AS (2012) CR 03
2012 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(First part)
REPORT
Third Sitting
Tuesday 24 January 2012 at 10 a.m.
In this report:
1. Speeches in English are reported in full.
2. Speeches in other languages are summarised.
3. Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.
The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.
Mr Zingeris, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.
1. Examination of credentials
THE PRESIDENT – The first item of business is the examination of a change to the credentials of a member of the Croatian delegation, Mr Flego. The credentials are set out in Document 12840 (addendum).
If these credentials are not contested, they will be ratified.
Are the credentials challenged? That is not the case.
The credentials are ratified.
2. Changes in the membership of committees
THE PRESIDENT – Next, we must consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2012), 01 Addendum 3 (rév).
Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?
The changes are agreed to.
3. Progress report
THE PRESIDENT – An addendum to Part II of the progress report has been published with proposals on the evaluation of the Partners for Democracy. Is there any objection to the proposals?
They are agreed.
4. Organisation of debates
THE PRESIDENT – I propose that we increase the speaking time in the debate this morning, which we fixed at three minutes yesterday, to four minutes.
Are these arrangements agreed?
They are agreed.
5. Election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
THE PRESIDENT – This morning and this afternoon, the agenda calls for the election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
The list of candidates and the biographical notices are to be found in Document 12803.
The voting will take place in the area behind the President’s Chair.
At 1 p.m. the voting will be suspended and it will resume at 3.30 p.m. At 5 p.m. I shall announce the closing of the poll. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers.
I shall now draw by lot the names of the two tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.
The names of Mr Valeriy Fedorov and Mr Neugebauer have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s Chair at 5 p.m.
I now declare the ballot open. At 5 p.m. I shall close the poll, and I shall announce the result at a convenient moment in our proceedings.
6. The functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina
THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report entitled “The functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina” to be presented by our dear colleagues Mr Jean-Claude Mignon and Ms Karin Woldseth on behalf of the Monitoring Committee (Document 12816).
In order to finish by 12 noon, in time to hear from the Committee of Ministers, we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.50 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.
The report will be presented by Ms Woldseth. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.
Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – Thank you, Mr President and dear colleagues; it is an honour to present the report on the functioning on democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I was appointed co-rapporteur in the Monitoring Committee almost two years ago. First, I want to thank the secretariat and, in particular, Caroline Ravaud, whose expertise on Bosnia and Herzegovina is unique and impressive. It would have been almost impossible for me to get a grip on a very complex situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina without her, so thank you Caroline.
Now to the report. This is not a full monitoring report. It focuses on three main questions. The first is the continued non-implementation of the Court of Human Rights judgment; secondly, there is the continued inability to form a government on the state level; and thirdly the lack of co-operation with Council of Europe bodies.
Bosnia and Herzegovina has, as you all know, been without a government for more than one year. The reason is that the three ethnicities have not been able to agree on who should have what positions. On our fact-finding mission in September, the country was in deadlock. They had no budget, no government and no plan for how to deal with the judgment on the Sejdić and Finci case. As rapporteurs, we could not see any light at the end of the tunnel.
Mr President, you may think that this is a dark and depressing report, and unfortunately it is. Even the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina seem to have lost some of their hope for the future. In the battle for positions and seats, it seems as if the politicians have forgotten about the people and how their political turf wars are affecting them. The population of Bosnia and Herzegovina is suffering while the politicians fight.
As I said in a recent debate on the Balkans in the Norwegian Parliament, my heart is in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but luckily my head is in Norway. That might just be a smart thing to have. The people, their incredible nature and the great potential of this country make me want the best for it. They do not deserve the current deadlock.
There is the international will to help Bosnia and Herzegovina back on to its feet, and the country is monitored by several bodies: the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the European Union, the Congress and of course us. We are all following the country closely. I can understand why the people might be a little tired of being monitored and having separate meetings with all these monitoring bodies. It might be a good idea to get all the monitoring bodies together, to agree on expectations and how we should work together. That might make it easier for the politicians of Bosnia and Herzegovina to get their work done.
There is work to be done – that is for sure. In April, Bosnia and Herzegovina will have been a member of the Parliamentary Assembly for 10 years, yet it has still not appointed representatives in key Council of Europe expert and monitoring bodies such as the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Venice Commission. I hope that progress will be made during the April part-session in Strasbourg. I hope that a new judge to the Court of Human Rights will have been appointed here in Strasbourg.
There has been some positive development in Bosnia and Herzegovina recently and I will give an update shortly. To match our paper with reality, the committee has approved three amendments to the draft resolution.
So to the current political situation; there is still no government. I would like to inform you, however, that on 28 December the leaders of the six main political parties came to an agreement on the sharing of the nine ministerial posts and on the nomination of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers. It was agreed that the post of chairman would go to a Croat from the HDZ – the Croatian Democratic Union – and that the ministerial posts would be shared as follows: four to the Bosniacs, including one from the category of “others”; three from the Croat parties, including the chairman; and three from the Serbs.
On 5 January the tripartite presidency nominated Mr Bevanda of the HDZ as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, which was confirmed by the House of Representatives on 12 January. Mr Bevanda has not yet appointed his candidates for the ministerial and deputy ministerial posts, but if all goes well Bosnia and Herzegovina will have a government on the state level in mid-February. There has been some progress, which is why the committee has tabled the amendments to the draft resolution.
This is the third debate on Bosnia and Herzegovina in the last two years. Let us hope that this will be the last for some years and that the politicians of Bosnia and Herzegovina can move forward. Let us hope that they can agree on implementing the Sejdić and Finci judgment, get the census law in place, together with the law on state legal aid and the law on state property so that the parliament can adopt them quickly. Let us hope that they keep on working and improving the functioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s institutions to move forward to European integration. Last but not least, let us hope that they can work on further judicial reforms, the fight against corruption, non-discrimination and education.
I recently received a report on the human rights situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina from Human Rights Watch. It is worried about the threats against human rights defenders and non-governmental organisations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are also reports of increasing discrimination against ethnic groups. The Assembly has said this several times: it is high time to move from ethnocracy to democracy. Official positions cannot continue to be built on the basis of ethnic quotas. The European Court of Human Rights stated in the Sejdić and Finci case that prohibiting everybody who is not a Serb, a Bosniac or a Croat from standing for elections to the presidency is discrimination and a violation of human rights. That has to stop.
There is no magic recipe to end this crisis. Only the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina hold the key to a better future. If the politicians of this country are truly serious about their desire for European integration, they will have to deliver. This will require hard work, constant co-operation, co-ordination and communication between the various levels of authority and all the political stakeholders. This is the only way forward and I hope to have more positive news on the progress achieved by Bosnia and Herzegovina next time I report to the Assembly. I have really high hopes for this country.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Woldseth. In the debate, I first call Mr Tuğrul Türkeş of the European Democrat Group.
Mr T. TÜRKEŞ (Turkey) – I thank both rapporteurs for their balanced report. On accession to the Council of Europe, the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina voluntarily took on themselves a number of commitments, in addition to the general statutory obligations resulting from membership of the Organisation.
Since 2002, our Assembly has repeatedly called for the implementation of constitutional reform with a view to improving the functioning of the country’s democratic institutions. We have called on the Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and to speed up the reforms necessary to complete the realisation of its remaining commitments and obligations. Slow progress has been registered in Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding the implementation about the standing commitments and obligations to the Council of Europe.
The current constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which results from the Dayton Agreement, reflects the priority of that time to end the armed conflict.
The need for constitutional reform has become increasingly urgent following the December 2009 Sejdić and Finci judgment by the European Court of Human Rights. In addition to the implementation of the commitments and the constitutional reform, we have called upon all political stakeholders in Bosnia and Herzegovina to relaunch dialogue on the various reform proposals.
Today, we welcome the agreement reached by the political leaders of the six local parties on the formation of the state-level government in Bosnia and Herzegovina. That development should be closely monitored. As soon as the government takes office, it will be time to move forward on Euro-Atlantic integration and instigate the much-needed reforms.
Although we are members of a political body, we believe that in our co-operation with other member States we should be encouraging and principle-based, rather than politically motivated. Also, in our relations with relatively young democracies we should consider not only where we have come from, but where we want to go. In that regard, we are a little concerned that the tone that has been taken and the “take it or leave it” approach, as well as the report’s imposition of certain deadlines for certain actions, might hinder the emerging political will in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Türkeş. I now call Ms Beck on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Ms BECK (Germany) said that the subject of the debate touched on important questions of democratic principle. In the case of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, two Bosnian citizens, one Jew and one Roma, had brought a case before the European Court of Human Rights to assert their right to vote and to stand for election. This case highlighted the fact that political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina were ethnically based and that there were serious shortcomings with the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Dayton Agreement. That agreement had been produced by the international community: thrown together in an airport in two weeks flat. It had blighted Bosnia and Herzegovina for years. It was important to recognise the responsibility of the international community for the ills produced by the Dayton Agreement. It was also important, however, to recognise the responsibility of the Bosnian politicians who had so far failed to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Sejdić and Finci. Despite the work of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, little progress had been made.
Bosnia and Herzegovina had formerly been part of Yugoslavia. In the past, there had been a large number of ethnically mixed marriages which resulted in ethnic groups being blurred; in fact, 38% of families had been ethnically mixed at one time. However, the civil war forced people to pick and identify with a single ethnic group and the reality was that an individual now had to define himself as a Croat, a Serb or a Bosnian. If they did not define themselves in this way, then, among other things, they were not able to stand for president. The Assembly should make clear that this state of affairs was undemocratic and that the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina should rid themselves of leaders who perpetuated ethnic divisions.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Beck. I now call Mr Kox, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I thank Ms Woldseth for her report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I agree with her conclusion that they are not functioning properly. As a result, we are now having to decide what to do with a non-functioning member State. No matter how much we would like Bosnia and Herzegovina to be a flourishing democratic State, the reality is that that is not the case. The fact of the matter is that there are two States and three entities. Things would not be so bad if those two States were functioning properly, but they are not. They do not want to work together, but they are not able to survive alone. That leads to the third entity – or ethnicity – also wishing to form a kind of State. As the rapporteur rightly pointed out, these processes did not begin today or yesterday; rather they date back to the Dayton Agreement and the creation of the State.
