore duty-bound to play a more proactive role in this respect. I quote from paragraph 2 of the draft resolution: “if this is not done, the key role of the Convention, its supervisory mechanism and the Council of Europe as a whole, in guaranteeing the effective protection of human rights in Europe is likely to be put in jeopardy”. The current state of affairs, Mr President, is simply scandalous.

I was appointed rapporteur in March 2008, to take over the work of my eminent predecessor, Erik Jurgens of the Netherlands, who had, since 2002, produced several reports on this subject. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights authorised me to undertake fact-finding missions to eight countries – Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. I visited them all, and my last visit, to Turkey, took place only a couple of weeks ago.

The work has been difficult, very intensive and time consuming, but certainly rewarding, both for the people I met in those countries and for me, and I am now able to present the report to you today. In most countries, I was able to meet parliamentarians, prosecutors, judges, ministers and officials directly responsible for human rights files, and, on the margins of those meetings, civil society representatives as well as lawyers who had experience of litigating at the Strasbourg Court.

I assume that it is not necessary for me to go into great detail on the substance of the report, as most of you have had the opportunity to read the report published last year, as well as the short addendum issued a few days ago. It is enough for me to highlight the principal problems encountered in the execution of Strasbourg Court judgments with respect to nine states in particular, as indicated in the draft resolution. The main problems continue to be: excessive length of judicial proceedings, which is endemic, notably in Italy; chronic non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, which is widespread in Russia and Ukraine in particular; deaths and ill treatment by law enforcement officials and lack of effective investigations into them, which is particularly apparent in Russia and Moldova; and unlawful or overlong detention on remand, which is a problem notably in Moldova, Poland, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine.

Those problems are a matter of great concern and seriously undermine the rule of law in the states concerned. I find it simply unacceptable, for example, for states belonging to the democratic club that is the Council of Europe not to take immediate and strong measures following deaths or ill treatment suffered at the hands of law enforcement officials. The importance of putting an end to impunity cannot be overstated, and not only in the north Caucasus region, although the problem is most virulent there, as my colleague Dick Marty indicated in his report.

In the draft resolution, there is a series of recommendations to each of the states that I have mentioned, urging them to put their respective houses in order urgently – now – and not in five, seven or 10 years’ time.

Furthermore the Assembly is urged by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which adopted this report unanimously, to ensure that national parliaments that have not yet done so introduce specific mechanisms and procedures for effective and regular parliamentary oversight of the implementation of the Strasbourg Court’s judgment and for states to set up some form of decision-making body, at the highest political level, to take full and direct responsibility for the co-ordination of all aspects of the domestic implementation process.

Paragraph 213 of the report states: “We, the Assembly, as a statutory organ of the Council of Europe (and at the same time national parliamentarians), should not meekly accept the premise that the Committee of Ministers has ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ on this subject. When the Court judgments are not fully and rapidly executed, we – parliamentarians – also have a duty to help supervise the execution of the Court’s judgments. The credibility and viability of our European system of human rights cannot be left solely in the hands of the executive organ of the Council of Europe (in effect, diplomatic representatives of governments). Closely tied to this is the idea which I mooted back in August 2009, to the effect that the Assembly ought to consider – in the future – suspending the voting rights of national delegations when their parliaments do not seriously exercise parliamentary control over the executive in cases of non-implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”.

Thank you for listening to me.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Pourgourides, for your experience and for your very important presentation. You have three and a half minutes remaining.

I call Mr Darchiashvili, rapporteur, to present the second report.

Mr DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia) – I am very glad to have the opportunity to present and debate my report jointly with Mr Pourgourides’ report for two reasons: first, he belongs to the circle, which is known worldwide, of professional defenders of international law and democratic values – and let me tell you that it is not a very numerous circle as the task of combining such complex subjects is extremely difficult – and, secondly, both reports touch upon the issue of how such a combination is possible and what mechanisms are involved in the task. That relates to the authority of the European Court of Human Rights and the respect that European states pay to it.

Let me state the obvious: as has been proved many times by our joint endeavours – discussions and patterns of voting on different occasions, especially when they are about the behaviour of member states – we live in a world where state interests are no less a continuous determinant of our decisions than are human rights. An adherence to human rights principles, in combination with an inability to forget the so-called Realpolitik, frequently acquires the shape of the dilemmas that we all encounter. But we are not helpless when faced with such difficult choices, and my report, as well as that of Mr Pourgourides, points out particular mechanisms that our Organisation has to hand for combining some concrete aspects of national interests with those of basic individual aspirations.

Today, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe once again contributes to the awareness and strengthening of particular modalities of the relationship between member states and the European Court of Human Rights and thus to the mechanism of balancing national interests and universal human rights. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Court’s rules, if properly used and respected, can provide us with explicit remedies to stop possible harm to individuals that may be imposed on them under the banner of national security, while also taking into consideration the legitimate concerns of the state. That is particularly reflected in the title and content of my report.

The Court, which is composed of the appointees of member states and our entire Organisation, its rulings, which determine the interaction between the Court and governmental authorities, and the Convention, which is a basis for the Court’s rulings, are co-ordinates that guide us on the path of our European civilisation, which is about jointly respecting collective national and human security.

Mr Pourgourides has reaffirmed how crucial it is for the Court’s authority and for the entire system of European rule of law that the Court’s judgments are implemented fully and speedily. My report is concerned with the fact that, ahead of delivering its judgment, the Court also has another tool to ensure the effectiveness of such rights in a particular application. That is mysteriously called Rule 39. Indeed, according to its rules, the European Court of Human Rights has the power to order an “interim measure” – a temporary instruction to a state party that is usually aimed at preventing harm in a fast-changing or urgent situation – until the Court can properly consider a complaint and issue a full ruling.

Respecting such indications by the Court is indispensable and, as the report says, legally binding in preventing irreparable damage to the applicants. Rule 39 can be invoked in various circumstances and for diverse applicants. But our report is mainly focused on the importance of such rulings for refugees, migrants and asylum seekers. The protection of human rights in the context of migration is especially topical since its particular aspects, forms and geography became a part of the European security realm – fertile ground for the clash between national interests and human rights.

The reason Court Rule 39 can request state authorities to stop the expulsion or extradition of applicants until further notice is twofold. For different reasons, applicants appear to be deprived of opportunities clearly to present their cases to the authorities of receiving countries. For example, those involved might be in detention and lack access to legal assistance and legal aid, or not knowing the language used in their legal proceedings might be a problem.

Another problem can arise when the Court issues proceedings under Rule 39. Such applicants might face irreparable damage if they return to their countries of origin. Very recently, as the Court’s ruling in the case of MSS v. Belgium and Greece shows, even a third-country national expelled from one EU country to another, based on Dublin II regulations, might end up in democratic European countries that violate the Convention. But what is possibly more alarming is that there are a number of cases in which Council of Europe member states have ignored the interim measures that the Court has declared under Rule 39 to deport or expel applicants, thus clearly violating Article 34 of the Convention, which relates to the right to make individual petitions, and contributing to the possibility that those applicants might face threats to their dignity, health and even lives, as defined in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

The draft resolution and recommendation, which are based on the report, reiterate the importance of Rule 39 in protecting the rights of many individuals in Europe. They develop ways in which national authorities and the structures of the Council of Europe can and should increase their efficiency and intensify their co-operation in respect of the Convention, especially in their application of Rule 39. Those measures range from stressing the binding nature of that ruling on member states to developing mechanisms to raise awareness about the matter, and to increasing the institutional capacity of state authorities when dealing with applicants, as well as with the Court itself.

Last but not least, the draft resolution says that there could be objective impediments preventing states from complying with the Court’s rulings. That could be read as a tribute to state interests. As you know, dear colleagues, the European Convention on Human Rights also envisages the situations and reasons why certain rights of the individual might be curtailed. However – and this reflects the balance between the state and individual rights – state authorities should not abuse the notion of “objective impediments”. They should therefore provide clear evidence that all reasonable steps have been taken to remove such impediments and to keep the Court informed in a full and timely manner.

Dear colleagues, let me remind you that the ultimate aim of this procedure, known as the interim measures under Rule 39, is to prevent vulnerable individuals from coming to harm. The report, its conclusions and its recommendations rest squarely within the mandate and core values of our Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr de Vries to present the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the report.

Mr de VRIES (Netherlands) – I have the pleasure of presenting this opinion on behalf of the rapporteur, Mr Boris Cilevičs who unfortunately had to leave Strasbourg today because of commitments in his own parliament.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights congratulates Mr Darchiashvili on his excellent report, and stresses the importance of the application of the indications given by the European Court of Human Rights, on the basis of Rule 39 of its rules, in cases concerning the expulsion or extradition of aliens. Respect for Rule 39 indications is at the very core of the Convention system. It is indispensable in preventing irreparable damage to applicants in cases in which expulsion or extradition could put them at risk of serious violation of their human rights, such as the rights guaranteed under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Assembly has already partially addressed the issue – in particular in its Resolution 1571, from 2007, and in Recommendation 1809, also from 2007 – of Council of Europe member states’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has proposed a number of amendments to the draft resolution and recommendation with a view to strengthening them by putting emphasis on the language of these texts. Most of these amendments are aimed at introducing a more succinct, clear and precise legal terminology, specifically in order to align the draft resolution and recommendation with the wording of the European Convention on Human Rights, the rules of the European Court of Human Rights and its case law, and the terminology of the Committee of Ministers. As this important issue requires a precise legal terminology, I should emphasise that the amendments proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights aim to enhance the text of the proposed resolution and recommendation. The committee is very much in favour of the conclusions of the report produced by Mr Darchiashvili.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The debate is open. I call first Ms Bemelmans-Videc, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Ms BEMELMANS-VIDEC (Netherlands) – The Interlaken Declaration rightly emphasises the subsidiary nature of the supervisory mechanism established by the European Convention on Human Rights, emphasising the fundamental role that national authorities, governments, courts and parliaments play in guaranteeing and protecting human rights at the national level. The credibility of the control mechanism depends on the correct application of the Convention, part of which concerns implementation of the Court’s judgments.

The report before us, on which I warmly congratulate Mr Pourgourides, is part of an important tradition of this Assembly. Reports have shown time and again that a large majority of the cases considered by the Court were brought against a small number of countries, while the backlog in the Court’s work has mainly been caused by structural issues in those countries that have repeatedly been identified and where a well-established case law exists. As Mr Pourgourides has often stated in his speeches as Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, violations of human rights need to be avoided. That is what the principle of subsidiarity means.

That brings me to the role of national parliaments. Some parliaments, such as those in the United Kingdom and in Germany, have effective procedures in place to ensure that they are informed by their governments about implementation of the Court’s judgments – judgments that concern not only their own countries but other states and have repercussions for their national legislation. We parliamentarians therefore have a crucial role to play in cases of non-compliance by national governments, but also where Rule 39 indications by the Court are concerned.

Mr Darchiashvili’s report offers a complete and instructive insight into the background and the practice of Rule 39 indications, rightly concentrating on the need to prevent harm to refugees, asylum seekers and irregular migrants who face the threat of being sent back to their countries of origin.

This is a very timely report given the problems in the execution of the Dublin regulations. It is timely also because it is only to be expected that there will be even greater use of interim measures in future. These problems need to be urgently addressed first by the relevant political bodies, and therefore also by us as parliamentarians.

The Group of the European People’s Party therefore also welcomes the recommendation that the Court, the Committee of Ministers and other Council of Europe bodies work together to respond to the changing practices of Rule 39 measures and to avoid any cases of non-compliance in future.

Both reports present an important political agenda – an agenda for urgent action.

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

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Today we are discussing two reports on the work that lies at the heart of the Socialist Group – the European Court of Human Rights. On behalf of the Socialist Group, I congratulate the two rapporteurs on their impressive reports. Both reports deal with the response of member states to the Court’s decisions – or, more accurately, their lack of response.

The rapporteurs have expressed their justified concerns about non-compliance with the judgments. Member states have sometimes even neglected the interim measures that are meant to prevent irreversible harm. If a person claims that he will face death or maltreatment after expulsion, the Court has first to assess the claim before the deportation can be executed. There can be no doubts about that. It is not a matter of national sovereignty but of a right to an effective remedy. Of course it is up to the Court subsequently to deal with the substance of the case as soon as possible in order to avoid unnecessary delay.

Although we need to send a strong signal that non-compliance is unacceptable, that is not enough. The rapporteurs have rightly suggested taking further steps to promote full compliance. I have three suggestions. First, judgments sometimes imply the need for structural changes in the law or practice in the member state. Mr Pourgourides put his finger on specific problems, such as the length of proceedings, non-enforcement of national judgments and ill treatment by police officers and their impunity. Our Assembly and the Committee of Ministers should therefore continue to promote the need for structural reform.

Secondly, we should consider sanctions for member states who systematically and deliberately neglect decisions of the Court. We should not exclude the possibility of fines, or even suspension of their membership of the Council of Europe. As non-compliance does not only concern governments, national parliaments too should take responsibility. If not, sanctions on national delegations could be considered.

Finally, I stress the responsibility of all politicians to foster the authority of our Court. In my country, the Netherlands, I notice increasing dissatisfaction among politicians with the judgments of the Court. They even publicly doubt the justness of those judgments. I consider that a dangerous development, because it undermines the effectiveness of our Court. The Court’s authority determines whether the rule of law prevails in our 47 countries. We can demand respect for the judgments of the Court with credibility and legitimacy only if we do not question its decisions. In the case of the Dublin II regulation, the Court simply holds a mirror to the face of the EU. We should never blame the messenger. We should respect the messenger and find solutions that are in accordance with the rule of law.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Ms Strik. The next speaker is Ms Perry, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Ms PERRY (United Kingdom) – In this important debate, I want to address a specific item covered in the first report considered today, the judgment by the Court that the UK Government, along with other governments, has violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 by barring convicted prisoners from voting.

As a member of the cross-party Select Committee on Justice in my parliament, and as a member of parliament with a prison in my constituency, Devizes, I take a keen interest in the matter. Although I believe there is much to welcome in the report presented today, in the case of this specific judgment I believe that the Court’s judgment is wrong. It ignores the great differences between member countries in terms of definitions of crime, sentencing and prison regime. It ignores the fact that those are matters for sovereign parliaments. Crime, sentencing and punishment, including the selective removal of voting rights, are constitutional matters for sovereign parliaments and for courts to decide in our member countries. In my view, the European Court is really riding its luck by unilaterally extending its remit to areas where consent for that has never been granted by our member parliaments.

It is that sort of judgment that creatively – some would say mischievously – extends the reach of the original protocols, while ignoring sovereign law. It is that behaviour that does so much to spoil the appetite in my country, and in other countries, for more European unity and co-operation. It is also the case that by awarding compensation of tens of thousands of euros to convicted murderers, the Court runs the risk of looking unhinged in the international media.

I finish with a quote from Winston Churchill, who in many ways was the founding father of this Assembly. He believed passionately in European co-operation, but from a starting point of sovereign independence. He said: “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, but courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.” I therefore urge the Court, this Assembly and our national governments to sit down and listen and reconsider the specific implantation plans for this judgment, as they are unworkable, unconstitutional and an unacceptable intrusion in the sovereign independence of our member states.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Ms Perry. The next speaker is Ms Taktakishvili, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) congratulated Mr Pourgourides and Mr Darchiashvili on their work. She highlighted the functioning of the European Court of Human Rights and the problem of the failure to implement certain of its judgments. She mentioned the particular difficulties of bringing into force Protocol No. 14: it had been the hard work of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights that had resulted in its implementation at all. Despite its best efforts, the Protocol was still not in force in nine member states. It would remain a difficult and onerous task to bring it into force in all member states.

In his address in April the previous year, the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation had also spoken about the problems associated with non-implementation of judgments, particularly in relation to Chechnya. She did not think that these problems would be quickly or soon resolved.

