2011 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(First part)

REPORT

Seventh sitting

Thursday 27 January 2011 at 10 a.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 Vrettos, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT – I regret to announce that the Prime Minister of Albania, Mr Berisha, has been unable to come and address the Assembly as planned. Therefore, the debate under urgent procedure on the situation in Belarus in the aftermath of the presidential election will be the first item of business at this afternoon’s sitting.

2. Written declarations

THE PRESIDENT – In accordance with Rule 52 of the Rules of Procedure, two written declarations have been tabled: No. 467, on interruption of the Christmas mass in the northern occupied part of Cyprus by Turkish troops and restrictions to the right to freedom of religion and worship, which has been signed by 68 members (Doc. 12505); and No. 468, entitled “Defend the freedom of expression – the case of imprisoned authors in Turkey”, which has been signed by 26 members (Doc. 12506).

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

3. Debate under urgent procedure:
Violence against Christians in the Middle East

THE PRESIDENT – The first item of business this morning is a debate under urgent procedure on violence against Christians in the Middle East, presented by Mr Luca Volontè, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 12493).

I remind members that we agreed yesterday to limit speaking time to three minutes for today’s debates. I intend to interrupt the speakers’ list at 11.50 a.m. so that we can hear the address from Mr Băsescu, President of Romania, at 12 noon.

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

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that it was a great honour to take the Floor on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee. He thanked his colleagues and especially the committee secretariat. He also thanked the Presidential Committee in Antalya for agreeing to the request by the French delegation for a debate on the subject. He extended further thanks to the several political groups for agreeing to the debate under urgent procedure.

He first described the case of Maryam Fekry, a 22-year-old Christian woman killed after attending Mass in Alexandra in Egypt earlier that month. When she had arrived at the Mass, she had been looking back at 2010 and looking forward to the year ahead in 2011. But tragedy had struck and she had died, along with dozens of others. What happened that night in Alexandria was unacceptable and the world could not close its eyes to it.

Information about what had taken place and the context in the region came from a number of objective sources: NGOs, independent committees as well as the media. Hundreds of the Christian minority had already been attacked and indeed killed in 2011. The statistics in his report made for shocking reading. They came from a variety of sources: the Catholic Bishops’ Synod, the Open Door Society in the United States and the American Senate. He estimated that 2 million Christian people had been persecuted worldwide simply because of their religious affiliation.

President Sarkozy of France had spoken recently of a purge or genocide of these people. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, Prime Minister Berlusconi of Italy and President Obama of the United States of America had used the same words and had called for an end to this extermination. Not only heads of state, but Muslim intellectuals too had recently spoken up to denounce the violence.

The statistics showed the truth, but the pictures of the incidents reported by the international media brought home the tragedy so clearly and really. In Alexandria, blood had spattered the outside walls, covering images of Christ Himself. These pictures had been flashed around the world and left a sad, enduring mark.

Only a few weeks earlier, OSCE had talked of the importance of monitoring such violence. Only the previous week, the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on the persecution of religious minorities. The European Council had an agenda item on the persecution of and violence against Christians. He asked what the Assembly could do. The freedom to express views, to voice beliefs and to worship were basic human rights. All had to stand up against persecution.

The evidence seemed to show that al-Qaeda was specifically targeting Christian communities and they had successfully hit their targets.

Not all Christian persecution had made the news headlines. Many hundreds of thousands of Christians had been persecuted in Iran, where news of the persecution was consistently suppressed. Iran called Christians “subversive agents” against the state in an attempt to justify what had happened. In India, the Governor of Punjab had been accused of blasphemy and murdered when he had spoken up against violence against Christians in the Punjab.

The issue could only be faced with great courage. The Assembly had to commit itself seriously and forcefully to ensuring that such violence did not occur again. Minority Christian communities needed defence and help to overcome indifference to their plight. The Assembly had to prove that it could promote, defend and uphold the religious freedom of Christian minorities in the Middle East.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Volontè. In the debate, I call first Mr Badré, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. You have three minutes.

Mr BADRÉ (France) said that the Middle East had been the cradle of religion and, literally, of Christianity. While the region had long been troubled, previous generations had been able to embrace a variety of religions and live in tolerance of each other. Co-existence had never been easy or straightforward but always fragile. The freedom to live peacefully in one’s own home was a fundamental and inalienable right.

The ALDE group had condemned the violence against Christian minorities and he hoped that the message would be heard far and wide. Christians shared an ancient heritage with Jews and Muslims and similarly shared many values. That heritage should not be denied. The extremists had the objective of trying to break the fragile balance that existed between the peoples of the region. To counter this, people had to refocus on what united them on their shared, united values. The Middle East had to remain faithful to its ancient heritage as the cradle of religion and become a land of hope.

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

Mr LECOQ (France) said that it gave him great pleasure to speak on behalf of the UEL, and to speak out against the violence against Christianity most recently seen in Baghdad and Alexandria. The freedoms of religious minorities lay not only in their freedom of thought but also in their freedom of action. He did not mean to stigmatise any one country and he noted that it was equally important that religious minorities not be persecuted within member states of the Council of Europe. He would go even further, and defend the rights of all communities whether religious or not. He noted the degree of religious toleration in the Alsace region which, although not necessarily a model for adoption elsewhere, was worth considering, for it was itself born from historical factors. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights protected the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Tolerance was a cardinal virtue and should not be abandoned in the face of extremism.

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

Mr MIGNON (France) referred to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protected the rights of individuals both to express and to change their religion. It also protected the rights of individuals with no religion at all and he criticised those extremists who attacked people who had the courage to change their religion or not have any at all. Many states had formerly had laws on blasphemy that in his view had been utterly totalitarian.

The continuing martyrdom of Christians was wholly unacceptable, especially in the Middle East which, after all, had been the birthplace of Christianity. The true enemy in this situation was intolerance and, though many of these states were dictatorships or imperfect democracies, the fall into extremism ought none the less to be avoidable. He urged members to respect freedom of expression, not just for Christians in the Middle East, but for other minorities in other countries too: the situation was just as bad for minorities in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The issue of Islamophobia needed greater debate within Europe and he was pleased that the EU Foreign Affairs Council was to do so on 31 January.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Moriau to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr MORIAU (Belgium) said that he was a freethinker and committed lay person and therefore not in the least religiously inclined. He respected all people in spite of their differences and drew attention to the fact that, in the Belgian Parliament, action had already been taken to defend the rights of religious minorities. The document before the Assembly was without doubt exhaustive, but it still had nuance and ambiguity. If it sought to defend everything, it might end up in fact protecting nothing.

The report could be interpreted as provocative, because Christians were not the only minority to suffer from persecution at the present time. He gave examples of the mujahideen in Iran and the Sunnis in the Lebanon. There were extremists on all sides and he warned against promoting double standards. To this end he supported amendment of the report to reflect that fact. The suffering of Christians in Islamic countries often had its roots in social or economic issues and it should not be assumed that the problem was a purely religious one.

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

Mr LEIGH (United Kingdom) – It is a great pleasure to be asked to speak to this motion on behalf of the European Democrat Group. We very much share the sentiments expressed by other speakers on the rights of men and women to live their faith in peace.

On behalf of our group, I would like to make it clear, though, that while there is pressure on Christians throughout the Middle East and there have been some serious incidents – notably, of course, the tragic incident in Egypt – the real problem lies in Iraq. If you will forgive me, Mr President, I will say one or two words from my own personal experience. I visited northern Iraq during the last United Kingdom Parliament. I have been round the Christian villages and talked to people who have had personal experience of what this persecution means. Imagine sitting in a room with a mother who saw her husband, the churchwarden, going off to church in Baghdad and never coming home – she has heard nothing more from him. Imagine a sister who has lost a brother, or a mother who has lost a son who has been killed.