We all know that Dayton ended the war, which was great, but it did not create a more or less normal democratic State in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We must take into account the fact that the wish to have the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not correspond to the reality on the ground in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In my opinion, it never has been a State. It was a part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and when that disappeared, a lot of things disappeared.
The issue is how to solve these problems. To accept the de facto situation that there are two States is not the answer, because up until now it has not appeared that these two States can coexist. There have been festivities in Banja Luka, commemorating the 20th anniversary of Republika Srpska. The President of Serbia came along and received a medal from Mr Dodik, and everybody spoke about “the State”. In that part of the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, therefore, Republika Srpska is seen as a State. The reaction in Sarajevo was, of course, very different. People wondered how they could once again go against all international rules.
The problem is clear, but finding answers is very difficult. We in this Assembly could say, “If you don’t live up to your obligations, we will take measures.” One such measure might be not to allow them to participate any more in the Assembly. I agree with Ms Woldseth that we have to make things clear to them. If we do not ask them to respect their obligations, we do not respect their country. We cannot say to them, “Do whatever you want and continue as you are,” yet excluding them from our Assembly and the Council of Europe is not the solution either. Although we had a bad experience last time, the international community must again try to help not only the politicians of Bosnia and Herzegovina but, especially, its people, because they deserve better, particularly in these times of crisis – things are going very badly for its citizens.
I propose that we again offer all our services and ask Bosnia and Herzegovina at least to participate in the body of which it is a part. I also propose that we investigate the possibility of sending the Presidential Committee of this Assembly to Bosnia and Herzegovina to see whether it could be of any assistance. Our former President, Mr Çavuşoğlu, has already put in a lot of effort there, but sending the Presidential committee could be of some help. I thank the rapporteur again for her report.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kox. I invite Mr Vareikis to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Thank you, Mr President. Ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing a country that according to the rapporteur is unique and beautiful but, as Mr Kox said, it is a non-functioning country. We are discussing institutions that are not functioning properly. I am not saying that they are not functioning; I am saying that they are not functioning properly. On behalf of my group, I want to make five suggestions that might help the country as well as the Council of Europe.
First, everybody agrees that Bosnia and Herzegovina is a unique country, but suddenly we are saying that that uniqueness is an obstacle to that country functioning properly. We are speaking about its ethnocracy and ethnicity, but those are European inventions. We should not blame ethnicity or say that it is a negative thing – we all have an ethnic group. Civic society is also a European invention, and generally we combine ethnicity and civic society. Bosnia and Herzegovina probably has too much ethnicity and too little civic society. I imagine people in Bosnia and Herzegovina fighting for and defending their rights – they are always fighting for something – but they are not creating something. I suggest that they fight to create new opportunities. The country has possibilities to create new opportunities, but they are not being used. A Swiss friend of mine said once, “Switzerland is rich now because 100 years ago it was very poor, so its people invented something to change the country.” I hope that Bosnia and Herzegovina also invents something.
Secondly, we must not forget that Bosnia and Herzegovina is very close – it is almost in the heart of Europe. I looked at a map yesterday. The distance from Strasbourg to Sarajevo is the same as the distance from Strasbourg to Warsaw. I counted more than 20 capitals of countries that are members of the Council of Europe that are further away than Sarajevo, so we must not imagine that it is not important. It is very close.
Thirdly, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a European State. It has Muslims and Christians, including Catholics and Orthodox Christians, but it is really a European State, and all the solutions have to be European solutions, not, I am sorry to say, Asian or African solutions. We are here to find a European solution for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Fourthly, we are talking not only about institutions but about general reform. Very often, we have nothing to propose to Bosnia and Herzegovina other than to say, “Look to Germany, look to the Baltic states, look to Scandinavia,” but perhaps people have to invent some options. That might not be the case for all our 40-odd member States, but it might be the case for Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, it is up to us and that country to have the will to invent something new. I am not saying that everything now is forever.
Finally, everybody who goes to the western Balkans is advised to read the history and we are told that if we want to understand the Balkans, we must read the history – we are reading, reading, reading. My suggestion is: stop reading the history and start writing it. That is exactly what Bosnia and Herzegovina needs. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Vareikis. I now call Mr Schennach, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) welcomed the report and its rather unusual sharpness of tone, which should be effective in pricking the conscience of the international community. His country, Austria, was a gateway to the Balkans. Bosnia and Herzegovina was at the heart of the Balkans and it was instructive to remember the cruel events that had taken place in that region during the Second World War. The civil war had torn apart communities and cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Attempts had been made to draw up a constitution in Dayton but this agreement had not been perfect and had been undertaken without a deep understanding of the country: for example, Sarajevo had been compared to New York as a cultural melting pot. But the result of the text agreed at Dayton was that particular segments of the population were marginalised. Dayton had created an unworkable situation and Bosnia and Herzegovina was suffering to this day.
The international community needed to take a strong line with Bosnia and Herzegovina as it was moving too slowly towards reform. In one sense, patience was merited because, elsewhere in Europe, wrongs done to people such as the Jews were still being righted today. Bosnia and Herzegovina was in need of the support of the international community to right the wrongs done to the people during the civil war.
He had worked extensively in Bosnia and Herzegovina and had noticed the lack of connection between the young people and their political leaders. Ethnic segregation was having a negative impact on young people and it was the Assembly’s duty to help to build bridges between them and their political representatives. It was also vital to address the visa regime: under Tito people had been able to travel freely but could do so no longer. The young people of Bosnia and Herzegovina needed to see freedom of travel as a real possibility.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I now call Mr Gardetto.
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) congratulated the rapporteurs on their excellent report, and said that solutions to the problems in Bosnia and Herzegovina could be found only in a climate of confidence. Political will was needed to achieve progress. It was unacceptable that the constitutional reforms which long ago had been asked of Bosnia and Herzegovina had still not been taken forward. The Government in Bosnia and Herzegovina continued to ignore the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Sejdić and Finci case.
All too often, the Assembly had had to remind Bosnia and Herzegovina of its obligations and responsibilities. Although it was better for Bosnia and Herzegovina to be inside the Council of Europe, it had failed to show the necessary goodwill. There had been some positive developments but there was excessive politicisation in the country, especially in education. It was vital to provide young people with an objective education instead of schooling that served only to encourage existing divides.
Multiculturalism in Sarajevo was a ticking time bomb. The authorities needed to act quickly to bring an end to the constant internecine quarrelling and horse-trading between politicians.
There was a particularly significant problem around witness protection programmes. These were failing to function properly, especially in cases involving witnesses in war crimes trials. Backlogs of cases were building up in the courts. Witnesses often found that their identities were revealed and they were subject to threats. Key witnesses were losing confidence in those who were supposed to protect them and as a result many were now choosing not to use the witness protection programmes.
Root and branch reform was necessary in order to realise the aspirations of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Marković.
Ms MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) noted that the Council of Europe regularly considered the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, both as a member State and as a country which was being monitored.
This report was the least encouraging to date. It was wrong that the report sought to point fingers and apportion blame. The rapporteur had been right to say that there was an obligation on Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Sejdić and Finci. A committee was working on this issue and was due to complete its work by 15 March. There was every chance that the committee would succeed.
The political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was changing very quickly and the report had been overtaken by events. For example, the leaders of the political parties had now agreed on the distribution of ministerial posts. The rapporteur had been wrong to suggest that the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci judgment was the central pillar of constitutional reform. The report had also been wrong to suggest that entity voting was at the root of the country’s problems. Entity voting had been established by the Dayton Agreement and existed as a safeguard for the ethnic groups of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The new Council of Ministers was now up and running in Bosnia and Herzegovina. When the Parliamentary Assembly next met in April it would hear updates both on the work of this Council of Ministers and on progress towards implementing the Sejdić and Finci judgment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I now call Ms Krišto.
Ms KRIŠTO (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said that, in spite of the efforts of the rapporteurs, the report contained a number of defects and superficial interpretations, which had led to erroneous conclusions. In addition, the report was not always objective and was largely out of date. In particular, the report overlooked the fact that the Dayton Agreement had made arrangements to ensure that no ethnic group dominated political institutions. It was vital to respect the wish of different ethnic groups. To do otherwise would be contrary to the principles of the Parliamentary Assembly.
It was a particular problem that the report omitted to mention the way in which the High Representative had overruled the Central Electoral Commission on the matters relating to the composition of the House of Representatives and the election of the president and vice-presidents of the Federation. The rulings of the Central Electoral Commission had been compliant with electoral law and the act of overruling these judgments had shaken confidence in the law and had undermined legitimate centres of power. The report needed to be updated to reflect these events.
THE PRESIDENT – I am sorry but I have to interrupt you, Ms Krišto. This is an unlikely interruption from me, but it is for the understandable reason that there is a limited time to speak.
I invite Mr Hancock to speak.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr Zingeris. When it comes to democracy, Bosnia is the cradle of the best and the worst. The best is the undoubted beauty of the country, and the exuberance and great resilience of its people. The worst is its current leaders. In my opinion, they undoubtedly deserve each other, but the truth is that the people of Bosnia do not deserve any of them. Sadly, it will be very difficult for things to change until the leadership changes.
The one thing we know for certain is that the Dayton Agreement, born out of the desire to bring peace and to stop people fighting, was a compromise that in the end could lead only to chaos, because it only offered a short-term resolution to the fighting. Laudable though that principle is, the consequence is that here we are, 10 years on, talking about a country that is still divided on the same grounds that people were fighting on. If we are not careful and if a sound political compromise is not found, the end result, sadly, will be a return to the fighting.
In trying to put different ethnic groups together in a very complex situation such as Bosnia’s undoubtedly is, it takes a very special person to emerge, one capable of bringing all sides together. All sides do not necessarily have to agree all the time, but for the state to have belief and confidence in itself, somebody needs to take a lead, over and above the present shambles. The situation is unforgivable –Bosnia’s politicians have been given the opportunity of power in a beautiful country that could have so much to offer for the future. You do not have to look at the past, as other people have said; for Bosnia, we must look to the future. But a dysfunctional State can never survive and will always cause people to leave the country. The bright and those who want to inspire and get on in life will leave Bosnia, to the detriment of its future.
