2011 ORDINARY SESSION

__________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-third sitting

Wednesday 5 October 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 report.

Ms Huovinen, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair, at 3.05 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT – A written declaration, No. 493, has been tabled on Lithuania’s proposal to prohibit gender reassignment, which has been signed by 21 members (Doc. 12753). Any Representative, Substitute, Observer or Partner for Democracy may add his or her signature to this written declaration in the Table Office, Room 1083.

2. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT – I remind parliamentary colleagues that speaking time in the debates this afternoon will be limited to three minutes. I propose to interrupt the joint debate at around 4 p.m., in order to finish the votes at around 4.20 p.m. I propose to interrupt the debate on the second report, on the Lisbon Treaty, at around 5.35 p.m., in order to begin the debate on the third report, on Armenia, at 6 p.m. I will interrupt that debate at around 7.15 p.m.

3. Combating “child abuse images” through committed, transversal and internationally co-ordinated action; and Violent and extreme pornography (joint debate) – resumed

THE PRESIDENT – We now return to the joint debate.

I call Ms Rupprecht from Germany to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group. You have three minutes.

Ms RUPPRECHT (Germany) thanked the rapporteurs for tackling a controversial and important issue. Every child should be allowed to grow up protected against violence, including sexual violence. The Council of Europe, as the guarantor of human rights, had taken decisions and agreed conventions on the matter. Yet, still Europe grappled with the problem. The difficulties surrounding extreme child pornography in new media were multiple. There was a great deal of money to be made from child pornography, even more than from drug trafficking. And there were many consumers of what was produced.

Legislation offering protection to children and to adults had to be carefully reconsidered, perhaps including the law surrounding the use of credit cards to purchase child pornography over the Internet. Crimes of that sort were usually committed in foreign jurisdictions, which meant that cross-border prosecutions were needed. Germany had already taken steps in that direction.

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

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – On behalf of colleagues in my group, I congratulate the two fine speeches this morning by the rapporteurs. The reports explain far more eloquently than I ever could the pain and suffering that is entailed every time a picture of an abused child is procured or bought. If every picture tells a story, the story told by every picture of child abuse, of whatever form, is one of tragedy for that child and evil perpetrated by adults. I was disappointed that our United Nations colleague did not support the notion of such crimes being treated as crimes against humanity. The abuse of our own children should be treated no differently from the crimes of those who bomb and kill their own people.

Draconian steps must be taken to combat this evil trade throughout the world. No country is exempt and none of us can claim our countries to be paragons of virtue in this regard. All our countries suffer from this evil plague. The real perpetrators, however, are those who allow the trade to be conducted around the world via the Internet. Unless we are brave enough to move a resolution here that every Council of Europe country will systemically block all Internet access for a day unless the network operators take down such sites permanently, nothing will happen.

I have spoken to police officers whose lives have been destroyed and turned upside down by having to look at such images for the purposes of carrying out prosecutions. One cannot believe the strain and pressure under which such individuals are put under trying to track down not only those who buy the images but those who procure them and who are prepared to allow children to be used in this vile trade. I have been surprised by the evidence brought forward in the United Kingdom of how many women are involved in this trade and prepared to see children used and abused in this way. This crime cuts across genders and across all ages. We must do something to take the treatment of this crime out of the realm of the ordinary. Child abuse of any form should be treated not just as a crime but as an affront to the moral standards of the whole country concerned.

I urge our colleagues in the United Nations, as I urged my colleagues in the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, to include a recommendation that unless such sites are taken down, Internet access should be blocked. Perhaps that goes too far for some, but unless we take such action police forces across the world will be fighting a losing battle. For every site one takes down, two more appear. For every photograph taken off the Internet, 10 more will appear. For every abused child we save, 10 others will be lost in the midst of the societies in which they live.

We must do something. I commend the report, and I hope that it receives the unanimous support of the Assembly.

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

Mr PANTELEEV (Russian Federation) thanked the rapporteurs for their well-prepared reports. The Russian Federation had adopted amendments to Russian law on the fundamental safeguards and rights of the child so that anyone who disseminated images of child pornography was liable to a prison sentence of up to eight years. Tough laws were being prepared to combat crimes of the sort under discussion. Russian Internet providers had signed up to a charter to combat child pornography.

The lightning speed of the growth of social networks had compounded the great difficulty in tackling such crimes. Popular video providers such as You Tube or Ru Tube had been used to view images. Usually, servers were outside the country in which viewing occurred, which allowed criminals to go free. A co-ordinated approach and a single piece of legislation that all parliaments could adopt was necessary. There was no need, however, to go as far as the USA whose strict rules had, for example, portrayed Romeo and Juliet as corrupters of youth.

The crucial point was the protection of children, for which all bore a signal responsibility.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Next I call Ms Frahm from Denmark to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Ms FRAHM (Denmark) – Thank you, Madam President. The fight against child pornography is increasing but we still need to do more for, as in many other cases, prohibition creates black markets and only extinguishes the tip of the iceberg. Trade in child pornography and its victims is a growing black industry, closely connected to other illegal economies such as drugs, arms and trafficking. These big black markets are a threat not only to the direct victims but to stability and democracy.

Good cross-border co-operation between the police and civil society has uncovered networks of child abusers and dealers in child pornography. In Denmark, 20 000 attempts to open websites containing child pornography have been stopped in one year. This has been made possible by co-operation among the national police, the telephone company and Save the Children. However, has this resulted in an end of child pornography or sexual abuse of children? Hardly.

We have to fight abuse of children in all its forms and in many ways. The best way is to train police, social workers, teachers and all others who work in fields related to children or in environments that have a connection to marginalised communities. Non-governmental organisations often play an important role in areas like this. Therefore, we should urge member States to co-operate with NGOs, such as Save the Children or the Red Cross. The Council of Europe One in Five campaign must be supported in all Council of Europe countries.

I thank the rapporteurs and the committees for the reports.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Next I call Ms Kovács from Serbia to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – Thank you, Madam Chair. Child abuse images are not just mere images since they reveal a series of other vicious crimes. They threaten children’s rights, including the right to live free from sexual violence.

The Group of the European People’s Party welcomes the fact that sexual exploitation of children is subject to sanctions along with several other crimes, which include: soliciting and enabling sexual intercourse; mediation of prostitution; the display, acquisition or possession of pornographic material; compelling a minor to participate in, or be submitted to, a sexual act; and exploitation of computer networks or other technical means of communication to commit offences against the juvenile sexual freedom. As we all know, a number of incidents occur over the Internet. We should fight against all these types of offences. Therefore, provisions relating to political and legal measures necessary effectively to fight child abuse images should be further developed.

Unfortunately, the number of consumers of pornography in Europe has increased. We are all aware that ratified international treaties should be directly applied, but in practice national authorities are directly applying a low number of those treaties, which actually compel national authorities to harmonise their domestic legislation with international norms and standards. The introduction of new solutions is slow, but possible. First, Council of Europe member States should strengthen their relevant national legislation. Secondly, we need more consistency, common legal frameworks and co-ordinated international action.

Identified problems in the system of protection of children from sale and exploitation in pornography and prostitution purposes include: the low level of public awareness, especially among children, about the problem of child trafficking and exploitation; underdeveloped national systems to protect children from trafficking and exploitation in pornography and prostitution; and under-representation of these issues in regular primary and secondary school curricula. Therefore, governments should implement and provide services to assist child victims and their families.

Children have basic, but not sufficient, information about exploitation and its various forms. The fact that their peers and the media are the main source of information shows, on the one hand, that countries have not done enough to make the necessary information available to children in an appropriate manner and, on the other hand, that prevention programmes should be organised through peer education, as children feel freer to speak about these things with their peers than with adults.

We must continue together to protect fundamental values such as the dignity and equality of all human beings, the safety and security of our societies and the safety and wellbeing of children.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Ms Marland-Militello from France. You have three minutes.

Ms MARLAND-MILITELLO (France) congratulated the rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee and endorsed the committee’s conclusions, the draft resolution and the draft recommendation.

Criminalising possession of child abuse images was one way to protect children from abuse. There had already been a change in the right direction: some images which, in the 1970s, would have been publicly available were now considered pornography. Sometimes such images were used for artistic purposes; for example, the film “Little Princess” showed a young girl exploited by her mother. Similarly, Visconti’s “The Damned” denounced the practices it depicted without ever straying into voyeurism.

Only cross-cutting measures would be effective in solving this problem. All countries should respond to the problem in the same way, should co-ordinate their efforts and should share information. It should not be forgotten that people had wanted the Internet to be created and had hoped that it would lead to increased freedom of access to information. There was, however, a need to restrain freedom in order to avoid negative effects on child protection. It was not widely recognised that many children were influenced by pornographic images and suffered subconsciously from exposure to such material. Members of the Assembly should be conscious that the freedom of one person ended at the point at which it infringed the freedom of another.

THE PRESIDENT – Next I call Mr Díaz Tejera from Spain.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) wished to congratulate Mr Mendes Bota and Mr Conde Bajén, not simply because they were his colleagues, but because he agreed entirely with the reports they had presented. He had been particularly struck by the speech of the UN rapporteur and observed that it was rare to hear a statement so full of passion as well as concrete proposals.

It was necessary to examine laws relating to child protection, which were often spread across different institutions. Civil society and national parliaments needed to work together to address these issues. Cybercrime was illegal in Spain, but a 2010 study had shown that there was no legislation on the matter in 90 countries, and that accessing child abuse images was not a criminal offence in 33 countries. There was, therefore, a legal vacuum to be filled. His French colleague had called for a cross-cutting approach, while others had highlighted the importance of implementing protocols. The technical instruments needed to block access to child abuse images existed, and why such instruments were not used was a question worth pursuit. It was essential to block access to services which created victims of child abuse.

He urged all countries to sign and ratify the Lanzarote Convention and to consider implementing protocols.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Ms Stavrositu.

Ms STAVROSITU (Romania) – I welcome the topic chosen for debate today and thank the rapporteurs for their work, which was well done.

Paedophilia and child pornography have become a major problem that has developed through the Internet on an international scale. The phenomenon has deep social and economic implications for a huge number of children under 18 who are subject to sexual abuse and exploitation.

Child pornography is dangerous because according to the latest figures the number of Internet users has grown a lot. Written materials have a limited distribution but materials posted on the Internet spread fast. Child pornography must be approached in the context of the child abuse phenomenon as a whole, including organised crime and prostitution. The rapid growth of child pornography on the Internet has led to the adoption of an important international legal framework to complement national legislation. Besides a legal framework, it is necessary to develop a coherent system of social assistance and protection as well as educational programmes. In fighting this scourge that characterises all modern societies, NGOs have urged national authorities to double their efforts in combating this phenomenon.

Eighty-six per cent of students have stated that they have at least one social network account. Their personal data and photos are invitations to paedophiles. Parents have a major responsibility to prevent child pornography through computer systems. They must closely supervise their children’s behaviour and attitude.

The only way we can reduce this type of pornography is to encourage people to talk about the problem. Awareness campaigns are important because through them we can inform children and parents about all the factors involved. Romania has an adequate legal framework, for example its Law on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Persons and the Law on the Prevention of Pornography. Child pornography carries a sentence of up to 12 years in prison, but the major problem for Romanian authorities is the difficulty in identifying the perpetrators.

I appreciate the seriousness with which European bodies have regarded the phenomenon and their concern about it. It is important to unify our efforts and to find the best solutions together. As parliamentarians of the greater Europe we are motivated to fight the atrocious phenomenon of sexual child abuse that can still be observed in all our countries.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Boldi.

Ms BOLDI (Italy) thanked the rapporteurs for reports that presented an accurate picture of the current situation. This would not be an easy problem to resolve but the proposals in the reports would begin to stem the flow and dissemination of child abuse images. The Internet was a useful tool, but as the debate showed, it had a darker side. It was inappropriate to discuss the right to freedom of information when dealing with questions of child abuse. All countries, especially the member States of the Council of Europe, should update their legislation on these matters. In 2006, Italy had passed legislation that provided for severe sanctions for those found guilty of offences related to child abuse images, and had made the accessing and distribution of such images a crime. Italy had signed the Lanzarote Convention in 2007 and was in the process of ratifying it. It had also introduced legal provisions to deal with anyone involved in encouraging child prostitution, obtaining or possessing child pornography, or corrupting minors.

The challenges of addressing the issue were significant, but it was possible for society to take action. It was necessary to ensure that all institutions involved in the process worked together, in particular, banking institutions and financial intermediaries who made possible the existence of websites containing child abuse images.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Katrinis.

Mr KATRINIS (Greece) – I congratulate the rapporteur Mr Conde Bajén on his excellent report and thorough approach on an issue that has an impact on all of us as it affects millions of children worldwide. Fighting the dissemination and distribution of child abuse images on the Internet cannot be dealt with by any country on its own. Joint action and initiatives are necessary, but how can we be optimistic when many of the member States of the Council of Europe and EU have still not signed or adopted the Lanzarote Convention, the most comprehensive and up-to-date document on sexual abuse and exploitation of children? The 150 million children in Europe are waiting for us to ensure that there are no countries where the ownership or distribution of child abuse images is not a criminal offence. We need to synchronise strategy, political action and legislation, and we need a legal framework in which the element of gaining profit is not required for the punishment of the owner and distributer of child abuse images. Moreover, we need to introduce specific, practical measures, such as the immediate banning of relevant websites and the addition of filters. Such policies must be enforced despite the dangers for freedom on the Internet, which can be achieved through ad hoc regulations and collaboration with web service providers.