Rule 39 posed further problems: too many member states were reluctant to conform with the Courts’ judgment on the subject and even interim measures seemed often fragrantly to violate the Court’s intentions.

Mr Darchiashvili had spoken about the need for greater consistency in the use of legal and political tools: she agreed. It would be impossible to guarantee human rights if the judgments of the Court were not fully implemented in all member states. She expressed her full support for the two reports.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Taktakishvili. The next speaker is Ms Frahm, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Ms FRAHM (Denmark) – I thank both rapporteurs for two important and thorough reports.

Tomorrow, there will be a commemorative ceremony outside this building to show that we will never forget the Holocaust. The Council of Europe was founded to ensure that it would never happen again. To prevent governments from abusing their power over their citizens, the Council of Europe’s first and most important task was creating the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court here in Strasbourg. All our governments freely signed the Convention and other conventions, and they have contributed to the development of institutions, structures and processes in the Council of Europe.

When governments ignore or criticise decisions or Court rules, they demonstrate their inability to follow up their own decisions. Some say that the Court is political but, strangely, only when the ruling goes against their wishes. How do they think it could be possible to have an international convention connected to a court without giving up some national sovereignty? Why do people in our countries have to wait for their rights until the Court has ruled against their government? For example, the Danish Government closed its eyes to the misery of asylum seekers entering via Greece. Those people perished in a legal no man’s land that ruined many of them. Their only crime was trust in our system. The Danish Government hoped to return them to Greece, not caring in the least about the misery or the danger they could face. Not until the days after the Court ruling in the case against Belgium was it decided to start the asylum procedure.

In 2009, the Court had 2 400 cases from asylum seekers relating to Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court. If our governments had lived up to their commitments, these cases would never have been started. These cases and the two reports we are dealing with today show us a nasty picture of politicians abusing their power against people in great misery and need, and of governments ignoring their commitments and our rights. With these reports, parliamentarians from all over Europe send a clear signal to our own governments that we will not accept the double standard hypocrisy they are practising.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Salles.

Mr SALLES (France) paid tribute to the remarkable report by Mr Pourgourides, particularly the work he had done to show how member states could improve their implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. He was pleased to note that France was no longer on the list of the most egregious non-compliers. The effective defence of human rights required common acceptance of judgments and complementary laws in and by member states. Failure to implement judgments of the Court paralysed any system based on the mutual recognition of rights. He asked whether Protocol No. 14 should be used more frequently: while that Protocol required caution, he did not consider it a “dead letter”. He also suggested that the Assembly adopt a more activist role in enforcing implementation by member states.

The recent judgment of the ECHR in the case of MSS v. Belgium and Greece highlighted the ambiguities of the current system. By finding against Belgium, the Court had effectively broken the Dublin Convention and deprived community law of any effectiveness. He was interested to note that the Court had ruled that Article 3 had been violated, and therefore the value of community law had been partially maintained, but he was concerned that such rulings be wholly exceptional. He concluded that a legitimate defence of human rights had to rely on a balance of power between all actors: the Court, national governments, the European Union and other supranational bodies

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that it was a rare session of the Parliamentary Assembly that passed without some discussion of the Court. He had never met anyone who was satisfied with the performance of the Court and that included the judges and lawyers who worked there.

Every time the Assembly discussed the Court, the debate turned to the backlog. He stressed that when members talked of a backlog of 120 000 cases they were wrong: the real figure was 127 000 cases pending. At this rate, 6 000 cases must be processed every year just to keep up. He asked why there was such a problem with the backlog. In his opinion the problem arose because, whereas national courts had oversight of the implementation of their own judgments, the ECHR relied on national parliaments and governments to act on its behalf.

The Assembly had the previous day asked why it had taken 11 years for politicians to act on some horrendous breaches of human rights; the same could be asked of the Court. For the first time in a long time, he had heard the excuse of sovereignty put forward as a reason not to enforce ECHR judgments. The problem was therefore simple: nothing happened if a member state failed to implement a judgment of the Court. So the solution was also simple: there should automatically be further action if a member state failed to implement. The legitimacy of the institution relied on the effective and universal implementation of its judgments. The Council of Europe, he reminded members, existed in part to ensure the enforcement of Court decisions. He again congratulated Mr Pourgourides and confirmed his support for the report.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.

Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – We all joined this Organisation because we believe in the rule of law, democracy and human rights. The Council of Europe institution that is best known to the public is the European Court of Human Rights. The fact that a citizen in any of our member states can hand in a complaint to the Court is an outstanding sign of democracy that most people in the world can only dream of. In order for the Court to maintain its high public status, member states must implement its judgments.

A chain is never stronger than its weakest link. As is stated in the report, several member states have failed to implement the Court’s decisions, and this undermines the authority of the Court. I am particularly concerned by the situation in Russia. The Russians have started compensating successful applicants to the Court, but that is not enough. They must take general measures to ensure that there will not be similar violations in future.

Some states feel that the Court is against them and that it makes political decisions, but that is not true. Over the past decades, my own country, Sweden, has been convicted 25 times. It is certainly not a pleasant experience to have a judgment against you, either as an individual or as a state. Nevertheless, we must accept it. This is what we have agreed to; we have joined this Organisation and we must live up to it. What matters is the human dimension. The right of an individual to complain against a state is something that we should be proud of and work together for.

The Committee of Ministers has a responsibility to put pressure on the government in question to execute the Court’s judgment. We, as parliamentarians, have the ability and the duty to do so, too. If a member state has had many citizens who complained to the Court about almost the same matter, that is a signal to its government that something is really wrong in the country. It lies in the hands of member states to ensure that the Court does not end up with a heart attack – a complete breakdown. If every state does its homework in living up to the principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, I am sure that complaints to the Court will go down immensely.

I thank both rapporteurs and fully support both reports.

(Mr Mignon, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Zingeris).

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Zohrabyan.

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia) said that she fully understood the motivation behind the report and noted that its observations on Rule 39 and the rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, was particularly important. It was crucial that these individuals had the right to appeal to the Court to prevent their removal to countries where their life may be in danger. She agreed with the Commissioner for Human Rights when he described Rule 39 as the last way to save lives.

Some 21 years ago, a massacre of resident Armenians in the Azeri capital of Baku had been committed by armed bands co-ordinated by the government. This ethnic cleansing had seen hundreds and thousands of Armenians flee their homes. The date was known in Armenia as “Black January”. So far, the European Court of Human Rights had not provided a judgment on this matter: what was needed was a Nuremberg trial for the Baku massacre.

She described the proposals for Nagorno-Karabakh as hypocritical: the Azeris were keen that Armenians live in Nagorno-Karabakh simply so that the Azeris could hunt them down. The Armenians longed to return to their homes, but could not do so due to the policies of the Azerbaijan state. She hoped that members present would agree with her that the right to peace and security of peoples was inalienable.

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

Mr VYATKIN (Russian Federation) thanked Mr Pourgourides for his continued interest in the issue and his long concern for the problems identified in the report. He noted that the report identified some of the systemic problems in national legal systems that themselves caused frequent appeals to the Court. It was a very good analysis of some of the systemic problems that existed in some member state legal systems.

Three of the previous speakers had referred to failings in the legal system in the Russian Federation so he wished to set the record straight. Several reforms had recently been made to the Russian legal code, including the separation of the appeals court. A federal law had been passed to grant financial compensation to those found not to have had a fair trial. In addition, the Ministry for Internal Affairs was changing many of its policies. As a result of these measures, he was confident that the number of cases before the Court that originated in Russia would reduce, as would the criticism levelled against the Russian system.

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

Mr PANŢIRU (Romania) – Against a background of grave problems connected with the non-execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the report is an objective necessity and very timely. I congratulate the rapporteur on this outstanding piece of work. We are also grateful to Mr Pourgourides for his working visit to our country and for his professionalism and spirit of co-operation.

The implementation of the judgments of the European Court is crucial for the preservation of the integrity of the system established by the European Convention on Human Rights. As the Court itself noted in its judgment concerning non-execution of judicial decisions, the implementation of judgments is a cornerstone of justice both at national and European level. While the direct responsibility for the execution of European Court of Human Rights judgments belongs to the governments – individually, and in the form of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe – we, the parliamentarians of this Assembly and of our national parliaments, are obliged to step up parliamentary supervision of the implementation of European Court of Human Rights judgments as well domestic judgments.

In Romania, which, unfortunately, is among the nine states with major problems regarding implementation of the Court’s judgments, we understood that a proactive parliamentary control over the Executive was an absolute necessity. Accordingly, a special parliamentary legal committee for the supervision of the government on the execution of judgments was established. We expect that that measure will contribute to speeding up the finalisation of the execution of those European Court of Human Rights judgments still not executed by Romania and in particular to the elimination of existing systemic problems, a process that has already started.

As a result of the pilot judgment of the ECHR in Atanasiu and others v. Romania, the Government of Romania established a working group to prepare solutions for eliminating systemic problems indicated in the pilot judgment. In that context, I fully support the appeal of the rapporteur addressed to all national parliaments to look into the proper ways of constructive proactive participation in the supervision of the implementation of the judgments.

The report shows that, in many countries, systemic problems occur in relation to the observance of the most basic rights, which is deplorable. Following that, I add my voice to those urging member states, in particular those mentioned in the fifth paragraph of our draft resolution, to take seriously the warnings of the Committee of Ministers regarding the implementation of the Court’s decisions.

It appears that the time has come for us to consider seriously the possibility of modifying the European Convention on Human Rights to enable the Court to sanction member states that violate Article 46 of the Convention by refusing to execute the Court’s judgments. By putting pressure on our own governments in our national parliaments, perhaps we will achieve that.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Marin.

Ms MARIN (France) thanked the rapporteur, Mr Pourgourides, and said that the non-enforcement of judgments led to the perverse consequence of repeat applications to the Court. Like Mr Salles, she was glad that France was no longer listed as one of the chief transgressors. The European Convention on Human Rights gave protection to fundamental rights and freedoms but, in protecting these, the European Court of Human Rights needed to be wary of creating case law that was too bold. She cited a case that had hinged on the question of whether a public recorder should be present at deliberations as an example of the Court being overly innovative in its judgment. Widespread adoption of Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights was to be welcomed but it was a matter of regret that the Court no longer adjudicated on small cases.

There was a role for national parliaments in scrutinising the enforcement of judgments. She drew attention to recent debates in the French National Assembly on the subject of police custody and reiterated that the Court should not overstep its role.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Keleş.

Ms KELEŞ (Turkey) – The Committee of Ministers is responsible for supervising the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. I think that continuing to have the Committee of Ministers responsible is better, so that work is not duplicated and more objective evaluations are reached.

This report is not objective; it is biased and does not give an overall picture. There is a great difference in how problems are handled, depending on the feelings of the rapporteur in respect of the country in question. If it is Greece, the problems are not important enough to mention. For example, Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights about ethnic discrimination are discussed very superficially and only in the explanatory memorandum. Furthermore, there is no reference to the Sampanis judgment about not accepting Roma children in ordinary schools.

When it comes to Turkey, however, the problems are exaggerated. Positive developments are ignored, the facts are distorted and even the terms used by the Court are changed. For example, when the rapporteur refers to the judgment in the Cyprus v. Turkey case, he ignores the fact that the fifth paragraph of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment mentions “military operations in Northern Cyprus”; the rapporteur prefers to use the term “invasion”.

In the resolutions and recommendations, there is no direct reference to the Greek cases, but in the explanatory memorandum, Greek arguments are written in detail. All positive developments since 1990 concerning the conditions that led to negative judgments about Turkey are ignored. Neither the changes in the constitution and the laws nor the implementation of the judgments are referred to positively. That is because, contrary to his oral declaration, Mr Pourgourides has a conflict of interest in respect of both the subject of the report and the two countries covered by the report.

The problem of Cyprus is the result of the Akritas plan, which was put into practice in December 1963 to realise the enosis of the Greek people. After the massacre of 21 December 1963, there was a 10-year period in which many civil Turkish Cypriots were driven out of their villages and killed by Greek Cypriots and soldiers. Turkish soldiers went to the island in 1974, in accordance with the Zurich and London guarantee agreements, to prevent the further massacre of the Turkish community.

Greek Cypriots do not co-operate with the autonomous missing people committee and they ask only for the investigation of the cases of missing Greek Cypriots. However, the number of missing Turkish Cypriots is above 500. In addition, mainly in Yilmazköy, Muratağa, Sandallar and Atlilar, there were the dead bodies of many Turkish Cypriots.

Even some members of the European Union admit that letting the Greek Cypriot administration of southern Cyprus become a member of the EU before any solution of the Cyprus problem was a mistake, yet Chancellor Merkel, forgetting that Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of the Annan Plan, accuses them now of not wanting a solution for the island. The Cyprus problem is a problem between two communities and it can be resolved only if European Union countries stop backing one side and treat both equally.

THE PRESIDENT called Ms Keleş to order noting that, as well as exceeding her allotted three-minute limit, she had cast unjustified aspersions on the motivation of Mr Pourgourides. He could see no conflict of interest. He called Ms Grosskost.

Ms GROSSKOST (France) said that she wanted to discuss implementation of the judgments of the Court. A lack of implementation did not relieve pressure on the Court, which was in any event subject to structural problems. She, too, was glad that France was no longer a bad offender in this regard but noted that, in the past, a lack of resources had prevented her country from meeting all its obligations in respect of implementing the Court’s decisions.

It was essential for the Council of Europe and the Court to secure the support of national parliamentarians, who would be best placed to put pressure on national governments to take action where it was needed. In addition to their role in parliamentary diplomacy, members of the Assembly had a duty to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms established by the Convention. The current debate in France on police custody had led to the subject being referred to the constitutional court, but France was committed to honouring its obligations in respect of the rule of law and maintaining a leading European standard in that regard.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Ms Grosskost and called Mr Badré.

Mr BADRÉ (France) said that 2010 had been a very important year for the European Court of Human Rights with the Interlaken conference having taken place in February. He congratulated Mr Pourgourides on his report and said that the Court in Strasbourg was at a crossroads with 140 000 cases still pending. Very important decisions were awaited and the establishment of Protocol No. 14 took Europe closer to the establishment of widespread legal order. He noted that this would not necessarily lighten the load for the Court, which was already struggling with repetitive applications. In addition to the responsibilities and obligations laid upon members of the Assembly, he stressed that they had a duty in their own parliaments to promote the effective work of the Court.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Badré and called Mr Slutsky, as Mr Savvidi was not present.

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that Mr Pourgourides ought to be congratulated on having the courage to call a spade a spade and that he fully supported the report. The timely implementation of the judgments of the Court was a duty under the Convention and the Assembly should not forget it. Paragraph 3 of the draft resolution pointed to major structural problems concerning cases in which delays in implementation had arisen and further analysis had been required. The report was objective in general but was not, in his view, correct in every aspect. He suggested that compensation could be paid to people in cases where the judgment was not received in good time. He concluded by drawing attention to paragraph 125 of the report in which the Russian Federation had been criticised for not having a suitable definition of torture when, in fact, the Russian definition of torture was fully in line with that used in Council of Europe documents.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Türköne.

Ms TÜRKÖNE (Turkey) – I welcome this opportunity to debate the implementation of Court judgments. The European Court of Human Rights, where more than 800 million European citizens are entitled to lodge their complaints, is a success in itself. This success, however, produces high expectations and complex challenges. Our collective responsibility is to do everything we can to ensure that the Convention system functions effectively. I truly hope that this report will serve that cause.

The success of the European Convention on Human Rights system is linked to the binding nature of the Court’s judgments and to the role of the Committee of Ministers in supervising the full execution of judgments by state parties. Implementation, which is carried out under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, can also benefit from co-operation between domestic and other institutions, including the Assembly and national parliaments, acting within their remits. Bearing that in mind, for the sake of the system’s good functioning, one should avoid any approach that might lead to a conflict of mandates among the organs of the Council of Europe.