Something needs to be done to co-ordinate a realistic approach. I agree with some of the comments about the rapporteurs’ report and I congratulate them both on it, but it is a superficial report: it has to be because of the very nature of the problems Bosnia faces. No matter whom you talk to, you will get three versions – sometime four – of the way forward. It is very difficult to co-ordinate a reasonable approach to a country that, in terms of political activity, seems hell-bent on plunging into a bottomless pit of despair.
We need the politicians who represent their country here in this Assembly, and those who travel around Europe talking about it, to make more of an effort to talk to the people inside it in order to bring them together. Why is it so easy for people in Bosnia to split along ethnic lines? Why is there no common thread to bring them together? The answer is the failure of the political class to want it to happen. As has been said, for very selfish reasons, people will perpetuate a given situation because it suits them economically – for their own benefit – and gives them a sense of power. But power without the people behind it will lead Bosnia further and further toward the edge of the abyss. We in this Assembly should, first, try to hold them at the edge, and secondly, try to bring them back. But that will only be done if there is co-operation from within the country with the politicians. The people’s voice needs to be heard and, sadly, the one voice you do not hear in Bosnia is that of the common person.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you for your remarks, Mr Hancock. I call Mr Magazinović.
Mr MAGAZINOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – First, I want to congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Jean-Claude Mignon and Ms Woldseth, on their report and resolution. We in Bosnia and Herzegovina are still connected to the international community – much more so than most other member States here. That is why I want to say that it is the first time for many years that somebody has put the full truth in a document, and called things by their true name.
On carefully reading the report and resolution, we find many messages, especially for us in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The report is about Bosnia and Herzegovina as a multi-ethnic country with citizens with equal rights. I totally agree with that vision and I fight for it every day, but there are political forces strongly against this, and that is the problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
We talk about values, but let us be totally clear: if a multi-ethnic society of citizens with equal rights is not possible in Bosnia and Herzegovina, then it is also not possible in the European Union, given that the European Union is based on the same values as Bosnia and Herzegovina – or, if it is easier for you, Bosnia and Herzegovina is based on the same values as the European Union.
You need to know that two different political concepts exist in Bosnia and Herzegovina. One is an ethnic-based concept, sending the constant message that we should live side by side in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They even want some regions to be separate, and are doing their best to bring about a non-functional state. Unfortunately, that approach has been prevalent in Bosnia and Herzegovina for 20 years. On the other hand, there is the civic political concept, which favours the promotion of multi-ethnicity and equality as core values in Bosnia and Herzegovina and is espoused by the multi-ethnic parties. Their response to the message “Let us live next to one another” is “No; let us live together”. They believe that that is the only way to live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The key problem is that those two concepts conflict with each other. While there is no way in which anyone can destroy the multi-ethnic political concept that is part of our tradition in Bosnia and Herzegovina, political forces whose interests lie in only one ethnic group are also very strong. We need to establish an appropriate balance between the two concepts. That is our obligation, and it is the only possible solution for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Agreement on the forming of a new government that we could recognise would be the first step towards that solution.
I know that some politicians and political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina are not happy with the report because their parties have been identified as part of the problem rather than part of the solution, but their views cannot justify a serious change in the resolution.
Let me end by echoing the words of Ms Woldseth: it is time for Bosnia and Herzegovina to move from ethnocracy to democracy.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Magazinović. The next speaker is Mr Fournier.
Mr FOURNIER (France) noted that at the end of 2011 the main parties had still not reached a consensus on forming a government, some 14 months after the general election in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Bosnia and Herzegovina had yet to properly recover from the civil war and divisions based on religion remained. While the Dayton Agreement had ended the civil war, it had also perpetuated the mindset of the civil war. It was important to note that the principle of equality did not necessarily mean fairness between all groups.
Bosnia and Herzegovina lacked an effective government, which prevented the emergence of the country as a real state. At the anniversary of the beginning of the civil war and of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s accession to the Council of Europe, it was important for Bosnia and Herzegovina to move forward and stop being so inward looking.
The rapporteurs were right in their analysis of the situation and Bosnia and Herzegovina should be evaluated at the next part-session. Gaining membership of the Council of Europe was not the complete answer – indeed, the credibility of the Council of Europe was at stake unless further reforms took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was not enough to be content with the present; improvements in the future were necessary.
(Ms Err, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Zingeris.)
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Fournier. I call next Mr Marcenaro. He is not here, so the next speaker is Mr Matušić.
Mr MATUŠIĆ (Croatia) – Let me begin by thanking our distinguished rapporteurs for a thorough and comprehensive report that gives us a valuable insight into the functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
As you all know, Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of Croatia’s neighbours, and we treasure our friendly relationship with it. Croatia’s strategic interests lie in the sustainable stability of south-east Europe: that is one of our main goals, and our relationship with our neighbours plays a significant part in it. We believe that European Union enlargement must continue after Croatia’s accession. We are ready to use our European potential to speed up the process of European integration for all countries in the region, as was made clear in the Croatian Parliament’s recent declaration on the promotion of European values in south-east Europe.
Having said that, I must emphasise that we are somewhat worried by the evident lack of progress in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was also recognised in a recent rather negative report from the European Commission. The region needs a stable, fully functional and European Union-bound Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country needs to implement comprehensive constitutional and other reforms, including reforms in electoral legislation. I must also emphasise that, as Ms Krišto said, the position of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina is cause for concern. The equality of constituent peoples and others must be real, not just declarative, and we believe that any future reforms must take that into account. We welcome the agreement reached between the six major political parties on the forming of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Council of Ministers.
I must say at this point that the proposals in amendments to delete paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the draft resolution indicate a deep misunderstanding of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am sorry to have to say that.
We especially welcome the fact that legitimate representatives of all three constituent peoples will be included in the Council of Ministers. That will provide the functional stability that is necessary for the making of efficient decisions on the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I must add, however, that the way in which the federal government was formed had a negative impact on pro-European enthusiasm among Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They have the potential to become a significant driving force for Euro-Atlantic reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a fact that is continually stressed by Croatia. The Republic of Croatia also welcomes the appointment of Vjekoslav Bevanda as Chair of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 15 months after the holding of the elections. We hope that the new Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be established soon so that the country can be moved forward in a way that will benefit its citizens, and in that regard, we fully subscribe to the concerns expressed in the report.
We hope to see Bosnia and Herzegovina proceed further along the European path, and we hope that there will be full co-operation with all significant European organisations including the Council of Europe. We stand ready to give our full support to Bosnia and Herzegovina in that respect.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Matušić. The next speaker is Mr Leyden.
Mr LEYDEN (Ireland) – I congratulate the new President of the Assembly. Following the speech of our colleague from Croatia, I wish to congratulate the country on its decision to join the European Union; its accession will take place next year. It is a very important decision; I welcome the country to the Union.
I commend the two rapporteurs, who produced the report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is an excellent report; I compliment the authors on the detail and comprehensiveness.
Last week, at a meeting of the European Affairs Committee in Dublin in Ireland, the former High Representative, Lord Ashdown, expressed grave concerns about developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He predicted the delay in forming a stable government. It is unacceptable that that has happened, and it is in the best interests of Bosnia and Herzegovina that a government is formed there without delay and that it participates in all the functions of the Council of Europe. In this particular instance, I believe that the Council of Europe has a unique role in supporting, helping and working with Bosnia and Herzegovina to ensure a peaceful and progressive future for the country.
I served as an observer in the Republika Srpska in 1989 and I was very impressed by the people who went through a most horrific ethnic war in that region. Like Lord Ashdown, I am concerned about the activities of the Prime Minister of the Republika Srpska, which comprises 49% of the territory, as there might be a danger of it becoming a breakaway region within Bosnia and Herzegovina, which would be an absolute disaster and lead to border conflict in the future.
In conclusion, the Council of Europe needs to give great priority to this issue. Indeed, we should regard it as our No. 1 priority to ensure that Bosnia and Herzegovina forms a working government and moves in a democratic direction. I believe that the country has a great future and I hope that it will become a member of the European Union in the future.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Leyden. Mr Pupovac is not here, so I now call Ms O’Sullivan.
Ms O’SULLIVAN (Ireland) – Thank you for the report. It is important to acknowledge the change that has occurred since the report of the Monitoring Committee was produced. It was disturbing that it took so long after the general elections of October 2010 for a government to be formed. The people of Bosnia and Herzegovina had spoken in the elections, and those elected have responsibilities to the electorate and should form a government to put the interests of the country before their own political ends or personal vested interests.
The positive side is that on 28 December 2011 the leaders of the six political parties agreed on the formation of a state government with Mr Bevanda who has expressed his support for European Union integration and has hopes of European Union candidate status for Bosnia and Herzegovina. I hope that the new government will play a full and active role in the Council of Europe, with representatives from the country taking up the various positions as suggested in the report.
With April 2012 marking the 10th anniversary of the country’s accession to the Council of Europe, perhaps Mr Bevanda and members of his government will have an opportunity to be here to address the Assembly and to answer questions. He has many challenges facing him. Rather than concentrating on the most suitable person for a task, there is bitter futile bargaining about ethnic distribution of posts. There is the right of all citizens to stand for election and the authorities should implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. There is the right of citizens to vote for their candidate of choice and not to be precluded from doing so. When nominations are made with majority backing, we need to tackle the problem of them not being allowed to proceed. Overall, there are the complex and unwieldy decision-making processes and the further complication of vital national interest veto, with the majority of political parties being essentially ethnic parties. Those are challenges for Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is also the continuing fight against organised crime, drugs, trafficking and money laundering.
Recently, as my parliamentary colleague mentioned, we had a joint meeting of the European Affairs and Foreign Affairs Committees in Dublin, which was addressed by Lord Ashdown. He referred to Bosnia and Herzegovina as an “abscess” which has to be contained. This process should begin by respecting the integrity of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He called on the European Union to be more energetic and to stop undermining the dynamic of unity through attempts at decentralisation which aids the work of separatists.