We need to create and maintain undercover websites in order to track offenders. Also, in order to facilitate the investigation of international cases, we need to retain electronic traces for more than a year in order to promote collaboration among international police authorities. Drafting a blacklist of law breakers with year-long restraints is also necessary, and the relevant penalties must be as strict as possible.

It is equally important to inform children and their parents about the dangers lurking on the Internet. Educating professionals who are in close contact with children – particularly teachers – is key, because those professionals can detect the early signs of sexual abuse and exploitation on the web. We hope that the Council of Europe One in Five campaign will help in that direction.

Politicians, public authorities, society and private individuals must enforce a common framework to protect children against dangers that are so far away but that come so much closer through the Internet. We need to act nationally to ensure European and global protection for our children.

We must act immediately, because, as the famous Greek poet Antonis Samarakis once wrote, “If only one child gets hurt, the whole world comes to an end.”

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Katrinis. The next speaker is Mr Badea.

Mr BADEA (Romania) congratulated the rapporteurs on dealing with an extremely delicate subject. The Council of Europe campaign was to be welcomed as it involved delegates from national parliaments and promoted greater co-operation. The Romanian Government had taken various steps to tackle the prevalence of child pornography, including transposition of the Budapest and Lanzarote Conventions into Romanian law. Other parts of their legislative arsenal that could be used to tackle the issue included a code of criminal procedure in respect of human trafficking, legislation on the conduct of functions in public office, and regulation governing Internet service providers. Overall, Romania had adopted an holistic approach in accordance with the 2006 UN study on violence against children. At an institutional level, the public prosecutions officer was equipped with specialist expertise. Romanian police were co-operating with Microsoft to produce a database to assist in the fight against child pornography, and Romania was the first country in eastern Europe to take this approach.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Badea. The next speaker is Ms Kyriakidou.

Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent report. Children, who represent the future generation and our hope for a better world, have regrettably become the targets of the most horrendous of crimes, that of sexual exploitation and abuse. No member State can escape that reality.

The information and communications revolution that we are experiencing today has allowed criminals and other offenders to exploit loopholes and grey areas in legislation and judicial systems by using the Internet and new online media. Supervision and control mechanisms that have been utilised in the past to, for example, track terrorist suspects could also be used to track users of material related to child pornography.

Many things can be done in terms of both the existing legal framework and national and local policies and instruments. Existing legislation is far reaching and punitive, yet some member States have still not ratified or implemented the Lanzarote and Budapest Conventions. We urge those countries to address that matter as soon as possible. Additionally, as the report mentions, some articles need to be strengthened so that there is no ambiguity or possibility of an opt-out, which would diminish the conventions’ effect and scope. It is up to us to give the Council of Europe One in Five campaign a practical dimension and impetus.

Child-friendly justice systems and preventive strategies aimed at educating children and their parents about positive Internet browsing and other issues resulting from the use of wireless devices by children can do a lot in terms of informing children about their rights, privacy and dignity, especially in the context of social networking.

We must secure children’s right to dignity and provide unconditional and targeted protection for their wellbeing. We must teach our children when to say no and give them the tools to understand when a touch is or is not acceptable. Victimised children will live unhappy lives and carry many traumas, while perpetrators who are not punished will repeat their malignant acts over and over again. Such environments and the social fabric that they breed will not establish the free, democratic and creative societies that we want to secure for the next generation.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Kyriakidou. I see Mr Frunda is not here, so I call Ms Schuster.

Ms SCHUSTER (Germany) thanked the rapporteurs. The first report, in particular, had raised many important truths. Child pornography was a gruesome form of pornography and governments needed to do all they could to combat its prevalence and raise awareness. She acknowledged the difficulty in bringing to justice those who viewed and circulated pornographic images of children, and emphasised the need for a range of instruments to find and bring them to justice. The relevant authorities required sufficient training and resources in order to carry out the searches that were necessary. Furthermore, international co-ordination was vital. It was not enough for countries to act solely at a national level. It was essential that, once found, such images were permanently deleted. Barring access to websites was not a solution on its own since the images they contained could still be circulated to other websites. Strong measures were necessary to ensure that the rules were not circumvented, but it was necessary, too, to protect the right to freedom of information and communication.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Chernyshenko. He is not in his place, so I call Mr Ghiletchi.

Mr GHILETCHI (Moldova) – I, too, thank both rapporteurs for presenting good reports on issues that do not give us much pleasure to discuss. A colleague from my national delegation asked me last night what the issues were on today’s agenda, and my short answer was, pornography. He thought that it was a bad political joke. Unfortunately, it was not.

Regardless of our views on these subjects, the Parliamentary Assembly’s decision to take action against “child pornography” and “violent and extreme pornography” is a very important one. By adopting those two resolutions and recommendations, we will send a clear message to all member States that such vice has no place in our societies.

I should like the first two sentences of Mr Conde Bajén’s report to be sent to every member of parliament in Europe. Let us listen again to these words: “Child abuse images are not just images…one must never forget that behind every image, there is at least one child who has been sexually abused in real life.”

The Internet has been the most spectacular communications development of the past 10 years, but, as the report states, the Internet can also be misused, for example, by circulating indecent child abuse images. That is why it is so important to put in place laws and regulations with stringent penalties in order to combat the creation, distribution and simple possession of such material.

I was glad to see that the resolution recommends: “All member States should be ready to apply the most far-reaching measures to fight the production, dissemination and consultation of child abuse images, including the blocking of websites containing illegal contents wherever required and appropriate.” It underlines the Parliamentary Assembly’s desire to protect society, particularly children, from exposure to such material to which access can no longer be reliably controlled through existing legislation, and which may encourage interest in violent and perverse sexual activity.

The report also mentions the wide disparity in the national laws of Council of Europe member States. Differences between national laws may create loopholes that can be exploited by producers, distributors and collectors of child abuse images. It is also important to keep in mind that poor countries are attractive targets for sex tourism and human trafficking, so international co-operation is essential if there is to be effective action against the production and distribution of such material.

Our children deserve a much better future. Let us do everything we can to offer them the best possible future.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Andersen.

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – Child abuse is certainly very harmful. Indeed, it is tremendously harmful to those who are affected, and of course it is also a grave violation of a child’s human rights. It is therefore very important that we deal with it. The United Nations special rapporteur said that we needed a co-ordinated, multi-sector and international approach to this very serious question. That is right, and it brings me to the next point in my speech.

Such pornography is very profitable. There is a lot of money in it, so international action is required to stop, monitor and police it, and as a penalty we should strip people of its profits. That is necessary if we are to stop such activity and the black market that really makes it possible and profitable.

My next point is on the Lanzarote Convention. Everybody should ratify it, but importantly it should be implemented and brought into force, because many countries have laws, reports and plans to do things, but there are no police resources dedicated to training or to the time required to go into such cases. I am afraid that such laws will therefore not help children.

I am also convinced that we need international action on the ground, involving teachers, children and a campaign to make children aware and more competent at protecting themselves. However, children should never have to be responsible for protecting themselves. We must certainly educate them about their right to say no, but we must never think that that is going to be enough, because they cannot protect themselves. We adults, politicians and authorities are the ones who have to protect them, both in our own countries and through international co-operation.

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

Mr MARQUET (Monaco) said that discussion of such a painful subject carried a real risk of being overwhelmed by emotion and of not producing with any tangible proposals. The members of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee had proved able to find the necessary distance to deal with the issue, however, and were to be congratulated on a remarkable piece of work.

The lives of children who were victims of pornography were transformed, not only by the act itself but by the indelible mark on their minds. The Assembly was very concerned about the scale of pornography-related offences. The number of such offences was increasing rather than decreasing. Communication technology had boosted crime of that type, and images were available on the Internet across the world, almost instantaneously for virtually no cost and with complete anonymity. It was very difficult to protect the victims as a result. There was nothing virtual about these images because each photograph of sexual abuse involved a crime and encouraged others to engage in that type of behaviour. Accessing such images on the Internet was in itself reprehensible, although in some countries, it was not a crime to do so.

Member States that had not signed or ratified the Council of Europe’s conventions were urged to do so, although the conventions themselves needed to be strengthened. Websites containing such images should be blocked when deleting the images proved not possible. Measures had to be put in place to shut down websites with such images on them. Children had to be protected as strongly as commercial interests were protected. The technology existed to enable that.

Members should consider attending a conference in Monaco in November, and it should be borne in mind that one in five people were victims of sexual abuse.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Marquet. The next speaker is Mr Markov. He is not here, so I call Ms Carlino.

Ms CARLINO (Italy) said that member States had to redouble their efforts to protect young children from exploitation. Given global communications, the Assembly should send a clear call for all countries to pool their efforts to hinder any kind of abuse of the rights of children and women.

Special attention had to be paid to freedom of expression and the Internet. Websites could not hide behind the concept of freedom of expression. Joint action by all countries was also required to detect and hinder crimes of the type under discussion. A greater focus on socio-economic measures and promotion of the rights of women and children was desirable.

Italy would ratify the Lanzarote Convention within the next week.

THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers. I thank you all.

I call Mr Mendes Bota to reply both as Rapporteur and as Chairperson for the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. You have seven minutes.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – What can I say after listening to all my colleagues? There is unanimity about what is going on with our children and our women, as it seems that violence is spreading throughout our behaviour. As I said in my opening speech, there are two big dangers. The main danger is normalisation; we regard everything as normal – violence is normal, abuse is normal, and pornography becomes normal. The other danger, as I said, is the danger of imitation. When some of those sick minds and some of those young children see those scenes and images, there is probably a big risk of imitation.

The Internet was mentioned by practically everyone. It is now a part of our life. It is like a SWAT operation. The Internet offers a big opportunity for commerce, the economy, interconnection and communication. Many people say that they could not live without the Internet but, at the same time, the Internet is a big threat, as we are losing control of our lives. Some of our values are very badly changed by the Internet.

The Internet is one of the main strengths of modern life, as well as one of its main weaknesses. We have to open our eyes and look at what is a threat and what is a weakness. We have discussed criminalisation and legislation. Very few countries have taken legislative measures to persecute those predators and to criminalise the possession of those materials. We must undertake research, because the best way to act is to be sure of the reality. Scientific research must be conducted, and we need surveys and statistics. We need to know what the phenomena are: we need to know what the root is and where this is going so that we can act properly.

We have to train the professionals who deal with the children. We need ethical codes, and we must deal with people in the industry. We must talk to the media and the entertainment industry and work with them, not against them, to provide a proper code of ethics so that we can make compatible humanity’s real values with this threat to the future of our society.

Many colleagues, moved by the intensity of this theme, said that we had to block the Internet. They said that we had to create cyber patrols. They said, “This is not a joke. This is reality.” I agree that action must be both national and international. Without international co-operation, it is not possible to counter this phenomenon. To people who claim that this is freedom of expression, we must say, “No, this is an abuse of freedom of expression.” To the parliamentarians of those countries who have not signed or ratified the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, the Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse and the Convention on Cybercrime, I say that their first step when they get home should be to question their governments as to why they have not yet done so. There are a lot of things to do.

Although this Assembly, as a house of democracy, sometimes has conflicting interests and opinions, when it comes to the abuse of children and women, pornography and violence, we must show zero tolerance. As Mr Hancock said in his contribution, such crimes should be considered crimes against humanity.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Conde Bajén, Rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. You have six minutes.

Mr CONDE BAJÉN (Spain) thanked colleagues for their kind words. He thanked the Secretariat and the experts who made important contributions.

There was much misunderstanding about the type of crimes being discussed. Awareness had to be raised about the role of women in providing child abuse images. An impression existed that only men did such things, but 40% of individuals detained for crimes of this type were women. People needed to know that fact, so that children could be protected from both genders.

Around 40% of images came from the USA, 40% from Europe and 20% from the rest of the world. Those figures made it clear that the most civilised countries had the biggest problems.

Individual parliamentarians could do a great deal: they could ask questions in their parliaments, they could monitor the activities of their governments, they could be a thorn in the side of their governments. Shedding light on this problem ought to be a top priority. Parliamentarians should demand that Internet providers made the Internet safe and free from the images being discussed. The right to freedom of expression should not be invoked as an excuse for flooding the Internet with such images.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms M’jid to respond to the debate.

Ms M’JID (United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography) said that the rights of the children had to prevail. It was important for every country to adopt the Assembly’s resolutions and conventions. A means must be found of ensuring that websites could be blocked when images of pornography could not be removed. Children were the victims of these crimes, and children had to be empowered so that they could be actors for change.

A sense of responsibility was required, and there was a need to co-operate at European level to eradicate this problem.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Maury Pasquier, Chairperson of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. You have two minutes.