The fact is that the Christians in Iraq, who were 7% of the population, have become a persecuted, terrorised minority, halved in number since the invasion. We have a responsibility for this. It was the West that invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a monster – everyone knows that – but there was a level of protection for the Christian community which has now gone. There are elements, even within the Iraqi Parliament, who call for the Islamisation of Iraq. Of course there is condemnation of individual terrorist attacks, but this process of the gradual persecution and, frankly, easing out of the Christian population of Iraq is led not just by a few terrorists but by people who are deeply embedded in the Iraqi establishment. Imagine if, in our own countries, there were people calling for the Christianisation of those countries. Imagine if synagogues and mosques were being bombed. Imagine if the Jewish or Muslim populations in our own countries declined by half in 10 years. There would be worldwide outrage. In the Council of Europe and in all our countries, we must say that there should be zero tolerance of this kind of persecution of ordinary men and women who are simply trying to live out their lives in peace.

Christianity is an ancient religion of Iraq, where, by the 8th century, there was a level of scholarship not seen in Europe until the 13th century. It was such a moving experience for me to go and listen to services in Aramaic – the language of Jesus Christ. These people have been there for 2 000 years. We can no longer pass by on the other side of the street. With one voice, we must cry out to all our governments that there must be maximum pressure to stop this process and save these brave people.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Leigh. I call Mr Mendes Bota.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The persecution of Christians stems from fanatical groups bred on hatred, but the states where they act close their eyes to the situation, pressured either by those groups or even by certain Islamic regimes in the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia or Iran, to be a Christian is not even a legally viable option. Some states admit the existence of religious minorities, but on the other hand they hold Sharia as their legal system or approve anti-blasphemy laws, as in Pakistan, or anti-conversion laws as in Algeria, India and Sri Lanka.

Islamic fundamentalism is not the only issue here. In 2008, in Orissa in India, Christian villages were massacred on the impulse of the Hindu fundamentalist party. In Colombia, FARC’s guerrilla partisans murder Christians. In some states, such as Cuba, China and North Korea, to be a Christian is synonymous with persecution, retaliation and discrimination. The persecution of Christians is most visible under the blast of murderous bombs, whether it happens in Baghdad or Alexandria, but it is also extensive in terms of social discrimination and segregation, limiting their access to state employment, education, social benefit, justice, eligibility and the freedom to build new cult sites. Regarding this type of persecution, silence and indifference is the rule. Christians are not allowed to live their spirituality in peace and freedom. This is also the case in Nigeria, Congo, Sudan, Indonesia and the Philippines.

It is not enough to listen to the emotional reactions of western governments. They must be urged to demand reciprocity within the equality of treatment of the Christian community in the face of this reality that more than three quarters of the world’s persecuted minorities are Christian. Nor do we need to invoke the fact that we are representatives of the European people, a great majority of whom are of a Christian persuasion, to condemn this tragic wave of persecution against Christians. We condemn it because human rights are universal; they know no creed, no skin colour, no political ideology.

We stand here in favour of religious tolerance for all, not only for Christians. We stand in favour of inter-religious and intercultural dialogue. We reject Islamophobia, but we do not accept Christianophobia. We must practise solidarity but, as Pope Benedict said on Christmas eve, it must be an active solidarity beyond simple words.

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

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) thanked Mr Volontè for his report. He said that all that was human touched the Council of Europe. He therefore hoped that he would no longer hear lawyers argue that they could not discuss Morocco or the Sahara because they were outside Europe. Human rights did not respect geography and these problems were not confined to any one area. The suffering of humans across the world had to be in the Council of Europe’s thoughts.

Democracy was not simply where the majority ruled: totalitarian states were based on majority rule. Democracies were states where, despite the majority, the rights of minorities were respected. The fact that minorities and majorities might trade places over time demonstrated one good reason to protect minority rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 stated that human rights applied to all individuals, and did not depend upon membership of any particular group. The human rights principles embodied in the Council of Europe and its Convention applied to all people, all religions. He pledged his support for the report but urged Mr Volontè to accept amendments to the draft recommendation where these would strengthen and improve these conclusions.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Pozzo di Borgo.

Mr POZZO di BORGO (France) said that there had been many violent attacks against Christians in 2010 and already in 2011, the most publicised being those in Baghdad and Alexandria. However, there had been others, including attacks during Mass in the northern part of Cyprus on Christmas day. The aim of these attacks was clear: they aimed to destroy Christianity. Such attacks did not only occur in the Middle East but throughout Asia, including non-Muslim parts of Asia, such as China. Christians were generally under attack.

He was pleased that the Council of Europe had shown courage in raising the issue, in contrast to the United Nations Security Council, which had not even considered a resolution condemning the attacks. This was a sign of the Security Council’s cowardice and fear, especially as it had seen fit to criticise the human rights failings of countries such as France.

He did not wish to criticise the actions of particular groups, but instead to discuss how best to maintain harmony and to fully integrate religious minorities into their respective societies. There were two methods which he suggested had to be pursued. First, political leaders and bodies such as the Council of Europe had to defend freedom and promote tolerance. In this way, not only would different communities be able to co-exist, but they would mutually enrich each others’ lives. This had to be the aim of every government.

Secondly, there should be greater promotion of inter-religious dialogue. Exchanges between different religions would help prevent conflict. He suggested that the Committee of Ministers host a major event to encourage this dialogue and, if Mr Volontè was not that day able to table a motion calling for the Committee of Ministers to act, he would table one himself at the next part-session.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Giaretta.

Mr GIARETTA (Italy) said that religious freedom was key to the defence of human rights and the Council of Europe could not look away when this right was violated. In the Middle East, and elsewhere, the right to religious freedom was being impinged upon, with restrictions on places of worship, the ownership of religious texts, and on religious education. The hostility was not directed solely at Christian communities, but existed between all religions. He highlighted the conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

Christianophobia plagued Christian communities in the Middle East, where their freedom of worship was greatly limited and they now often fell prey to extremist acts. The extremists’ aim was to create a clash of civilisations leading to religious homogeneity throughout the Middle East. The extremists thus targeted all minorities, and also those Muslims who aimed to build relations across communities. The violence was a fundamentally destructive and divisive response to globalisation. History had shown that religious wars were far more destructive than any other.

The European Convention on Human Rights was based on Christian philosophy; it was the duty of the Council of Europe to intervene to promote dialogue, to protect the universal values it held dear and to protect Christian communities throughout the world.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Giaretta. I call Ms Boldi.

Ms BOLDI (Italy) said that the subject matter of the report – freedom of religion – was very important. As Mr Volontè had noted, the Christian communities in the Middle East faced situations that western Europe had long banished to history. Intolerance in the Middle East had risen disproportionately to the number of minority Christians. Events had shown that Islamic fundamentalists, such as those loyal to al-Qaeda, aimed to remove all “infidels” to create an Islamic fundamentalist state which they hoped would one day spread to Europe and beyond. With this as their aim, the fundamentalists considered the Christians a legitimate target, because their freedom of thought was an obstacle to their objective.

The European Parliament had already made a resolution against violence against Christians in the Middle East. The purpose of the Council of Europe was to defend human rights and it should therefore do exactly that, so as to issue a warning and put pressure on national governments to immediately and unambiguously condemn such attacks in future.

It was that day International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which in Italy is an official day of mourning. The events of the Holocaust had shown the great danger of religious intolerance when coupled with the complicity of governments and citizens. She urged the Assembly to live up to its mandate and send a message of support to the oppressed communities as they made the difficult decision whether to leave or stay in their homeland.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Boldi. I call Mr de Puig i Olive.

Mr DE PUIG i OLIVE (Spain) said that the situation was clear: everyone present knew the facts of the case and that persecution was a reality for Christians in the Middle East. It was incredibly moving to see the media images of such events and he called on the Council of Europe to take a stand in the face of the reality, a reality totally opposed to the values of human rights. He urged the Council of Europe to react, like the European Union had, with dialogue and arguments.