There are particular issues relating to the Republika Srpska. The European Union committee of our parliament expressed its strong support for progress towards European Union membership for the countries of the western Balkans. Central to that is respect for human rights, including the protection of minorities.
The report’s conclusion mentions that the current crisis might have serious consequences for Bosnia and Herzegovina and its membership of international organisations like the Council of Europe. I think, however, that the consequences for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina are more serious, and they have suffered enough. The onus is on those elected by the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina to play their part in ensuring that democracy will function, but there is also an onus and responsibility on the Council of Europe and particularly on the European Union to support that and not to abandon the people. As Lord Ashdown said in an article a few days ago, Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot become “a black hole of dysfunctionality”. The people deserve far better.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms O’Sullivan. I now call the last on the list of speakers, Mr Chisu, Observer from Canada.
Mr CHISU (Canada) – I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this Assembly in respect of the challenges encountered by Bosnia and Herzegovina in transitioning to a fully functioning democracy. Bringing about constitutional reform is an urgent necessity both for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and for Europe generally. It is truly unfortunate that the political leaders have not been capable of initiating the necessary reforms to the constitution and democratic institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina so that its people can move forward and participate fully in the economic and social benefits that could be achieved if the nation were to undertake the necessary reforms.
It is truly to be lamented that the funds needed for economic and social development cannot be extended to Bosnia and Herzegovina because of the ongoing stalemate and the lack, till now, of a functioning government. The IMF and the European Union have both pledged substantial funds: €1.2 billion from the IMF and €100 million from the European Union. These funds have been held back because no fiscal framework has been agreed to by the various parties. The political stalemate has also resulted in foreign direct investment being severely affected.
Canada has a keen interest in ensuring that the governmental institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina become fully functioning. Canada is a member of the peace implementation council and its steering board. Canada has deployed 40 000 military troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina over 15 years. It has also invested over 450 million Canadian dollars in the Balkan region, of which Bosnia and Herzegovina has been one of the largest recipients. Most recent activities have focused on developing the rule of law, health and education. It has also played a significant role in such areas as policing, mine action, human rights and media freedom.
I agree with the rapporteurs that, while the Dayton Accord has in some respects created a kind of straitjacket that creates challenges in establishing functioning democratic institutions, trying as it does to balance the interests of the various ethnic groups, the accord cannot continue to be used as an excuse for compromising good faith and collaboration. Clearly, there needs to be political will on the part of all parties to work together to achieve the necessary constitutional reforms. The so-called blueprint for constitutional reform, developed by the Venice Commission in 2005, would seem to offer the solutions to deal with what can only be described as a constitutional crisis.
With respect to the implementation of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Sejdić and Finci case, one can only remark that there can be no place in a modern democracy for discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and race that is entrenched in a country’s constitution, a constitution that denies Jews and Roma the right to stand for public office, in this case, the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the House of the Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
I urge the political leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina to work together to achieve the needed reforms to the country’s governing institutions. The country stands to gain so much. The recommendations proposed by the co-rapporteurs are reasonable and can have great effect. It simply takes political will on the part of all. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers.
I call Ms Woldseth to reply to the debate. You have four and a half minutes.
Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I thank everyone who participated in the debate, even though we clearly did not quite agree on everything. First, let me address a misunderstanding. I have deleted three paragraphs in the report – paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 – and the committee has tabled amendments to replace them. Therefore, we have already updated the report to reflect recent developments.
I have been criticised by some about the sharp tone of the report, although others have, of course, appreciated that. Anyone who has been to Bosnia and Herzegovina on several occasions, as I have, will know that we always hear the same responses: “We are working on it, we are working on it, we are working on it.” It is therefore not enough just to have a nice report that does not lead anywhere. Instead, we must say what needs to be said. Perhaps that will create some understanding of what needs to be done.
I am very touched that young politicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina, such as Mr Magazinović, appreciate what we do in the Council of Europe. In this instance we have produced a report that actually says what everybody thinks but nobody dares to say. I am happy, therefore. The emergence of such politicians bodes well for continuing this work in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have great hopes for them.
Some of us talked about the Dayton Agreement. It is true that it was a deal struck in an airport to stop the war. It is now time to move on. Until the Bosnian people look at themselves as one people living in one country, there will be no changes. That is the challenge. My main task is to try to get the Bosnian people to understand this. As Mr Magazinović said, they must make the transition from ethnocracy to democracy.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, co-rapporteur. The Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee wishes to speak.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – This has been a very important debate. I thank Ms Woldseth for her dedicated work on this difficult topic. I also thank the second rapporteur, Mr Mignon, who has been elected President of our Assembly and, of course, the secretariat.
I say to our Bosnian friends that the call for less ethnocracy and more democracy has been made by more than one speaker. Our ethnic origins are extremely important, but first of all we are human beings who must live together. It is very important to remember that. We in this Assembly must draw conclusions and make recommendations. Our Bosnian friends must find practical solutions, and I agree that that is a much more difficult task.
In this morning’s committee meeting, some colleagues asked where our Bosnian colleagues were. It was a pity that they did not attend that meeting, but they were present yesterday and they took the floor during discussions. That is very important and I thank our Bosnian colleagues for that. Although some critical remarks have been made, we must build bridges. They must keep in touch with the rapporteurs, the committee and with each other.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The general debate is now closed.
The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution to which 10 amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the compendium and the organisation of debate. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
Amendments 5 and 6 were adopted unanimously by the committee. I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 5 and 6 should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. However both amendments have consequential effects and are incompatible with some other amendments, and therefore we shall take all the amendments to this report individually in the order set out in the organisation of debates.
We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Ms Bakir, Ms Gafarova, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Ahmet Kutalmis Türkeş, Ms Pashayeva, Mr Huseynov, Mr Dişli, Mr Kayatürk, Mr Mustafa, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, delete the words “If the necessary amendments are not adopted in good time before the next elections in 2014, the Assembly warns that the continued membership of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Council of Europe may be at stake.”
I call Ms Bakir to support Amendment 7.
Ms BAKIR (Turkey) – This amendment does not question the judgment of Sejdić and Finci. Rather, it questions the unfair threat to Bosnia and Herzegovina that it will be excluded from the Council of Europe if certain conditions are not met. Belgium also had difficulties in forming a government, but it was not treated in that way. It would be better if the international community adopted a positive, constructive response, rather than made threats to what is a country that was hit by a terrible war. It was a truly terrible war in which Bosnians, and in particular Bosnian women and children were the main victims. I believe that we owe the Bosnians a much-delayed moral debt.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Woldseth
Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – As I said in my speech, we have tried several times already, and I think it is necessary to be sharp and to set concrete deadlines so that politicians have to come together, co-operate and find a solution. I am therefore opposed to this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee rejected the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment 7 is rejected.
We now come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mrs Marković, Mr Ivanić, Mr Bosić, Mr Tomić, Ms Krišto, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.1, delete the words “in the comprehensive constitutional reform that is needed in order to move away from the institutional straightjacket created by the Dayton Constitution”.
I call Mrs Marković to support Amendment 1.
Ms MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said that the amendment had initially been drafted differently but she remained in favour of it.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Woldseth.
Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I do not agree with the amendment. It is natural to call a spade a spade once in a while. To move forward, we have to look for another solution besides the Dayton Agreement.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The amendment was rejected by the committee.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open
Amendment 1 is rejected.
We now come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mrs Marković, Mr Ivanić, Mr Bosić, Mr Tomić, Ms Krišto, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.1, delete the words “The Assembly considers, in particular, that the restrictive quorum rules, the excessive use of entity voting (a double qualified majority used for all decision-making in parliament) and the vague definition of the so-called ‘vital national interest’ – instead of preventing outvoting by any of the ethnic groups through dialogue and search for compromise – have been systematically abused and now hamper all decision-making processes”.
I call Mrs Marković to support Amendment 2.
Mrs MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said that the amendment was self-explanatory.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Woldseth.
Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I do not think that any explanation is required either, because we believe in one people and one country. I am against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee was against.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I call Mr Kox on a point of order.
Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I just wanted to say, Ms President, that you should also ask if someone wants to speak against the amendment. You forgot that. I would like to state that I am against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We take note of your view.
The vote is open
Amendment 2 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Ms Bakir, Ms Gafarova, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Ahmet Kutalmis Türkes, Ms Pashayeva, Mr Huseynov, Mr Dişli, Mr Kayatürk and Mr Mustafa, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 7 with the following paragraph:
“The Assembly welcomes the agreement reached on the formation of the state level government and appreciates the reconciliation efforts of all parties involved.”
I remind the Assembly that if Amendment 8 is adopted, Amendment 5 falls.
I call Ms Bakir to support Amendment 8.
Ms BAKIR (Turkey) – After the rapporteur wrote the report, a government was formed, so the amendment updates the resolution following developments in Bosnia. I support the amendment because it reflects the truth.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Woldseth.
Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – As you can all see, Amendment 5 replaces paragraph 7, which the committee has approved, so I am against Amendment 8. The committee has already updated paragraph 7 in Amendment 5.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – It was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment 8 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Herkel, on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, replace the second sentence with the following sentence:
“Despite the serious economic and financial situation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the leaders of the six main political parties continued their bargaining about the ethnic distribution of posts in the Council of Ministers until 28 December 2011, when they finally reached an agreement, notably on the appointment of a Croat from the HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union) as chairman of the Council of Ministers.”
I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment 5 on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The amendment would make the change that Ms Woldseth just outlined when she explained why we rejected the previous amendment. Amendment 5 was unanimously adopted by the committee.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
The vote is open.
Amendment 5 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Herkel, on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraphs 8 and 9 with the following paragraphs:
“The Assembly takes note of the nomination by the tri-partite Presidency on 5 January 2012 of a candidate for the position of chairman of the Council of Ministers and of his confirmation by the House of Representatives on 12 January. The new chairman, a Croat from the HDZ, now urgently needs to complete government formation, in order to get the country back on track.