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) thanked the rapporteurs and observed that the level of commitment shown by members of the Assembly suggested that progress would certainly be made in this area.

THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution and a draft recommendation in Doc. 12720. No amendments have been tabled. The Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men has presented a draft resolution in Doc. 12719, to which one amendment has been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled. We will first consider the draft resolution and draft recommendation from the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12720.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12720 is adopted, with 70 votes for.

We now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12720.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12720 is adopted, with 78 votes for and 1 abstention.

We will now consider the draft resolution relating to violent pornography, to which one amendment has been tabled. I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 1, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

Is that so, Mr Mendes Bota?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – Yes, Madam President, this amendment was approved by the committee unanimously.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? As there is no objection, I declare that Amendment 1 has been adopted.

The following amendment has been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Ms Hägg, Ms Feric-Vac, Ms Memecan and Mr Ghiletchi, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 9.3.1, to insert the following words:

“. Research should also clarify, by means of comparative studies, whether the impact on viewers varies depending on the real or fictitious nature of images”.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12719, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12719, as amended, is adopted, with 78 votes for.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12719, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 12719, as amended, is adopted, with 78 votes.

(Mr Braun, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Huovinen.)

4. The impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the Council of Europe

THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the debate on a report from the Political Affairs Committee on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the Council of Europe (Doc. 12713), presented by Ms Lundgren, Rapporteur for the Committee, with opinions presented by Mr Omtzigt on behalf of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee (Doc. 12743); Mr Flego on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Doc. 12741); and Mr Mendes Bota on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (Doc. 12746).

In order to finish by 6 p.m., we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.35 p.m. to allow time for the reply and votes.

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

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Thank you, Mr President and dear colleagues still present in the Chamber. With the Lisbon Treaty, this Assembly can fulfil a long-standing dream. For more than 40 years, this Assembly in different resolutions has called for European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Lisbon Treaty binds the EU to accede to the human rights convention. The EU now has the legal status and with that come new opportunities for a reinforced partnership between the Council of Europe and the EU, based on each other’s acquis and comparative advantages. For the Council of Europe, the challenge, in that new environment, is to enhance our competitive advantages as the benchmark for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, to improve standards in Europe. We must do that not to safeguard this institution or that institution but to safeguard our citizens’ human rights.

The report covers several aspects of the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the Council of Europe. EU accession is the most important, but it is not the only one. The report notes the main changes introduced by the treaty, the institutional aspects of the Council of Europe and relations with the EU. As we all know, there is a memorandum of understanding, which is functioning rather well. That should be evaluated not later than 2013.

In addition, there is increased democratic accountability in the treaty, an increased commitment to fundamental rights, and enhanced citizen participation. In all those areas, there is room for improved co-operation to achieve a common space for human rights protection throughout Europe, coherence of standards and monitoring, and the implementation of standards throughout Europe. In addition, there is the opportunity to strengthen our advantages in all those areas and in new areas. This week, we have discussed the Partnership for Democracy. There we have one of the key instruments to gain advantages in our neighbourhood policy and we must make use of that. There are big interests in the EU, particularly in respect of foreign affairs.

Having said that I would like to mention a new vision, or perhaps it is not new, as we have had the Juncker report since 2006. There is a possibility for the EU to accede to the Council of Europe statute. That could be a vision for all of us, as I point out in the report.

Of course, we must focus on the first step on what is a long journey. We as parliamentarians seemed to rather smoothly find our way in solving problems that could hinder accession. We have shown good will and found solutions. The expert bodies and the informal negotiation bodies have also made good efforts and reached an agreement on accession that worked out well. Representatives of civil society joined in that and were consulted, which was good. They are with us, so as parliamentarians we must make use of that because the first step has not yet been taken.

It is up to us as representatives of our people to show leadership and to make sure that the protection of human rights in Europe will be strengthened, and that EU laws are scrutinised under the same rules and by the same court as laws decided in our different parliaments. It is up to us to promote accession to other key conventions and monitoring bodies. I mention some of them in the report and in the draft resolution. It is up to us in our national parliaments to take the lead to make the accession as smooth as possible. We are not there yet. It is not easy. It may even be hard to get there, but the decision on the EU has already been taken.

For many years, we have asked the EU to join us, so now we have a specific responsibility to work hard in our parliaments with our governments. Wouldn’t it be great if the British chairmanship of the Council of Europe could be successful in respect of EU accession to the Convention on Human Rights? However, it is up to us and I challenge you all to do all you can to make that happen.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. You have five minutes remaining. I now call Mr Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – I congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Lundgren, on her excellent report, which deals with a wide range of political and legal issues stemming from the Lisbon Treaty in the context of relations between the Council of Europe and the EU. The treaty creates new opportunities to improve further the synergies between both Organisations. The most notable is EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, a big step forward for the continent.

The draft treaty is ready. We all know that. That is why I underline the words of the rapporteur, who invited the future British presidency to ensure that the agreement is signed quickly and that ratification is moved forward. Let us not delay any further.

The EU should accede to a number of treaties and key conventions. I am referring to those on the exploitation of children, trafficking of human beings, violence against women, data protection and access to official documents. There is no contradiction between those.

The amendments of the committee emphasise the need to ensure coherence of human rights standards in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU and we welcome efforts made so far by both courts. It stresses that the EU should also join the monitoring mechanism of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The EU’s Stockholm programme of priorities in the fields of justice and of home affairs frequently mentions the Council of Europe. The European Commission should therefore ensure close co-operation with the Council of Europe in its action plan to implement the Stockholm programme and emphasise that, following the implementation of the Lisbon treaty, the EU has gained more competences, namely freedom, security and justice. Colleagues will see those three words appear in a number of the amendments. That development directly concerns areas that are traditionally the concern of the Council of Europe. The consultation process between the EU and the Council of Europe should therefore be particularly intensive.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Omtzigt. I call Mr Flego to present the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education.

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – I congratulate the rapporteur on her comprehensive report. I will confine my remarks to one area. As has been said, we mentioned education dozens of times in our discussions, and several times this morning it was stressed that education and knowledge lie at the basis of our concern about human welfare. Besides, education and research were treated as major issues in the formulation of the Lisbon strategy in 2010, which planned for an EU that is prosperous, socially balanced and globally competitive. I could cite many more such examples, but it is evident that everyday life largely depends on education and research.

We must take every chance to establish the central role of education in societal and individual existence. That is why the Committee on Culture, Science and Education regrets that the reform of the intergovernmental sector of the Council of Europe was accomplished before the analysis of the impact of the Lisbon Treaty. We must take every chance to promote the further development of education, and the Lisbon Treaty assists us in doing so. It stipulates in Articles 165(3) and 167(3) the need to co-operate with the Council of Europe in the spheres of culture, education and sport. In order to strengthen and repeat our commitment to promote education, culture and sport, we, the members of the committee, have proposed four amendments focused on that goal, and we invite the Parliamentary Assembly to vote for them.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Flego. I call Mr Mendes Bota to present the opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – I congratulate the rapporteur on her full and comprehensive report, which includes some sound recommendations.

The report encourages the European Union to accede to key Council of Europe conventions and calls for strengthened co-operation in some policy areas. Those objectives should also be pursued in the fields of equality between women and men and of women’s rights. Once the process of EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights is complete, the EU should also accede to the Istanbul Convention. The EU should ensure that its future legislation in the field of violence against women is fully in line with Council of Europe standards. At the political level, there should be more interaction between the Assembly and the European Parliament in this area, with joint events and campaigns.

On the trafficking of human beings, the committee believes that as a new EU directive on trafficking has been adopted, EU member States should now be able to overcome the remaining difficulties and conclude the ratification process around the Convention on Action against Trafficking. In adopting legislation to give effect to the EU directive, EU member States should keep in mind that the EU directive only sets a minimum standard and that they remain free to introduce more protective measures. In addition, the existence of multiple monitoring mechanisms on trafficking in Europe – the national rapporteurs, the EU anti-trafficking co-ordinator and the group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings in the Council of Europe – requires further co-ordination to ensure consistency and avoid monitoring fatigue on the part of member States.

Recent events on the southern shore of the Mediterranean have opened new prospects for co-operation between those countries and the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly granted for the first time the status of Partner for Democracy to the Parliament of Morocco, and other parliaments from the region might follow. The procedure for granting that status attaches great importance to the applicant’s commitment to achieve gender equality and parity-based democracy.

The European Union has also taken up the challenge of helping North African countries in their process of democratic transition. In the committee’s opinion, it is important to ensure that, irrespective of their different means and vocations, the two Organisations convey the same political message that equality and parity-based democracy are essential elements in the process of democratic transition and that women should not be set aside either now or in the future.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Mendes Bota. In the debate I call first Mr Marquet who speaks on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr MARQUET (Monaco) said that member States and non-member States were passengers aboard the same boat heading in the same direction—a united Europe without divisions. The future success of the European project depended on achieving co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union. Though their paths differed at times, the destination was the same.

It was true that democracy could not survive without social stability but social rights could not be assured without democratic rights. The principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law supported by the Council of Europe were also fundamental to the process of European integration. At the same time the European Union had considerably reinforced the security of the continent through economic and political integration of member States.

He congratulated his colleague, Kerstin Lundgren, on her work in addressing a fundamental issue. At the third summit of the Council of Europe in Warsaw in 2005, heads of State had emphasised the complementarity between the Council of Europe and the other institutions participating in the construction of a democratic Europe. The new European architecture emerging today was rising in the context of a fiscal and financial crisis among EU member States. That context demonstrated the importance of finding synergies and means of co-operation between the different institutions of the European Union and the Council of Europe.

The Treaty of Lisbon had prompted far-reaching and profound reforms that had had direct and indirect effects on the Council of Europe. The EU had turned its attention to areas that had for a long time been the exclusive spheres of the Assembly, such as the role of national European parliaments, the introduction of the European Citizen Initiative, and the creation of a European ombudsman. It was important to develop synergies and concrete tools of co-operation to avoid duplication of action and to ensure efficiency in the functioning of the EU and the Council of Europe.

The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon had constituted a significant step forward for democracy but there was much progress still to be made on human rights. Concern also remained at the treatment of asylum seekers by the European Union in the wake of the Arab Spring.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – May I extend to Kerstin Lundgren the compliments of the Group of the Unified European Left on her comprehensive report? It deals with two important matters: first, how to promote more coherence between the two big European projects, the Council of Europe and the European Union; and secondly, how to develop common space for human rights protection under the European Convention on Human Rights. Those are very important matters, as Ms Lundgren states in her report.

Thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, it is no longer a matter of if, but of when and how the European Union accedes to the European Convention on Human Rights. In that context, the European Union fulfilled a longstanding wish of this Assembly. I remember that we had many motions on the issue and excellent reports from, for example, my compatriot Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc. Thanks to the Lisbon Treaty also, the obligation to accede now exists, and it is therefore up to us, meaning the European Union and the member States of the Council of Europe, to take care of a quick and smooth accession, given that saying that you have to accede to the convention is easier than acceding to it because you said you would.

At the beginning, clearly the ever-present danger was that if politicians, governments and parliaments were not able to guarantee a smooth and quick accession, our beloved eurocrats would take over and guarantee a slow and complex accession. From the outset, we had the clear conviction that accession would take place quickly. I remember that Secretary-General Jagland said that it would be quick and smooth, but we have already postponed it twice.

Peter Omtzigt says, “Yes, we know the accession treaty is there, but it should become a real treaty,” and I agree with him and with Kerstin that we should urge our new chair, the British Government, to ensure that the treaty is signed during its presidency. Clearly, we will place eternal blame on them if they misuse the situation and do not ensure a quick signing, because we know that in many countries there are some legitimate objections to the Court, but we should not allow our governments and politicians to abuse that and hinder the quick accession of the European Union to the Convention. So, this is an open invitation to our new Chairman to ensure that at some point during their chairmanship the treaty is signed, because only when it is signed will I believe that we have that accession.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Sasi on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr SASI (Finland) – I thank Ms Lundgren for her very good and timely report. The Lisbon Treaty was a clear step forward for the European Union, and from our point of view two things are very important. First, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Union’s bill of rights, is now written into the rules and legally binding. It was a declaration before, but it is now legally binding, and that is very important. Secondly, accession to the Human Rights Convention is very important, too.

The Charter is very good, because in all constitutions there are rules on human rights, and it seemed strange that there were no such rules in the European Union’s constitutional treaty. National constitutions include such rules, so the system is the European Union is now a very logical one.

On accession to the Human Rights Convention, we have to remember that the European Union will not become a member of the Council of Europe, but we need a lot of co-operation and the EU should be involved in work on the Convention.

Interestingly, the Human Rights Convention will involve a European Union Court, and that may cause some friction, because one will be able to appeal against decisions by the European Court. That may create some difficult situations, but there are supreme courts in member States, and one can appeal against their decisions to the European Court, so it is nothing special. It is quite normal, and one should understand it in that way.