Throughout history there had always been problems between religious communities but, when this went too far, it became dangerous and led to the horror of religious wars. The Council of Europe had to act to warn the authorities and so prevent this from happening again.

He would support any step to protect any minority, not just minority Christians in the Middle East. He therefore supported the report and urged the Council to speak out. He concluded by saying that this would be his final speech to the Assembly as, after 29 years, he was to stand down. He warmly thanked all members of the Assembly for their co-operation, kindness and generosity throughout his service.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr de Puig. That was your last speech in this Chamber after 29 years in the Council of Europe. On behalf of all our colleagues – those who are here and those who are not – I thank you very much. [Members rose and applauded]

I call Mr Rochebloine.

Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) said that the terrible fate of oppressed Christians in the Middle East was an urgent matter for the stability of the world. The fate of Christians in the Middle East was not a minority problem, even though, given that there were few of them, they were easy prey for extremists. The Christian populations were not immigrants to those lands, but their original inhabitants. Under Ottoman rule they had been given official status as minorities in a way which today would go against the European Convention on Human Rights.

The treatment of the Christian communities was a threat to the whole region. It seemed as if the authorities had little appetite to prevent such acts of violence – no appetite for universality. In such a situation, the rule of violence would quickly prevail and so undermine the peace and stability of the region. It was in the interest of all people to require the end of such violence. The leaders of Middle Eastern countries had to acknowledge the problem. Not to do so was to show a weakness which, in truth, undermined their power and showed their hypocrisy. He urged people to unite against religious fanaticism.

(Mr Walter, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Vrettos.)

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Greff.

Ms GREFF (France) thanked her colleagues and, in particular, Mr Volontè for producing the report and Mr Mignon for having initiated the debate. Freedom of belief had to be protected. The situation of Christians in the Middle East caused her great concern. Approximately 800 000 Christians in Iraq and in the wider Middle East had already been forced to leave the region and seek refuge in more tolerant lands. The Coptic Christian community was especially under attack. It was unclear whether the recent attack in Alexandria was inspired by al-Qaeda but the Coptic Christians had been under attack long before the emergence of al-Qaeda.

Although the Muslim religion guaranteed rights for all, Christians had an inferior status in some Middle Eastern countries. Tensions had increased and were increasing; Christians felt they had no choice but to leave their homes for safer territory. Many Middle Eastern countries had signed up to conventions on human rights: they ought to work harder to make sure that those rights were respected. It was shocking that Christians had been forced to disguise their identities just so they could live in their own homes.

Parliamentary diplomacy was needed to help defend Christians in the Middle East. Those guilty of the attacks were barbarians. All should act to prevent a spiritual and moral collapse in the region.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Greff. The next speaker is Lord Anderson.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – The nature of the problem is well described by our distinguished rapporteur. There have been historic Christian communities in the Middle East from the time of the Apostles, but many now face daily discrimination and a campaign by jihadist groups to force them to flee. Edward Leigh spoke very well indeed about the problems facing the Christians in Iraq, problems far worse than those they faced in the time of Saddam Hussein. Although the headlines in our newspapers chance but briefly on the slaughtered saints in Alexandria and Baghdad, we have to understand that there is a much wider context: the kidnapping of clergy, the targeting of shops and the Islamisation of laws and lifestyles.

How then are we to respond? Clearly, human rights and the rights of minorities are the very core job of us in the Council of Europe. We have to recognise the sensitivities. It is not just Christians – for example, the Baha’i in Iran also face persecution – but as the Open Doors organisation argues, if we ask Christians to stay in their homeland, we surely must support them.

We need, as the resolution says, to have a watching brief. We also need to remind governments of their international obligations: all, under the universal declaration of human rights, are pledged not only to support freedom of religion but the freedom to change one’s religion. Apostasy is in effect a crime in many countries.

We should encourage inter-faith dialogue and advice on textbooks. We should recognise the problems of Turkey – and yes, there are a number of problems of implementation. However, Turkey is broadly a beacon in the area and has a major role to play in its own region. We should also recognise the reality that Israel is comparatively a model of dealing with its own minorities. It is a challenge to us all.

Surely we should also so conduct our own policies on religious minorities in our own countries so as to be beacons of tolerance ourselves, and thus able to speak with greater authority and with greater moral standards and standing when we deal with the problems of our co-religionists or with other religions, be it the Baha’i or other persecuted minorities in the Middle East and indeed elsewhere.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Lord Anderson. The next speaker is Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I congratulate those who have spoken in this debate – seldom has a debate been held in such a unified and respectful way. This is due to Mr Volontè’s skill in preparing his paper. In particular, I think that Mr Leigh spoke for the majority of, if not all, members in his impassioned speech about the rights of minorities and the fact that we have to give them the protection they deserve.

It is also nice to see Mr de Puig i Olive here. But I suspect that he might be like a boomerang – we throw him away today, but there is always the chance that he will come back. After 29 years, perhaps we have not heard the last of him.

On this issue, we face a significant problem as a community in Europe. While we all passionately want these people to be protected, the evilness of those who perpetrate attacks against minorities, whether religious, ethnic or whatever, is a despicable thing. However, it is very difficult to get to the core of what their aims and ambitions are. I am sure that many of the Christians who have died particularly in Iraq were killed simply to inflame the political situation in that country. They target their minorities and hope that the West will come to their support, thus further destabilising their national government. It plays into the hands of those who want power for their own ends.

We have to recognise the difficulty of the situation. However, no one should be denied the right to follow whatever god or belief they believe will give them the confidence to face each day. In a way, that is what religion does for people – it gives them confidence and a belief that there is something better for them, no matter how bad their circumstances. Those of us who have been privileged to travel across the world have met people from many faiths who had little or nothing of the lifestyle we all enjoy, yet their faith gave them the courage to face another day of despair and hopelessness.

It is wrong. Those poor people at the bottom of the power struggle have the least to gain and the most to lose, and what they lose is invariably their life. They have no possessions – nothing to meet the challenges. It is pathetic for evil men and women to blame innocent people holding sincere beliefs, and to subject them to pain and suffering while the world does nothing but complain to the prime minister or president of a country and say they have to do something about it.

We have had promises about protection. They were given twice last year by the Prime Minister of Iraq and twice by the President of Egypt, yet still people died. Donald Anderson was right: we should remember the others in Iran, China and elsewhere. The only disappointment in the report was that it was slightly overshadowed by the inference about northern Cyprus, but apart from that, I commend it.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I call Ms Pashayeva.

Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) said that she rejected any persecution whatsoever of Christians or any other religion in the Middle East or elsewhere. All religious attacks were unacceptable. Islamophobia and anti-Semitism had often been discussed by the Assembly, and with action, but more still clearly needed to be done.

Azerbaijan placed great importance on inter-faith dialogue and relationships. Although Azerbaijan was a predominantly Muslim country, it had rebuilt not only mosques but also every synagogue and church that had been destroyed in the war. Armenia had invaded approximately 20% of Azerbaijani territory, which had caused the internal displacement of a great many people. Azerbaijan had not however destroyed or defaced any Armenian places of worship, as it considered these places to be sacred. Armenia had not been so civilised, destroying many Azeri cultural monuments.

Inter-faith and inter-cultural dialogue had to be enhanced to help resolve these issues. Azerbaijan would continue to work to bring people of different faiths together. Mr Mignon had said that the work had to begin in each member state’s own country. She agreed, and said that Azerbaijan was already working hard to achieve that end.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Pashayeva. I call Mr Stolfi.

Mr STOLFI (San Marino) said that it was important for the Assembly to pursue the issue of violence against people of any religious faith because it had led to such harm, distress and alarm. At an international and European level, public opinion condemning the violence had been expressed in no uncertain terms.