The Assembly considers that the democratic will of the voters must be respected and that democratically elected institutions, such as the Parliamentary Assembly and the tripartite Presidency, should not be under instructions of political party leaders, but should work according to the four-year mandate they received from the voters. The Assembly expects the new Council of Ministers to carry out its work in a responsible way and to put the interests of all the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina first, regardless of their ethnicity. Without cooperation, coordination and communication between all levels of authority and all political stakeholders, it will not be possible to achieve progress.”
I note that if Amendment 6 is adopted, Amendments 3, 4 and 9 fall. I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment 6 on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee decided to replace paragraphs 8 and 9 with this new wording to bring the resolution in line with the developments mentioned by the rapporteur during our discussion. It was unanimously adopted.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case. We know the opinion of the committee so I shall now put the amendment to the vote.
The vote is open
Amendment 6 is adopted.
As a result, Amendments 3, 4 and 9 fall.
We therefore come to Amendment 10, tabled by Ms Bakir, Ms Gafarova, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, Ms Pashayeva, Mr Huseynov, Mr Dişli, Mr Kayatürk and Mr Mustafa, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15, replace the last sentence with the following sentence:
“After the agreement reached among the six local parties to form the state level government, the Assembly urges the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to use this positive political atmosphere to continue with the necessary legal and other reforms in order to speed up the Euro-Atlantic integration.”
I call Ms Bakir to support Amendment 10.
Ms BAKIR (Turkey) – This is an amendment to encourage Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding Euro-Atlantic integration. It is kind of enforcement – but in a nice way, not like a threat – for the NATO and European Union integration of Bosnia. This is just an update. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Woldseth.
Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – The amendment says to use a “positive political atmosphere” to continue making progress. I can tell you that the political atmosphere is not very positive in Bosnia and Herzegovina right now. They are fighting about the 2011 budget; they decided it on 31 December 2011 and they have already started discussing it. So I am against this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – This amendment was rejected by the committee.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment 10 is rejected.
We shall proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Documents 12816, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 12816, as amended, is adopted, with 111 votes for, 3 against and 6 abstentions.
(The sitting, suspended at 11.45 a.m., was resumed at 12 noon, with Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, in the Chair.)
7. Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by the Rt Hon. David Lidington, Minister for Europe, United Kingdom, representing the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I must remind members that a vote is in progress to elect the new Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe. The poll will be open until 1 p.m., and will reopen from 3.30 p.m. until 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s Chair.
We now come to the communication from the Rt Hon. David Lidington, Minister for Europe in the United Kingdom.
(The speaker continued in French)
He welcomed Mr Lidington and said it was a pleasure to see him again. He noted that he and Mr Lidington had already had considerable contact and he was delighted with, and shared the priorities of, the United Kingdom in its Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers.
He was keen to hear Mr Lidington’s views on the reform on the European Court of Human Rights in particular, which was the jewel in the crown of the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights could not continue to operate as it had in the past, due to the increased number of member countries and because it was a victim of its own success. It was therefore important to put forward proposals to support its continuing functioning. It was also important to put forward proposals for improving relations at the local and regional levels.
He paid tribute to the career of Mr Lidington and noted that he was also a successful athlete and a father. He reminded the Assembly that after Mr Lidington’s speech there would be a question and answer session, and invited the Minister to address the Assembly.
Mr LIDINGTON (Minister for Europe, United Kingdom, representing the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers) – I am delighted to address fellow members of parliament from across our continent today, both as the representative of the United Kingdom Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and as a British parliamentarian. As the President said, I had the pleasure of welcoming members of your Standing Committee in Edinburgh at the start of our chairmanship in November. Let me begin by congratulating Jean-Claude Mignon on his election as your new President, and paying tribute to Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu for his tremendous efforts and achievements during his period in office. The Parliamentary Assembly is vital to the functioning of the Council of Europe, and to bringing the voices of the 800 million citizens whom we represent to this Organisation.
It is a sad coincidence that the news was announced today of the death of my former colleague in the House of Commons – and your former colleague – David Atkinson, who devoted many years of his parliamentary service to the work of the Council of Europe. I think that that is worth mentioning, not just so that I can pay tribute to David and his work, but so that I can say something about what he did and what he stood for. A prime example is the active, committed and positive role that has been played by members of all our political parties in the British Parliament in the work of the Council of Europe since its foundation.
I want to speak to you about developments in the Committee of Ministers since your last part-session in October, but first I want to set out the United Kingdom’s priorities for our chairmanship. The over-arching theme of our six months in the chair will be the promotion and protection of human rights. Some members will already be aware of the priorities that we have set ourselves for our chairmanship in that context. Three of these were agreed as shared priorities across the successive chairmanships of Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Albania, namely the reform of the Court, the reform of the Organisation and local and regional democracy.
Let me speak, first, about reform of the European Court of Human Rights, which includes our commitment to the European Court. Last June, my colleague, the Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, addressed the Assembly and spoke of the partnership between the three pillars of the State, each playing its own role in the implementation of the Convention, with each respecting the role of the other. As he said, individual member States must fulfil their responsibility to implement the Convention, and the Court must be
careful to respect that primary role. The United Kingdom Prime Minister, David Cameron, will address the Parliamentary Assembly tomorrow about our work on this chairmanship’s priority and the United Kingdom’s continued and undeterred commitment to the Court.
The United Kingdom chairmanship, however, also wants to drive forward progress on broader Council of Europe work and our other key priorities. We are fully committed to supporting the excellent work of Secretary General Jagland’s reform programme, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Jagland publicly for his work on this, in looking at ways in which the Organisation can work in the most effective and efficient fashion. The new biennial budget for the Organisation, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in November, is a step towards achieving this. Maintaining the budget at a maximum of zero real growth reflects the reality of the economic climate in which Europe now finds itself. We welcome the streamlined structure of the Secretariat, which the Secretary General has now put into place, as it will no doubt bring further efficiencies and synergies.
The United Kingdom will also work to streamline the Council of Europe’s activities in local and regional democracy to enable a more targeted, focused and overall more efficient approach. I am pleased to announce that the United Kingdom will be hosting a high-level meeting on this work on 13 February at Lancaster House in London, with the aim of giving greater shape and depth to the concept of a single programme that would bring together the activities of all the actors in this field. We look forward to the participation of the Parliamentary Assembly at that meeting on 13 February.
Equally, we are committed to strengthening the rule of law across the Council of Europe. On 2 March, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in conjunction with the Venice Commission and the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, will host an event in London that will look at the recently adopted Venice Commission report on the rule of law. This event will provide an opportunity to explore two essential aspects of the rule of law: the quality of the laws and the control of executive discretion in implementing laws in order to prevent arbitrariness.
We will also drive forward work in support of the Council of Europe’s work on internet governance, including freedom of expression on the internet. The United Kingdom strongly supports the adoption of a cross-cutting internet governance strategy to bring together the various strands of the Council of Europe’s work over the next four years. The strategy will bring together all partners and ensure full implementation of existing human rights, while looking at the challenges posed by new fast-moving technologies. My colleague, Ed Vaizey, the Communications Minister, attended the recent Vienna Conference, which underlined the fact that internet governance has become a priority for the Council of Europe and that human rights apply online as well as offline.
The United Kingdom hosted the London Cyber Conference last November with not only governments but representatives from civil society and industry. Our Foreign Secretary, William Hague, highlighted the fact in his closing statement that, whatever country we represent, the rapid rise of cybercrime is a growing threat to our citizens. Following on from the London conference, my colleague, James Brokenshire, the Crime and Security Minister at the Home Office, attended the Octopus Conference here in Strasbourg, commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Budapest Convention. The United Kingdom strongly supports both the principles of the Budapest Convention and the practical benefits it brings for international co-operation to tackle the threat of cybercrime to governments, the private sector and individuals. We would strongly urge those Council of Europe States that are not yet party to this instrument to adopt and ratify the Budapest Convention.
We continue to work during our chairmanship with other member States towards combating discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, people and the tackling of discrimination against them has for too long been marginalised in the Council of Europe’s work. I would like to thank members of the Parliamentary Assembly for helping to make progress on these issues both within the Council of Europe and in their respective countries. Indeed, I gather that the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men was only this week replaced with the Committee on Equal Opportunities and Non-Discrimination. This new committee has a much wider remit to progress on broader equality, including LGBT rights. I am also pleased that the Council of Europe Secretariat has, with the benefit of voluntary contributions, been able to establish a unit to promote LGBT rights within certain partner countries. To further this work, I can announce United Kingdom plans to host a conference to promote the Council of Europe recommendations on combating discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and/or gender identity here in Strasbourg on 27 March and I hope that the Parliamentary Assembly will be represented there.
The United Kingdom’s priorities for its chairmanship showcase, I believe, the variety of the Council of Europe’s work, but I do not think that it is currently given the recognition by the public as the driving force that it is behind so many fundamental and universal values. We as politicians have a job to do to explain to all our citizens the benefits of the Council of Europe, and to do that I believe we must go back to the beginning.
The beginning, for the United Kingdom, takes us back a mere 800 years to 1215 and the Magna Carta. There is a copy of this great charter near the entrance to this room today. The Magna Carta started, in part, over something as mundane as a quarrel over property rights and turning to the law. It was also an attempt to stop a civil war. In due course, however, that evolved into a document that became the first expression of a shared recognition that the decisions of government should fall within a framework of law, which gave expression to certain rights accorded to all individuals.
Moving swiftly forward 650 years, 1949 saw the Council of Europe’s founding treaty signed in London. The Second World War was a traumatic and devastating event for our entire continent. Our leaders hoped that this would never come to pass again. They intended that this Organisation would be part of a structure of new institutions that would ensure our safety. The protection and promotion of human rights, of democracy and of the rule of law are the essence of promoting peace between and within States.
This impressive story of the Council of Europe’s beginnings as an Organisation for reconciliation and a beacon for fundamental rights is a good story to tell and one that we need to take to all the citizens that we serve. I know that in your hands, this task will be carried out with dedication.