Importantly, however, there must be a high level of respect between all supreme courts, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. They should learn from each other’s decisions, and the Human Rights Court should employ a wide margin of appreciation when making its decisions. The European Court now takes into account constitutional traditions, and both Courts should apply that rule in future.

Accession is therefore very important as well, but now we have a strange situation. Member States of the European Union are bound by the Human Rights Convention, but European institutions are not. It is very natural that the institutions be bound by the same rules as member countries. When we prepare directives in the European Union, all human rights rules will apply to them in advance.

I must emphasise the division of labour between the European Union and the Council of Europe. The European Union should place more trust in us as far as human rights are concerned, and it should use our expertise. On our monitoring reports, for example, I have spoken to its Commissioner with responsibility for enlargement, so our reports are read very carefully and utilised, but importantly that should apply to all fields and, especially, to freedom and justice, the process that was started in 1999 during the Finnish presidency in my home town of Tampere.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Lord Anderson, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – The Socialist Group warmly congratulates our colleague Ms Lundgren. I will make two general points. First, clearly, the Council of Europe and the European Union should not be in competition; each should yield to the other in areas of expertise and avoid duplication. Human rights is clearly the raison d’être of the Council of Europe, and the move under discussion strengthens the rights of all EU citizens.

Secondly, the Lisbon Treaty offers new possibilities for co-operation, particularly on the conventions that have been mentioned. As a lawyer, I make this point: the process of evolving the association agreement shows how highly complex the matter is, but there is a danger that individual litigants will lose out because of time and expense, particularly in respect of the co-respondent provisions. Further, both Courts are clearly overloaded and need streamlining. Our European Court of Human Rights, in spite of Interlaken and Izmir, now has more than 160 000 cases, and the case load is increasing by 12% a year. At the European Court of Justice, the average turnaround for competition cases is 33 months – justice delayed is, indeed, justice denied.

I make this point as a politician. It pains me to say that the European Convention is under attack from a founding member that will shortly assume the presidency of this Council. So far, my own country, the UK, has an exemplary record on accepting judgments by the Court, but our home secretary told her party yesterday that she personally wished to repeal our Human Rights Act, which is based on the Convention. Today, The Daily Telegraph – the house magazine of the Conservative Party – said, “Ms May should turn her fire on Strasbourg.” The British Government is playing for time on the judgment on the rights of prisoners, and it is riding a wave of populism and nationalism, only restrained by the Liberal Democrats, and has set a bad example to others who have a less happy track record in human rights.

Finally, what can we do as national parliamentarians? Mr Kox made that point – we should clearly encourage our governments speedily to ratify the association agreement when it is ultimately agreed, to increase and make coherent the human rights base in our Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Lord Anderson.

I understand that the rapporteur does not wish to comment at this stage, so I call Mr Mignon.

Mr MIGNON (France) said that the French founding fathers would not have dared conjure up in their wildest dreams a Europe united in human rights. The Council of Europe and the European Union were the two children of such idealistic ideas. The European Union was concerned about matters of trade and the Council of Europe was concerned about the ethical values that were the foundation of its charter. There had been a risk that the Court in Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights could be confused but that risk had been minimised.

The report examined how the policy would affect Partnership for Democracy status for Mediterranean countries. It was to be hoped that the UK Presidency would make it possible to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Mignon. The next speaker is Mr Rouquet.

Mr ROUQUET (France) congratulated Ms Lundgren on her excellent report. The Lisbon Treaty could have only positive consequences. The democratic deficit from which the European Union had suffered was in the process of being balanced, thanks to improvements to the protection of fundamental rights of European citizens and the fact that greater control was being exercised over actions taken by the European Union. It was astonishing to note, in light of the possibilities offered by the accession of the EU to the ECHR, that the actions taken by the EU had had a kind of legal immunity with regard to human rights. It was true that the European Court of Justice had produced a set of general legal principles largely based on the work of the European Court of Human Rights and that the actions taken by the Council of the European Parliament could be seen as respecting human rights. Nevertheless the recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights had shown that the Reglement Dublin II had left a legal vacuum that had led the court to find jointly against Greece and Belgium for a violation of article 3 because of mistreatment.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Rouquet. The next speaker is Lord Tomlinson.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – I congratulate Ms Lundgren on her excellent report, but I offer my apologies for spending most of my time in this speech ignoring it, because I want to take up the theme initiated by Mr Kox and continued by Lord Anderson about the fact that the European Court of Human Rights is under attack from a founding member State of the Council of Europe that is about to assume the presidency of the Committee of Ministers. It is an unprecedented set of circumstances yet, not by coincidence but by planning and design, the Home Secretary, who is responsible for domestic legislation in this area, gave an interview to The Sunday Telegraph in which she called for Britain to abrogate European human rights legislation which, I remind the Assembly, the Labour government incorporated into UK domestic law.

Things went further at the Conservative party conference yesterday. Ms May made some remarks which led to a leader in The Daily Telegraph today, to which Lord Anderson referred: “Ms May should turn her fire on Strasbourg.” The Daily Telegraph goes on to advise that the Home Secretary was absolutely right to question the “malign” impact of this piece of legislation. It is the detail of what is being said, not just the rhetoric, that is worrying. I understand that David Cameron will continue the attack on the European Convention on Human Rights in his speech today.

I never thought that I would say in the Council of Europe that the former head of MI5, Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, who gave three Reith lectures on her role as head of our security services, would give a much more balanced view of our commitment to human rights and human rights legislation than would a government of the United Kingdom.

However, it is not all bad news. We in the United Kingdom still have a bicameral Parliament, and the question of our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights was debated in the House of Lords only a few months ago. Almost without exception, every member of the House of Lords who spoke, from every part of the House, expressed their commitment to its continuation. Were this “malign” government to make a proposal for legislation, therefore, the upper House, even though people sometimes question its democratic legitimacy, would strenuously oppose it.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Lord Tomlinson. The next speaker is Mr Frunda.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania) – Listening to our colleagues from Great Britain, especially Lord Tomlinson, I feel very calm, as I know that the Monitoring Committee will have a lot of work in the coming years.

I congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Lundgren, on her comprehensive and analytical report. I want to speak not about the positive elements of the Lisbon Treaty and the good relations between the European Union and the Council of Europe, but about the danger that the Council of Europe will lose its goal. In recent years, the European Union, European Parliament and Commission have, step by step, taken the attributes of the Council of Europe. It is normal for the European Union and Commission to handle economic, political, financial and trade problems, but they should leave to us what we have dealt with for 60 years: human rights, the Court, the rule of law and democracy. However, we have witnessed the agency set out at the Vienna Summit being taken on by the other court, which judges more or less the same matters that are judged in Strasbourg.

It is in the interests of the citizens of Europe to limit the incursion of the European Union into the attributes of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe will survive in the same form only if it and the European Union have their own separate attributes. That is our main goal. In the field of human rights, the Court has the main importance for all democracies. Implementation of decisions of the Court is fundamental to respect for human rights. The institution of the European Union must respect the decisions of the Court. If not, we will lose our most important instrument: the Court. We must have a clear discussion with the European Union but not merge the two institutions.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Frunda. Mr Strässer is not here, so I call Mr Béteille.

Mr BÉTEILLE (France) said that the Council of Europe and the European Union’s origins were rooted in the ambition of bringing together the peoples of Europe. The two Organisations had complementary roles and had mutually influenced one another. The Council of Europe had to make its expertise on human rights readily available. The added value of an agency on fundamental rights in the European Union had not yet been proven.

There was an opportunity to strengthen the rule of law in Europe and to make savings in times of financial austerity. The two Organisations could work hand in hand when, until now, they had been content to work in parallel. A number of difficulties still had to be ironed out before accession could take place. Each member State would have to ratify the agreement. The treaty would pave the way for all kinds of collaboration between the two institutions and should enhance the partnership. The time was ripe to take advantage of the momentum generated to promote co-operation in other areas. The Council of Europe could contribute much to the establishment of democratic institutions, for example.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Béteille. I call Ms Zimmerman.

Ms ZIMMERMANN (France) said that the report presented by Ms Lundgren set out clearly the advantages for both the European Union and the Council of Europe of the possibility of the European Union acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights. In giving legal personality to the European Union, the Lisbon Treaty allowed the EU to participate in international relations as though it were a nation State. It would be possible for the European Union to accede to other Council of Europe conventions, such as those relating to gender equality.

As the Chair of the Committee on Women’s Rights in her own parliament, she had seen how international conventions had the power to encourage States to take action towards improving sex equality. For example, although equality of employment rights was part of the convention, the existence of opt-outs allowed some States to avoid fully complying with the convention. The opportunity for the European Union to accede to Council of Europe conventions offered an added means of creating binding guarantees on member States. It offered a chance for European legislatures to work towards achieving genuinely equal rights for women. Closer co-operation between the European Union and the Council of Europe was a way of making the dream of a European civilisation of human rights a reality.

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

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, the document presented here discusses in detail many aspects of the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the Council of Europe, but I suggest that we should go back to the essentials, to the roots, to see what the main goal of the Lisbon Treaty is. In my opinion, this can be formulated in a quite simple way: “Let us go ahead on the way of deepening European integration”.

The EU represents 27 European States, but the Council of Europe regroups almost all States from the Ural mountains to the Atlantic, so there is and must be a strong interconnection between the two Organisations. Today, this is expressed in several structures founded on the above bases. Sometimes, it is almost impossible for an everyday European citizen to understand the jungle of these structures. One very important mission for us would be to bring these structures closer to the people and to involve as much as possible the European States that are not members of the EU. Another related mission for us would be to prepare, in the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty, these countries to be able to adhere to, and integrate into, the EU without major difficulties. Believe me, dear colleagues, in the regions of eastern Europe where Stalin was once dictator, this is a very hard task.

For instance, on the treatment of minorities there is a lot to do, since all European States must accept that the Lisbon Treaty introduced the term “minorities” into EU primary law, which was the first explicit reference to minorities in the history of the EU. With the entry into force of the treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights acquired the same legal value as the EU treaties. The charter refers explicitly to national minorities in Article 21. Consequently, the concept of “national minority” became a notion of EU law.

On the other hand, there is an economic dimension, too. As our Prime Minister, Mr Orbán, declared last week in Warsaw, it is a big necessity for the European economy also to enlarge the EU towards the east. Besides all of that, there are major cultural differences, which should be overcome with our help.

In conclusion, I would say that the Council of Europe should help the acceptance of the principles of the Lisbon Treaty particularly in countries that are not members of the EU but want to be so in future. By doing this, we will help their preparation for a problem-free membership.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kalmár. The next speaker is Mr Sudarenkov from Russia.

Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation) observed that the report presented by Ms Lundgren reflected the institutional changes that were taking place within the European Union. There was a new impetus for the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. This would enhance protection of human rights in the member States of the Council of Europe.

The rights to a healthy environment and a secure area in which to live were important, but the EU could exercise influence in areas such as education. He was in favour of the amendments that had been tabled. There was no risk of any overlap; there were a number of advantages to co-operation between the EU and the Council of Europe. He encouraged the Assembly to invite the European Union to join the Convention on the Protection of the Environment and supported a review of the Convention on Human Rights, although there was no need for many changes to be made.

The report presented by Ms Lundgren contained a number of ideas which would also have an impact on countries outside the European Union. He hoped that the expectations of the report would be fully met.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Our next speaker is Mr Mota Amaral.

Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – Mr President, the Lisbon Treaty has been praised as a new foundation for the European Union, but of course that is not the case. The short experience of its implementation has provided evidence of the ineffectiveness of its major innovations. The increased weight of the bigger countries in the functioning of the Union is a direct consequence of the reformed voting rules enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. This new situation does not mean that the smaller countries have lost their voice in defining the European approach to the ever-changing problems with which the Union and its citizens are confronted, but, unfortunately, it looks like that. As members of national parliaments, we cannot admit that kind of evolution of the European Union.

The report that we are discussing today, presented by Ms Lundgren, on which I congratulate her and the Political Affairs Committee, concentrates on the possibilities for an enlarged co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union. Relevant suggestions are included in the draft resolution and the draft recommendation that deserve, and will certainly receive, the approval of the Assembly. I emphasise the possible accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and many other conventions.

The Council of Europe has a well-known, successful and prestigious experience in the field of promoting human rights, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Very high benchmarking has been established by our Organisation on these matters. There is a real risk that the Union might persist in the creation of bureaucratic services in those same areas, causing confusion among our citizens and even damaging beneficial achievements. Every effort must be made to avoid double standards and overlap of institutions with similar competences and to avoid unnecessary costs. The understanding between the Council of Europe and the EU is not perfect, but it includes reasonable proposals aimed at co-operation. Should our Assembly perform a monitoring role in respect of the memorandum to verify implementation? I leave that question with the rapporteur and the committee.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers. I call the rapporteur to reply. You have five minutes.

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I thank you all for taking part in the discussion. I emphasise that the Stockholm programme is one of the key instruments to create this common space. Mr Omtzigt talked about that. A lot within that is a roadmap for going forward.