Moreover, I wholly support the rapporteur’s view that there is a strong need to establish national mechanisms to monitor implementation of the Court’s decisions. On the other hand, although I have no reservations or objections to the report’s draft resolution and draft recommendation, I have several reservations about Mr Pourgourides’ appointment as rapporteur for this report. First and foremost, in our view, his appointment is contrary to the spirit of the rule on transparency and the declaration of members’ interests. Considering his political engagement in matters relating to Greek Cypriot cases, we strongly believe that it was impossible for him to be fully impartial and independent in handling this report.

Regrettably, this report has justified our concerns. I do not want to go into the details, but a quick look at the part of the explanatory memorandum on Greek Cypriot cases against Turkey will reveal that his standing as the rapporteur has been severely compromised. For example, in the parts of the report on Greece, the rapporteur has neglected to mention the Court’s judgments in cases concerning the refusal to register associations established by the Turkish minority of Western Thrace. He seems to think that these cases are not worth mentioning. These cases – in which the Court found repeated violations of the right to freedom of association – reveal a serious structural problem concerning the rights and freedoms of all Turkish minority associations in Greece.

Many more examples in the report run against the objectivity required for a balanced presentation of the facts, but I will not cite them now. I hope and believe that PACE committees will in future pay more attention in appointing rapporteurs so that such situations can be avoided.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Ms Türköne, I have to call you to order, as I did earlier in the case of Ms Keleş, and point out that it is not acceptable to take up what the rapporteur has said in this way. We have to go with what the rapporteurs have stated.

Ms TÜRKÖNE (Turkey) – I am entitled to speak; I have three minutes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Yes, but I am also entitled to remind you.

Ms TÜRKÖNE (Turkey) – This is a democratic Assembly, and I believe that if I have any thoughts, I should have the right to express them without any kind of intervention.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – No one is challenging the fact that everyone can speak freely. I am simply saying that we need to show respect to the rapporteurs and avoid any personal comments. This has been the case twice this afternoon.

The next speaker is Mr Corlăţean.

Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) shared the conclusions of the rapporteurs. There should be an enhanced role for the Assembly. The Court’s judgments had to be enforced and he proposed an increase in follow-up work by the Assembly: such scrutiny was currently weak and needed to be strengthened. The Court needed sanctions at its disposal in cases of non-compliance. The task could not safely be entrusted to the Committee of Ministers because it might conflict with its political agenda. He agreed that the European Court of Human Rights’ remit should be extended on the basis of Protocol No. 14.

The current situation regarding implementation of judgments was not entirely bad: there had been a number of improvements in the implementation of judgments in member states. There had been some very positive instances: the restitution of property in eastern Europe was an example. Both Poland and Romania had legislated as a result of recent judgments; and his own parliament was committed to so acting in the future.

The PRESIDENT thanked Mr Corlăţean and called Ms Wohlwend.

Ms WOHLWEND (Liechtenstein) said that the report went to the heart of the role of the Council of Europe and deserved a full response. The Court currently had to deal with a large and potentially overwhelming number of pending cases. Countries had also been particularly slow in implementing its judgments. A handful of countries generated the most applications to the Court. Four countries – Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and Romania – accounted for 60% of the cases pending before the Court. Certain practices in such countries were undoubtedly a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court should not even be necessary to change the law. Where victims in these countries felt they could not otherwise secure redress, they had turned to the Convention and Court for help. Member states could avoid applications not only if they sooner implemented the judgments of the Court but if they took pre-emptive action to respect human rights. She urged the Assembly to sustain its pressure for political reform in those states.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Wohlwend. I call Ms Postanjyan.

Ms POSTANJYAN (Armenia) – My speech today is devoted to the flagrant disregard by the authorities of Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of speech.

In Turkey, on the basis of the notorious Article 301 of the Turkish criminal code, which is in force to this day, court proceedings were launched – allegedly for insults against Turkish national identity – against the well-known Istanbul-Armenian journalist, Hrant Dink. However, he was murdered in 2007.

“The Turkish authorities did not fulfil their duty to protect Hrant Dink’s life and his freedom of speech.” Such was the conclusion of the European Court of Human Rights on the matter. In fact, the journalist was penalised by state agencies for criticising the failure of the Turkish authorities to acknowledge the events of 1915 as genocide. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits limitations on freedom of expression, in terms of political dialogue and issues of public concern.

In Azerbaijan, on the basis of several articles of the Azerbaijani criminal code, Eynulla Fatullayev, was sentenced to imprisonment, and he remains in jail to this day, even though the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously, on 22 April 2010, that his indictment infringed Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Fatullayev had strongly criticised the Azerbaijani authorities and formulated his own views on the so-called 1992 Khojaly events, refuting the disinformation and propaganda that the Azerbaijani authorities had disseminated for years.

A Georgian court sentenced Vahagn Chakhalyan to 10 years’ imprisonment, and the case has already been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. Behind the veil of criminal proceedings, we are yet again witnessing an encroachment on freedom of expression. But the real reason behind the imprisonment of Chakhalyan, a well-known Armenian political personality from Georgia’s predominantly Armenian-populated region of Javakhk, is to forbid any voice speaking against the numerous and serious problems confronting the native Armenian population of Javakhk. In Armenia, despite a decision by the European Court for Human Rights, the A1+ television company is still not on the air. What is more, just a few days ago, the ALM television company was deprived of its right to broadcast, and the same fate now awaits Gala TV.

In closing, I thank Mr Pourgourides for his report and encourage the authorities of the Council’s member states to be guided henceforth by this: freedom of expression, personal freedom and a free country all guarantee democracy and civil society.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Postanjyan. The next speaker is Mr Huseynov.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – I agree with and support the report. I want to speak about some of the problems for Azerbaijani refugees. The 600 MPs from the countries represented in the Assembly have a better relationship with their electorates than their Azerbaijani colleagues. I can say that with confidence, because no member state of this Organisation has 1 million refugees and internally displaced persons. There is no doubt that other members of the Assembly are criticised by their electorate from time to time, and even face the most forceful demands and expressions of opinion.

The situation of Azerbaijani MPs is different in this respect. More than 300 000 refugees, deported from their historical homelands, where they have lived for centuries, as well as more than 500 000 people deported from Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent districts never inhabited by Armenians, are scattered all over Azerbaijan. An MP elected from any Azerbaijani region has in their electorate refugees and IDPs.

We have been talking about the sorrows of those people. We have prepared documents and we are fighting to put an end to the great tragedy that people in Azerbaijan experienced. Nevertheless, we see no result. Refugees and IDPs no longer talk to us – their words have run out. They simply look at us. They have lost everything they had, including their land, their homes, wealth built up over years and even the graves of their forefathers. The only thing they have left is their hope. They would cherish help from the Council of Europe and they hope for that help. Let us not allow them to lose the last stronghold that could help support their existence.

Armenian citizens are escaping abroad due to the unbearable conditions created by the authorities in the country. The regime is behaving like the enemy not only of Azerbaijan but of its own people. Consequently, the population resident in Armenia almost equals the number of Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs. The actions perpetrated by Armenia with regard to Azerbaijan and its own Armenian citizens are state terrorism. Due to that terror, thousands of human beings have lost their lives. Nearly 1 million Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs are gradually dying due to that terror.

The protection of human rights has been the supreme objective of the Council of Europe since its foundation. If we do not protect the rights of 1 million people, who can believe in our capacity to protect the rights of separate individuals? We should not expect refugees themselves to protect their rights and to eliminate their problems. Let us liberate them from disaster. Let us stop saying words that have no result and get down to productive activity.

I repeat my support for the reports produced by Mr Pourgourides and Mr Darchiashvili.

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

Mr EGOROV (Russian Federation) said that it was an honour to address the Assembly for the first time. He was especially pleased to be discussing human rights and the implementation of the judgments of the Court, a subject of particular interest to him. It was vital to protect refugees and migrants, particularly those individuals who were in danger if sent back to countries without appropriate human rights.

He generally supported the report and resolutions, but he thought that Rule 39 interim decisions might be inappropriate to ensure progress, because the European Convention on Human Rights had no provision for such interim decisions. The rule might thus lead to inconsistent standards of implementation in different member states, which would be a bad way forward.

He gave examples of good implementation of the judgments of the Court: a court of the Russian Federation had recently decided that people with different sexual orientations from the norm were vulnerable and so should be offered special protection under the law. He noted that the report suggested that the Russian Federation had not always implemented the judgments of the Court and said that his country would now try to do better and so better protect human rights.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Egorov. I call Mr Mahoux.

Mr MAHOUX (Belgium) said that he too wished to compliment the quality of the report. He suggested that further scrutiny of the Court’s decisions by national parliaments and the Assembly would be welcome. He particularly wanted to discuss the recent ruling by the Court in MSS v Belgium and Greece, which, in his opinion, called into question the principles of Community law. He disagreed with this judgment. He considered the report to be of the highest quality and reminded members that laws were effective only if implemented by governments. The recent ruling by the Court had potentially prevented this from happening.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Cebeci.

Mr CEBECİ (Turkey) – The implementation report draws our attention to issues of great importance, and it is the seventh report that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has produced on them. Notwithstanding the substance of the report, I want to comment on a procedural matter. As the rapporteur mentions his visit to Turkey in the report, I would like to explain that the Turkish authorities have no objections whatever to the monitoring of obligations in connection with the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. That must be understood.

In the past, the Turkish authorities have always co-operated with the Parliamentary Assembly. On the last such occasion, when Mr Erik Jurgens visited Turkey, there was no difficulty and he had extensive contacts with the Turkish authorities. The secretary of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights can testify to that. This time, however, from the beginning the Turkish authorities had serious concerns about the sending of the rapporteur. Let me make this very clear: Mr Pourgourides is a respected and experienced lawyer, and an active member of this Assembly and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. However, he is well known for his political engagement in issues to do with the Greek-Cypriot court cases against Turkey. I strongly argue that such political engagement creates a conflict of interest with his position as rapporteur. For such cases, we have a conflict of interest clause for the post of rapporteur.

Unfortunately, the report shows that our concerns in this respect were right, as do the remarks on Cyprus in the explanatory memorandum. The report’s contents reveal some political engagement, to the detriment of the required objectivity and impartiality. The report distorts the agreed terminology used by the European Court of Human Rights in referring to military intervention in Cyprus, makes subjective and selective comments on missing persons cases, minimises, and even ignores, the significance of the landmark Court decision on the Demopoulos property issues case, and has political value judgments.

To summarise, I hope that we no longer have to confront such issues. With all due respect to you, Mr President, if a parliamentarian feels there is a conflict of interest in respect of a report and rapporteur, that parliamentarian should be able to make their position clear.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Err.

Ms ERR (Luxembourg) conceded that the report would not be met with great enthusiasm by the general public, but it was important nevertheless as the Court was the jewel in the crown of the Council of Europe. It was also important because the Court was the only Council institution whose decisions were binding. Without the implementation of the Court’s judgments, the Court was a “toothless whale”.

The implementation of judgments depended on national governments rather than on the Council. Unsurprisingly, some states were better than others, but she was interested to note the states mentioned in the report that were particularly bad at implementing judgments. She had not intended to comment on any state but, after Mr Cebeci’s attack on the objectivity of the rapporteur she could not resist pointing out that Turkey was particularly bad at implementing the judgments of the Court and had even introduced legislation in an attempt to bypass the need for compliance. She urged Mr Pourgourides to ignore the attacks against him: his report was fair and balanced.

She had previously been responsible for ensuring that Luxembourg enforced the judgments of the Court and so was personally well aware of the essential role played by national governments and parliaments. She reminded the Assembly that, in 2008, the Committee of Ministers had called for a post to be created that would work closely with parliaments and the Assembly to co-ordinate the implementation of judgments and act as a supervisor in this area. She reiterated this recommendation, so far not taken up.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Err. Mr Marty and Ms Papadimitriou are not here, so I call Mr Binley.

Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – I thank the rapporteur for highlighting a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that has been received with great resentment in my country. I refer of course to the judgment on prisoner voting rights.

The Council of Europe was founded on principles of upholding democracy and civil liberties, and this Assembly was instrumental in preparing the European Convention on Human Rights, which led to the establishment of the Court. The Court has done much good work over the years and we, as one of its parents, should take pride in that. However, it has delivered a ruling of which last Thursday’s editorial in The Times stated: “Within Britain, virtually nobody believes that prisoners should have the right to vote, aside from prisoners”. The ban on serving prisoners voting has been in place since 1870. However, in a case brought by John Hirst, a man jailed for killing his landlady with an axe, the Court ruled that the UK’s automatic restriction on the right to vote for convicted prisoners was in violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, and therein lies the problem.

Many constitutional experts have questioned the Court’s right to make such a ruling. The former law lord, Lord Hoffmann, summed up their concerns, arguing that it was not proper for a European supranational court to intervene in matters on which member states of the Council of Europe have not surrendered their sovereign powers. Many in Britain hold that the restriction of the right to vote in the case of those who freely choose to place themselves outside the rule of law for their own personal gratification, gain or ambition is not a denial of human rights but a choice they make themselves. Others would simply argue that the issue is a constitutional one, and not a human rights issue.

This matter touches on a greater problem. Increasingly, the actions of the Court are creating resentment, not only in my country but across the continent. Polls increasingly show a level of dissatisfaction that questions not only the credibility of the Court but of the EU itself, and that needs to be recognised. A political class that ignores the concerns of the people puts itself at great risk. Perhaps this Assembly needs to get round to facing up to these issues before it is too late; perhaps it is time for the good parents to act.

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

Lord Anderson, Mr Dendias, Ms Grozdanova, Mr Hancock and Mr Liddell-Grainger are all absent, so I call Mr Santini.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) joked that, while he had hoped to speak in the debate, he had not thought it likely as his name was last on the speakers’ list. He was pleased that the report defended sacrosanct principles such as Rule 39. The Council of Europe needed to defend such principles, but he was concerned that the rules of the Court had not kept pace with the modern world: some of the rules of court had been overtaken by events and were obsolete.

Migrants and asylum seekers now acted differently and, increasingly, national legislation was more flexible in its response than Community law. He did, however, agree with those who claimed that the removal of asylum seekers from Italy and elsewhere in the Mediterranean was on the increase and that such asylum seekers were not always offered the basic protections required by the Convention. This did not make those states evil: it was merely their practical reaction to the great increase in asylum applications that faced the countries of southern Europe. Those states in northern Europe that criticised the actions of the countries of the Mediterranean were completely unaware of the scale of the problem they faced. He also rejected the criticism by Commissioner Hammarberg, as Italy had deployed significant resources to welcome and support thousands of illegal and legal migrants; it was a country that always wanted to accept asylum seekers if expulsion would endanger their life. He also noted that many of the expelled migrants were wanted by the police in their homelands. He concluded by saying that laws and the practical rights secured by the Convention had to adapt to changes in practical circumstances in society; otherwise, those laws would eventually become merely theoretical.

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

I had not seen Mr Hancock, who is in fact present. You have the floor.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I apologise, Mr President. You had just told off Ms Türköne, and I was outside because I had to make a phone call. I looked at the list and did not believe I would be called, so I am pleasantly surprised.

I congratulate all three rapporteurs on the challenge they have taken up on these important issues. Many of us have experienced people’s dissatisfaction either with the operation of the Court – mainly its failure to act quickly enough – or with member states then, disappointingly, not responding to Court decisions. We can criticise the Court for its slowness of action – and my goodness, does not a lot of work need doing to bring it into line with what most people would reasonably suggest is getting justice? However, that does not lift any obligation whatsoever from member states that do not honour the Court’s rulings. When we signed up for the Court, we signed up for it warts and all and in such a way that the obligations on member states were quite clear. If you believe in the rule of law, that starts and finishes at this centre, here. If we cannot honour our obligations to our own Court, what chance do people have of getting justice anywhere? That is a key issue.