The Parliament in San Marino had discussed the subject extensively. He himself was speaking that day because the San Marino Government and Parliament had expressed a desire to make their views on this issue more widely known. They condemned all such violence against Christian minorities. He underscored the importance of religious freedom.

The Council of Europe had to consider what action it could take, not just what recommendations it could pass after debate. The Council of Europe should monitor religious freedoms and it should be a regular item on its agenda. He welcomed the Council of Europe initiative on inter-faith dialogue, which should be backed up with a monitoring process. Religion should not be used to fan the flames of violence.

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

Mr FOURNIER (France) said that the debate would remind the world of the values of human rights and democracy for everyone, not just those of a particular religious faith. The Council of Europe had to look to reaffirm human rights, as it had done the previous year when it had denounced Islamophobia. People should be free to practise and defend their faith. He was not just talking about human rights for a particular group of people, but about human rights for all human beings.

People should be free to inhabit the land where they were born, wherever that might be. He was not simply advocating a western conception of human rights but one based on values developed in the enlightenment. There should be no collusion between political and religious authorities to justify violence: the liberal tradition rejected such a notion. The world could not remain silent in the face of violence against Christian minorities in the Middle East. It seemed as if belonging to a certain religion in that region now meant death. This was a denial of self. He commended Mr Volontè’s report.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Rustamyan.

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that he was satisfied that the Assembly was holding this debate under the urgent procedure. He deplored the violence against Christians being committed for no reason other than that they held certain beliefs. For that reason, what was taking place in the Middle East amounted to cultural or religious cleansing. It was essential that such scourges be prevented. He drew comparisons with the suffering endured by Armenia throughout its history, and pointed out that the Armenian Church had been founded by two Apostles, and was a Church which had long been established. The Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire certainly amounted to ethnic cleansing and Armenians had been treated as infidels. More recently, Azeri vandals had desecrated a cemetery in Armenia which brought to his mind the phrase “do unto others”. He concluded by encouraging further dialogue.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Salles.

Mr SALLES (France) condemned the recent attacks upon Christians and expressed his approval at the steps being taken by the Assembly to draw attention to this important issue. It was essential that the physical geographic integrity of religious minorities be preserved. In several of the countries concerned, the fact that the religious minorities existed did not necessarily afford them full protection of the law. Not all citizens were subject to the Islamic courts and this could at times place them at a disadvantage. He referred members to the work of the Lebanese author Amin Maalouf, whose work illuminated this area. It was not always possible to change one’s religion and merely stating that a country enjoyed religious pluralism did not always guarantee that this would be the case. Common faith led to common history and, if the state remained neutral, this would help defend the rights of all citizens.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Reimann.

Mr REIMANN (Switzerland) said that he was aware that some members had felt that Mr Volontè had been too unilateral or perhaps even negative in his report, in that it could be read as promoting an anti-Islamic perspective rather than trying to identify what different people had in common. He however felt that Mr Volontè had struck the right balance and had produced a fine report. Tolerance was not a one-way street and both Christians and Muslims ought equally to welcome the report. This was not a question of giving yellow cards to some people and red cards to others but simply of condemning those currently engaged in the persecution of Christians. The Assembly could not turn a blind eye to these tragedies and needed to show understanding for the fear felt by those people currently suffering. He recalled a recent referendum held in Switzerland in which 58% of the population had voted to prohibit the construction of further minarets. This had not been, as many had portrayed it, a case of religious oppression but rather a question of building and planning.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Bender.

Mr BENDER (Poland) – The subject matter of this debate is very grave. It is also one of the best kept secrets of the modern world. Violence, often deadly violence, against Christians is almost ignored by politicians and almost always under-reported by the media. Why? I do not know. What I do know is that 80% of victims of religiously motivated persecution in the world are Christians. They are pressured to abandon their religion, driven from their homes and from their countries, persecuted, tortured and killed. According to a report prepared by Aid to the Church in Need, Christians are being discriminated against in 70 countries, and each year 200 million Christians are subjected to persecution. The violence against Christians is by no means limited to the Middle East; it is widespread in Africa and Asia.

The cowardly terrorist attack on peaceful people attending a church in Alexandria is just the most recent terrifying episode in a dark series of countless incidents in which Christians are killed for their faith. The people who perpetrate these atrocities are motivated by pure hatred, which they often dress in religious costume. To them I would like to say this: remember that those who demand respect should also respect others. Violence against people you disagree with is never the right answer.

I call on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and on all member states and their parliaments and governments, not to turn a blind eye to religiously motivated violence, which in the vast majority of cases means violence against Christians, wherever and by whomever it is perpetrated. Governments which tolerate such despicable acts must finally realise that their behaviour is seen and condemned by the international community, and that violence against Christians, wherever it takes place, will not go unnoticed and will have very serious consequences. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has the obligation to be vigilant against any acts of violence against Christians and to apply real pressure to those who perpetrate or tolerate them.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Bender. I call Mr Eti, who is a representative of the Turkish Cypriot community.

Mr ETI (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community) said that the report before the Assembly related to certain incidents, the witnesses to which had been greatly horrified. He deplored with all his heart the incidents of cold-blooded murder described by Mr Volontè in his report. However, it was not appropriate to group together incidents of such varying seriousness. To that end, he fully supported the amendments tabled by his Turkish colleagues to remove paragraph 13 from the draft recommendation, which called on Turkey to clarify the circumstances surrounding the interruption of the Christmas Mass in two villages in northern Cyprus the previous year. He urged members to act with wisdom in this matter and not to concern themselves with this issue too greatly, as the churches were still open. He recalled a resolution agreed by the Assembly in 2004 stating that the elections in Cyprus had been both free and fair. Paragraph 13 went beyond the scope of the report and Mr Hancock had given an excellent explanation of why this was the case.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Muñoz Alonso.

Mr MUÑOZ ALONSO (Spain) said that, in giving a complete description of the circumstances in the Middle East, it was impossible to stick to reasoned language. In March 2010, the situation had become very grave in Morocco; it had gone dramatically against the European Convention of Human Rights. After the attacks in Baghdad, the Senate in Spain had passed a motion in support of Christians in the Middle East, a very similar text to that which had subsequently been adopted by the European Parliament. The Council of Europe shared the same concern, recognising that all people benefited from freedom of expression and religion. Any intolerance should be dealt with simply as a matter of public order and he was reminded of an editorial in the French newspaper Le Monde which had dealt with this question. The number of Christians in the Middle East had declined in recent years, not through widespread ethnic cleansing but through sporadic instances of genocide. He was very pleased with the report and commended it to the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Abbasov.

Mr ABBASOV (Azerbaijan) – I express my deepest gratitude to the rapporteur, Mr Volontè, for his excellent report. I congratulate him.

The world at the end of the 20th century can be characterised not only by the change in the political map of the world, caused mainly by the collapse of the socialist regimes, but by the emergence of a number of global problems affecting different layers of society. In line with economic, ecological and demographic problems, religious problems, generated by the emasculation of moral values, have become critical. At the same time, the theory of the clash of civilisations, based to some extent on differences between world religions, prevailed and got its supporters. Certain separatist groups used religious factors to justify their activities, which often had a terrorist character.

In that context, the establishment of a dialogue between cultures and religions, aimed at preserving the cultural diversity of human civilisation, appears to be crucial. In that regard, the example of the countries and regions that have strong traditions of tolerance can serve as a model. Azerbaijan is a unique example of peaceful co-existence and co-operation between many people and religious faiths.

Azerbaijan is an historical crossroads between Europe and Asia. The representatives of different religions and nations have been living in Azerbaijan as a family for centuries. Today, those two factors can be observed in the modern life of Azerbaijan. For 20 years, Azerbaijan has been a member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, and it has been a fully fledged member of the Council of Europe for 10 years. We follow our religious and national traditions and strive to educate our younger generation in a patriotic and national spirit. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan is a country keen on building close co-operation with all the countries of the world.