As I said at the beginning of my address, I would like to discuss the developments in the Committee of Ministers since the United Kingdom took the Chair. We welcomed the initiatives announced by President Medvedev following the 4 December elections in Russia. The Council of Europe is ready to provide any assistance that may be required regarding election legislation and practice.
We are also pleased that at the end of 2011 agreement was reached between the major political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the constitution of a new central government, following the impasse after the general election of October 2010. It is hoped that this new government will take up its functions rapidly and agree on a programme of action to bring forward the European integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A particularly important issue for the Council of Europe will be reform of the constitution in order to align it with the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Sejdić and Finci. It is hoped that Bosnia and Herzegovina will rapidly fill a number of its designated – but currently vacant – posts within a number of Council of Europe bodies, such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
We have noted that there have been recent positive signs in Albania after an extended period of tension between political parties. In particular, we noted the establishment in November, with cross-party consensus, of a parliamentary committee on electoral reform. The opinion on electoral law and electoral practice of Albania adopted by the Venice Commission in December 2011 provides useful recommendations on measures to improve the situation in this crucial area. The chairmanship is confident that appropriate follow-up will be given to these recommendations in view of the forthcoming Albanian Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers.
The situation in Kosovo remains a matter of particular attention for the Committee of Ministers. European Union-facilitated dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade has been making progress and we hope that further confidence-building measures will be agreed by both sides in the coming period. The chairmanship is firmly convinced that the Council of Europe can make a most positive contribution to the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Kosovo through our standards and expertise. Stability and prosperity will be secured in Kosovo, and beyond to the whole west Balkans region, only if all her citizens, including persons belonging to minorities, enjoy the same rights as all Europeans.
A draft agreement with UNMIK on the implementation of several Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms in Kosovo is now under discussion in the Committee of Ministers. This agreement will be instrumental in bringing Council of Europe standards into people’s daily lives. The chairmanship strongly hopes that this agreement will be rapidly concluded.
The situation in Ukraine has retained the attention of both the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly over the last few months. The chairmanship supports the dialogue that Secretary General Jagland has initiated with the Ukrainian authorities on the detention of Ms Yulia Tymoshenko and other members of the former government. We hope that this dialogue will soon produce tangible results, in line with Council of Europe standards.
The chairmanship deeply regrets that the human rights situation in Belarus has continued to deteriorate. The Committee of Ministers will support the establishment of closer relations between the Council of Europe and Belarus only if, and when, Belarus demonstrates its respect for European values and principles. This requires, in particular, that the Minsk authorities establish a formal moratorium on, with a view to abolition of, the death penalty. As the Committee of Ministers unanimously underlined in a statement on 30 November 2011, the chairmanship strongly hopes that the death sentences for two young men for allegedly bombing the Minsk metro on 11 April will be commuted.
From the beginning of the Arab Spring, the United Kingdom has strongly supported the legitimate and democratic movements that have swept through this part of the world. At a time when there are increasing doubts and questions about the role of democratic institutions in our member States, these movements only seek to reconfirm the relevance and importance of the Council of Europe’s central values that we have been promoting for more than 60 years.
Following the decision of the Committee of Ministers at its last session in May 2011, the chairmanship is pleased to have a more active neighbourhood policy. Action is now under way within the Organisation to translate this new policy orientation into concrete lines of action. The chairmanship is pleased to inform the Assembly that two weeks ago the Committee of Ministers endorsed a number of priorities for co-operation with Kazakhstan and Morocco for the period 2012-14. The Parliamentary Assembly will be kept informed of the progress of this work and of the plans for co-operation with other countries situated in the Council of Europe’s neighbouring regions. Also, the deputies have accepted Kazakhstan’s request to join the Venice Commission.
All this is tangible proof that the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly share the same objective of promoting the Council of Europe’s values. You have been an essential partner in this work. Although we have individual mandates, we need to work together. However, it is legitimate too to say that each partner should have their own perspective. Indeed, a difference of approach between the parliament and the executive is the sign of a vibrant democracy.
I could not complete my address today without paying tribute to the work of Mr Hammarberg, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. During his six-year term, Mr Hammarberg has made an enormous contribution to the strides this Organisation has taken in promoting human rights in Europe. His candid reports and statements on situations in Europe have often helped to promote universal improvements of standards, while his dialogues with national authorities have produced tangible results.
We were pleased to see Mr Hammarberg in the United Kingdom in December, carrying out his role assiduously, in the way we would expect. It is vital that the Commissioner visits all member States to evaluate first-hand the human rights situation. Mr Hammarberg has brought the protection of the human rights of the most vulnerable to the forefront of the Council of Europe’s work and has worked tirelessly towards making this dimension of human rights a central concern of both the Council of Europe and its member States, notably with regard to the situation of Roma, of migrants and asylum seekers and of LGBT people.
Finally, I turn again to you, the Parliamentary Assembly. This Assembly is the best forum for making sure that our work, and that of the Council of Europe, reaches public notice. It needs to reach them. Your debates have the power to reach audiences stretching from the Atlantic to the Bering Straits and from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. Looking ahead – not only to the remaining three months of the United Kingdom chairmanship, but to all the months that will follow under successive chairmanships – we owe it to those we represent to make sure our leadership of the Council of Europe makes a positive difference to their lives.
The United Kingdom remains committed to the Council of Europe, its aims and its ambitions. We hope that the Parliamentary Assembly will continue to be active and ambitious in seeking to promote our common aims and values. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Lidington, for your interesting address.
(The speaker continued in French)
He thanked the Minister for his statement and said that the Assembly was always happy to hear from a minister of any country, especially when he said such nice things about the Assembly. The Council of Europe was a unique Organisation but it relied on its members and on people like the Minister to ensure that its work was more widely publicised.
(Translation) Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you, Minister. There are two written questions, which receive written answers. We also have oral questions. I remind the Assembly that questions must be limited to 30 seconds. Colleagues should be asking questions and not making speeches.
I call Mr Omtzigt to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – Thank you, Minister, for a clear commitment to your continued and undeterred support for the Court – it is important to hear that from the United Kingdom. I was impressed to hear you mention concrete measures to be taken against countries such as Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and Belarus. I hope that the Committee of Minister’s written answers will be equally clear about the Dutch paedophile association, Martijn, and the terrible Magnitsky case. Will you give the same clarity in stating the three reforms to the Council of Europe – and especially to the Court – that you want to achieve by the end of your chairmanship?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – The Prime Minister will outline in greater detail tomorrow what reforms to the Court we hope to achieve, but I shall try to answer your question without taking my boss’s thunder and depriving him of an audience because you have decided that you have all heard enough. We want to see further work on the reform of admissibility; we want steps taken to make subsidiarity a concrete reality; and we want recognition of the fact that member States, in subscribing to the European Convention, accept the duty on them to implement the convention within their own territories. Following on from that, we want further measures taken, building on best practice, to ensure the more effective implementation of the convention within member States. I discussed those matters with your President and Secretary General at meetings earlier today.
The death of Mr Magnitsky has twice been discussed by the Committee of Ministers on the basis of questions that you yourself put forward. The discussions on the issue raised in the first written question were held last October, at which the Russian Federation provided the Committee of Ministers with information about the state of the criminal investigation. The discussions on the second question, which you put forward on 11 January, are ongoing in the Committee of Ministers.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Lord Anderson, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – In your welcome review, you failed to mention any possible response to the widespread concern about the activities of the Hungarian Government in relation to matters such as constitutional revision and press freedom. Will the United Kingdom chairmanship take a passive attitude towards these concerns, or will it take initiatives to use the Council’s instruments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Venice Commission?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – Concerns have been expressed in and outside Hungary about the new constitution that was adopted in April last year and that came into force at the beginning of 2012. Last June, as Lord Anderson knows, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission issued a critical opinion on the new constitution, and the matter has also been raised within the Committee of Ministers. The Secretary General has been encouraged to pursue the dialogue that he initiated with the Hungarian authorities, and he has offered to have Council of Europe experts examine the various laws adopted in order to implement the new Hungarian Constitution.
My understanding is that the Hungarian Foreign Minister has now given an initial reply stating that he will take seriously the comments that the Secretary General has made on behalf of the Council of Europe. The Foreign Minister has said that he will invite the Venice Commission to give detailed advice and a critique to Hungary and that the Hungarian Government will consider seeking more general advice from the Council of Europe as an institution. This is an important issue on which the Council of Europe is working co-operatively with the institutions of the European Union. I understand that Commission President Barroso said, in a statement to the European Parliament regarding many of the complaints about the Hungarian Constitution and law, that the Council of Europe rather than the European Union was the institution to take this forward. Our view at the moment is that this dialogue is the best way to resolve these understandable concerns about the situation in Hungary, and the response from Minister Martonyi encourages us to believe that that dialogue will bear fruit.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Ms Woldseth, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – Thank you, Mr Lidington. I have a question regarding the reform of the Court. I heard you say that the Prime Minister will talk about that, but I did not know that when I tabled my question so I shall ask it anyway. What is your main goal for the reform of the Court during your chairmanship, and can you understand the worries of human rights activists and non-governmental organisations about the suggested changes to the Court?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – The prime objectives are to reform the procedures of the Court to enable it to function more efficiently; to enable it to sustain its capacity to process and examine cases as they need to be examined and judged; and to maintain its reputation. There is the well-known backlog. When I talked to the President of the Court this morning, it was good to hear that progress was being made on the backlog of inadmissible cases, but that still leaves us with the challenge of repetitive and admissible cases that have to be dealt with properly. We think that measures need to be taken on admissibility criteria and on making subsidiarity more of a reality.
For example, the Izmir Declaration expressed the consensus among all 47 member States that on asylum cases we should ask the Court not to second-guess the facts of a case that had already been properly examined by competent courts applying the Convention fairly within their own country. We want to take forward that kind of approach. On implementation at a national level, we held a meeting of experts at Wilton Park conference centre in the United Kingdom last autumn. At that meeting, several practical suggestions were made for how to secure better national implementation. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Assembly has come up with ideas of its own. We hope to get a consensus on some of them.