The other issue is about how migrants and people who are deemed to be illegal are removed. I do not know whether anybody in this Chamber has visited a detention centre – unfortunately, I have, and fairly recently, in my own country. I assure you that it is not a very good experience. I have also visited Sangatte and other places where migrants are waiting to be removed. It is not nice to see people treated in that way.

I have also been witness to people who have been forcibly deported and I have seen the harm that that can do them. In the United Kingdom, we had a classic case in which a Nigerian woman was forcibly returned to Nigeria in handcuffs. She was gravely ill, and a few weeks after getting back to her own country she died because the proper medical care that the British Government had been assured would be there was not forthcoming.

We do have obligations as member states. We have to give credit to these human beings, who are in desperate situations. We cannot ignore their plight. A member state that in any way harms such individuals, simply through how it tries to control or deport them while they are in detention, is beyond reasonableness in anybody’s book. We should react against such action. That is why this report has my full support and why I commend all three rapporteurs for the effort that they have put in on these issues.

THE PRESIDENT – thanked Mr Hancock and said that he had not meant to remonstrate with Ms Türköne, merely to remind colleagues of the rules of debate, which had to be adhered to. He could not see Mr Leigh and so called Mr Darchiashvili to respond to the debate.

Mr DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia) – I thank everyone for their very lively and interesting discussions and presentations.

Mr Díaz Tejera and others mentioned how problematic the Court’s work load is. That issue has been extensively addressed. Of course, I did not talk too much about the problem during my presentation because other issues, relating to the political will to implement Court rulings – whether interim measures or final judgments – without any conditions or impediments are more important than technical difficulties.

However, the problem that has been raised is also addressed, and that is why the Committee of Ministers, the member countries and the Court itself are invited by the resolutions and recommendations to work together on technical and procedural improvements in proceeding with so many requests.

On the interim measures, there is the problem of whether Rule 39 is binding. Lawyers are still debating that, but I think that we have the full right to stress that we are on the side of making it binding. Mr Egorov asked why we should especially mention people who are neither elderly nor children, but are still vulnerable – groups with connections to gender and sexual orientation issues, for example. The reason, Mr Egorov, is that these reports are not about what orientation is preferable or forcing orientation, but about protecting those who are really vulnerable. Let me assure you that in certain countries and circumstances, the people in those groups are the most vulnerable if neither Rule 39 nor other mechanisms of international law are applied to them.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Pourgourides. You have four minutes.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – I thank all colleagues for their support; I thank them even for their criticisms. It seems to me that my colleagues from Turkey, for reasons that everybody can suspect, decided this afternoon to change their position and attack the report, challenging my integrity. I say “this afternoon” because in the committee, in their presence, the report was unanimously approved. In the committee, in their presence, my addendum about Turkey was unanimously approved. My reply to my Turkish colleagues is simply this. When it comes to human rights and the judgments of the Court, I receive instructions from nobody and I never play political games.

Secondly, on the issue of prisoners’ right to vote, I say to my Conservative colleagues from the UK that I recognise that the issue is sensitive in their country. However, I tell them, with all respect, that the rule of law was born in England and the UK’s international legal obligations require the UK to comply with the judgment with all due diligence. It is inappropriate – not to say unacceptable – for the oldest parliamentary country in Europe and a founding member of the Council of Europe to try to find excuses for not implementing a Court judgment.

As regards the proposal to give the Court the right to intervene when there are execution problems that have been outstanding for a long time, for that to be achieved we must change the Convention. For the time being, the Court has no role when it comes to execution, except perhaps the role that it was given recently by Protocol No. 14 – after a reference by the Committee of Ministers when there is some kind of interpretation problem concerning execution.

Finally, let me be clear about one thing. The Court is the greatest success of the Council of Europe. For it to remain the greatest success, it needs the support of all the parliamentarians of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe. That requires us mainly to make sure that the judgments of the Court are duly and diligently executed without excuses of any kind, from any source, including any government. If we do that, we will give the best service to our people all over Europe, because their happiness depends on the respect of their human rights by everybody.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Pourgourides.

I call Mr Chope. You have two minutes to speak on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I should begin by quoting what the Secretary General said on Monday afternoon: “For us, the rule of law means upholding the sovereignty of the people.” That was a very significant statement, made more so by the exchange of views that we have heard during today’s debate. When the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments and procedures reflect the clear words of the Convention and its protocols, there is normally no problem. The problem arises when the judgments and procedures become exercises in judicial activism and are at odds with the views of ordinary citizens, thereby undermining, rather than upholding, the principle enunciated by the Secretary General that the rule of law means upholding the sovereignty of the people.

As parliamentarians, we know above all others that the penalties for keeping in touch with public opinion can lead to a rise in extreme parties taking advantage of democracy. That shows how the rule of law, as defined by the Secretary General, is very relevant to our role in ensuring that we promote principles of democracy, not to mention human rights.

We all want to support the European Court of Human Rights, but that becomes much more difficult if the Court overlooks that aspect of the rule of law that means upholding the sovereignty of the people. We have heard many definitions of the rule of law during this debate, but a lot of our difficulties would be overcome if we told the Court that, if it wants to change the law, the way to change the European Convention is to add protocols to it in the same way that a protocol was added, for example, to outlaw capital punishment. Such protocols are signed by the democratically elected governments and parliaments and the law is changed and that is supported, but where the Court changes the law without resorting to the parliaments of the individual member states, that creates a big tension and we ignore that tension at our peril.

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

I call Mr Holovaty. You have two minutes to respond on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine) – I consider that it is a must to react to the debate that has taken place today on these two reports, especially to the unprecedented statements that were made in the Chamber by three Turkish members of the Assembly. I have been a member of the Assembly for 15 years, but I do not remember anyone doubting Mr Pourgourides’ integrity and objectivity. The fact that the report and amendments were adopted unanimously today proves that Mr Pourgourides is impartial and objective. I simply suggest to Turkish colleagues that they should carefully read what Mr Pourgourides wrote in the addendum to the committee’s report after his visit to Ankara a few weeks ago. Let me read an extract from that text: “Despite undoubted, and indeed significant, progress made in the amelioration of the human rights situation in Turkey, coined as “the silent legal revolution”, it is nevertheless important for Turkish authorities to maintain and intensify efforts to comply with Strasbourg Court judgments, a substantial number of which have been on the Committee of Ministers docket for many years. “

When it is stated that there has been undoubted and significant progress – indeed, a silent legal revolution – is it not an objective and unbiased approach? So I congratulate Mr Pourgourides and thank him for his contribution and the work that he is doing following his predecessor, Erik Jurgens, in an impartial and objective way, and especially for the great and deep devotion to the issue of protecting human rights in Europe and our European values.

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

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution to which seven amendments and two sub-amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which three amendments have been tabled.

We will deal first with the draft resolution.

I understand that the Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments which were unanimously approved by the Committee should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

Those are Amendments 1 to 3 and 7 and 8 to the draft resolution.

Is that so?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone object?

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, Mr de Vries, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Haibach, Lord Tomlinson, Ms Bemelmans-Videc, Mr Holovaty, Ms Ferić-Vac, Mr Marty, Mr Davitaia and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.8, after the words "problems in Turkey currently concern" insert the following words: ", in addition to the urgent need to ensure the proper functioning of the judicial system,".

Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, Mr de Vries, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Haibach, Lord Tomlinson, Ms Bemelmans-Videc, Mr Holovaty, Ms Ferić-Vac, Mr Marty, Mr Davitaia, Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.10, after the words "such as prisoners’ voting rights", add the following words: "(see, in this connection, the Court’s judgment in Greens and M.T, of 23 November 2010)".

Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, Mr de Vries, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Haibach, Lord Tomlinson, Ms Bemelmans-Videc, Mr Holovaty, Ms Ferić-Vac, Mr Marty, Mr Davitaia, Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.4, delete the words "(or envisaged, in the case of Turkey)".

Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Vyatkin, Mr Slutsky, Mr Timchenko, Mr Lebedev, Ms Volozhinskaya, Mr Egorov, Mr Fedorov, Mr Parfenov and Mr Pochinok, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.7.1, after the first sentence, insert the following sentence: “The Assembly notes, in this connection, the coming into effect of Federal Law No.68-FZ of 30 April 2010, which provides for compensation for the violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or the right to the execution of the decision within a reasonable time.”

Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Vyatkin, Mr Slutsky, Mr Timchenko, Mr Lebedev, Mr Egorov, Mr Fedorov, Mr Parfenov and Mr Pochinok, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.7.2, at the end of the second sentence, insert the following words: “; it is understood that the President of the Russian Federation has recently submitted to the Federal Assembly draft legislation on an integrated reform of the Ministry on the Interior”.

We will now consider the rest of the amendments to the draft Resolution. They will be taken in the order in which they affect the text. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We now come to Amendment 10, tabled by Ms Grozdanova, Mr Toshev, Mr Ivanov, Ms Papadimitriou, Mr Vareikis, Mr Lipiński and Mr Wach, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.1, first sentence, replace the word “further” with the following words: “in the future cases similar to these reported in the past as being.”

I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 10.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – This amendment better reflects the rapporteur’s intention. We have discussed this improved wording in committee and achieved support.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I understand Mr Pourgourides wishes to move an oral sub-amendment to replace “as being” with “with respect to”.

In my opinion the oral sub-amendment meets the criterion of Rule 33.6 and can be considered unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object. Is there any opposition to the oral sub-amendment being debated? Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

I therefore call Mr Pourgourides to move the oral sub-amendment. You have 30 seconds.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – This amendment simply improves the drafting of the paragraph.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – I support this oral sub-amendment. I wish to clarify that the words “as being” were missing from the original text of the amendment tabled by me and my colleagues, because of a misunderstanding – perhaps somebody at the Table Office, while being supportive, did not catch our idea exactly. However, Mr Pourgourides’ oral sub-amendment clarifies the situation, and that is why I support it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I take it that the committee is in favour?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine) – Yes.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 10, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 10, as amended, is adopted.

We come now to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Haibach, Ms Wohlwend, Mr de Vries, Mr Cilevičs, Lord Tomlinson, Ms Bemelmans-Videc, Mr Sasi, Mr Frunda and Ms Ferić-Vac, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.7.2, insert the following sub-paragraph: “related to the numerous judgments of the Court finding grave and repeated violations of human rights in the North Caucasus region: the Assembly reiterates that the Russian Federation must not only pay compensation to successful applicants to the Court but also implement the individual measures required to put an end to the violations found, address their consequences, and take the necessary general measures to effectively prevent similar violations in the future;”

I call Mr Haibach to support Amendment 9.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) said that the amendment made it clear that the Court was dealing with victims of crime to whom compensation could be paid as well as other measures.

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

I call Mr Vyatkin to support oral sub-amendment 1, tabled by Mr Vyatkin, Mr Haibach, Mr Sobko, Mr Chernyshenko, Mr Fedorov, Mr Shaklein, Mr Popescu and Mr Harutyunyan, which is, in amendment 9, after the words "Russian Federation must", replace the words "not only pay compensation to successful applicants to the Court but also" with the following words: ", just like the other State Parties to the Convention,".

Mr VYATKIN (Russian Federation) – Our sub-amendment suggests that we delete the words "not only pay compensation to successful applicants to the Court but also", and insert the words "just like the other State Parties to the Convention".

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

What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 9?

Mr HAIBACH (Translation) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I am not surprised that you are agreeing with a sub-amendment that you signed.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine) – The committee is in favour of the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Oral sub-amendment adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 9, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 9, as amended, is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12455, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12455, as amended, is adopted, with 77 votes for, 8 against and 3 abstentions.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has also presented a draft recommendation to which three amendments have been tabled. I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that all the amendments, Amendments 4, 5 and 6, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

Does anyone object? That is not the case.

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 4, 5 and 6 to the draft recommendation have been adopted.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, Mr de Vries, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Haibach, Lord Tomlinson, Ms Bemelmans-Videc, Mr Holovaty, Ms Ferić-Vac, Mr Marty, Mr Davitaia and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1, after the words "European Court of Human Rights,", insert the word: "strongly".

Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, Mr de Vries, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Haibach, Lord Tomlinson, Ms Bemelmans-Videc, Mr Holovaty, Ms Ferić-Vac, Mr Marty, Mr Davitaia and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1.3, replace the words "strongly encourage governments to improve and, where necessary, to" with the following words: "ensure that governments improve and, where necessary,"

Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, Mr de Vries, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Haibach, Lord Tomlinson, Ms Bemelmans-Videc, Mr Holovaty, Ms Ferić-Vac, Mr Marty, Mr Davitaia and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 1.4, add the following sub-paragraph: "ensure, in cases of persistent and flagrant disregard of the Strasbourg Court’s case law, that recourse be made to Article 8 of the Council of Europe’s Statute (suspension/withdrawal from the Organisation) of 1949".

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12455, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12455, as amended, is adopted, with 83 votes for, 10 against and 3 abstentions.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has presented a draft resolution to which 27 amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which 12 amendments have been tabled.

We will deal first with the draft resolution.

I understand that Mr Chope wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

The amendments are: Amendments 27 to 30, 1, 26, 2, 32, 33, 5, 34, 6, 23, 9, 7, 8, 10, 11, 35 and 36 to the draft resolution.

Is that so, Mr Chope?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – That is correct, Mr President.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 27 to 30, 1, 26, 2, 32, 33, 5, 34, 6, 23, 9, 7, 8, 10, 11, 35 and 36 to the draft resolution have been adopted.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 27, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, first sentence, after the words “or irregular migrants”, insert the following words: “showing a prima facie case that they are”.

Amendment 28, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 4, insert the following paragraph: “The Grand Chamber of the Court has clarified the binding nature of interim measures. A failure to comply with interim measures undermines the effectiveness of the right of individual application (Article 34 ECHR) and the state’s undertaking in Article 1 of the ECHR to secure the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention to all within their jurisdiction.”

Amendment 29, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 4,insert the following paragraph: “Given the fundamental importance of the Court’s power to order binding interim measures, the Assembly is concerned at proposals being discussed in the context of the follow-up to the Interlaken Conference on the future of the Court and the Convention’s control mechanism, to include the Court’s power to order interim measures in an instrument that could be subject to amendment by states through a simplified amendment procedure.”

Amendment 30, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5 , first sentence, replace the words “2 400 such requests in 2009” with the following words: “2 402 such requests in 2009 and 3 680 such requests in 2010”.

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, second sentence, replace the words “the governments and their agents (representatives of the Government before the Court)” with the following words: “the States Parties”.

Amendment 26, tabled by Mr Hancock, Mr Haibach, Ms Frahm, Ms Strik and Mr Elzinga, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5, insert the following paragraph: "The growing demand for Rule 39 requests is an indication of the problems faced by many of those in need of international protection and in securing respect for their rights and their safety. The shrinking of the asylum space in Europe undoubtedly propels individuals who are refused international or humanitarian protection at national level to seek the subsidiary protection of the Court."

Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Christos Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, second sentence, replace the word “decisions” with the following word: “indications”.

Amendment 32, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, second sentence, after the words “those seeking international protection” insert the following words: “,and others,”.

Amendment 33, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10, insert the following paragraph: ”The Assembly recognises that innovative methods need to be adopted to deal with ever growing numbers of requests for interim measures and notes in this respect the usefulness of Court indications, notwithstanding the non binding nature of these, to member states where recurrent problems exist, such as has been the case in relation to Dublin system returns;”

Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraphs 11.1 with the following new sub-paragraph:

“guarantee the right of individual petition to the Court under Article 34, neither hinder nor interfere with the exercise of that right in any manner whatsoever and fully comply with the letter and spirit of interim measures indicated by the Court under Rule 39, in particular by:

– co-operating with the Court and Convention organs, by providing full, frank and fair disclosure in response to requests for further information under Rule 39(3), and facilitating to the highest degree any fact-finding requests made by the Court;

– exercising good faith and record keeping in demonstrating that there was, in exceptional cases of non-compliance, an “objective impediment preventing compliance” and that all reasonable steps were taken to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed about the situation;”

Amendment 34, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 11.2, after the words “1967 Protocol”, add the following words: “and the European Convention on Human Rights and other international treaties;”

Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 11.3.