Since 1999, Azerbaijan has marked a day of tolerance. The heads of religious communities, theology scholars and representatives of society, together with the chairman of the state committee on work with religious communities, take part in events organised for the day. The President of the Republic sends a letter of congratulation to participants in the events that take place on the day of tolerance. The meetings are always held in a working atmosphere, and efficient decisions are taken to solve problems. Every year, the President of Azerbaijan congratulates citizens on the occasion of holy Ramadan, the orthodox Christian community of Azerbaijan at Easter, and the Jewish community of Azerbaijan at Rosh Hashanah, their new year holiday.

The unique experience of Azerbaijan in establishing and strengthening inter-religious dialogue and co-operation is highly appreciated abroad. The historic visit of Pope John Paul II to Azerbaijan is a vivid example of that. During that visit, the Pontiff especially underlined Azerbaijan’s historical traditions of tolerance, as the first Christians escaping the persecution of the Roman regime found shelter in our land.

Having stressed the aforesaid facts, I remind colleagues that, through politicising distinctions in religious trends and using them to solve economic problems, we can create big gaps between people and prevent further dialogue. Today, no effort should be spared in holding joint action and events among different faiths. We must continue to debate religious issues publicly.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Santini.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) thanked Mr Volontè and Mr Mignon for organising an important debate on what was an old subject. Christianity had originated in the Middle East and Christians had been persecuted there ever since. The question was why there had recently been such an increase in violent attacks. For example, on 31 October 2010 an attack in Baghdad had left 58 dead and 34 injured, while on 1 January 2011 a similar attack in Alexandria had left 21 dead and 70 injured. Estimates suggested that 2 000 Christians had been killed across the world since 2006.

He reminded members that not all persecution was as violent as these attacks: Christians in the Middle East faced other forms of persecution, against their schools, their press and their cultural associations. They were discriminated against socially in employment and education. The Council of Europe had to fight relativism and secure new dignity for Christians everywhere. There were four types of persecution against Christians: material persecution as found in China and North Korea; Islamic persecution; religious nationalism; and lay or secular intolerance.

He was particularly concerned at the growth of secular intolerance, which was spreading vigorously in Europe. He noted a diary produced for school children by the European Commission: it noted every religious holiday except those of Christians, not even 25 December. This was also a persecution and an insidious one. In Europe, Jesus Christ was dying day by day.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Mustafa.

Mr MUSTAFA (Azerbaijan) drew parallels between the subject under debate and events in Europe itself. He noted that, in one European country, the building of minarets had been banned on the pretext of planning law, but churches were still being built in the Middle East.

Terrorists often did not discriminate in their choice of victims: in Europe and in the Middle East there had been hundreds of Muslim victims of terrorism, yet it was only when Christians died that these acts became “religious” attacks. All religions prohibited violent acts – this was a basic tenet of any faith. Despite this, the Armenians had massacred hundreds of Azeri children and destroyed tens of mosques. The failure to speak out against such crimes meant that the Council of Europe was disregarding a basic prohibition against violence. He urged the Council of Europe to be more just in its decisions and conclusions.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much indeed, Mr Mustafa.

I must now interrupt the list of speakers. I remind you that members who are on the list and present in the Chamber but who have not been called may submit their speeches to the Table Office in Room 1083 within 24 hours of the end of the debate for publication in the Official Report. May I also remind members that these speeches must be submitted in typescript.

I call Mr Volontè, rapporteur, to reply. You have three minutes.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that he would ideally need more than three minutes to reply to the debate. He thanked all contributors but said that he had found Mr Mustafa’s comments offensive. There was no discrimination in his report. His report did not seek to draw distinctions between religions but simply called for freedom of religion for all. Mr Mustafa seemed to be objecting to factual statements. The report reflected reality, which was why an urgent debate on the topic had been called.

His report did not discuss the motivation for these violent acts. Instead, it made recommendations on what commitments countries should now make. Many countries were seeing a reduction in freedom and a less friendly attitude towards Christians. He suggested that the Commissioner for Human Rights might monitor the situation and report back to the Assembly.

His report could have contained platitudes but he had instead chosen to take an honest path that naturally led to him being criticised in some quarters. He had done so partly in response to the deafening silence from the United Nations, which meant that the Council of Europe was left to speak out about the reality of the situation. It pained him greatly to write the words of the report, but he did not condemn anyone or any group, he just wanted the truth to be revealed and proclaimed.

THE PRESIDENT – Does the chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee, Mr von Sydow, wish to speak? You have up to two minutes.

Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – No, Sir. I would have preferred to listen to Mr Pourgourides.

THE PRESIDENT – Sadly, we did not get that far, I am afraid.

The debate is closed.

We now come to the vote on the draft recommendation from the Political Affairs Committee to which two amendments have been tabled.

We will now deal first with the amendments to the draft recommendation, 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 2, tabled by Mr von Sydow, Mr Mignon, Mr Badré, Mr Cilevičs and Ms Christoffersen, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 12.5, after the words “asylum and return issues”, add the following words: “and fully comply with European Court of Human Rights judgments and interim measures under Rule 39”.

I call Mr von Sydow to support Amendment 2.

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – This amendment was unanimously adopted by the committee.

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

I presume that the committee was in favour of the amendment, as you have just clearly stated.

The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Cebeci, Mr Tekelioğlu, Mr Ünal, Mr Ayva, Mr Türkeş, Mr Kumcuoğlu, Mr Açikgöz and Ms Keleş, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 13.

I call Mr Cebeci to support Amendment 1.

Mr CEBECİ (Turkey) – The scope of this report encompasses violence against Christians. The problem is that, without this amendment, the report puts a very regrettable, unfortunate incident and murders and massacres into the same basket. Mr Rapporteur, we want the Assembly to pass the report unanimously. Although this incident was very regrettable and unfortunate, please do not equate it with killing many people.

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

I call Mr Volontè.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that he had already invited Mr Cebeci to withdraw his amendment. In including the paragraph, he was not seeking to draw an equivalence between different violent acts but instead to present the reality of the situation across the Middle East. He praised the role of the Turkish authorities in bringing the perpetrators to justice.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Volontè.

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12493, as amended. I remind the Assembly that a two-thirds majority is required.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12493, as amended, is adopted, with 125 votes for, 9 against and 13 abstentions.

(Mr Çavuşoğlu, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Walter.)

3. Address by Mr Traian Băsescu, President of Romania

THE PRESIDENT – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Traian Băsescu, President of Romania. After his address, the President has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

Dear President, it is a great pleasure and an honour to welcome you to this Chamber, which represents politically the whole of Europe, including your own country, Romania.

Since 1993, Romania has been an active and constructive member of the Council of Europe, and since 2007, also of the European Union. This is a reflection of the dynamic and ambitious developments of your country, which has managed to overcome the difficult challenges of the past and embrace fully the values of a modern European democracy.

In this connection, I recall our very positive meeting during my official visit to Romania at the end of last summer, during which we identified several ways in which we can co-operate in seeking solutions to the most acute problems that all European countries have to face today. In particular, I would like to mention the involvement of the Council of Europe in fighting racism, xenophobia and discrimination of all kinds and praise Romania for successfully dealing with minority issues and the efforts aimed at increasing the integration of minorities in the political, economic and social life of the country.

I also take this opportunity to reiterate my hope that the authorities will intensify the fight against corruption and continue the judicial reforms, also with a view to reducing the number of applications lodged before the European Court of Human Rights.

We also appreciate the contribution of Romania to the democratic stability of south-eastern Europe and look forward to hearing your views on some regional issues as well.