On your question about NGOs and human rights organisations, yes we intend to ensure that those organisations are briefed. I met the Scottish leader of the NGOs dealing with these issues in Edinburgh last year, and I assured him that we wanted to keep them well informed of our intentions, because it was important that they heard from us exactly what we were proposing and that they did not believe everything that they read in the newspapers.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Ms Schuster on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats of Europe group.
Ms SCHUSTER (Germany) thanked the Minister for his statement. She wished to address the subject of reform of the European Court of Human Rights. The United Kingdom had been heard to criticise the European Court. The right to individual petitions was a fundamental right and the right to individual decisions was just as important. She asked for the Minister’s views on these points.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – There is absolutely no question of seeking to remove the right of individual petitions. I hope I can assure you on that point. There is an issue that the Council of Europe has to decide about repetitive cases or cases that duplicate each other. I was talking to your officials earlier today about what the internet is doing in promoting transmission of thousands of identically worded – or almost identically worded – representations to the Council of Europe that may at some stage turn into almost identically worded cases brought before the Court. A means has to be found by agreement as to how we deal with those cases, without the really important cases which raise fundamental questions about how human rights are observed throughout Europe being kept waiting for years, while stuff clogs up the system because we do not have our procedures properly in order. So it is procedural reform that we are seeking.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Kürkçü on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – In Turkey, eight MPs from three opposition parties elected in the general election of 12 June have not yet been released from prison. All eight are under trial on political charges; they are suspects but not convicts. I would like to ask whether the Council of Europe, under its United Kingdom chairmanship, will act for the freedom of these parliamentarians who are incarcerated in violation of Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – Freedom of expression and of the media in Turkey have been a matter of concern for the Council of Europe for many years. Of course, as members here know, last July Commissioner Hammarberg issued an exhaustive report on freedom of expression and media freedom in Turkey. A special envoy of our Secretary General visited Turkey following an invitation from Prime Minister Erdoğan at the Parliamentary Assembly. In this context, work has been initiated to assist the Turkish authorities with the revision of the relevant Turkish legislation, and a training programme for Turkish judges and prosecutors on Council of Europe standards in this area has been put in place. The Committee of Ministers is following developments on this very closely.
I would just say, as a British Minister coming from a country and a government that believe very strongly in Turkey’s membership of the European family of nations, the more progress, and the more rapid progress, that Turkey can make towards adopting in full the human rights standards for which the Council of Europe stands, the better that would be for the confidence that all other European countries have in Turkey and, indeed, the better it would be in the interests of a flourishing, plural and democratic society in Turkey.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I call Mr Kox on a point of order.
Mr KOX (Netherlands) – The Minister did not understand the question: it was about the fact that parliamentarians are imprisoned. He answered on media freedom, so perhaps he could answer my colleague’s question.
Mr LIDINGTON – There is no Committee of Ministers position on that.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Salles.
Mr SALLES (France) asked whether Mr Lidington would support giving the European Court of Human Rights its own separate budget.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – I have to say that we are not attracted by that; it should be a single budget which then needs to be divided up on the basis of a sensible assessment about where the priorities lie. I acknowledge that the zero-growth decision means some difficult decisions for every government and parliament in Europe. I simply do not think that international organisations can be exempt from those disciplines.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Ms Zohrabyan.
Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia) referred to an article in The Times newspaper in the United Kingdom by William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, in which he had stressed the importance to British foreign policy of the right of self-determination. He had said that the future of the Falkland Islands should be determined by those living there. Mr Lidington was asked to define exactly what the Foreign Secretary had meant by “self-determination” and why, if it should be applied to the Falkland Islands, it should not be applied to all groups of people.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – The position on the Falkland Islands has been well known and upheld by successive governments of both main political parties and now by the coalition. It goes back to the history of that territory, which the article in The Times by our Foreign Secretary William Hague explains in detail. I would be testing the Assembly’s patience if I went into a blow-by-blow account of the history of the Falkland Islands. However, we have a group of people with a clear historic and continuing identity who have voted to continue to be governed as a British overseas territory. While we want better relations with Argentina, we think that it is up to Argentina to try to persuade the Falkland islands of the virtue of closer relationships with it. If the Argentinians can manage to do that, it is a matter for them.
On the broader question of self-determination, it depends a bit on the history of an individual country or an individual territory, and sometimes circumstances change over time. At the end of the Second World War, we would probably not have spoken easily about Palestinian nationalism; now there is no doubt in the mind of the British Government that the people of Palestine consider themselves to be a nation, which is why we support their determination for a two-state solution in the Middle East. However, that situation has evolved over decades.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Mr Santini is not here, so I call Mr Chope.
Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I thank the Minister for attending the meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights this morning. Can he expand on how the doctrine of sincere co-operation will work in practice when the European Union accedes to the European Convention on Human Rights?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – We think it is very important that, when the European Union accedes to the Convention, something which is provided for under the Treaty of Lisbon, it does so in a way that does not compromise the fact that all members of the European Union are signed up to the Convention and to the Council of Europe as individual countries. In a large number of cases, certainly including that of the United Kingdom, our membership of the Council of Europe preceded our membership of the European Union. It would be a worrying trend, and harmful to the Council of Europe, were there to be perception that somehow decisions of the Committee of Ministers or the Parliamentary Assembly were pre-determined in a bloc of 27 – soon to be 28 – member States, rather than by everybody working together as equal States party to the European Convention on Human Rights. That is why, although the United Kingdom Government supports the accession of the European Union to the Convention – we think that will have the advantage of bringing the institutions of the European Union clearly within the remit of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights – before that can take effect, we need to agree on a text for the accession, on how individual European Union countries would work together, and on how each European Union member State’s independent membership of the Council of Europe can sit alongside the duty of sincere co-operation written into the treaty. That has to be worked out internally within the European Union, and those rules have to be agreed and debated in parliaments and among governments before the act of accession can take place. I have made a commitment in the House of Commons that the British Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss these matters in detail before, in due course, Parliament is invited to enact legislation to ratify the European Union’s accession.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Vrettos.
Mr VRETTOS (Greece) – We have witnessed recently increasing concern about the extensive limitation of the freedom of speech in many countries that are members of the Council of Europe. In several cases, this phenomenon extends to intimidation and the persecution of journalists. The situation calls for an urgent response from the Council of Europe. As Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, what action do you intend to take in eradicating this abhorrent phenomenon, which affects the very head of the protection of human rights in this Organisation?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – I completely agree about the importance of the freedom of journalists and editors to report and to publish both news and opinion. On the defence of human rights in Europe overall, the Committee of Ministers is likely to have a discussion about this thematic issue in the near future. I would add that, of course, my remarks in my opening statement about internet freedom are very applicable to the issue of freedom in journalism and the media. In thinking about freedom in the media, we need to consider not only traditional print and broadcast journalism but the internet as well.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Heald.
Mr HEALD (United Kingdom) – The Minister will know that I am a strong supporter of the work of the Group of States against Corruption. One of the methods it uses is to send a detailed questionnaire to each of the member States asking particular questions about how they deal with corruption. In trying to improve the
national implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, is there not a case for a similar procedure, so that each member State is asked what it is doing to implement this important convention in practical terms?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – As Mr Heald knows, the United Kingdom has been a strong supporter of GRECO and continues to be so. The idea of this new duty being a part of a package of reforms to require better and more effective national implementation of convention rights is a good one. It is the sort of constructive idea that we would want to discuss with our colleagues over the remaining three months of our chairmanship. Although I cannot promise a consensus on that idea, it is exactly that sort of practical, constructive thinking that will enable us to put the right reform package on national implementation together.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Huseynov.
Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – I would like to start by expressing my gratitude. Resolution 1416, elaborated by British MPs Mr Terry Davis and Mr David Atkinson, and adopted on 25 January 2005, is among the most objective of the documents approved by international organisations relating to the Armenian aggression towards Azerbaijan and the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. In your capacity as Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers and the representative of Great Britain, how are you going, within the limits of your powers, to contribute to the liberation of Azerbaijan territories from Armenian occupation and the return of 1 million Azerbaijani refugees and internally displaced persons to their homeland?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – Speaking first on behalf of the chairmanship, let me say that mediation for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is the responsibility not of the Council of Europe but of the OSCE Minsk Group. Where the Council of Europe can contribute is through helping to create conditions conducive to a peace agreement through confidence-building measures involving both sides. The peaceful settlement of the conflict is a commitment entered into by both Armenia and Azerbaijan upon their accession to the Council of Europe. It is a matter of regret that the last meeting between the two presidents, in Russia in June last year, did not reach a peace agreement. We hope that both sides will refrain from any statement or action that may jeopardise a peace deal.
As a United Kingdom Minister, I would simply add that we are striving to do all within our power to support the efforts that the Minsk Group co-chairs are leading. In my conversations in the past 12 months with the Foreign Ministers of both Azerbaijan and Armenia, I have emphasised the need for confidence-building measures and for both sides to avoid the kind of rhetoric that will inflame, not heal, divisions; and I have tried to encourage them in the steps that might be taken to reduce and eliminate the loss of life that still occurs every year on the line of contact. At Wilton Park last year, we hosted a seminar of international organisations, NGOs and representatives of various governments, in order to focus not on doing the job of the Minsk Group co-chairs, but on how the international community might come together if and when a peace deal is reached between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in order to provide the support that will be needed to help normalise the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, and to plot the route from that longed-for agreement between the two governments to enduring peace and stability in that part of the Caucasus.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Ms Pashayeva.
Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – Mr Lidington, your country is also a member of the OSCE Minsk Group dealing with the conflict involving Nagorno-Karabakh. However, as you said, there has been no resolution of this in 20 years, and nearly 1 million Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs are unable to return to their homelands. What do you think about the role and activities of the OSCE Minsk Group in this conflict resolution?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – We are a member of the OSCE, as, of course, are both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but we are not one of the Minsk Group co-chairs. I do not think that the United Kingdom can simply come riding in and substitute itself for what the Minsk Group co-chairs are doing. At the end of the day, there has to be an agreement between the Governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan to which both countries are committed, and there has to be an end to the isolation of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh, which has been cut off from the mainstream of European development for far too long.