Amendment 23, tabled by Mr Egorov, Mr Timchenko, Mr Sobko, Mr Parfenov and Mr Slutsky, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 11.3.

Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 11.4.

Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 11.5.

Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 11.6.

Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11.11, replace the words “ordered and by complying fully with” with the following words: “necessary and by taking”.

Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, replace the words “invites the Court to” with the following words: “expresses the hope that the Court will”.

Amendment 35, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12.2, after the words “exchange of views”, insert the following words: “with all relevant actors, including civil society,”

Amendment 36, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 12.5, insert the following sub-paragraph: “carry out an analysis of requests for interim measures and their handling, to identify patterns and practices and analyse lessons to be learned and good practices to follow;”

We will now consider the rest of the amendments to the draft resolution. They will be taken in the order in which they affect the text.

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

We come now to Amendment 21, tabled by Mr Egorov, Mr Timchenko, Mr Sobko, Mr Parfenov and Mr Slutsky, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, delete the last sentence.

I call Mr Egorov to support Amendment 21.

Mr EGOROV (Russian Federation) said that he did not want to focus on the rules of Court but on the Convention itself and its requirements

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

I call Mr Darchiashvili to speak against the amendment.

Mr DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia) – Based on what I presented in the report, it would be contrary to the spirit of the report to include this amendment in the text.

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

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 21 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 22, tabled by Mr Egorov, Mr Chernyshenko, Mr Timchenko, Mr Sobko and Mr Parfenov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, delete the last sentence.

If this amendment is adopted, Amendments 3 and 4 fall.

I call Mr Egorov to support Amendment 22.

Mr EGOROV (Russian Federation) said that the sentence was wrong and overstepped the Convention. He wanted to ensure that the law of the Convention was followed

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

I call Mr Darchiashvili to speak against the amendment.

Mr DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia) – We are trying to establish the understanding that Rule 39, which is vital to the rights of vulnerable people, should be perceived by the member states as binding.

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

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 22 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 3, tabled by Tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, second sentence, replace the words “legally binding” by the following word: “interim”.

I call Mr Pourgourides to support Amendment 3.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – The amendment would make interim judgments legally binding.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, second sentence, after the words "by the Court", add the following words: “, and in particular disrespect for the right of individual application as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention,”.

I call Mr Pourgourides to support Amendment 4.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – I understood that the amendment had been agreed unanimously in committee.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We still have to discuss it because Amendment 22 was rejected. I call Mr Pourgourides. Do you wish to speak?

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – No.

Mr de VRIES (Netherlands) – Perhaps it would be better if I speak, as I was supposed to defend all the amendments.

The amendment would make a clear reference to Article 34 of the Convention. There is nothing special behind it.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment 31, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 8, add the following sentence: “States should refrain from using the argument of “objective impediments” as a means of circumventing their obligations”.

I call Mr Darchiashvili to support Amendment 31.

Mr DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia) – The report itself, and the resolution and recommendations, stress that the principle of objective impediment should not be abused. To increase understanding, we added to paragraph 8 the words, “States should refrain from using the argument of objective impediments”. If there really is an impediment, they should prove it.

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

What is the opinion of the committee ?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 31 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment 24, tabled by Mr Egorov, Mr Timchenko, Mr Zhidkikh, Mr Sobko and Mr Vyatkin, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 12.4.

I call Mr Egorov to support Amendment 24.

Mr EGOROV (Russian Federation) said that the purpose of the amendment was to make clear that the matter was not for the Court, but for individual member states.

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

I call Mr Darchiashvili.

Mr DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia) – What could be the harm if the proceedings of the Court and the statistics are published?

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

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 24 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 25, tabled by Mr Egorov, Mr Timchenko, Mr Zhidkikh, Mr Sobko and Mr Vyatkin, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12.5, delete the words “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons,”.

I call Mr Egorov to support Amendment 25.

Mr EGOROV (Russian Federation) said that people with non-traditional sexual-orientation were not vulnerable and should be treated no differently from anyone else.

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

I call Ms Strik.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I have to say to Mr Egorov that his country may have made such progress that there are no vulnerable groups. Other countries, unfortunately, may not have that level of protection, so those groups are still vulnerable.

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

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 25 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12435, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12435, as amended, is adopted, with 81 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has also presented a draft recommendation to which 12 amendments have been tabled.

I understand that Mr Chope wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

The amendments are Amendments 37, 38, 12 to 16, 20 and 39 to the draft recommendation.

Is that so, Mr Chope?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – That is correct.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 37, 38, 12 to 16, 20 and 39 to the draft resolution are adopted.

The following amendments have been adopted.

Amendment 37, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2, replace the last sentence with the following words: “However, pressures linked to the number of applications and the workload should not lead to a dilution of standards and of the protection offered to the individual.”

Amendment 38, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3, delete the word “further”.

Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the beginning of paragraph 4.1, add the following words: “consider extending its mandate under Article 46 of the Convention by introducing a competence to”.

Amendment 13, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 with the following sub-paragraph: “fully use its competence pursuant to Article 46 of the Convention in resolving the cases of non-compliance in a way which fully and effectively upholds the Convention, ensure, in collaboration with the Court, that a mechanism or working method is established for follow-up in cases of non-compliance, and investigate cases and/or publish statements in this connection;”

Amendment 14, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 4.3, insert the following sub-paragraph: “give priority to judgments finding violations of Article 34 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsion and extradition of aliens, while supervising their execution by respondent states according to Article 46 of the Convention;”

Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 4.4.

Amendment 16, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.5, replace the words “an interim or final resolution, by way of individual or” with the following words: “an interim resolution calling for individual and/or”.

Amendment 20, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.8, replace the words “the intergovernmental sector” with the following words: “relevant bodies”.

Amendment 39, tabled by Mr Darchiashvili, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.8, after the words “exchange of views”, insert the following words: “with all relevant actors, including civil society,”.

We will now consider the rest of the amendments to the draft resolution. They will be taken in the order in which they affect the text.

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

We now come to Amendment 17, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.6, replace the words “co-operate with the Court and other relevant actors in order to make available” with the following words: “collect and publish”.

I call Mr de Vries to support Amendment 17.

Mr de VRIES (Netherlands) – The amendment aims to simplify the text of the draft resolution by introducing a more general notion for collecting and publishing up-to-date data. We feel that would improve the text.

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

I call Mr Darchiashvili.

Mr DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia) – With due respect to all the amendments proposed, we think that in this case the original text clearly shows our intention that the relevant bodies of the Council of Europe should co-operate with the Court.

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

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 17 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 18, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.7, delete the words “and by the Court”.

I call Mr de Vries to support Amendment 18.

Mr de VRIES (Netherlands) – The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights feels that it would be inappropriate for the Assembly to request the Committee of Ministers to make an assessment of the Court’s practice. Furthermore, if a working group is created it will certainly examine the practice of the Court and member states in dealing with Rule 39 applications.

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

I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I just do not understand where that argument is coming from, because all the evidence shows that what is needed is written in the report; I think the report is going in the right direction. The Court is not above criticism and neither is it above being subjected to close scrutiny. There has been such a lack of scrutiny in the past and that is what is needed. I therefore hope the Assembly will reject the amendment.

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

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 18 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 19, tabled by Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.7, delete the words “and the Court’s practice and procedure”.

I call Mr de Vries to support Amendment 19.

Mr de VRIES (Netherlands) – The same reasoning applies as for the previous amendment. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights feels that it would be inappropriate for the Assembly to request the Committee of Ministers to make an assessment of the Court’s practice. We want to underline the principle of the separation of powers.

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

I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – It cannot get any worse, can it, than to suggest that the Committee of Ministers for once should do what the Assembly wants it to do? When was the last time it agreed to anything we proposed? Here we are putting a positive piece of work in its way, which will help the Assembly, the Committee of Ministers and, most importantly, the Court in the long run. I therefore simply do not know where this amendment is coming from, and it should be rejected out of hand.

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

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 19 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12435, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12435, as amended, is adopted with 73 votes for, 3 against and 4 abstentions.

(Mr Kox, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Mignon.)

4. Current affairs debate: the functioning of democracy in Hungary

THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is a current affairs debate on the functioning of democracy in Hungary.

Speakers in the debate have three minutes, except for the first speaker, who has 10 minutes. The Bureau has chosen Mr von Sydow to speak first.

The debate will end at around 7.30 p.m.

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – Each member state of the Council of Europe is bound by the statute of this Organisation to uphold, protect and safeguard the principles of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. In that respect, I welcome this current affairs debate on the functioning of democracy in Hungary as a sign of both our commitment to these principles and our willingness to ensure that they are upheld by all member states, brothers and sisters.

Hungary was one of the first countries that joined the Council of Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It has therefore never been under the monitoring procedure, as that was put in place only after Hungary had joined our Organisation. However, until very recently, there were no noises casting doubts on the commitment of the country and its political class to comply fully with the principles of the Council of Europe.

An important point should be made here. While the current government enjoys a constitutional majority in the parliament of 68% of the seats, it does not represent an equal proportion of the population as it won only 53% of the popular vote. One of the hallmarks of a democracy is a comprehensive system of checks and balances between the different branches of power. When that system of checks and balances is undermined, democracy erodes.

Although the government’s risky economic policy has been criticised, and necessary reforms to make Hungary competitive are being postponed, it is not the economy that is the most worrying element of the country at present. To reach its goals and strengthen its position, the government seems to let go of fundamental democratic principles. Worrying examples of this include the process to revise the constitution, a radical media law and severe limitations on the authority of the constitutional court. The principle of checks and balances is at stake.

During the first few months of the Orbán administration, a number of amendments to laws have been passed. An increasing number of critics point to alarming political developments from a democratic point of view. A large number of civil servants have been dismissed without valid grounds. The prevailing consultative procedure in the law-making process is circumvented on a regular basis. An editorial committee is currently revising the national constitution in an unsatisfactory process that is not yet inclusive and is taking place in a very short period. Because of the time pressure in adopting a new constitution, the authorities plan to omit certain elements that would normally be regulated in a constitution, and instead to regulate these elements in separate normal legal acts to be adopted at a non-specified future time. This circumvents constitutional protection.

Moreover, the rules for appointing members to the constitutional court and the national election authority have been changed in such a way that the institutions’ autonomy is questioned. Parliament has agreed on a constitutional supplement undermining the court’s authority so that it no longer has the right to stop or question some of the government’s proposals – for instance, the crisis taxes and retirement measures that are part of the current economic policy. There must be checks and balances in the whole polity of Hungary.

The most burning debate is about the new media law, which, according to its critics, puts a straitjacket on freedom of speech in Hungary. In November, parliament voted in favour of a law that limits freedom of speech severely. Registration is required for anyone who supplies the media with information. At the same time, the law imposes far-reaching demands on the contents of such information. Abiding with this law is being watched by a newly established administration, which, according to the critics, is the prime minister’s extended arm. The leader of this new “foundation of public service”, who is appointed for nine years, has complete authority to appoint and dismiss the management in all state news media. We follow with interest the interaction between Hungary and the European Union in the field of media laws.

From this short outline, it is clear that a number of developments have recently taken place in Hungary that raise serious questions about the state of democracy in that country, our sister member. We are not talking about a single law or an isolated decision: no, we are looking at a series of interlinked developments that, combined, put a big question mark over Hungary’s commitment to the core values and principles of this Organisation. Again, there must be checks and balances. Lord Acton, a famous English statesman in the 19th century, said “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

In the debate that follows, you will undoubtedly hear from some that these facts and views of mine have been taken out of context. I wish that was true, but I am afraid that the facts contradict this. Fortunately, the Assembly has a proper procedure to establish the facts and evaluate to what extent these developments violate the principles of the Council of Europe. The mechanism that we have in that context is a motion to request the opening of a monitoring procedure for Hungary. Such a request will not automatically lead to the opening of a monitoring procedure, but it will lead to the appointment of two rapporteurs by the Monitoring Committee to study and evaluate the facts and to report to the committee, and ultimately to the Bureau of the Assembly, on their findings and their conclusions on whether these issues warrant the opening of a monitoring procedure by the Assembly.

The Monitoring Committee might also call for the Venice Commission to interact with the process in asking the committee to evaluate the facts. The same is true of Hungary, which might itself ask the Venice Commission for advice. Some time ago, Finland asked for advice on its newly designed constitution.

The Assembly has used this procedure very recently with regard to the United Kingdom and Italy, and I can see no reason, on the basis of the facts that I have presented to you, why it should not be used for Hungary. We cannot allow ourselves to risk having double standards when it comes to demanding that our member states honour their commitment to the Council of Europe – our Organisation.

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

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – This Assembly is appealing to the Hungarian Government not to continue with what they have been doing in the past eight months. It got 53% of the people’s vote and therefore more than two thirds of the seats in parliament. That means that it has a power to change the constitution. As Mr von Sydow said, it has misused this power too much and we would like to ask it not to continue to do so. It is changing the Hungarian system in such a way that some Hungarians even say that it has totalitarian tendencies or an authoritarian style. György Dalos, a Hungarian writer, said that it is like putting dioxin in a meal. We would like to ask it not to continue like that.

The media law is only the tip of the iceberg. As Mr von Sydow said, in the past eight years the government has changed the constitution in a hasty way almost 10 times without at any time consulting the Venice Commission, for instance. It made laws in a reactive way. It made laws that punish former civil servants, people who have a private pension system and community and public workers, who can now be dismissed without any explanation. Today, 2 000 university staff are making an appeal for the government not to continue like this because many of them are being dismissed from their posts, especially those who do not obey the new rules. All the public buildings must now have a poster saying “We are the product of the revolution that has happened in the past year.” That is very much like something in a totalitarian system.

The prime minister announced that he would do this in a speech on 29 February last year, when he said that he wanted to change a bipolar system to a unipolar system where one party does everything and is the only place where you have discussions about the priorities of the society. He wants to establish one-party rule. He says that it is no use having divisive discussions and that you must have a unitarian system. This is a misuse and a misunderstanding of democracy. As Mr Tadić said this morning, in a democracy you have to integrate everyone, not only the mainstream and the biggest power.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Lord Boswell, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Lord BOSWELL (United Kingdom) – I am delighted to speak on behalf of the EDG in this debate on Hungary and its current affairs. All in this Chamber will admire that country’s progress from the ashes of 1956 to the presidency of the European Union. We should celebrate that. For many years I have been a member, and for some years an officer, of the United Kingdom’s parliamentary Hungarian friendship group, and I have visited Hungary several times.

I begin with two general comments. First, it is quite proper that we each, as member states, have our own laws and practices to meet our local circumstances; that issue was raised in the debate immediately prior to this one. But that must be on the understanding that they are within European standards. Secondly, as a democrat and a fellow member of the centre right, I respect the fact that the strong election victory of the new Hungarian Government gives it a mandate for significant political changes in a difficult economic and political climate.

Let me, however, make three points about which I have considerable reservations. First, a victorious party, particularly within a majoritarian system of election, should not seek to deny opposition parties all voice or influence. In parliament and in public administration generally, things work better in an atmosphere of open dialogue, mutual trust and self-restraint. In any case, unless the electoral pendulum is stabilised and stopped by some intervention, who knows when it will swing back to the other side?

Secondly, although parties in a democracy exist to represent different shades of opinion, they should sometimes reflect on the acceptable limits to the process. We know that Hungary suffered a serious and long-lasting blow with the Treaty of Trianon, but nationalist feeling cannot be used after an interval of almost a century as justification for actions disturbing good relations with neighbouring member states.