Dear President, you are an experienced politician, but also a ship captain. This is a precious combination of skills. In today’s Europe, we need people who can clearly define the direction to move forward, and who can navigate through troubled waters. We look forward to hearing your address. You have the floor.

Mr BĂSESCU (President of Romania) said that it was a great honour to address the Parliamentary Assembly. He and Romania thought the Council of Europe important, and he wanted to stress that fact at a time when others were considering its future. The Council of Europe had created a space where fundamental rights and liberties were respected and where people could achieve their spiritual, cultural and civic aspirations. Respect for the values promoted and defended by the Council of Europe – human rights, democracy and the rule of law – allowed for the development of free societies where members could openly express their identity and hope for a better life.

Romania was a solid democracy under the rule of law and it owed a lot to the Council of Europe which had monitored Romania’s development over many years. The Council of Europe had had a role in shaping Romanian institutions and laws. The Council of Europe should continue this work with new states.

Over the previous 20 years, the world had changed and Europe had changed. New states had appeared and there had been progress in the process of unifying the continent. New challenges and risks had emerged. The continent’s organisations – the EU, NATO and OSCE – had taken on new goals and new missions. These developments were not always as harmonious as they might be: some institutions’ remits overlapped even competitively and there were gaps. Any reform of the Council of Europe ought to take into account its natural advantages: the participation of all European states and a straightforward legal framework. The Turkish Chairman of the Council of Ministers would make an important contribution to reform.

The Council of Europe needed the support of the citizens of Europe, 800 million of them. The European Court of Human Rights had to be more efficient. The Council of Europe needed to tackle the real, every-day problems faced by Europeans.

One urgent phenomenon was migration, an issue that required special attention. Migration might lead to two types of problems: those for the host country and those for the migrants. It was wrong to blame migrants for the economic and social problems of Europe. He urged the Council of Europe to monitor tensions caused by migration. Early warning could lead to early action to defuse tension.

National minorities also needed better protection, and monitoring by the Council of Europe. Many parts of Europe were not yet up to standard in this area. Romania itself had 20 resident minority communities and he well understood these peoples’ need to preserve their identity. Romania, having had the support of the Council of Europe, was a good example of inter-ethnic reconciliation and harmony.

Romania’s relations with Hungary illustrated this point. From mutual suspicion in the early 1990s, Romania and Hungary had now agreed a strategic partnership and worked well together at a governmental level. The recent Hungarian presidency of the EU had been well and fairly conducted. He hoped that Romania would meet the timescale for accession to the Schengen area in 2011.

The Romanian system to protect national minorities was an instrumental part of Romanian society. There was equal treatment and support for all citizens. Its citizens’ cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity was enriching. The constitution stipulated that people belonging to the national minorities in Romania enjoyed the right to be represented in parliament, to express themselves in their own tongue in court, and to be educated in their mother tongue – now at all levels of the education system. A Hungarian minority was part of the current governing coalition and this was having a positive impact on Romanian society. The representatives of each national minority had the right to set up a structure similar to a political party to make its voice heard.

The Roma were citizens of Romania, a particular state and one with obligations to protect their status. They were also citizens of Europe, which meant that all Europe should treat the Roma equally; last, they were often an ethnic minority in another state, unable to benefit from the protection of their homeland – this put a special duty of protection of the host state. The traditions of the Roma community ought to be protected, not suppressed. The lifestyle of nomad Roma ought not to be altered in a brutal, restrictive way. Instead, there ought to be regional strategies to protect their rights. The European Union, the Council of Europe and OSCE could play an important role in this: placing responsibility on the countries of residence alone would not work.

He noted that his speech coincided with International Holocaust Commemoration Day. Sixty-six years ago, the largest Nazi extermination camp at Auschwitz had been liberated by Soviet troops, thus ending the atrocities that had shattered humankind’s consciousness. Children, women and men had been tortured and exterminated, simply because they were different. Such a monstrosity should never happen again. That was why it was important to fight for fellow human beings irrespective of ethnicity, religion, culture or language. The Council of Europe had the mechanisms to help that fight in humankind’s defence. Romania acknowledged its responsibility to history and had held a series of events to commemorate the Holocaust.

One of the Assembly’s agenda items that part-session had been about the situation in the Balkans. Several leaders in the region had addressed the positive developments in these countries, assisted by the process of European integration. The European Union had granted Montenegro accession status and had liberalised the visa regime for Albania and for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croatia and Serbia had also shown their political will in fighting corruption.

For Romania, the democratisation of its neighbours was a matter of national security. Although the signs of inter-ethnic reconciliation were ever stronger, the memory of the Balkan wars and the suffering they had caused were still very much alive. These tragedies originated in discrimination on ethnic and religious grounds. He wanted better integration of the Balkan states, within the European Union and the Council of Europe.

He had great expectations for these young democracies. He urged the Council of Europe to continue its process of monitoring progress. It was, for example, vital in the protection of minorities.

Romania wanted to see the rights of Romanians respected abroad by co-operating with the states of origin, on the basis of European and international law. Bilateral co-operation was also in Romania’s interest, to ensure stability and security in neighbouring countries.

Romania would make efforts to capitalise on the political, economic, social and cultural potential of the representative figures in Romanian communities abroad, not by seeking to remove them from their country of citizenship, but by encouraging them to contribute to good relations between Romania and the states where they were born and now lived.

He expressed his condolences on behalf of the Romanian people to the families of the victims of the dreadful terrorist attack on Moscow. Romania condemned the attack, on innocent people, and he reasserted its commitment to fighting terrorism.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Băsescu, for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have expressed a wish to put questions to you.

I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues should ask questions and not make speeches.

The first question is by Mr Vareikis, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – You talked in your speech, Mr President, about national minorities in Romania and Romanians who live outside the country. As a former rapporteur on Moldova, I want to ask you about the issue of so-called passportisation, or issuing Romanian citizenship to Moldovans. The numbers cited by various sources in this regard differ, sometimes by up to 10 times. What is your country’s long-term policy on that issue?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Băsescu?

Mr BĂSESCU said that Romania had a principled approach to the quality of citizenship which now entitled citizens and their relatives to regain citizenship in a manner which had not been previously possible. This applied to people living in the USA, France, Germany or any other country, and represented a marked departure from the communist era in which, if you left Romania, you lost your citizenship. Between 1990 and 2010, 170 000 people had re-acquired their Romanian citizenship.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Iwiński, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – According to Article 80 of the Romanian Constitution, you, Mr President, should exercise the function of magician between state powers as well as between the state and society. How do you respond to the increasing number of accusations that, on the contrary, you have in recent years been minimising the role of parliament, breaking the independence of justice and refusing any dialogue with opposition groups? As a sign of protest, opposition members in the Romanian delegation to this Assembly are not present here today.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Băsescu?

Mr BĂSESCU – Are you a socialist?

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – I am from the Polish social democrat party.

Mr BĂSESCU said that he had not asked which country Mr Iwiński was from, but merely whether or not he was a socialist. In his experience, socialist parties did not respond well to invitations to participate in joint events. He had not asked the members in question to leave the room, in fact it was his understanding that they had chosen to absent themselves. He wondered whether it perhaps had something to do with the fact that an opposition politician had the previous day been arrested for fraud in Romania, details of which could readily be found in the Romanian press. Unfortunately, these parties never wanted to discuss anything, and it was possible that Mr Iwiński had been misinformed by his ideological colleagues.

THE PRESIDENT – The next question is from Mr Solonin, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr SOLONIN (Russian Federation) said that Mr Băsescu’s answer to Mr Vareikis had not cast much light on the situation. He wondered whether, in fact, Romania’s objective was to merge with Moldova in order to create a greater state.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Băsescu?

Mr BĂSESCU said that Romania had no experience of annexing or desire to annex any country.