Several delegates mentioned the question of the courts. I should have mentioned earlier that the courts have also done very well in trying to sort out the problematic questions on their agenda. They seem to be handling that quite well and have found reasonable ways to move forward, so there has been good work to avoid duplication and problems with the Lisbon Treaty and to make sure that the Strasbourg Court has the final say on human rights on the continent. That is hopeful.

Avoiding duplication is one of the key questions. To make a difference in our institution, we must improve our way of working and ensure we do excellent work in this body to protect human rights and promote democracy and the rule of law. That is a challenge for all of us and we have in this Assembly the key body and structure.

The Court and the ombudsman have been mentioned. Another reason why the Assembly is important is that it will have a bridge to the European Parliament because that parliament will be sitting in this Assembly when electing judges. This will be the meeting room for parliamentarians from the European Parliament and national parliaments. It is up to us to make good use of that and to show that we are dealing with the key issues of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We must do our utmost to make a difference in that respect and to make good use of all our instruments. The neighbourhood policy has been mentioned. I know that there is a lot of interest in that. Through our excellent work, we can make a difference.

I will not get involved in the British political dialogue, but I hope that we will all do our utmost to ensure that the British presidency of this body will be able to ratify an agreement during that period. It might be a little later than we hoped, but it is still possible. After the vote and this part-session, let us ensure that that will be the outcome of the British presidency.

I thank you all for your comments. I thank the staff for helping me to prepare the report. You all know that, without them, it would not be possible to do the job, so thank you very much to the staff.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does Mr Von Sydow, Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee, wish to speak?

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – Today’s discussion has shown again that the report, which has been worked on for some months, is probably the best document on this issue in Europe: the common space for human rights throughout Europe – in the 47 member States in the Council of Europe, 27 of which are members of the EU. We know that there has been a complicated process involving different institutions and, if I may say so, interests in Europe, but as the rapporteur outlined, the two courts have a memorandum of understanding, at least in an oral sense. They are prepared to go ahead and all the institutions in the EU as well as here are in favour.

The reported situation in the United Kingdom is alarming. Where have all the British Conservative honourable Members of this Assembly gone? Have they told us anything about what is going on in the UK? We missed their oratory today. I hope that the UK question will be solved. Given the information that was supplied to us today, to my mind it is a real threat. I hope that it will be overcome by the British.

THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution in Document 12713 to which nine amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation to which two amendments have been tabled.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

The amendments are 1, 7, 2, 11, 3, 4, 8, 9, 5 and 6.

Is that so, Mr Von Sydow?

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – Yes

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 1, 7, 2, 11, 3, 4, 8, 9, 5 and Amendment 6 to the draft resolution and the draft recommendation have been agreed.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 1 tabled by Mr Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.1, after the words “the Convention on Cybercrime (ETS No. 185)”, insert the following words: “, the Convention on access to official documents (CETS No. 205)”.

Amendment 7 tabled by Mr Flego, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.1, after the words “the Convention on Cybercrime (ETS No. 185)”, insert the following words: “, the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No. 194), the Anti-Doping Convention (ETS No. 135)”.

Amendment 2 tabled by Mr Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.2, after the words “the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO)”, insert the following words: “, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)”.

Amendment 11 tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.3, after the words “co-ordinate with the Council of Europe in the areas of”, insert the following words: “trafficking in human beings, violence against women,”.

Amendment 3 tabled by Mr Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.5, after the words “throughout the European Union legislative process”, insert the following words: “in particular in the areas of freedom, security and justice”.

Amendment 4 tabled by Mr Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9.1, insert the following sub-paragraph: “notes with interest the manner in which the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union ensure coherence in their case law with respect to human rights standards;”

Amendment 8 tabled by Mr Flego, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.6, after the words “Council of Europe conventions or monitoring mechanisms”, insert the following words: “, as well as partial agreements”.

Amendment 9 tabled by Mr Flego, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 11, insert the following paragraph: “Welcoming the informal contacts established between the Council of Europe and the European Data Protection Supervisor of the EU, the Assembly invites the Council of Europe’s Data Protection Commissioner and the European Data Protection Supervisor to reinforce their mutual co-operation.”

Amendment 5 tabled by Mr Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, at the end of first sentence, insert the following words: “including those relating to freedom, security and justice”.

Amendment 6 tabled by Mr Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 3.3 with the following sub-paragraph: “strengthen the role of the Council of Europe as ‘the guardian for human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe’ and, in so doing, promote this fundamental role in its relations with the institutions of the European Union.”

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12713, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12713, as amended, is adopted, with 53 votes for.

We come to the discussion of the draft recommendation. Amendment 10 tabled by Mr Flego, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 4.3, insert the following sub-paragraph: “reinforce co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union in the spheres of culture, education and sport, as stipulated in Articles 165 (3) and 167 (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;”.

I understand that Mr Flego proposes an oral sub-amendment to Amendment 10, which reads: “reinforce co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union in the spheres of culture, education and sport, as stipulated in the Lisbon Treaty.”

Does anyone object to the Assembly discussing the oral sub-amendment, which in my opinion meets the Rules?

I call Ms Lundgren.

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – In this recommendation, we have tried to stick to human rights issues and the key conventions and monitoring bodies. I ask colleagues to stick to that and not to bring in anything else, because bringing more in is not always helpful. That is why I oppose the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Flego to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – I am afraid that there is a misunderstanding. Recommendation 4 specifies activities on which there should be co-operation. The Lisbon Treaty invites the Council of Europe to co-operate because of subsidiarity in education, sport and culture. If we do not put that in our document, we will reject the proposed co-operation by the European Union. Education is a high priority for us, and we want to co-operate with the European Union. The Committee on Culture, Science and Education did not take a position on the oral sub-amendment, because it is new. I ask colleagues to vote for specific co-operation on education between the Council of Europe and the European Union.

THE PRESIDENT – If no compromise can be reached, I may call Mr Flego to support Amendment 10 on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – Will you repeat the text of the oral sub-amendment as we are a little confused?

THE PRESIDENT – The proposal is: after paragraph 4.3, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“reinforce co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union in the spheres of culture, education and sport, as stipulated in the Lisbon Treaty.”

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

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

I call Mr Flego to support Amendment 10, as amended.

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – As I have said, a central point of the Lisbon Treaty concerns education, culture and sport. In the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union invites us to co-operate because of subsidiarity and because those areas remain in the hands of national powers. That is why it seemed to the Committee on Culture, Science and Education that it is necessary to put that in as a way of accepting that offer and to enhance co-operation on education in particular but also on culture and sport. That is why I ask colleagues to vote for the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Although colleagues have already voted in favour of making the sub-amendment, the Lisbon Treaty includes many obstacles that are divided between national level and EU level. That is not the Council of Europe’s duty. The question is whether we stick to human rights issues, democracy and the rule of law and to the key instruments in the treaty. I want us to do that, which is why I am against the amendment.

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

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – For your information, the oral sub-amendment was not moved in committee. Amendment 10, unamended, was not adopted by the committee, which is against it.

THE PRESIDENT – I will put Amendment 10, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 10, as amended, is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 12713, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12713, as amended, is adopted, with 59 votes for 1 abstention.

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

6. The functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The last item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia presented by Mr Prescott and Mr Fischer on behalf of the Monitoring Committee (Doc. 12710).

To allow sufficient time for responses to the debate and for voting, we will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the debate at about 7.15 p.m.

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

Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom) – This report, which delegates can read, details the changes made in Armenia since we first discussed the issue here in 2008, after the riot there during the presidential elections, when 130 people were sent to jail and 10 people were killed.

Three years after our debate and several resolutions in this Chamber, I can report back that 130 people have been released from jail – our demand for an amnesty was met. The reform of criminal law and the judiciary is now under way, and the right to protest is now guaranteed, so there is no threat of being charged with usurping the state, as occurred to the 130. The reform of the police, which this Assembly also called for, is under way, too. The reform of electoral law, which was a crucial factor in those protests, is being supervised by the Venice Commission, and the reform of media plurality and of television is also under way. Details of those changes are recorded in the report before you and can be seen in the Venice Commission’s reports of 2009 and 2010, which are available in the document centre.

We express our concern, however, at the inquiry into what happened to the 10 people. Members will recall that we called for an independent inquiry. The Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Hammarberg, appointed an outside judge to take part in the inquiry, in which it was agreed that the political parties should take part. Tragically, the political parties could not agree, and they used the inquiry to abuse each other, so we did not get the independent inquiry that we wanted.

The National Assembly in Armenia took over and created an ad hoc inquiry, but it did not complete everything. It has completed, as we say in our report, several pieces of work to enable the inquiry to continue, but, as you will be aware, we did not feel that that was sufficient. After that, my colleague and I impressed upon the president the fact that he just had to have an inquiry into the deaths of those 10 people; it was not sufficient to look the other way. Whether you could establish guilt or whatever in such an inquiry, it was important for democratic accountability that an inquiry took place into what happened, so that people could make a judgment.

We therefore welcomed the recent initiative by the president, who has now initiated another inquiry into the circumstances of those deaths and has promised to report back by the end of this year. You can see in our report the criteria that we thought the inquiry should investigate, including the police, how the decision was taken and the circumstances involved, and we said that it should report by the end of this year. There is indeed a great need for police reform and accountability.

There has been some confusion, because in our report we state that we have now finished our inquiry. As we will explain when we come to the amendments, however, we were asked in 2008 to investigate the causes of the riots and to see what changes were necessary, and we have done so, but that does not mean – let me emphasise again – that our monitoring role has finished. That is still crucial. We will continue to monitor the situation. We will look at whether all the reforms have been completed and we will report back.

The crucial issue is how to re-establish trust in democratic accountability and the process itself in Armenia. We think that we have made the necessary changes to the legislative framework, and the reforms are essential to that, but trust is about trust in people who participate in the political process, and there has not been very much of that in the past, although it has improved in the past few months. There is now co-operation with the opposition outside and inside, and with the government in parliament.

The opposition outside always insisted that it could not co-operate with a democratic system that put its people in jail. We had to make that clear. Since those people have all been removed, there is a possibility – not for everyone, as I am sure we will hear – for the main political forces to discuss how they prepare for the elections in 2012. It is crucial that politicians and the people in Armenia recognise, if they want the democracy that they think is important, the fact that the culture is paramount – their participation is crucial, and that is what will make the difference.

We all know we can make all the legislation we want – we are all legislators – but if people do not believe in the truth of the system and if they are not confident in whatever decision is arrived at, then all we have done will not be a great deal. I believe, and I am reporting back to the Assembly, that we have done enough. May I say, to all those who have brought about the fine work of change, that I want to thank the Assembly? It stood in solidarity – members from all political parties – to say that if you want to be a modern, democratic, European State you have to make these changes, which we consider to be essential, in the law, in participation, in the judiciary and in police accountability. We set in hand that framework, and the Assembly, in solidarity, made that possible.

I also thank the Venice Commission, which was crucial in bringing together the parties to agree objectively on how that could be achieved. I thank the president of the country. He might think that that is strange, but the president, the speaker and the leader of the opposition eventually all came together to make these important changes. I also thank the Human Rights Commissioner himself.

All those people have played a part, but it is not the end of our monitoring. We will continue to monitor the situation – that is the obligation of this institution, and it is the obligation of States that sign up to become members of the Council of Europe. Once again, thank you to the Assembly: we have done our job, perhaps not perfectly, as there is still more to do, but at least we have shown that we can get changes in-country to build the democratic framework that is so essential. We have done that, and now it is up to the people in that country to show how democratic accountability and democracy in a modern European State can take place.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Prescott. I call Mr Fischer, co-rapporteur.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany) endorsed everything that Lord Prescott had said and thanked all those who had contributed to the report. Developments since March 2008 were still being monitored. A clear set of terms of reference had been set and no one had influenced them.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Fischer. You and your co-rapporteur have a total of five minutes remaining for your contribution to the debate.

In the debate I call first Lord Boswell, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Lord BOSWELL (United Kingdom) – On behalf of my group, may I congratulate the rapporteurs on the preparation of the report and their draft resolution, which is most welcome and fully acceptable to us? In particular, we welcome the report’s careful focus. As Lord Prescott said, it is based on a common democratic commitment and a clear mandate from the Assembly. It tackles specific issues while recognising that other issues will need to be tackled in due course. It looks forward, too, to the next stage of the democratic process, which will impose duties as well as rights on all who participate in it and in the upcoming milestone of the parliamentary elections next year.

The draft resolution is correct to draw attention to the need for transparency about the tragic events of the past, notably March 2008. The climate for doing so has been assisted by the general amnesty of May this year and the release of prisoners. What remains outstanding from that difficult issue should not be neglected, not least because the deaths are relevant to Article 2 of the Convention on Human Rights, but much of it can be properly and sensibly handled under our general monitoring process.