Third is the issue of media freedom. I believe that substantive issues have arisen over the new Hungarian media law. I note that – and this a quote from the letter – “The Commission services have serious doubts as to the compatibility of the Hungarian legislation with EU law”. The Hungarian Government has a duty to respond positively and promptly to those immediate concerns.

In the longer term, as the Council of Europe, we must work with the EU and others to assess whether the standards to which we all subscribe, in relation to the body of law and the Convention, are sufficiently clear and unambiguous. The freedom of the press and the media is at the heart of a free society and it is appropriate, given current developments, that this Assembly should sound something of a warning bell for the Hungarian Government to respond to.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Lundgren to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I am very proud to speak on behalf of ALDE. Like Lord Boswell, I belong to a parliamentary Hungarian friendship group at home. As a friend, you have to be able to speak out when things happen; otherwise, you are not a good friend. So when we look at the functioning of democracy in Hungary, I hope we would say that it is in full compliance with all our Council of Europe standards, which are among the best in the world. Sadly, we are not in that position today.

We parliamentarians should look for and listen to the whistleblowers. We must hear them even if they are in our countries back home. We can hear the whistle blow today, and there are signals that we have to take into account. Other colleagues have raised the issue, which was also raised by our former ALDE group leader – on the internet, so everyone can look for it.

We, the Council of Europe, have institutions to help every member state to safeguard our values. Sadly, we realise today that those institutions and methods have not been part of the changes that have taken place in Hungary. There is the media law, for instance. We must, of course, welcome any change in the situation, which is essential. We heard that the Hungarian Government is open for change. If so, let us welcome that. At the same time, we must be aware of what is going on. We must be able to scrutinise it as a good friend and help it for the future.

I hope that this debate will send a clear signal for change – a way forward for keeping to our values and the standards of the Council of Europe, not a way backwards into history as we have seen before in Europe.

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

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) – On behalf of the UEL, I thank the rapporteur and will express the view of our group on the recent political developments in Hungary.

We are deeply concerned about, and condemn the end of liberty under, the new media limits imposed by the right-wing government of Viktor Orbán through a completely undemocratic media law that puts power in the hands of a political national media board for nine years, with no representation from the opposition. Additional legislation was adopted that forces journalists to reveal their sources in articles about national security and public safety. The legislation, together with other negative measures against the media, represents a serious set back for press freedom.

Secondly, another issue that we are concerned about is the constitutional amendments. The constitutional court has been the single most important guarantor of Hungary’s transition to democracy and the most prestigious and trusted democratic institution, with the power to veto bills and abolish laws on the grounds of unconstitutionality. That might now change. In this context, it is vital to respect one of the fundamental pillars of democracy: the separation of powers.

Thirdly, we express our indignation about the rise of extremists – extreme right-wing groups and movements in Hungary – as well as the deplorable situation of the Roma people. Any government that is represented by a strong two-thirds majority in parliament should not behave as if it had absolute power in a one-party system.

Unfortunately, the Hungarian Government is not alone in its implementation of these policies. We are witnessing similar problems in a number of European countries. In that context, I would cite the situation of national minorities in Romania and the violation of political rights in that country. The Romanian communist party name was recently banned by a Romanian tribunal. There is also the legal existence and rise of extremist and xenophobic movements in many European countries. I also mention the recent and unprecedented case of the political persecution of Mr Algirdas Paleckis, the leader of the Lithuanian opposition socialist popular front party, who risks being sentenced to up to two years in jail for his political views and the statements he made in the mass media.

The situation in Hungary is not the only case. The systematic degradation of democratic institutions is a general tendency in Europe nowadays. That is one of the biggest challenges for the Council of Europe and our Assembly in particular. We have to enlarge the number of member states that will be under monitoring procedures of the Council of Europe institutions or we risk remaining simple observers unable to ensure the proper functioning of the democratic institutions in the Council of Europe member states.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Petrenco. I call Mr Pourgourides, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – We are discussing today a country that has a strong track record of democratic change. First, Hungary aided and abetted the downfall of the communist dictatorships throughout eastern Europe by opening its border with Austria to East German “tourists” intent on leaving the GDR. Then, Hungary, in open and democratic elections preceded by lively election campaigns, voted in and out a succession of centre-right and centre-left governments. At the last election, the Hungarian people gave the current government a resounding victory – another democratic change of power that undoubtedly reflects the will of the people.

Of course, the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes the right to freedom of expression, applies equally in all countries, and rights and freedoms must be protected by the courts, especially against any threats by the majority of the day. Freedom of expression is a very important right and a fundamental condition for a functioning democracy. But it is not unlimited: reasonable restrictions exist in every democracy.

Whether the new law on the media in Hungary exceeds reasonable restrictions will be for the courts to decide. In the end, that will be decided by the European Court of Human Rights. I trust that the ongoing consultations with the EU and the Venice Commission will enable the Hungarian Government to correct any problem long before the issue comes before the Strasbourg Court. The Hungarian Government has stressed its willingness to enter into a constructive dialogue and to correct any shortcomings in the new law. We should take it at its word. As a friend, I am of the opinion that the proposed law poses no problems.

In view of the ongoing consultations, I strongly believe that it would be premature to start to talk about a monitoring procedure in the Parliamentary Assembly. My group has decided to oppose any such move, however well intended, as it would sent the wrong signal to the Hungarian authorities. The launching of such a procedure would be exploited politically by interested parties and hinder, rather than promote, a constructive dialogue on any possible problem that should be addressed without delay.

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

Mr BRAUN (Hungary) – We are now debating the functioning of democracy in Hungary. On behalf of the Hungarian delegation, I can tell you that we are very calm at this moment for two reasons. First, Hungary is a solid democracy, democratic institutions are functioning and we aim to build a strong democratic state. If we make mistakes we are ready to remedy them. Secondly, by now, we already know the planned outcome of this debate. Some of our colleagues have almost produced a final verdict before the debate and before allowing us to make our statements and respond to the concerns expressed.

A motion was issued yesterday – a day before this debate on a request to open a monitoring procedure in Hungary – with the title, “Serious setbacks in the field of the rule of law and human rights in Hungary”. That title suggests that there are serious setbacks. Given this unfortunate situation, I would like to suggest to this distinguished Assembly that this discussion be open, constructive and without prejudice. However, something positive in this unpleasant situation is that we now already know the concerns of our colleagues. So I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to clarify our standpoints.

During this debate, my colleagues will inform the Assembly about the work on the draft of the new constitution, the necessary changes relating to the constitutional court, the changes to the public administration and the new media law.

Yesterday, I had the privilege to inform the Committee on Culture, Science and Education about the latest events in respect of new media regulation. The government has just received the letter from the European Commission on the requirements on changes in relation to three technical issues. The government will provide an answer within a few days.

A well established, inclusive process to change the constitution of Hungary started last June and will probably finish at the beginning of next year. I would like to emphasise that the new constitution will contain some important and forward-looking elements. Most importantly, it will incorporate the whole body of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

I sincerely hope that we all have a fruitful debate and that it will help in smoothing the concerns and in dissipating the misunderstandings. We would like you to understand that Hungary is a well functioning democracy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Braun. I call Mr Fournier.

Mr FOURNIER (France) said that Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary seemed to have crystallised public opinion and he could not be certain that the fact that Hungary had just taken over the presidency of the European Union had not played some role in the way this issue was being dealt with. He was concerned by the authoritarian drift in which Hungary appeared to be caught, reflected in the media laws that had come into force on 1 January 2011. The European Commission had launched an inquiry into whether the Hungarian laws were in keeping with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. He had no interest in sparing the blushes of the Hungarian presidency but had difficulty in understanding the apparent presumption of guilt that surrounded this case. Democracy was nothing without freedom of expression and it therefore depended on the protection of a free press. This could not be the case while journalists were threatened, beaten up, imprisoned or even killed in countries that were members of the Council of Europe. It was essential that the Assembly debated this issue more often as it was not a state of affairs that could be allowed to persist. Publication on the internet was the last bastion of journalistic freedom and he proposed this subject be debated at a future session.

The PRESIDENT thanked Mr Fournier and called Ms Guţu.

Ms GUŢU (Moldova) thanked the rapporteur for his report but suggested that Mr Petrenco had been too hasty in pointing to the mote in Hungary’s eye without having noticed the beam in Moldova’s. In Moldova the Communist Party still controlled the media and journalists often worked at great risk. She drew attention to the case of Ernest Vardanean, a Moldovan journalist recently sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment by the Transnistrian authorities – and in particular – to the Written Declaration tabled at the June Part-Session (Doc. 12338), calling for his release as well as to the case of three other individuals who had been imprisoned illegally. Moldova had no power over the secessionist region of Transnistria and although she was glad that the Russian Federation had brought its influence to bear in securing the release of Elena Dubrovitskaya, a 20-year-old student who was a Russian citizen, Mr Vardanean was a Moldovan citizen and, as such, deserved the protection of the law rather than being jailed merely for having done his job.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Guţu. The next speaker is Ms Gautier.

Ms GAUTIER (France) said that she was surprised that the debate was taking place as a current affairs debate. She accepted that the media law did not guarantee full freedom of the media, but the EU was already aware of this, had called it a “disproportionate provision”, and had asked the Budapest Government to revise it. She drew attention to other legislation which required the audiovisual media to provide balanced coverage. The European Union had responded to these issues with a largely technical response which the Hungarian Government had acknowledged.

Even acknowledging these developments, she questioned whether the entire system was really rotten and whether democracy in Hungary was truly under threat. The Hungarian Government had already indicated its willingness to revise the media law. In the light of this, she felt that it would have been better to wait until the April part-session of the Assembly before debating Hungary. She asked whether the situation in Budapest could really be compared with that in Ivory Coast or in Tunisia, both of which were more accurately described as current affairs. She warned members against overreacting, for to do so damaged the Council’s credibility.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Gautier. The next speaker is Mr Vejkey.

Mr VEJKEY (Hungary) said that he spoke as a European with Hungarian roots. Given his background, he was far from happy that the rule of law in Hungary had been questioned and knew that a majority of Hungarians felt the same way.

The debate had to be seen in context: the previous eight years had been summed up by the comments of the then Socialist Prime Minister, Mr Gyurcsány, who had said “We lied night and day”. After this famous comment there had been large protests which had been broken up by the police who had beaten protestors indiscriminately. Many who criticised the new media law had not studied it; neither had they studied the Hungarian constitution.

The parliament elected in 2010 had undertaken to update the constitution which went back to the era of one-party rule. The European Convention on Human Rights would provide a secure basis for this updated, modern constitution. Parliament had established a special committee to write the new constitution, which had already been considering the issue for six months and would continue to work throughout the parliamentary year. NGOs and other bodies had been able to take part in the process.

Hungary had played an important role in maintaining the unity of Europe after the end of communism in 1989 and it had been the first country from eastern Europe to have been admitted as a full member of the Council of Europe. Given Hungary’s recent history, the attacks levelled against it that day were offensive. He completely rejected the criticisms levelled against Hungary, which was a law-abiding and democratic state without press censorship.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Vejkey. The next speaker is Mr Vareikis.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – While waiting to make my speech, I was looking on the internet for data on which countries are classified as free, not free, or partially free, including data on which countries have a free media. The most recent data on media freedom I found were from 2010. There are 47 member countries in the Council of Europe. Five of those countries are classified as not free, five as partially free, and the remainder are classified as free. I ask members to guess where Hungary falls in this classification. It is classified as a free country.

In terms of economic freedom and media freedom, all the data qualify Hungary as a free country – not only this year and last year but over almost the past 20 years. Who would believe that one change in the law, one new Prime Minister or one new decision could reclassify a country in terms of freedom? So, perhaps there is a misunderstanding, and I should like to try to draw a broader picture.

Should Hungary be considered a non-free country that persecutes its media because its media law is not perfect? I cannot completely agree with that. Hungary’s law is new, and Hungary needs time to discover whether this new law will work. Every country needs time to implement and evaluate its laws. If a law has been in effect for only a few weeks, it is impossible to say whether it is working. It would therefore be incorrect to say that Hungary is not democratic. We have to give it time to reflect on and improve its law.

We sometimes say that the law of countries that we monitor – and even the law of countries that we do not monitor – is not perfect. I do not think that Hungary, uniquely among the 47 Council of Europe member states, sets such a bad example that it deserves this special debate or that we should start the monitoring machinery. Do we sincerely think that that is the right thing to do?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Vareikis. The next speaker is Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – As a human rights lawyer and a member of an opposition party – Jobbik – my first reaction when I heard about the debate was to thank God that the Council of Europe was being urged to bring liable persons to justice for tendentious breaches of human rights in Hungary over the past eight years, to stop actions against political activists initiated by the former government, and to eliminate all laws that restrict the fundamental rights set out in the documents of the Council of Europe. Some of them are still valid.

What did the Council of Europe do during the past eight years when fundamental human rights were seriously breached by social-liberal governments? Where were those brave human rights activists who initiated this debate when police forces instructed by the government systematically tried to deter people from using their fundamental rights – when they were struggling against a system of government that did not serve the pre-eminent rights of Hungary and its people, but was assisting in the colonisation of our country? The brave stood up for their rights. Proceedings were taken out against them, and they were sentenced. It was a frightful, tragic period for the rule of law and human rights, not only for Hungary, but for Europe.

I was disappointed that during the session of the Parliamentary Assembly in June last year, the monitoring report on Hungary for the past four years said nothing about those serious breaches of human rights. They are now documented by reports, judgments, human rights non-governmental organisations and official reports from parliament, in which I took part as the co-chairperson of a scrutiny committee. They all confirmed those serious breaches of human rights.

We have a critical opinion about the activities of the new government. It is not being active enough in giving Hungarians back their rights to self-determination. There have been several cases when the new majority did not make perfect decisions on the rule of law. The act on media aims to defend society from the terror of the mass media. There should be balance in the composition of the media, in terms of the involvement of the state and political parties.

Other aspects of the law should be amended, in our opinion. In the process of enacting a new constitution, instead of the current one, the government should be more open and should accept the views of the opposition. The greatest challenge is to trace our history back to the constitution according to the Holy Crown system, but that is not the business of any international organisation. Check and balances need to be preserved, but the current actions, which are being used as a tool of political revenge threaten the credibility of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gaudi Nagy. The next speaker is Mr Kalmár.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) noted that, on Monday, the Swedish delegation had launched an initiative to debate Hungary’s new media law. Now they had instigated a current affairs debate and had already asked that a proposal be made to the Monitoring Committee about Hungary. What next? It was revealing that the debate was not even over before another attack was made against the Hungarian Government. Only in a dictatorial state were judgments given before trial.

This was a political attack levelled against the Fidesz Party which had taken power after the socialists had ruined the country. In eight years of socialist rule, they had increased the country’s debt by more than had 40 years of communism and their legacy was a corruption that had permeated society. It was the Hungarian voters who had seen that what was needed was a modern, more European regime and had therefore given two thirds of the parliamentary seats to the Fidesz party.

The constitution was currently under consultation with NGOs and it was still a work in progress. He noted that, under the socialists, the police had fired on protestors and the Prime Minister had admitted to lying night and day: no-one then had questioned the health of Hungary’s democracy.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Kalmár and called Mr Maissen.

Mr MAISSEN (Switzerland) admitted that he did not know the details of the media law which had been the trigger for the debate and that his knowledge of recent developments was based largely on media reports. He therefore urged members not to make condemnations if they were unaware of the true facts. Other member states had difficulties with media freedom: before judging Hungary it was important to give the country time to fulfil its commitments to the Council of Europe and the European Union.

He acknowledged that the European Commission had criticised the Hungarian Government’s actions; but the Hungarian Government, in response, had agreed to change this single legal text. It was inappropriate to say that Hungary had problems with democracy and human rights based purely on a single text, particularly as Hungary’s leaders had indicated that they would change it.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Maissen and called Mr Gruber.