THE PRESIDENT – The next question is from Ms Guţu on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms GUŢU (Moldova) thanked Mr Băsescu for his speech and his tireless support of Moldova in its European aspirations. As President of a country which had itself been monitored for 15 years before accession, she wondered what Mr Băsescu thought of Moldova’s chances of acceding to the European Union as part of the Western Balkan package.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Băsescu?

Mr BĂSESCU said that this was a political battle that they would fight together. Moldova would indeed become a member of the European Union when it was ready. Romania’s strategic goal was to persuade colleagues in the European Union to allow Moldova’s accession at the same time as the Western Balkan nations. The interest taken by the European Union in the recent Moldovan elections had demonstrated the seriousness with which Moldova was being considered by the European Union. He hoped that the newly-elected government would continue to work towards that objective.

THE PRESIDENT – The next question is from Mr Petrenco, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) – Mr President, today Romania is the only country in Europe, and in the world, whose authorities openly do not recognise Moldovan identity, stating that all Moldovans are in fact Romanians. You personally have declared many times that the Republic of Moldova is a second Romanian state, refusing to sign the basic political treaty between two neighbouring countries or to recognise the state border between Moldova and Romania, and accepting only signing the technical document on this issue. Do you not think, Mr President, that these attitudes and this official position are a serious challenge to stability and security in this part of Europe, as well as a real obstacle in the Transnistrian conflict settlement process?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Băsescu?

Mr BĂSESCU said that he had to remind Mr Petrenco of a few facts. The current border had been set following the Treaty of Paris in 1947 and Romania had never questioned that border. Indeed, in 1991, Romania had been the very first country to recognise Moldova as an independent state and she never tired of supporting it in reinforcing the territorial integrity of the Transnistrian region. Romania was not a member of the Five-plus-Two Group, which was responsible for these matters, but fully supported its objectives. Romania had never tried to take territory from Moldova, and he noted that the question supposed that his country did not in fact respect its borders. Romania fully accepted the Treaty of Paris and had, more recently, signed a newer border agreement. He asked what more they could be expected to do.

THE PRESIDENT – The next question is from Mr Fournier.

Mr FOURNIER (France) reminded President Băsescu that France and Germany indicated that they were not in favour Romania joining the Schengen area in March 2011 because of its failings in preventing migratory flows and drug trafficking. He stressed that this was not an attack on Romania’s aspiration to accede to the Schengen area in the medium term. He asked President Băsescu what more Romania could do to assure its accession to Schengen in 2011.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Băsescu?

Mr BĂSESCU remarked that he had a short answer and a long answer. The short answer was that Romania had fulfilled all its obligations and had addressed the issue in the same manner as had the European Union. The longer answer was that Romania’s agreement to enter Schengen was part of the acquis communautaire which applied to all member states, and it set a dangerous precedent if states suddenly received more obligations with which to comply a few weeks before a decision was made on their accession.

He could prove that Mr Fournier’s question was incorrect, since Romania had done everything it could to fight corruption and he would provide the figures to support his case. In the previous five years, 51 customs officers and more than 120 border police had been arrested and prosecuted for corruption. He urged Mr Fournier to monitor developments in Romania in February.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Pozzo di Borgo.

Mr POZZO di BORGO (France) said that President Băsescu that, until 2009, Romania had seen many years of economic growth. Then, as on the rest of the continent, there had been an economic slowdown. The result was that 23.4% of the population still lived in poverty and 33% of the population faced severe material deprivation. He asked President Băsescu what he intended to do to reduce those figures.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Băsescu?

Mr BĂSESCU disputed the figures because they did not take account of alleviation measures introduced in 2010. He conceded that the figures were from EU sources but those sources did not take into account the full situation in Romania. For example, 90% of houses in Romania were privately owned. What was the figure for France?

There had been an economic boom in Romania between 2004 and 2008, then, in 2009, the economy had fallen by 7.4% and again by 1.9% in 2010. He anticipated that there would be a slight recovery in 2011. The boom and bust had taught Romania a tough lesson. The economic boom had been based on excessive consumption and on real estate. Romania had now learnt to base its economy on sustainable development and real investment. As a result of the slowdown, Romania had had to introduce some tough measures, including a 25% reduction in civil service salaries, a new tax on pensions and an increase in the retirement age from 62 to 65 for men and from 58 to 63 for women. Measures had been taken to broaden the tax base. Together, these measures increased the likelihood of sustainable economic development in Romania. He acknowledged that they might lead to accusations that Romania was no longer a “social” country with a place in “social Europe” but Romanians considered it essential only to live within their means and not to borrow in order to speculate.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr President. The next question is from Ms Stavrositu.

Ms STAVROSITU (Romania) noted the unconditional support given by Hungary to Romania’s accession to the Schengen area. She asked the President what the basis was for his belief that Romania would soon accede to Schengen and what was his opinion on the new education law and on the measures he had taken to protect minorities?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Băsescu?

Mr BĂSESCU said that, as the Head of State of Romania, it was his duty to support Romania’s accession into Schengen in line with the treaty. There was a clear commitment for Romania to accede in 2011 and the experts agreed that this ought to go ahead. There was therefore no reason to abandon the objective.

The new education law was the most open in the European Union. The law meant that there was no obstacle to a child being taught in his native language. This was the first time such a law had been introduced and it granted significantly greater protection to linguistic minorities. There were 20 official minority groups in Romania, all of which were represented in the parliament. The education law meant that, if a child could not be taught in his native language in his resident community, the state would provide transport to a school with the right language skills. He suggested that, since European Union officials only ever discussed the negative impact of legalisation, the fact that they had not mentioned this policy meant that, in their eyes, it had no negative impact.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Béteille.

Mr BÉTEILLE (France) recalled that, on 16 December 2010, the Commissioner for Human Rights had written to the Romanian Prime Minister to express his concerns about the treatment of the Roma in Romania. The letter had called for a plan to tackle problems of education, social welfare and discrimination which affected the Roma. He accepted that, in the current economic climate, it was not easy for states to make resources available for such matters, but he nonetheless asked what Romania was doing to improve the treatment of the Roma people.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Băsescu?

Mr BĂSESCU said that there were officially 500 000 Romanian citizens who were Roma. The reality was that 1.5 million Roma were also Romanian citizens. Between 2000 and 2010 Romania had introduced a strategy of integration. Since education was the only viable method of ensuring the long-term integration of the Roma, Roma children had been exempt from the exams which allocated places at schools. The result was that there were no restrictions on the schools that Roma children could attend. In addition, a separate government department for Roma integration had been established. Unfortunately, it had became clear in 2010 that the strategy had failed and did not justify the financial investment involved. The problem was not a matter of resources for much of the funding was provided by the European Union; the problem was finding a long-term solution which worked.

A new strategy, to run between 2011 and 2015, was to see the department for Roma integration become part of the Ministry for Interior Affairs. The Romanian Government had discovered that previous efforts had failed because of excessive centralisation. Moving the department for Roma integration into the Ministry for Interior Affairs would provide stronger links with local governments which he hoped would be beneficial: previous strategies had not engaged sufficiently with local authorities and had only interacted with NGOs.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much. The next question is from Mr Kalmár.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – I should like first, Mr President, to welcome you to the Council of Europe. According to the European Union, by 2013 you will have to redraw the borders of the regions in Romania. This should comply with the NUTS 3 standards. When Romania takes this decision, do you intend to take into account, besides the EU recommendations, the historically, culturally and ethnically distinct nature of the cities in these territories? Will it be possible even to change the territories of the departments if that seems necessary?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kalmár. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Băsescu?