There are wider issues, however, and it is good that they are being tackled. They include judicial and police reform and the reform of police oversight. With regard to wider public life, work is in place to tackle corruption, to encourage media pluralism, and to prepare for the elections themselves, including the code prepared under the guidance of the Venice Commission. As a member of the Monitoring Committee, may I stress my personal belief, not just in the context of Armenia, that changes in legal, constitutional and electoral arrangements are a necessary but not sufficient condition for the creation of a culture of democracy and human rights? If that is what we want, and we do, it needs a climate of mutual tolerance and dialogue for those involved, a determination to root out corruption in any form, and a shared commitment by all parties and individual electors to objectives that transcend their own particular or personal interests.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Lord Boswell. I now call Mr Kox, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – May I thank both rapporteurs most sincerely for the work that they have done for quite a number of years? Monitoring, in the opinion of my group and, I think, in the opinion of the Assembly, is an essential part of the work that we do. It is not the most delightful part. We all know how difficult it is to get access to the country that we monitor – not only physical access but access to people’s minds and hearts. It is often a slow and tough process to get things changed. There are many hurdles and there are always many disappointments, but nevertheless the rapporteurs continued their work and, as John Prescott said, achievements were gained – not everything that we wanted, but at least there were many achievements.

People have been released from prison, which is great, and there is some freedom for people to demonstrate, which is great too. Structures have changed or are changing. The President of Armenia is co-operating with efforts to establish an impartial investigation into what happened in 2008, and I must compliment the rapporteurs. The decisions will be made by the government and the parliament – it is always the country concerned that must make the changes – but thanks to your work and to the Assembly’s tough stance in 2008, we helped to develop those improvements. We must be grateful for that because, without any intervention, things would be worse. I therefore express genuine thanks. On the other hand, we should take care, as we are not sure that the changes will prove sustainable. The Internet allows us to see what is happening in Armenia, which is still a complex society. We see that there have been rallies of the Armenian National Congress and demands from the Republican Party of Armenia for the police to intervene. There is at least a danger that what happened in 2008 could be repeated. I am glad, therefore, to hear the rapporteur say that the monitoring process has not ended. It is fine to read in a summary that we can close a chapter, but on Armenia, given the discussions we see on the Internet about genocide and so on, we can never close the book.

I thank the rapporteur again for the good work that is being done and I hope that it will continue.

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

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – I thank the rapporteur for the sincere and accurate report.

A few decades ago, when we in the Baltic States, together with the Caucasian nations, were forced to live in the Soviet Union, we dreamt of being independent, dynamic and democratic countries and believed that democracy and human rights would increase quickly once we became independent. Today we are a little less optimistic. Some of our dreams have come true, but not all.

We expected newer ideas from such new countries, but often they have new problems, and as a result they are under the monitoring procedure. We are happy to see an independent Armenia, which is a solution to a historic injustice. The Group of the European People’s Party see the positive steps in the right direction made in recent years. The general amnesty is certainly a positive step, but it is not perfect because reconciliation cannot be general until the events of 2008 are fully investigated. Why have they not been investigated? Armenia must do its best finally to solve the problem. I do not represent Nike, but let me say, “Don’t talk about it, just do it”. Be the solution, not the problem.

We welcome dialogue between politicians inside and outside parliament, but it cannot be a one-day holiday. Our aim is not dialogue between us and them, but the political participation of all those representing Armenian society in an independent, free and peaceful country. Again, I say, “Just do it.” The solution is in your hands.

We welcome steps towards improving the electoral code and reform of the judiciary as well as of the police. That must help the country – it is the solution, not the problem. Nor is a free media the problem; it is the solution. Just do it. It is in your hands. Armenia can do it. I hope the Armenian authorities will follow the rapporteurs’ recommendations and that in a few years we will be discussing the further positive steps that have been taken.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Vareikis. I call Mr Rouquet, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr ROUQUET (France) thanked the rapporteurs and welcomed the progress of Armenia on the path to modernisation and democratisation. He was pleased by the political will of all political parties to solve the problem. The situation was not perfect but it was ever thus. Two issues needed improvement: media pluralism and the eradication of corruption. If suspicion of corruption remained, it might erode public confidence. It was not easy to fight corruption but transparency had to be improved. The establishment of media pluralism was one way to ensure the good functioning of democratic institutions. An independent and plural media could help fight corruption. His party fully supported the work of the monitoring group. The next legislative elections would occur at a decisive moment in the democratic development of the country.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Rouquet. I call Ms Lundgren, who speaks on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) –On behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I congratulate Mr Prescott and Mr Fischer on an excellent report and on the reported results. As is pointed out in the report, the goal is the full trust of the Armenian people, but many things remain to be done before that goal is achieved. We are looking to see what will happen before next spring’s elections, as there is still work to be done to ensure that we do not see a repetition of the tragic aftermath of the previous elections.

I underline that the lack of a result from inquiries into what happened to those who were killed and wounded is not acceptable. Impunity is not acceptable. All stakeholders must make room for pluralism and ensure that responsibility is taken to avoid new setbacks.

The electoral court and how it is implemented is also important, as is pointed out in the report. That implementation will be key in ensuring whether there is a willingness to change and whether there is a process ahead to secure the outcome of elections in a good manner.

The lack of independence of the judiciary, which is mentioned in the report, is also crucial, but that will not be done easily before the next elections and will take some time, as will the fight against corruption. However, it is important that we can see that steps are taken, such as the GRECO recommendations, to make a difference in the time ahead.

Of course we stress media freedom and media pluralism, which also need to be shown in the future. There needs to be freedom of expression.

We also welcome the outcome of the general amnesty and we hope that the people of Armenia will see the difference in the upcoming elections. In the election campaign, on election day and in the aftermath of those elections, we hope that we will find that democracy, as well as the trust of the people, has been strengthened.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much indeed, Ms Lundgren. Rapporteurs, if you wish you may reply immediately to the group speakers. Do you wish to reply later in the debate instead? That is the case.

I shall now move on to the general debate. I remind everyone that we have 10 speakers, of whom four are from Armenia and six are from Azerbaijan. You will have three minutes each. We are in the Chamber of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and, as presiding officer of this meeting, I urge you to refer to the subject under debate. Mr Harutyunyan, you have the floor for three minutes.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia) – Thank you, Mr President. Let me start with expressing our gratitude to the co-rapporteurs, Mr John Prescott and Mr Axel Fischer, and also to Mr George Colombier, for their dedication and outstanding work. We have read the report scrupulously and appreciate it both in terms of subject and structure. Even though I do not agree with all the findings presented in the report, one thing is nevertheless clear: the co-rapporteurs carefully examined the recent developments in Armenia and presented them in a faithful manner, addressing all pertinent issues that Armenian society and the political establishment are facing today. Many problematic areas have been touched on and recommendations have been made.

During the last two years, the Armenian authorities have carried out large reforms particularly in the area of freedom of assembly, have revisited the electoral code in line with the Venice Commission and ODIHR recommendations and have enacted new legislation for decriminalising defamation. A major effort is under way to improve the law on television and radio. Fundamental reforms to the police system and the judiciary are currently ongoing.

All these steps have created a favourable environment to start honest, direct and open dialogue with opposition parties in order to restore public confidence in political processes in the country. These efforts substantially reduced the tense political environment and changed the political landscape. We fully understand that not all issues of concern have been addressed. We agree that there are still areas where additional efforts should be made, which the co-rapporteurs stressed the relevance of in their report. I assure you that Armenia is working hard to address those issues faithfully and comprehensively. We count not only on the wisdom of political players in Armenia but on the help and support of the Council of Europe.

I would like to emphasise particularly that the resolute consequent actions taken by Armenia have not merely been conditioned by the necessity to react to the recommendations and resolutions adopted within international forums, including by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The primary and – let me assure you – more profound and fundamental stimulus for our resolve has been the wish to make the life of our citizens better, to provide for stability and a conducive atmosphere for co-operation, dialogue, trust and confidence in Armenian society.

Finally, I would like to give the assurance that the recommendations made in the resolution will be duly taken into account.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much indeed, Mr Harutyunyan. The next speaker is Ms Postanjyan. You have the floor.

Ms POSTANJYAN (Armenia) – The Armenian public were certain that by becoming a member of the Council of Europe mass fraud during elections would be put to an end and that people would not be subjected to violence, wrongful persecution and imprisonment during peaceful protests. However, our certainty did not become a reality. Moreover, the monster of electoral fraud, born in 1995, had been growing and, by 2008, it had even decided to have a taste of power brought about at the price of people’s lives.

Now the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is calling for an abstention from any actions or announcements that might undermine public trust in the electoral process and its results. How much trust can a citizen of the Republic of Armenia have as a witness to the birth of the monster in 1995, when the Republic of Armenia’s constitution was fraudulently accepted, establishing complete dominance of executive power over judicial power?

In 1996, the monster inseminated disbelief in elections by employing the military of the Republic of Armenia, shooting only at the air, and by violently persecuting and imprisoning dissidents. By remaining unpunished, the monster once again committed a crime within the structure of the Council of Europe: in the early morning of 13 April 2004 for the first time he tasted the blood of peaceful protesters, without depriving them of their lives. However, he liked the taste of blood very much and it empowered him quite a lot, which led to the killing of 10 people in 2008.

Of course the birth of this monster, its persistent life and the existence of the authoritarian regime was first and foremost decided by the citizens of the Republic of Armenia: we allowed for it to be armed with the judicial power in its favour, with exclusive control of the media, with electoral legislation reproducing the monster and so on.

First of all the monster needs to be disarmed. The Assembly can be a supporter of this cause. However, after observations of the elections, its “one-step ahead” announcements and its praiseworthy words to the authorities, doubt is aroused that the Assembly itself has taken on the monster’s rearming of military equipment. That can be proven by, for example, the praise for the new electoral code, the tolerance for the lack of independent television and the announcement that the chapter on 1 March is considered closed.

I think that under these conditions the freedom-loving citizens of Armenia cannot place their hope in magic. Instead they are going to refer to more productive methods, such as self-organisation, civil disobedience and the pursuit and protection of all civil and human rights. As for the Council of Europe, we are expecting it to be our ally in the disarming and condemnation process of the monster.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much. Mr Abbasov has the floor.

Mr ABBASOV (Azerbaijan) – Distinguished colleagues, dear friends, along with human rights and supremacy of law, democracy is certainly one of the three pillars through which the mission of the Council of Europe is built up. Through consulting its members and implementing observation, the Council of Europe facilitates democratic developments in the whole European space.

Today, when considering the state of democracy in Armenia, we will once more think over the priorities of our Organisation. The “March events” of 2008 in Armenia became a significant object in the major report on this issue. The rapporteurs noted that the act of amnesty for those arrested during the disorders following the elections in Armenia turned out to be a compromise between authorities and civil society. Nevertheless, we should note that it is not yet an indicator of stability and welfare in Armenia.

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance published a report on Armenia in early 2011. The report noted problems with regard to religious liberty and social rights, as well as enmities in respect of ethnic minorities and non-citizens in Armenia. There is big intolerance of the Muslim population. The lack of religious tolerance, the ongoing ethnic cleansing and the inability to ensure elementary social rights for citizens make people leave Armenia.

The Council of Europe has many legal documents, tools and programmes that serve as a basis for democracy in the European space. A country pretending to the status of a legal and democratic State is not honouring its international obligations. Armenia is a member of the UN and the Council of Europe, but it is not implementing the resolutions of those organisations.

The European community should not neglect those facts and it should urge Armenia to honour all its international obligations and commitments. I thank the rapporteurs for their hard work.

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

Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan) thanked the rapporteurs for a report that described in brief the problems with Armenia’s democratic institutions. They had suggested a number of reforms that Armenia could implement to tackle those problems. For such reforms to be successful, however, the people of Armenia would require faith in the Armenian authorities, who had lost their legitimacy because their reign was based on bloodshed.

Neighbouring countries saw the problems in Armenia at close hand because they witnessed the armed conflict in the South Caucasus and the occupation of Azeri territories. If one looked at all the websites in Armenia that were not controlled by the government, one could see that the Armenian people were opposed to military occupation. War and occupation were not conducive to prosperity, and the Armenian people could see that their situation was a consequence of war. It was not possible for a country to be democratic if it was in dispute with almost all its neighbours.

It was doubtful whether the Armenian authorities would listen to new recommendations agreed by the Council of Europe, given that they had ignored recommendations and resolutions in the past. There was little purpose in the Assembly’s voting on resolutions if they were not going to be implemented. The best way to resolve the problems was to engage in dialogue, but the Armenian authorities only pretended to enter into dialogue with international institutions, a pretence that undermined the authority of international bodies.

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

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia) was reassured by the fact that, since this topic had last been debated, Armenia had taken a great deal of action to resolve its problems. Those problems were a barrier to European progress. Armenia had faced a number of temptations, but the authorities had taken steps towards democratic reform. It was necessary to bridge the gap between the two parts of society and to avoid social divisions.

Everyone was aware of the action that Armenia had taken and of its co-operation with the Council of Europe, just as they were aware of the sad events of March 2008. It was necessary to establish what had happened on that occasion, and why 10 people had died. The process of democratic reform was not yet complete: Armenia would soon face the challenges of presidential and parliamentary elections., A new electoral code, developed in co-operation with the Venice Commission, would be issued that very day. Internal stability had returned to Armenia, making this the right moment to implement far-reaching reforms. Armenia had recently celebrated the 20th anniversary of its independence, and it could no longer claim that any deviation from democratic values was merely the result of “teething troubles”. European values were values shared by Armenia.