Mr GRUBER (Hungary) said that the changes to civil servant employment law in Hungary had wrongly been characterised as allowing the government to remove any civil servant it did not like. This was not the case. He stressed that the law had been introduced due to Hungary’s economic crisis and the conduct of the previous government which had left Hungary in a dire situation. The situation was so bad that traditional means were insufficient: it was, for example, quite impossible to introduce higher taxes. The only solution was to reduce expenditure by creating a smaller cheaper state that required few civil servants. There were, for example, three separate departments concerned with agriculture. At the end of the process, there would only be one. He accepted that it would be painful to reduce jobs but this was not political weeding out. It was because the state could no longer afford so many civil servants. He also noted that politicians were sharing the burden: at the end of the process the number of MPs would have been reduced by 50%; the number of politicians at a regional and local level reduced by 30%; whereas the number of civil servants was to be reduced by only 5%.

There was also the revision of the constitution, which dated back to 1949. The new constitution would be a more modern, European document, based on national traditions rather than a Stalinist holdover. The consultation had seen 7 000 proposals submitted to the relevant parliamentary committee, all of which had been published on the Internet. This proved that the committee was taking account of proposals made to it and trying to include every interested party in the consultation. Recent events in Hungary by no means signified a return to totalitarianism.

THE PRESIDENT – I am afraid I must interrupt. I ask speakers not to take the three full minutes, so as to allow all members who wish to speak to contribute. I call Ms Székyné Sztrémi.

Ms SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI (Hungary) said that Hungary had been on the road to democracy for 20 years. There had been difficulties in the past, but the country was now working towards rebuilding and strengthening the rule of law. The discussions in Hungary had been positive. Would the Council of Europe be able to help? The country would welcome assistance.

There had been erroneous information circulated about the Hungarian media law. So far, nobody was in jail as a result of it and certainly nobody had been killed. Indeed, for the first time, a Christian radio station had been given its own frequency under the law. Hungary was prepared to re-examine the law, to discuss it with other countries, and work to find a solution.

She asked whether the discussion about Hungary was really about human rights or instead about party politics. In the Council of Europe, the discussion ought to be about human rights. The criticisms that had been levelled against the media law had been made by post-communist politicians, who were bitter at having lost their seats in the 2010 elections. The media law was in fact similar to those in other member states. She looked forward to the EU Commission’s forthcoming impartial evaluation.

THE PRESIDENT – I must interrupt. The remaining speakers will have only two minutes. I call Ms Circene.

Ms CIRCENE (Latvia) – I thank Mr von Sydow for his contribution. Freedom of speech and of the mass media is one of the core values of this Organisation, and is a cornerstone of human rights and democracy. It is crucial that every member state fully gives this freedom in accordance with the standards of international law and international organisations. These standards must accordingly be translated into legal acts and properly implemented.

A free, independent and pluralist media is a precondition of any true democratic society with good governance. There must be transparency and accountability in all branches of the mass media. As Mr Johansson explained to us, many cases in Europe show that the protection of journalists’ sources is a great problem. There are, however, different problems in different countries.

A lot of attention has been paid to the recently amended new national media law in Hungary. I should stress that the previous Hungarian media law was adopted in 1996, and that the new realities facing the media in our modern societies must be reflected in legislation. Many other countries go through a similar process. I acknowledge that it is a challenge to ensure that, in such a short period of time, we have a well-considered approach, including discussions with experts and representatives of society.

However, Hungary has attested its readiness to ensure observance of freedom of speech and of the mass media, in accordance with international legal norms and guidelines issued by international organisations. Hungary has taken a co-operative approach in this matter, including by submitting the new media law for competent and objective evaluation by international institutions. I therefore believe that Hungary has demonstrated its good will in resolving this situation.

THE PRESIDENT – I must interrupt. I call Mr Herkel. You have two minutes.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I want to describe a few traps we might fall into during this debate. We might call the first of them the Swedish trap. I supported one, or perhaps two, of the initiatives, but the monitoring process plus a current affairs debate is too much; Hungary is not so bad. Hungary is still a European democracy, but there is a problem and we might call it the Hungarian trap.

Hungarian society is extremely divided, with antagonism between the government and the opposition, and the socialist government made a lot of mistakes, especially in the field of democracy. However, I still do not believe that this is about some kind of cross-party conflict in Europe. It cannot be, because the media law, the composition of the media council, and so on, were strongly criticised by Freedom House and various human rights organisations. As Mr Vareikis said, if Hungary is a free media country, our task must be to preserve it as such.

I hope that Hungary’s media law will be changed. The European Commission is dealing with the problem and I hope that the Venice Commission will do likewise. I would like to believe in the competence of the Hungarian Government to do more to deal with the problems that have been emphasised by the experts. Cross-party conflict is not a very constructive approach. The best way out of this situation would be good homework by our Hungarian colleagues and our friends. We would really like to preserve Hungary as a free country.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Kubovič.

Mr KUBOVIČ (Slovak Republic) – I would like to draw attention to an issue that is of concern to me – namely, the issue of citizenship, especially in the light of the adoption and application of the Hungarian citizenship law.

I believe that the soil of the Council of Europe is the right place to open this question since it was here in Strasbourg that we adopted the European Convention on Nationality. Slovakia ratified the convention in 1998 and Hungary ratified it in November 2000. In its concept of nationality, the Convention follows the philosophy of and the solid legal fundament laid by the International Court of Justice. In its Nottebohm case, the court defined nationality as “A legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interest and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties.”

As the court noted, factors influencing genuine connection vary from case to case, but they include the habitual residence of the individual concerned, the centre of his interests, his family ties, his participation in public life and the attachment shown by him for a given country. That is why the European Convention on Nationality clearly defines, in Article 2, paragraph A, that “Nationality means the legal bond between a person and a state and does not indicate the person’s ethnic origin.”

My question is whether a citizenship law that confers citizenship on individuals without the fulfilment of the requirement of a genuine link is consistent with the international law and with the obligations arising from the European Convention on Nationality. I would appreciate hearing the opinions of my colleagues from other member states on this issue.

We, as members of the Council of Europe, have pledged to abide by the standards, norms, rules and principles on which we agree. I would like to hear from our colleagues from Hungary what they plan to do –

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kubovič. I am sorry to have to interrupt you.

I call Mr Volontè from Italy.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that the debate had been telling and he feared that it was a bad omen of things to come. There were no hard facts to prove that democracy in Hungary had been undermined. He believed that the government in Hungary was simply trying to reform and to take the wishes of voters into account. He was concerned that the proposal to commence a monitoring procedure would have the effect of nothing short of an atomic bomb.

While it was important to encourage openness in Hungary, it was wrong of other member states to guess its motivation and the drivers of reform. They should not be too hasty in their criticism or action. It was important to rely on facts, not opinions, when assessing the situation. Some Hungarian politicians were expressing unhappiness simply because they had lost the last election, not because anything was in fact wrong. The sentiments of such politicians should not be used as an excuse for unnecessary hostile action.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The last speaker is Mr Frunda.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania) – Hungary is a stable and well-functioning democracy. It was not built in eight months or eight years. It is a democracy that was built over centuries, and after 50 years of communism it was rebuilt. The truth is that when the socialists were in power they made mistakes and they had shortcomings. They made laws that did not respect human rights.

A media law where the committee is appointed only by the government cannot be independent. That shortcoming has to be corrected. The government is drawing up the new constitution that the country needed. That constitution has to ensure the independence of the judiciary, which is functioning now, that the composition of the constitutional court works well, and that laws are not retroactive. I am sure that the Hungarian Government and the Hungarian parliament have the power and the ability to do that.

Hungary is one of the best functioning democracies in Europe. If we applied the monitoring procedure against Hungary, we would apply double standards. Several months ago, we said that some big countries and democracies did not recognise the rights of migrants and infringed the rights of Roma and others, and now we are starting on a smaller country. That would not be fruitful. Hungary has to correct its shortcomings, but we have to respect Hungary’s democracy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Frunda.

That concludes the list of speakers. Thank you, colleagues, for your solidarity, which meant that all speakers were given the floor.

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

5. Challenge on procedural grounds of still unratified credentials
of parliamentary delegations of Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia

THE PRESIDENT – The final item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report of the challenge on procedural grounds of still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegations of Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia presented by Mr Haibach on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs (Doc. 12488).

I call Mr Haibach, rapporteur. Officially, you have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate, but I would be most grateful if you could be a bit briefer because we are running out of time.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) said that he would try to keep his speech short.

On Monday 24 January 2011, sufficient colleagues in the Assembly had raised doubts about the representation of women in the delegations from Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia. Rule 6.2 stated that the same percentage of women as represented in the national parliament had to be represented in a country’s delegation, or that there had to be at least one member of the under-represented sex.

The current delegations from these countries did have women representatives and so this was an achievement, in part. These women representatives were however, only substitutes and so Rule 6.2 applied. As Rule 6.2 applied, these delegations had been referred to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs for a decision. The committee had concluded that the delegations were indeed in violation of the rules.

The committee had looked for precedents in the Malta and Ireland cases as a source of guidance on what action to take. In the cases of Malta and Ireland, the delegations’ credentials had been ratified, but voting rights had been withheld until the issues with representation were resolved. The committee intended to follow this precedent.

He recognised that representation could be problematic for smaller delegations. He had taken care to hear all of the views from the delegations in question. The delegations had told him that they wanted to work to help resolve their representation problems. He noted that the delegations from Andorra, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Malta and Monaco had previously had problems with representation, but now sent the right number of women in their delegations.

He confirmed that he proposed ratification of the states’ credentials, but without voting rights in the Assembly and in committees for the delegations of Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia until their representation issues had been resolved. As the delegations were very small, he recommended that the restriction begin only from the April part-session. He commended his report to the Assembly

(Mr Mignon, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Kox.)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Haibach. You have nine minutes remaining to reply to the debate.

In the debate, I call Mr Chope, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group. As none of the countries involved in this matter has any EDG members, I feel that I am well able to articulate views that are purely objective.

My feeling is that it is clear that the countries are in breach of the rules. However, they were not told about the breach until 6 December. In the Rules Committee, all three country representatives made it clear to us that they were full of remorse and wanted to put things right. However, in the case of one country, the parliament was not in session. In the case of San Marino, it is a small country with a parliament of 60 members but 10 different political parties, so things were complex. Representatives from Montenegro have already told us that by the time of the April session, they will be able to have a replacement.

The issue this evening is not whether something has gone wrong, but whether we should be interested in promoting rehabilitation or go further and effectively engage in humiliation, retribution and disproportionate punishment. The three amendments would effectively require the three delegations to lose their voting rights with effect from tonight. I think that that is a disproportionate penalty, having regard to the mitigation that has been put forward and the genuine desire of the three delegations to put everything in order before the April session.

I urge the Assembly to accept the recommendations of the Rules Committee and in due course to reject the three amendments.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Guţu to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms GUŢU (Moldova) said that she was delighted to be able to speak on behalf of ALDE on the challenge to the credentials of the delegations from Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia. She agreed that, in principle, rules should be adhered to and was aware that the subject of equal opportunities attracted much debate. In her view, men and women were complementary and had been different since the time of original sin when Adam and Eve had been cast out of Eden and Cain gave rise to the term “fratricide”. The only thing that mattered was general qualities such as competence and courage, plenty of which she found in the Serbian delegation, in particular in its female substitute members. She questioned why, in this case, men were considered to have the upper hand because it was a well-known fact that, throughout history, behind every great man had stood a great woman, the most recent example of which could be seen with Mr Sarkozy and Ms Merkel.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Mendes Bota, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – First, I should say that Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia deserve all our sympathy, as do our colleagues from the delegations. But rules are rules and must be respected by all of us. Otherwise, we would be creating a pathway to disorder and casualness.

The delegations do not comply with Rule 6.2 in respect of having a female representative. That contradicts the Parliamentary Assembly commitment to promote the balanced representation of women and men in political and public decision making and to apply the principle of gender equality in internal structures. National delegations play a decisive role in that objective.

The rule does not foresee any exception or justification. The suspension of voting rights is a soft sanction that takes into consideration all the mitigating explanations that have been provided. The credentials of the delegations will be ratified. All their members will be entitled to participate in Parliamentary Assembly activities and debates. But if the delegations are allowed to continue voting this week, on the Standing Committee in March or in committee meetings until April’s part-session, that will mean that there is no sanction at all. That would be a wrong precedent; it would be like imposing a fine without any obligation to pay.

The argument that women are very active in Parliamentary Assembly activities is not acceptable. That does not matter; the rules are either obeyed or not. We could apply the reverse argument regarding male members’ conditions. What is in question is a principle – the principle of gender equality.

In 2004, there was a similar case regarding the delegations of Ireland and Malta, which had no women at all, whether as representatives or substitutes, thus contradicting the rules at the time. The decision was taken to ratify the credentials, but with an immediate suspension of the voting rights until the composition of those delegations conformed to the Rules of Procedure. In the current three cases, why should we let the suspension take effect only from the beginning of our April 2011 part-session? That would break the criteria.

The positive aspect of this incident is that it draws our attention to the rule, which was recently approved on 12 November 2010 by the Standing Committee in Antalya, that all the groups and delegations should be represented. We should pay attention to what was decided there. Many of us have been proposing it for several years, and it would take us a small step towards ensuring that both sexes are fairly balanced in the composition of the Assembly. We cannot fail at the first opportunity for any reason on this matter of principle and political will, irrespective of how reasonable the explanations may sound.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Mendes Bota. I call Mr Saar, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr SAAR (Estonia) – I fully support our commitment to promoting the balanced representation of men and women in political and public decision making and to applying the principle of gender equality in the Assembly’s internal structures. As Vice-Chair of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and International Affairs, it is my responsibility to do my best to guarantee that our Rules of Procedure are fulfilled. Therefore, I ask you on behalf of the Socialist Group to support the report, which was that the three national delegations concerned will lose their voting rights, with effect from the Assembly’s April part-session until the composition of the delegations conforms to the Rules of Procedure.

I understand the concerns of those colleagues, including many members of the Socialist Group of course, who would like us to be more radical and suspend the voting rights of the delegations of Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia immediately, but I personally cannot support this position, because it would not be reasonable, fair or proportional.

We changed the rules in November 2010 and the speakers of the parliaments of member states were officially informed about the change in a letter by the Secretary General dated 6 December last year. The parliaments therefore had not much more than one month to react – often not long enough for negotiations to take place between different political parties, especially as Christmas and new year’s eve were included in the timeframe. That is why I do not think it reasonable to suspend the voting rights immediately.

Why is it not fair or proportional? Yes, we have a precedent from 2004, when the voting rights of the Irish and Maltese delegations were suspended immediately. I will definitely not challenge that decision made seven years ago, but in the light of last year’s events, where two member states of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe were involved in war and both could still vote, it would be absolutely not proportional or fair to suspend immediately the voting rights of the delegations Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia, without giving them a chance to correct the composition of their delegations. Therefore, dear colleagues, I ask you to support the report, but I ask you to think twice before supporting the amendments.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Saar. I call Mr Stolfi.

Mr STOLFI (San Marino) agreed with the motion proposed by the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. He thanked the committee for having produced such a balanced report, and felt that the amendments would render the recommendation excessive. San Marino did not wish to argue with the rules of the Council of Europe, and indeed supported and encouraged the presence of women in political life. It had not, however, been represented at the Standing Committee and had first heard of the change in rules at the beginning of December. This had not left it enough time to change the membership of its delegation. There were 12 political parties represented in the San Marino parliament and it was a complicated business to fit everybody into a delegation for the various international assemblies. He did not think that the Assembly would be justified in sanctioning San Marino for this minor transgression of the rules. In conclusion, he thanked the committee, urged members to vote in favour of the report but without agreeing to the amendments. He noted that, if San Marino was not able to bring itself into line with the new rules in time for the next part session, it would have no defence against more serious sanctions

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much. I call Ms Vučković.