Mr BĂSESCU said that Romanian policy makers universally considered that they could not agree with a theory of autonomy based on ethnic criteria. Romania was increasing local autonomy: the police were managed at a local level, as were hospitals and museums. The new Education Act delegated management of schools to local authorities. Local authorities had powers of taxation. He envisaged greater local autonomy within Romania and thought that the process of decentralisation was more advanced in Romania than some other European Union countries.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much. The last question comes from Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – The Council of Europe documents on regionalism and autonomous regions make it clear that regional autonomy is not a danger but a guarantee of greater political stability. It is part of the Council of Europe’s values. South Tyrol is a perfect example. Since the unjust Treaty of Trianon, a great number of Hungarians have been forced to live in Romania and their fate has been unresolved. In 2007-08, there was a referendum in Szeklerland – in Hungarian, Székelyföld – and 99% of the people voted in favour of creating an autonomous region there. Is the Romanian state ready to implement this status for Szeklerland, which is inhabited by more than 600 000 people who have their own specific cultural and historical tradition, and who share the Hungarian language and identity? When will you start to negotiate with the representatives of this community, the Szekler National Council?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gaudi Nagy. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Băsescu?

Mr BĂSESCU said that he would like Romanians in Hungary to enjoy the same rights as Hungarians had in Romania.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much. We must now conclude the questions to Mr Băsescu. Mr President, on behalf of the Assembly I thank you most warmly for your interesting address and for the answers that you have given to questions.

5. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday 24 January.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Organisation of debates

2.       Written declarations

3.       Debate under urgent procedure: Violence against Christians in the Middle East

Presentation by Mr Volontè of the report of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 12493)

Speakers:

Mr Badré (France)

Mr Lecoq (France)

Mr Mignon (France)

Mr Moriau (Belgium)

Mr Leigh (United Kingdom)

Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Pozzo di Borgo (France)

Mr Giaretta (Italy)

Mr Boldi (Italy)

Mr Puig i Olive (Spain)

Mr Rochebloine (France)

Ms Greff (France)

Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)

Mr Stolfi (San Marino)

Mr Fournier (France)

Mr Rustamyan (Armenia)

Mr Salles (France)

Mr Reimann (Switzerland)

Mr Bender (Poland)

Mr Eti (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community)

Mr Muñoz Alonso (Spain)

Mr Abbasov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Santini (Italy)

Mr Mustafa (Azerbaijan)

Replies:

Mr Volontè (Italy)

Vote on a draft recommendation

4.       Address by Mr Băsescu, President of Romania

Questions:

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Iwiński (Poland)

Mr Solonin (Russian Federation)

Ms Guţu (Moldova)

Mr Petrenco (Moldova)

Mr Fournier (France)

Mr Pozzo di Borgo (France)

Ms Stavrositu (Romania)

Mr Béteille (France)

Mr Kalmár (Hungary)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

5.       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

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/Reijo Kallio

Francisco ASSIS*

Lokman AYVA

Michal BABÁK/Lenka Andrýsová

Alexander BABAKOV/Yury Solonin

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

Deborah BERGAMINI

Andris BERZINŠ*

Oksana BILOZIR*

Brian BINLEY*

Rosa Delia BLANCO TERÁN

Roland BLUM/Bernard Fournier

Olena BONDARENKO

Louis BONTES*

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

HanTEN BROEKE*

Patrizia BUGNANO

André BUGNON

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUSOGLU/Yüksel Özden

Erol Aslan CEBECI

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Igor CHERNYSHENKO

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Pia CHRISTMAS-MØLLER*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Boriss CILEVICS*

Ingrida CIRCENE

James CLAPPISON*

Ann COFFEY/Donald Anderson

Georges COLOMBIER/Muriel Marland-Militello

Agustín CONDE BAJÉN

Titus CORLATEAN

Lena DABKOWSKA-CICHOCKA/Bronislaw Korfanty

Per DALGAARD*

Cristian DAVID*

Giovanna DEBONO*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand DE DECKER/Dirk van Der Maelen

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Karl DONABAUER/Franz Eduard Kühnel

Miljenko DORIC*

Gianpaolo DOZZO*

Daphné DUMERY

Earl of Alexander DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU/André Schneider

Baroness Diana ECCLES/Amber Rudd

József ÉKES

Lydie ERR

Arsen FADZAEV*

Frank FAHEY*

Piero FASSINO*

Nikolay FEDOROV

Valeriy FEDOROV

Relu FENECHIU*

Mirjana FERIC-VAC

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Paul FLYNN*

Stanislav FORT

Pernille FRAHM

Dario FRANCESCHINI/Gianni Farina

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC

György FRUNDA

Guiorgui GABASHVILI

Alena GAJDUŠKOVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Marco GATTI*

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Gisèle GAUTIER

Sophia GIANNAKA/Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Paolo GIARETTA

Michael GLOS/Holger Haibach

Svetlana GORYACHEVA/ Sergey Egorov

Neven GOSOVIC/Obrad Gojkovic

Martin GRAF

Sylvi GRAHAM*

Claude GREFF

Francis GRIGNON*

Patrick DE GROOTE

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER

Ana GUTU

Sam GYIMAH/Edward Leigh

Azra HADŽIAHMETOVIC*

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV/Aydin Abbasov

Mike HANCOCK

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen

Norbert HAUPERT/Marc Spautz

Jeanine HENNIS-PLASSCHAERT*

Olha HERASYM'YUK*

Andres HERKEL*

Serhiy HOLOVATY

Jim HOOD*

Joachim HÖRSTER

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO*

Sinikka HURSKAINEN

Ali HUSEYNLI/Fazil Mustafa

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Shpëtim IDRIZI/Kastriot Islami

Mladen IVANIC*

Željko IVANJI*

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWINSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Rudy Salles

Michael Aastrup JENSEN/Jørgen Poulsen

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON

Cedomir JOVANOVIC*

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/Oleg Lebedev

Tiny KOX

Václav KUBATA

Pavol KUBOVIC

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Ertugrul KUMCUOGLU

Dalia KUODYTE/Birute Vesaite

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*

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/Maximilian Reimann

Philippe NACHBAR

Adrian NASTASE

Gebhard NEGELE/Leander Schädler

Pasquale NESSA

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Jeffrey Donaldson

Tomislav NIKOLIC*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Miroslawa NYKIEL/Stanislaw Huskowski

Carina OHLSSON

Jim O'KEEFFE*

Sandra OSBORNE/Jim Dobbin

Brian O'SHEA*

Elsa PAPADIMITRIOU

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Georges Charalambopoulos

Valery PARFENOV/Oleg Panteleev

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Peter PELEGRINI

Lajla PERNASKA*

Claire PERRY*

Marijana PETIR*

Johannes PFLUG*

Viktor PLESKACHEVSKIY/Tatiana Volozhinskaya

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

Luisa ROSEIRA

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

Amadeu ROSSELL TARRADELLAS

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Ilir RUSMALI*

Armen RUSTAMYAN

Branko RUŽIC*

Volodymyr RYBAK*

Rovshan RZAYEV

Džavid ŠABOVIC*

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO*

Manuel SARRAZIN*

Kimmo SASI/Jaakko Laakso

Marina SCHUSTER*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN*

Ladislav SKOPAL

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/*

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Nikolaos Dendias

José VERA JARDIM*

Stefaan VERCAMER/Cindy Franssen

Peter VERLIC/Andreja Rihter

Luigi VITALI/Oreste Tofani

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaas de VRIES*

Dmitry VYATKIN

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER*

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND/Doris Frommelt

Michal WOJTCZAK

Karin S. WOLDSETH

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*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Joan CARTES IVERN

Francine JOHN-CALAME

Telmo CORREIA

Johannes HÜBNER

Franz Eduard KÜHNEL

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Joan TORRES PUIG

Observers:

Sladan ĆOSIĆ

Jean DORION

Percy DOWNE

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Fania KIRSHENBAUM

Massimo PACETTI

Yeidckol POLEVNSKY GURWITZ

Davit ROTEM

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly):

Ahmet ETI