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

Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) noted that 10 people had been killed in March 2008 but no state official had been held to account. Although three years had passed, it was not yet known who had given the order to kill and no state official had lost their jobs as a result of the incident. There was rejoicing over the release of people who had been unfairly jailed three years ago.

International bodies had responsibilities. When Armenia had ethnically cleansed thousands of Azerbaijanis, there had been no international response. If the Council of Europe had taken a firmer stance, the results could have been different. Armenia had later used the same weapons against its own citizens. More than a million refugees and asylum seekers now lived in poor conditions and Armenian forces had not withdrawn from Azeri territories.

Azerbaijan wanted democracy to develop in Armenia more than in other countries because no country wanted to be invaded by its neighbour. It was, however, not enough to wish for democracy in Armenia; European institutions should take a firmer position in order to achieve that goal.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you Ms Pashayeva. I call Mr Rustamyan.

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) would be the last Armenian to take the floor and he expected the following three speakers from Azerbaijan to attack both him and his fellow delegates from Armenia. He noted that the Armenian delegation consisted largely of opposition party members, while there was no representation by the Azeri opposition. The Azerbaijan delegation could not criticise the Armenians when it was using blocking tactics.

It was pleasing to see that those held in connection with the tragic events of March 2008 had been released, and better late then never. It was hoped that an inquiry into the circumstances of the 10 deaths would help to turn a page on the period. It would be difficult to move on without such an examination.

The report called for democratic elections in Armenia for which a new electoral code had been developed in co-operation with the Venice Commission. Yet this had, to a certain extent, been undermined when proposals from some non-governmental organisations that sought to strengthen the electoral code were dismissed. It was hoped that there would be a thorough observation of the forthcoming elections. These would be crucial for democracy in the region.

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

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – The consequences of Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan have been repeatedly debated in this Assembly and dozens of documents have been produced on this issue. Assembly Resolution 1416 relating to the Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjacent seven Azerbaijani districts unfortunately remains unimplemented. Armenia has violated the activities of the Ad hoc committee set up to control the implementation of that resolution, but it has received no punishment. I would have guessed that any member State that neglected an Assembly resolution to such an extent would face a fairly severe approach, so what is the reason for such inexplicable kindness and mercy towards Armenia?

The Armenian authorities actually display an even crueller attitude towards their own citizens than they do against their neighbours, whom they regularly disturb with constant territorial claims and various diversions. They are engaged in destroying the future of their own people, and they have achieved excellent results in that area. Due to Armenia’s anti-democratic policy, high level of unemployment, poverty and hard living conditions, the movement of citizens out of that country is speeding up day by day – just more than 1 million inhabitants remain out of 4 million people. Due to its aggressive policy against its neighbours – particularly hostility against Azerbaijan – Armenia has been left out of all regional projects and is ruining itself year by year.

The malevolent attitude of Armenia, which has deprived its citizens of elementary human rights, normal living conditions and opportunities for self-expression, towards Azerbaijan and its other neighbours is not surprising. The destiny of the Armenian people and Armenia, which does not exercise its own will and is being ruled from outside on a lease, is troubling.

We should not listen in this Chamber to formal reports containing fine words about Armenia. On the contrary, in order to rescue Armenia and its people from complete break-up, we need an accurate report that reflects reality with all its severe truths. Most people inside and outside Armenia are aware of the real situation in Armenia. Dear rapporteurs, are we deceiving ourselves?

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

Mr İBRAHIMLI (Azerbaijan) noted that the Assembly was discussing the monitoring report on Armenia and that the establishment of democratic institutions in that country needed to be judged both internally and internationally. Armenia had invaded 20% of Azerbaijani territory and was in contravention of a number of UN resolutions. Ceasefire agreements were being violated constantly and soldiers were murdering innocent children. This did not represent progress or the implementation of Armenia’s duties vis-à-vis the Council of Europe. Political stability did not prevail at present and the social situation was growing increasingly tense.

It was not possible to explain the reasons for Armenia’s actions and it was of concern that international organisations remained indifferent to the actions of Armenia. It was not being treated as though it was a country that had invaded a neighbouring State. The compliant attitude of the Council of Europe could not be explained. Azerbaijan by contrast was displaying significant patience and attempting to cope with the situation. It believed in the principles of democracy, human rights and rule of law.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Ms Fataliyeva.

Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – The Armenian delegation has left the Chamber, which perhaps shows how much they care about democracy in their own country. I do not agree with the focus of the report, because if we discuss a country we should take into consideration all aspects of it. The past decade has shown that in the modern world there is a direct link between the level of democracy in a society and its economic development. The more developed the economy of any country is, the higher the welfare, living standards and conditions of its citizens, the lower its unemployment and the greater the size of its middle class.

For a free man who is not burdened with maintaining himself and his family, or with providing for his security, the notion of democratic values is much clearer. He believes in himself, and he is ready to express his opinion and to participate actively in society. The same is true vice versa: the more a country is devoted to democratic values, the easier its economy breathes, because democracy in economics means a lack of artificial barriers, and the opportunity to invest in business without any risk and to do what is logical. In other words, a free man has the opportunity to expand his business under his own control and with his own responsibility.

Continued economic difficulties have had a negative impact on Armenian society. Many people belonging to ethnic minorities have emigrated from Armenia in recent years. The awareness of minority rights and discrimination issues remains insufficient, including those for people belonging to ethnic minorities. According to some indicators, media independence is still fragile, not only because of the difficult economic context, but because of the temptation to control the media for political reasons.

Being in a state of war with Armenia, we cannot see the situation with our own eyes; we may refer only to some sources. But, there is something we know for sure without statistics or official information. That country is in sharp political decline, as indicated by the growing number of those who are unhappy with the incumbent government’s policies.

Furthermore, Armenia is in a deep and complicated economic crisis. Following a 14.3% recession in 2009, the second-largest recession in the world, the Armenian economy might have been expected to grow when the global economy overcame those difficulties. As it turns out, however, to the year ending March 2011, Armenia displayed zero economic growth. Indeed, Forbes has clearly stated that Armenia had the world’s second-worst economy after Madagascar. The constant population exodus is clear evidence of that problem, and the natural increase in the population is also slowing down.

There is an undoubted difference between the socio-economics of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the main reason for the difficult situation in Armenia is the prolonged conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan stands for peaceful co-existence and co-operation with its neighbours, and, once the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is settled and other problems representing a threat to the security of the region are solved, the politics, economics and energy of Azerbaijan can be used to solve the social and economic problems of countries in the region, and to implement regional and international projects, obviously with the observation of mutual interests.

The Government of Armenia tries before the nation to avoid criminal and political responsibility, blaming Azerbaijan and Turkey for all the social and political problems that the country faces. The authorities of Armenia should re-evaluate the ongoing processes in the region and in the international arena, re-establish its internal and foreign policies on constructive grounds, stop its militarist policy threatening both the country and the region and contribute to the social, political and economic development of those areas.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – That concludes the list of speakers.

I call the co-rapporteurs to reply. You have a total of five minutes between you for your contributions.

Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom) – I would like to refer to the Armenian debate. For a time, I thought it was all about Azerbaijan.

I thank those who have thanked us for what we have done. We have tried to do our best, and I think that we have improved the situation in Armenia, although the Assembly will judge whether we have. Ms Lundgren from Sweden reminded us that there is a lot of work to be done, and of course there is. That is what the report shows, and we want to continue the monitoring work.

I also acknowledge the work of Georges Colombier, who was one of our rapporteurs at the beginning and worked very hard. I also give special thanks to Davit Harutyunyan, who spoke right at the start, because that delegation assisted us in the process.

The report can answer for itself, so I am not going into all the details. We have done the best we could, and I am convinced that we have done quite a lot, but as we say in my country, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the test will come when the elections come. It is up to the Armenian people to address that issue.

Having heard all the arguments, I am bound to say that we were not set up to look at the monsters in 1998 or in 2004. I do not know what monster was created. The Assembly asked us to look at the riot in 2008, and that is what we have tried to do, because that was our responsibility. It was not for us to get involved in the invasions and the wars that we have heard about.

Having listened to those people from Azerbaijan, I would have thought that it was the most democratic country in the world, but I have a report here from the Human Rights Commissioner which states: “Freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly have encountered serious setbacks in Azerbaijan.” Human rights have really been undermined. When we sat in the Monitoring Committee this afternoon, we received a letter from the leader of the country’s delegation, justifying the reason why a rapporteur of this Assembly could not be given a visa to investigate political prisoners. If the energy that I have heard from certain members today were exercised a little more in their own country, that would be one benefit that we could take from today’s debate.

I do not want to say any more; we have made the situation clear in our report. I think that we have made a change, and people from other countries should perhaps look in their own backyard before they start making complaints.

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

Mr FISCHER (Germany) was grateful for the contributions made by Lord Boswell and Ms Lundgren. The elections to take place in Armenia next year would be important, and they must be monitored closely to ensure they were compliant with electoral law. Mr Kox had been correct to point out that monitoring had to ensure that changes were lasting and that progress in establishing democratic institutions in Armenia was not blown off course. He was grateful to Mr Vareikis for his contribution and pleased to recommend the report to the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Does the Chairperson of the committee, Mr Marty, wish to speak?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said that Mr Kox had hit on something very important in saying that the monitoring procedure was an essential element for the Parliamentary Assembly. The role of the Assembly was to assist new democracies. Armenian democracy was now 20 years old, which was quite young. To establish democracy was very difficult.

This would be the last time he would take the floor as Chairman of the Committee, and he candidly questioned whether members of the Assembly were aware of the importance of monitoring. As he looked at those present in the Hemicycle, he would be inclined to answer that question “no”. Aside from the spokespersons of the political groups, the Assembly had heard only from Armenian and Azerbaijani members, and that was a pity because those countries should feel the weight of the Council of Europe behind them as they moved forward.

The Monitoring Committee had always appreciated the rapporteurs’ commitment and the influence that they had had on the events in Armenia. That progress would, he hoped, continue. He wished luck to the rapporteurs and hoped that the two neighbouring countries could establish a real dialogue. On any issue it seemed that Armenia and Azerbaijan would find an opportunity to attack each other. Dialogue had to be established, and an effort made by the two countries to respect one another, in the spirit that governed the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT said that although he could not applaud he wanted to. The Parliamentary Assembly would regret Mr Marty’s departure and would remember the extraordinary work that he had done for the Council of Europe, for the Parliamentary Assembly and for the cause of human rights. He endorsed all that Mr Marty had said. The Assembly could find no solution to the conflict if both parties did not act.

(The speaker continued in translation) The debate is closed.

The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution to which five amendments have been tabled. You will not be surprised to hear that none of these amendments has been adopted unanimously, so we will take them in the order in which they affect the text.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Postanjyan, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Schädler, Mr Aligrudic and Mr Mayer, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, before the word “constitute”, to insert the following word: “may”.

I call Mr Rustamyan to support Amendment 3. You have 30 seconds.

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that the Monitoring Committee had reached a compromise and agreed the sub-amendment because it did not significantly add to the text.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Mr Prescott wishes to propose Oral Sub-Amendment 1, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, as follows: to propose the insertion of the word “could”, instead of the word “may”.

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.6 which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more Members to it being debated.

Nobody objects.

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

Mr FISCHER (Germany) (Translation) – We agree with the amendment and support it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – 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 RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The opinion of the committee is clear.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 3, as amended? That is not the case.

The opinion of the committee is clear.

The vote is open.

Amendment 3, as amended, is adopted.

We now come to Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Postanjyan, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Schädler, Mr Aligrudic and Mr Mayer, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, to delete the word “sound”.

I call Mr Rustamyan to support Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that the situation was the same and a compromise had been reached.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Mr Prescott wishes to propose Oral Sub-Amendment 1, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, as follows: to “replace the word ‘sound’ with the word ‘adequate’” instead of to “delete the word ‘sound’”.

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.6 which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more Members to it being debated.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more Members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

Nobody objects. I call Mr Fischer to support Oral Sub-Amendment 1.

Mr FISCHER (Germany) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

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

We now come to the opinion of the mover of the amendment. You said that you were in favour of the oral sub-amendment, Mr Rustamyan.

As for the opinion of the committee, it is unanimously agreed.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 1 as amended? That is not the case.

The opinion of the committee is favourable.

The vote is open.

Amendment 1, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Ms Postanjyan, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Schädler, Ms Kanelli and Mr Mayer, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.1, after the words “elections are due”, to insert the following words: “but at the same time is concerned about the rejection of the main important amendments of parliamentary opposition parties “ARF” and “Heritage”.

I call Ms Postanjyan to support Amendment 5.