Ms VUČKOVIĆ (Serbia) – I stress first that Serbia is really committed to the principle of gender equality. We have adjusted our laws and adopted a strategy on gender mainstreaming in our government and administration recently. We fully support this new regulation for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and we are very much ready and willing to adjust the membership of our delegation in line with this new provision.

The only problem that we have is that the communication of this new decision reached us in December, when we debated our new budget in parliament and a number of laws. We could not debate this change in the membership of the delegation in December. We are in recess until 1 March. We all agree that new provisions need some time to be applied. We can assure you that our new delegation will be formed by 1 April, and I really hope that either Elvira Kovács or myself will address you as members of this Assembly during the part-session in April.

Our current delegation has been formed in accordance with the rules and criteria that were required until November. We have a lot of political parties in our parliament, and almost all of them are represented here in the delegation. That explains the current form of the delegation, and that is why four members of our delegation are substitutes at present. However, as I have said, all the members of our delegation fully support the new provision. We are completely ready to obey the new rules, and I would support the report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and International Affairs. I think that implementing these proposals in the April part-session will allow us all enough time to make the necessary changes. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much. Colleagues, the speakers’ list is now closed.

I call Mr Haibach, rapporteur, to reply. You have nine minutes.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) said that, during the course of the debate, the will of the majority had become clear. He stated his personal position, which was that he saw substitute members as equal to full members, but he none the less urged members to send the political signal that women should be full members of the Assembly. He was also clear that all members wished to abide by the rules as decided by the Assembly

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Haibach. Does the President of the Committee wish to respond?

I call Mr Vareikis. You have two minutes.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – I will probably not speak for two minutes because the report is short. The committee rejected the three amendments. My suggestion is that we support the report.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs has presented a draft resolution to which three amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they apply to the text as published in the order of business.

I remind you that pursuant to Rule 74 of our Rules of Procedure, members of the delegations of Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia whose credentials are challenged may not take part in the vote. I remind members that they have 30 seconds to move the amendments.

We come now to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Ms Err, Ms Kiuru, Ms Rudd, Ms Frommelt, Ms Gautier, Mr Haugli, Ms Ablinger, Ms Wurm, Ms Acketoft, Mr Ayva, Ms Memecan, Ms Ferić-Vac, Ms Stavrositu, Mr Agius, Ms Keleş and Mr Árnason, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.1, delete the words “with effect from the beginning of the Assembly’s April 2011 part-session,”.

I call Mr Mendes Bota to support Amendment 1.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The word is “coherent” – we have to be coherent in our resolutions and in the principles that we defend. We also have to be consistent with previous resolutions. In the past, we similarly resolved such situations by suspending the right to vote. We want coherence, and the amendment is not excessive. We cannot say that nothing will happen if people do not fulfil the Rules of Procedure.

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

I call Mr Kox.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – The reaction of the three delegations involved shows that the rules work – the delegations will do as the Assembly wants. That is great, and it is courageous of the delegations. It would be against the spirit of the rule to sanction the delegations as Mr Mendes Bota wants. We have achieved what we want to achieve. That is the purpose of the rule. It would not be wise to accept the amendment. Rather, it would be wise to withdraw all the amendments.

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

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) –The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Ms Err, Ms Kiuru, Ms Rudd, Ms Gautier, Mr Haugli, Ms Ablinger, Ms Wurm and Ms Keleş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.2, delete the words “with effect from the beginning of the Assembly’s April 2011 part-session,”.

I call Mr Mendes Bota to support Amendment 2.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – Various arguments are made by the three delegations. Montenegro’s argument is based on political balance whereas San Marino argues that it is a micro-state. However, last week Cyprus was in the same situation but solved it by changing its composition as regards one Substitute and one Representative. That is what we are calling on San Marino to do. It is not difficult, it is a matter of political will.

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

I call Mr Kox.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – This has been said before, but it is important that all delegations should show us what they will do in the future and that they do what the Assembly asks of them. It would be rude to impose an extra punishment. It is far more important that we meet the spirit of the rules. I am therefore against the amendment.

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

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Ms Err, Ms Kiuru, Ms Rudd, Ms Gautier, Mr Haugli, Ms Ablinger, Ms Wurm and Ms Keleş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.3, delete the words “with effect from the beginning of the Assembly’s April 2011 part-session,”.

I call Mr Mendes Bota to support the amendment.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The case of the Serbian delegation is the most understandable of all, because the Serbian Parliament is in recess until March. However, the point is that there should be no exceptions. The position should be the same for the Serbian delegation.

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

I call Mr Walter.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – This debate is about balance. The report of the committee is balanced and fair. The amendments are heavy-handed, mean, vindictive and spiteful. They do nothing to serve the cause of equality in this Assembly. I hope we reject Amendment 3.

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

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – The committee voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12488.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12488 is adopted, with 32 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

6. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday. Is that agreed? It is agreed.

Tomorrow, we have a busy agenda with a large number of members wishing to speak in the three urgent debates. As a result, I propose that speaking time be limited to three minutes all day. Is this agreed?

It is agreed.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 8.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Written declarations

2.       The protection of witnesses as a cornerstone for justice and reconciliation in the Balkans

      The obligation of member states of the Council of Europe to co-operate in the prosecution of war crimes

      Reconciliation and political dialogue between the countries of the former Yugoslavia

      (Resumed joint debate)

Replies:

Mr Dorić (Croatia)

Mr Marcerano (Italy)

Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc. 12440 rev)

Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc. 12454)

Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc. 12461)

3.       The implementation of judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

      Preventing harm to refugees and migrants in extradition and expulsion cases: Rule 39 indications by the European Court of Human Rights

      (Joint debate)

Presentation of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights by Mr Pourgourides (Doc. 12455)

Presentation of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population by Mr Darchiashvili (Doc. 12435)

Presentation of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights by Mr de Vries (Doc. 12471)

Speakers:

Ms Bemelmans-Videc (Netherlands)

Ms Strik (Netherlands)

Ms Taktakashvili (Georgia)

Ms Frahm (Denmark)

Mr Salles (France)

Ms Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden)

Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia)

Mr Vyatkin (Russian Federation)

Mr Panţiru (Romania)

Ms Marin (France)

Ms Keleş (Turkey)

Ms Grosskost (France)

Mr Badré (France)

Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)

Ms Türköne (Turkey)

Mr Corlăţean (Romania)

Ms Wohlwend (Liechtenstein)

Ms Postanjyan (Armenia)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Egorov (Russian Federation)

Mr Mahoux (Belgium)

Mr Cebeci (Turkey)

Ms Err (Luxembourg)

Mr Binley (United Kingdom)

Mr Santini (Italy)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Replies:

Mr Darchiashvili (Georgia)

Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Mr Holovaty (Ukraine)

Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc. 12455)

Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc. 12435)

4.       Current affairs debate: the functioning of democracy in Hungary

Speakers:

Mr von Sydow (Sweden)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Lord Boswell (United Kingdom)

Ms Lundgren (Sweden)

Mr Petrenco (Moldova)

Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

Mr Braun (Hungary)

Mr Fournier (France)

Ms Guţu (Moldova)

Ms Gautier (France)

Mr Vejkey (Hungary)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Mr Kalmaŕ (Hungary)

Mr Maissen (Switzerland)

Mr Gruber (Hungary)

Ms Székyné Sztrémi (Hungary)

Ms Circene (Latvia)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mr Kubovič (Slovak Republic)

Mr Volontè (Italy)

Mr Frunda (Romania)

5.       Challenge, on procedural grounds, of still unratified credentials of parliamentary delegations of Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia

Presentation of the report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs by Mr Haibach (Doc. 12488)

Speakers:

Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Ms Guţu (Moldova)

Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal)

Mr Saar (Estonia)

Mr Stolfi (San Marino)

Ms Vučković (Serbia)

Replies:

Mr Haibach (Germany)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Vote on a draft resolution

6.       Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

APPENDIX

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk.

Ruhi AÇIKGÖZ

Artsruni AGHAJANYAN/Zaruhi Postanjyan

Francis AGIUS*      

Pedro AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIC

Karin ANDERSEN

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE*

Khadija ARIB

Mördur ÁRNASON*

Sirpa ASKO-SELJAVAARA/Tuulikki Ukkola

Francisco ASSIS/Sérgio Sousa Pinto

Lokman AYVA

Michal BABÁK/Katerina Konecná

Alexander BABAKOV*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Viorel Riceard BADEA

Denis BADRÉ

Doris BARNETT

Meritxell BATET LAMAÑA*

Marieluise BECK

Alexander van der BELLEN/Sonja Ablinger

Anna BELOUSOVOVÁ*

Marie-Louise BEMELMANS-VIDEC

Ryszard BENDER/Bronislaw Korfanty

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Andris BERZINŠ*

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY

Rosa Delia BLANCO TERÁN*

Roland BLUM

Olena BONDARENKO

Louis BONTES/Tineke Strik

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

HanTEN BROEKE*

Patrizia BUGNANO

André BUGNON

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUSOGLU

Erol Aslan CEBECI

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Kerstin Lundgren

Igor CHERNYSHENKO*

Vannino CHITI

Christopher CHOPE

Pia CHRISTMAS-MØLLER*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Boriss CILEVICS*

Ingrida CIRCENE

James CLAPPISON/Tim Boswell

Ann COFFEY/Donald Anderson

Georges COLOMBIER/Frédéric Reiss

Agustín CONDE BAJÉN*

Titus CORLATEAN

Lena DABKOWSKA-CICHOCKA/Andrzej Cwierz

Per DALGAARD*

Cristian DAVID*

Giovanna DEBONO*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand DE DECKER*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Karl DONABAUER

Miljenko DORIC

Gianpaolo DOZZO*

Daphné DUMERY

Earl of Alexander DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU*

Baroness Diana ECCLES/Ian Liddell-Grainger

József ÉKES/Imre Vejkey

Lydie ERR

Arsen FADZAEV*

Frank FAHEY*

Piero FASSINO*

Nikolay FEDOROV

Valeriy FEDOROV

Relu FENECHIU/Tudor Pantiru

Mirjana FERIC-VAC

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Paul FLYNN

Stanislav FORT

Pernille FRAHM

Dario FRANCESCHINI*

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC

György FRUNDA

Guiorgui GABASHVILI*

Alena GAJDUŠKOVÁ*

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Marco GATTI*

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Gisèle GAUTIER

Sophia GIANNAKA*

Paolo GIARETTA*

Michael GLOS/Holger Haibach

Svetlana GORYACHEVA/ Sergey Egorov

Neven GOSOVIC/Obrad Gojkovic

Martin GRAF

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Claude GREFF

Francis GRIGNON/Muriel Marland-Militello

Patrick DE GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER

Ana GUTU

Sam GYIMAH*

Azra HADŽIAHMETOVIC*

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV

Mike HANCOCK

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Jeanine HENNIS-PLASSCHAERT*

Olha HERASYM'YUK*

Andres HERKEL

Serhiy HOLOVATY

Jim HOOD

Joachim HÖRSTER

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO

Sinikka HURSKAINEN

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Mladen IVANIC*

Željko IVANJI

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWINSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Rudy Salles

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Mats JOHANSSON

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Cedomir JOVANOVIC/Nataša Vuckovic

Armand JUNG

Antti KAIKKONEN

Stanislaw KALEMBA

Ferenc KALMÁR

Karol KARSKI/Zbigniew Girzynski

Michail KATRINIS

Jan KAZMIERCZAK

Cecilia KEAVENEY*

Birgen KELES

Haluk KOÇ

Albrecht KONECNÝ*

Konstantin KOSACHEV*

Tiny KOX

Václav KUBATA

Pavol KUBOVIC

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA*

Ertugrul KUMCUOGLU

Dalia KUODYTE

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Markku LAUKKANEN/Juha Korkeaoja

Sophie LAVAGNA/Bernard Marquet

Darja LAVTIŽAR-BEBLER

Jean-Paul LECOQ

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA*

Dariusz LIPINSKI

François LONCLE/Christine Marin

Younal LOUTFI

Marian LUPU*

Philippe MAHOUX

Theo MAISSEN

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Pietro MARCENARO

Milica MARKOVIC

Dick MARTY

Jean-Pierre MASSERET/Laurent Béteille

Frano MATUŠIC*

Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA

Silver MEIKAR/Indrek Saar

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS

Ivan MELNIKOV/Sergey Sobko

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Ana Catarina MENDONÇA MENDES

Dragoljub MICUNOVIC

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Dangute MIKUTIENE/Egidijus Vareikis

Akaki MINASHVILI*

Andrey MOLCHANOV/Nikolay Shaklein

Patrick MORIAU

Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO HERNÁNDEZ*

Lilja MÓSESDÓTTIR*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Alejandro MUÑOZ ALONSO

Felix MÜRI

Philippe NACHBAR*

Adrian NASTASE

Gebhard NEGELE

Pasquale NESSA

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Jeffrey Donaldson

Tomislav NIKOLIC*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Miroslawa NYKIEL

Carina OHLSSON

Jim O'KEEFFE*

Sandra OSBORNE

Brian O'SHEA*

Elsa PAPADIMITRIOU*

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU*

Valery PARFENOV*

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Peter PELEGRINI

Lajla PERNASKA*

Claire PERRY

Marijana PETIR*

Johannes PFLUG*

Viktor PLESKACHEVSKIY*

Alexander POCHINOK*

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Christos POURGOURIDES

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT/Michael Connarty

Jakob PRESECNIK*

Gabino PUCHE RODRÍGUEZ-ACOSTA*

Lluís Maria de PUIG i OLIVE

Milorad PUPOVAC*

Valeriy PYSARENKO*

Carmen QUINTANILLA BARBA*

Mailis REPS/ Aleksei Lotman

Maria Pilar RIBA FONT

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE/Bernard Fournier

Luisa ROSEIRA

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

Amadeu ROSSELL TARRADELLAS

René ROUQUET/Alain Cousin

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Ilir RUSMALI*

Armen RUSTAMYAN

Branko RUŽIC*

Volodymyr RYBAK*

Rovshan RZAYEV

Džavid ŠABOVIC/Ervin Spahic

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO*

Manuel SARRAZIN*

Kimmo SASI

Marina SCHUSTER

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN*

Ladislav SKOPAL/Dana Váhalová

Leonid SLUTSKY

Anna SOBECKA

Serhiy SOBOLEV*

Maria STAVROSITU

Arune STIRBLYTE

Yanaki STOILOV

Fiorenzo STOLFI

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ

Michal STULIGROSZ

Doris STUMP

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Guiorgui TARGAMADZÉ/David Darchiashvili

Mehmet TEKELIOGLU

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO*

Zhivko TODOROV*

Dragan TODOROVIC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI*

Mihai TUDOSE*

Tugrul TÜRKES

Özlem TÜRKÖNE

Tomáš ÚLEHLA

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Mustafa ÜNAL

Giuseppe VALENTINO/ Oreste Tofani

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Nikolaos Dendias

José VERA JARDIM

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Peter VERLIC/ Andreja Rihter

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Konstantinos VRETTOS*

Klaas de VRIES

Dmitry VYATKIN

Piotr WACH*

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND

Michal WOJTCZAK*

Karin S. WOLDSETH/Anette Trettebergstuen

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLÀ i COSTA*

Karl ZELLER/Giulana Carlino

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Moldova*

Vacant Seat, Moldova/Valeriu Ghiletchi

Vacant Seat, Montenegro/Valentina Radulovic-Šcepanovic

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Joan CARTES IVERN

Telmo CORREIA

Johannes HÜBNER

Franz Eduard KÜHNEL

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Joan TORRES PUIG

Observers:

Sladan ĆOSIĆ

Jean DORION

Percy DOWNE

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Michael L. MACDONALD

Massimo PACETTI