Ms POSTANJYAN (Armenia) – The main important amendments of the parliamentary opposition parties, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and Heritage, were rejected. The electoral court was adopted despite opposition and it does not serve democracy or the conduct of democratic elections.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Harutyunyan.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia) – The Venice Commission has stressed that the adoption of the electoral court may serve as a solid basis for the conduct of free and fair elections in the country, so now is the time for implementation. It would not be right to add that we are concerned about the rejection of some important proposals.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) – Unanimously opposed.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Ms Postanjyan, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Schädler, Mr Aligrudic and Mr Mayer, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.4, to delete the words: “and to refrain from any action or statements that could undermine public trust in the election process and its outcome”.

I call Mr Rustamyan to support Amendment 4.

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that there was a problem of freedom of expression and that was why he called for some words to be deleted.

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

I call Mr Harutyunyan.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia) – All political forces in Armenia are responsible for the proper conduct of elections and must bear the same responsibility. It is therefore proper to call on all political players to do nothing that would undermine public trust in the elections, especially when we already have a proper legal basis to conduct them.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) – The amendment was rejected.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Postanjyan, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Schädler, Mr Aligrudic and Mr Mayer, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 11.

I understand that Mr Rustamyan wishes not to move Amendment 2. Is that the case?

Ms POSTANJYAN (Armenia) – The amendment concerns paragraph 11, which is contrary to the logic and spirit of the draft resolution. The lack of results of inquiries into the 10 deaths that occurred in March 2008 make it wrong to adopt the paragraph The relatives of the dead were shocked by this paragraph. How can we declare the chapter on March 2008 closed? That would show disrespect not only to the right to life and the rights of the relatives of the dead but to the rights of freedom-loving citizens, and it would be immoral for the Parliamentary Assembly to do so.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I received a memorandum saying that the amendment was withdrawn, but I understand now that you have not withdrawn it.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation) – The situation is as follows: the first signatory did not attend the committee, the second signatory withdrew the amendment and the committee unanimously adopted an oral amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Marty. I am obliged to consider that the amendment has been taken up again as Ms Postanjyan has moved it. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Prescott.

Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom) – We oppose the amendment, but we are prepared to propose an oral amendment, because that would deal with the issue of whether the investigation of the 10 deaths has been finished. As I have pointed out to the Assembly, although regular reporting in these debates has ended at this stage, the monitoring will continue.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Once we have voted on amendment 2, we can deal with oral amendment 1. As the committee unanimously accepted the oral amendment, I assume, Mr Marty, that the committee is against amendment 2.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – As the amendment has been moved, I am obliged to put it to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is rejected.

I have received an oral amendment from Mr Prescott, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, which reads as follows: In paragraph 11, after the word “closed”, to insert the words “for the Assembly, whilst its monitoring of Armenia’s human rights and democracy obligations, including with respect of the investigation into the 10 casualties, will continue unabated”.

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.6 which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

Mr Prescott has already spoken on the oral amendment and does not wish to do so again.

Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment?

The committee is in favour, it appears.

The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 12710, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12710, as amended, is adopted, with 40 votes for, 3 against and 1 abstention.

6. Written Declarations

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Colleagues, before we leave this evening, pursuant to Rule 52, three written declarations have been tabled of which I must notify you. The first is No. 494, on Armenia’s policy towards undermining the solution of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, which has been signed by 20 members and is Doc. 12755. The second written declaration is No. 495, on the tragic death of Aygun Shahmaliyeva, another child victim of the Armenian aggression towards Azerbaijan, which has been signed by 20 members and is Doc. 12757. The third written declaration is No. 496, on the Republic of Mountainous Karabakh (Artsakh), which has been signed by 32 members and is Doc. 12758. Any Representative, Substitute, Observer or Partner for Democracy may add his or her signature to these written declarations in the Table Office.

7. Date, time and agenda of next meeting

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, colleagues. The sitting is now adjourned. The Assembly will hold its next public meeting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda that was approved this morning.

The sitting was closed at 7.20 p.m.

CONTENTS

1.       Written declaration

2.       Organisation of debates

3.       Combating “child abuse images” through committed, transversal and internationally co-ordinated action; and Violent and extreme pornography (joint debate) – resumed

Speakers:

Ms Rupprecht (Germany)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Panteleev (Russian Federation)

Ms Frahm (Denmark)

Ms Kovács (Serbia)

Ms Marland-Militello (France)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Ms Stavrositu (Romania)

Ms Boldi (Italy)

Mr Katrinis (Greece)

Mr Badea (Romania)

Ms Kyriakidou (Cyprus)

Ms Schuster (Germany)

Mr Ghilectchi (Moldova)

Ms Andersen (Denmark)

Mr Marquet (Monaco)

Ms Carlino (Italy)

Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal)

Mr Conde Bajén (Spain)

Ms M’Jid (United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography)

Ms Maury Pasquier (Switzerland)

Draft resolution contained in Document 12720 adopted.

Draft recommendation contained in Document 12720 adopted.

Amendment 1 to draft resolution in Document 12719 adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 12719, as amended, adopted.

4.       The impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the Council of Europe

Presentation by Ms Lundgren of report (Doc. 12713), on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee

Presentation by Mr Omtzigt of opinion (Doc. 12743), on behalf of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee

Presentation by Mr Flego of opinion (Doc. 12741), on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education

Presentation by Mr Mendes Bota of opinion (Doc. 12746), on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men

Speakers:

Mr Marquet (Monaco)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)

Mr Mignon (France)

Mr Rouquet (France)

Lord Tomlinson (United Kingdom)

Mr Frunda (Romania)

Mr Béteille (France)

Ms Zimmerman (France)

Mr Kalmár (Hungary)

Mr Sudarenkov (Russian Federation)

Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal)

Ms Lundgren (Sweden)

Mr Von Sydow (Sweden)

Amendments 1, 7, 2, 11, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 5 to the draft resolution adopted.

Amendment 6 to the draft recommendation adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 12713, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation contained in Document 12713, as amended, adopted.

5.       The functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia

Presentation by Mr Prescott and Mr Fischer of report (Doc. 12710), on behalf of the Monitoring Committee

Speakers;

Lord Boswell (United Kingdom)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Rouquet (France)

Ms Lundgren (Sweden)

Mr Harutyunyan (Armenia)

Ms Postanjyan (Armenia)

Mr Abbasov (Armenia)

Mr Ryazev (Azerbaijan)

Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia)

Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)

Mr Rustamyan (Armenia)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr İbrahimili (Azerbaijan)

Ms Fataliyeva (Azerbaijan)

Mr Marty (Switzerland)

Amendment 3, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 1, as amended, adopted.

Oral amendment adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 12710, as amended, adopted.

6.       Written declarations

7.       Date, time and agenda of next meeting

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.

Francis AGIUS

Pedro AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA*

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIC

Karin ANDERSEN

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE*

Khadija ARIB

Mördur ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Alexander BABAKOV*

Daniel BACQUELAINE

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Denis BADRÉ/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN/Zaruhi Postanjyan

Pelin Gündes BAKIR

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA*

Doris BARNETT*

Meritxell BATET LAMAÑA

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Alexander van der BELLEN*

Anna BELOUSOVOVÁ*

Ryszard BENDER*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Andris BERZINŠ*

Gülsün BILGEHAN

Oksana BILOZIR*

Brian BINLEY/Lord Tim Boswell

Rosa Delia BLANCO TERÁN*

Roland BLUM/Christine Marin

Olena BONDARENKO

Mladen BOSIC*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

Piet DE BRUYN/Ludo Sannen

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON/Liliane Maury Pasquier

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUSOGLU/Ahmet Berat Çonkar

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Otto CHALOUPKA

Igor CHERNYSHENKO*

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE*

Pia CHRISTMAS-MØLLER*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Boriss CILEVICS*

Ingrida CIRCENE

James CLAPPISON*

Deirdre CLUNE

Ann COFFEY/ Donald Anderson

Georges COLOMBIER/André Schneider

Agustín CONDE BAJÉN*

Titus CORLATEAN

Igor CORMAN

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Lena DABKOWSKA-CICHOCKA*

Per DALGAARD*

Cristian DAVID*

Giovanna DEBONO/Joseph Falzon

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand DE DECKER*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Klaas DIJKHOFF/Tuur Elzinga

Saban DISLI

Karl DONABAUER

Miljenko DORIC*

Gianpaolo DOZZO*

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU*

Diana ECCLES

József ÉKES*

Lydie ERR*

Arsen FADZAEV/Oleg Panteleev

Piero FASSINO*

Nikolay FEDOROV*

Valeriy FEDOROV

Relu FENECHIU*

Mirjana FERIC-VAC

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Dana Váhalová

Axel E. FISCHER

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Terence FLANAGAN*

Paul FLYNN

Stanislav FORT

Pernille FRAHM

Dario FRANCESCHINI*

Hans FRANKEN

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC/Tatiana Rosová

György FRUNDA

Guiorgui GABASHVILI*

Alena GAJDUŠKOVÁ

Jean-Charles GARDETTO*

Tamás GAUDI NAGY*

Gisèle GAUTIER/Marie-Jo Zimmermann

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Sophia GIANNAKA*

Paolo GIARETTA

Michael GLOS*

Obrad GOJKOVIC/Snežana Jonica

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Martin GRAF

Sylvi GRAHAM*

Francis GRIGNON/Laurent Béteille

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Ana GUTU*

Sam GYIMAH*

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV/Aydin Abbasov

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI*

Norbert HAUPERT

Olha HERASYM'YUK*

Andres HERKEL/Paul-Eerik Rummo

Serhiy HOLOVATY

Jim HOOD

Joachim HÖRSTER

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO*

Susanna HUOVINEN

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Željko IVANJI*

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWINSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Mats JOHANSSON/Tina Acketoft

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Armand JUNG*

Antti KAIKKONEN

Stanislaw KALEMBA/Marek Wikinski

Ferenc KALMÁR

Tülin Erkal KARA

Karol KARSKI*

Michail KATRINIS

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Jan KAZMIERCZAK*

Haluk KOÇ

Konstantin KOSACHEV

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Václav KUBATA

Pavol KUBOVIC

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA*

Dalia KUODYTE/Egidijus Vareikis

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Darja LAVTIŽAR-BEBLER

Jean-Paul LECOQ*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Terry LEYDEN

Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA*

Dariusz LIPINSKI*

François LONCLE*

Younal LOUTFI*

Saša MAGAZINOVIC*

Philippe MAHOUX

Theo MAISSEN

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET/Bernard Marquet

Pietro MARCENARO*

Milica MARKOVIC*

Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO

Dick MARTY

Jean-Pierre MASSERET*

Meritxell MATEU PI*

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIC*

Alan MEALE/Joe Benton

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS

Ivan MELNIKOV/Sergey Egorov

Assunta MELONI*

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Dragoljub MICUNOVIC

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Dangute MIKUTIENE

Akaki MINASHVILI*

Krasimir MINCHEV*

Andrey MOLCHANOV/Vladimir Zhidkikh

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*

Emma NICHOLSON

Cora VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN*

Tomislav NIKOLIC*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Miroslawa NYKIEL*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Sandra OSBORNE*

Liliana PALIHOVICI*

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou

Valery PARFENOV*

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Peter PELEGRINI

Lajla PERNASKA*

Claire PERRY*

Marijana PETIR/Marija Pejcinovic-Buric

Johannes PFLUG*

Viktor PLESKACHEVSKIY/ Sergey Markov

Alexander POCHINOK

Ivan POPESCU

Gabriëlle POPKEN/Pieter Omtzigt

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN/Kerstin Lundgren

Christos POURGOURIDES*

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT

Jakob PRESECNIK

Gabino PUCHE RODRÍGUEZ-ACOSTA*

Milorad PUPOVAC*

Valeriy PYSARENKO*

Carmen QUINTANILLA BARBA*

Valentina RADULOVIC-ŠCEPANOVIC*

Mailis REPS/Indrek Saar

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE/Rudy Salles

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT

Ilir RUSMALI*

Armen RUSTAMYAN

Branko RUŽIC*

Volodymyr RYBAK/Oleksiy Plotnikov

Rovshan RZAYEV

Joan SABATÉ BORRÁS*

Džavid ŠABOVIC/Ervin Spahic

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO

Manuel SARRAZIN*

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH*

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/Francine John-Calame

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Guiorgui TARGAMADZÉ*

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO

Dragan TODOROVIC*

John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI*

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmis TÜRKES

Tugrul TÜRKES

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Georges Charalambopoulos

Tomáš ÚLEHLA*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Giuseppe VALENTINO*

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS*

Stefaan VERCAMER

Peter VERLIC*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN*

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUCKOVIC

Dmitry VYATKIN

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL

Robert WALTER*

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND

Michal WOJTCZAK/Janusz Rachon

Karin S. WOLDSETH/Geir Pollestad

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLÀ i COSTA*

Karl ZELLER

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO/Yevgeniy Suslov

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Oleg Lebedev

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Peter van DIJK

Elvira KOVÁCS

Jaana PELKONEN

Ismo SOUKOLA

Observers:

Doron AVITAL

Blanca Judith DÍAZ DELGADO

Teresa ESPOSITO CELIENTO

Ildefonso GUAJARDO VILLARREAL

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Bruce HYER

José Luis JAIME CORREA

Massimo PACETTI

Yeidckol POLEVNSKY GURWITZ