When I was in Azerbaijan in 2010, I was able to discuss the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh with His Excellency the President and other Azeri leaders. I am hoping to visit Armenia later this year and will have discussions then. The United Kingdom will do whatever it can to promote peace and reconciliation. We believe that that is profoundly in the interests of both Azerbaijan and Armenia, but I do not think we have a magic wand to end the conflict. I wish that we did.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Ms Fiala.
Ms FIALA (Switzerland) said that, by the end of October 2011, some 2 000 refugees had died attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea in boats. The Schengen borders were under great pressure. It was not enough to simply send refugees back to the country where they had first requested asylum. She asked what action Mr Lidington was intending to take to strengthen the Dublin system.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – Let me first deal with it on behalf of the Committee of Ministers.
The Council of Europe has dealt with migration-related issues since its inception, and extensive standard-setting and policy work has been carried out in the intergovernmental sector. Following a review of migration-related activities, work in 2012-13 will be more streamlined and will focus on areas in which the Council of Europe can make a useful contribution based on core values, existing standards and recognised expertise, such as the integration and participation of migrants, the human-rights dimension of asylum and return procedures, and the integration of internally displaced persons. The focus of the work will shift from the developing of new standards to the promotion of more effective and responsible application of existing standards. Developments relating to migration-related activates in the context of reform of the Council of Europe are in line with the position expressed by the Assembly, namely that addressing the human rights and integration of migrants and refugees calls for a transversal and co-ordinated approach.
When it comes to the particular pressures that are currently being placed on the European Union countries, we do not believe – I am speaking as a United Kingdom minister now – that we should simply give up on Dublin, and on principles that were not only in the Dublin Regulation but in the United Nations convention on human rights. We believe that the principle that responsibility lies initially with the country where asylum is first claimed – the first safe country to which someone flees – is important, and that departing from it would create a perverse incentive for people to move through safe countries in order to claim asylum in another country that they thought would be a more attractive place to live in, or from which they thought that it would be more difficult for them to be removed.
We are not in favour, as a country, of reversing Dublin. We think that what is needed is for the European Union to work with member States that are under severe pressure, and to help them to strengthen their systems for dealing with immigration and asylum cases. We also think that the idea of migration partnerships – which we are now establishing with a number of neighbourhood countries – is good and practical. It involves both development assistance to help such countries to provide better opportunities for their own citizens so that they do not need to go elsewhere, and a certain limited opportunity for seasonal migration – or perhaps skilled migration – up to an agreed limit, coupled with expertise from the European Union, to strengthen the integrity of the countries’ immigration and asylum systems. Neighbourhood countries are often just transit points for organised people-trafficking originating elsewhere in the world. When we talk about migration, we must always bear in mind that we are dealing increasingly with ruthless but extremely well-organised professional international businesses that traffic people just as other organisations traffic drugs or contraband goods.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Minister. The last question is from the Earl of Dundee.
EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – Does the United Kingdom chairmanship agree that twin city structures are proven expedients for the advancing of active citizenship in Europe? If so, what steps might the chairmanship propose to take in 2012 to achieve the further development of those working structures within the boundaries of our affiliation?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?
Mr LIDINGTON – I think that the principle advocated by Lord Dundee is a good one, although I hope he will acknowledge the importance of ensuring that twinning enterprises genuinely encourage mutual understanding within the different communities and do not simply become a mechanism for extra holidays for local councillors. I think that our plans for a single programme for local and regional work by the Council of Europe may help to provide a focus on measures such as best practice in town and city twinning. I should add that although I think the chairmanship will see its role as helping to provide a framework within which best practice can be encouraged and good initiatives taken forward, the principle of localism ought to count for a great deal when it comes to activities such as twinning: there must be a buy-in from the local community. Twinning targets should not be laid down by a central government. I believe that a single programme at Council of Europe level would constitute a good step forward.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Lidington. Thank you, Mr Lidington, for giving such frank and spontaneous answers to the numerous questions that have been put to you. I also thank all members of the Assembly who put questions and abided by the 30-second rule.
8. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Before I adjourn the sitting, I remind you that voting in the election for the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights will now be suspended until 3.30 pm. The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 pm with the agenda that was approved on Monday.
The sitting is closed.
The sitting was closed at 1.10 p.m.
CONTENTS
1. Examination of credentials
2. Changes in membership of committees
3. Progress report
4. Organisation of debates
5. Election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
6. Functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Presentation by Ms Woldseth of report of the Monitoring Committee, Doc. 12816
Speakers:
Mr T Türkeş (Turkey)
Ms Beck (Germany)
Mr Kox (Netherlands)
Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)
Mr Schennach (Austria)
Mr Gardetto (Monaco)
Ms Marković (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Ms Krišto (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)
Mr Fournier (France)
Mr Magazinović (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Mr Matušić (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Mr Leyden (Ireland)
Ms O’Sullivan (Ireland)
Mr Chisu (Observer from Canada)
Replies:
Ms Wolseth (Norway)
Mr Herkel (Estonia)
Amendments 5 and 6 adopted
Draft resolution, as amended, adopted
7. Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Mr David Lidington, representing the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers
Questions:
Mr Omtzigt (Netherlands)
Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)
Ms Woldseth (Norway)
Ms Schuster (Germany)
Mr Kürkçü (Turkey)
Mr Kox (Netherlands)
Mr Salles (France)
Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia)
Mr Chope (United Kingdom)
Mr Vrettos (Greece)
Mr Heald (United Kingdom)
Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)
Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)
Ms Fiala (Switzerland)
Earl of Dundee (United Kingdom)
8. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting
APPENDIX
Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk
Francis AGIUS*
Pedro AGRAMUNT*
Arben AHMETAJ/ Damian Gjiknuri
Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ
Karin ANDERSEN
Donald ANDERSON
Florin Serghei ANGHEL*
Khadija ARIB
Mörđur ÁRNASON
Francisco ASSIS*
Alexander BABAKOV*
Ţuriđur BACKMAN
Daniel BACQUELAINE
Viorel Riceard BADEA
Gagik BAGHDASARYAN/Zaruhi Postanjyan
Pelin Gündeş BAKIR
Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA
Doris BARNETT
Meritxell BATET*
Deniz BAYKAL
Marieluise BECK
Alexander van der BELLEN/Sonja Ablinger
Anna BELOUSOVOVÁ*
Deborah BERGAMINI
Robert BIEDROŃ
Grzegorz BIERECKI
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Oksana BILOZIR
Brian BINLEY
Delia BLANCO
Roland BLUM/Rudy Salles
Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Bernard Fournier
Eric BOCQUET
Olena BONDARENKO
Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz
António BRAGA*
Anne BRASSEUR
Márton BRAUN
Federico BRICOLO/Giacomo Stucchi
Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL
Piet DE BRUYN
Patrizia BUGNANO/Giuliana Carlino
André BUGNON
Sylvia CANEL
Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU
Mikael CEDERBRATT
Otto CHALOUPKA
Vannino CHITI/Anna Maria Carloni
Christopher CHOPE
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN
Desislav CHUKOLOV/ Yuliana Koleva
Lolita ČIGĀNE
Boriss CILEVIČS
James CLAPPISON
Deirdre CLUNE
Georges COLOMBIER
Agustín CONDE
Titus CORLĂŢEAN
Igor CORMAN/Stella Jantuan
Telmo CORREIA
Carlos COSTA NEVES
Cristian DAVID*
Joseph DEBONO GRECH*
Giovanna DEBONO*
Armand DE DECKER*
Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA*
Peter VAN DIJK*
Klaas DIJKHOFF
Şaban DİŞLİ
Karl DONABAUER
Gianpaolo DOZZO/Mario Barbi
Daphné DUMERY
Alexander DUNDEE
Josette DURRIEU
Diana ECCLES
József ÉKES
Tülin ERKAL KARA
Lydie ERR
Nikolay FEDOROV*
Valeriy FEDOROV
Relu FENECHIU*
Doris FIALA
Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Tomáš Jirsa
Axel E. FISCHER
Jana FISCHEROVÁ
Paul FLYNN
Stanislav FOŘT
Dario FRANCESCHINI/ Gianni Farina
Hans FRANKEN
Jean-Claude FRÉCON
Erich Georg FRITZ
Martin FRONC*
György FRUNDA
Giorgi GABASHVILI
Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ
Roger GALE
Jean-Charles GARDETTO
Tamás GAUDI NAGY
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Sophia GIANNAKA/ Georges Charalambopoulos
Paolo GIARETTA
Michael GLOS*
Obrad GOJKOVIĆ/ Snežana Jonica
Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI
Svetlana GORYACHEVA
Martin GRAF
Sylvi GRAHAM/ Ingjerd Schou
Andreas GROSS
Arlette GROSSKOST
Dzhema GROZDANOVA
Attila GRUBER
Ana GUŢU
Carina HÄGG/Lennart Axelsson
Sabir HAJIYEV
Andrzej HALICKI
Mike HANCOCK
Margus HANSON*
Davit HARUTYUNYAN
Hĺkon HAUGLI/Tor Bremer
Norbert HAUPERT
Oliver HEALD
Alfred HEER
Olha HERASYM'YUK
Andres HERKEL
Adam HOFMAN*
Serhiy HOLOVATY
Jim HOOD
Joachim HÖRSTER
Anette HÜBINGER
Andrej HUNKO
Susanna HUOVINEN
Ali HUSEYNLI*
Rafael HUSEYNOV
Stanisław HUSKOWSKI/ Mirosława Nykiel
Shpëtim IDRIZI/Kastriot Islami
Željko IVANJI
Igor IVANOVSKI/Sonja Mirakovska
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI
Denis JACQUAT*
Michael Aastrup JENSEN*
Mats JOHANSSON
Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*
Armand JUNG
Antti KAIKKONEN
Ferenc KALMÁR*
Mariusz KAMIŃSKI
Michail KATRINIS
Burhan KAYATÜRK
Bogdan KLICH/Jan Kaźmierczak
Haluk KOÇ
Konstantin KOSACHEV/Oleg Lebedev
Tiny KOX
Marie KRARUP
Borjana KRIŠTO
Václav KUBATA
Pavol KUBOVIČ
Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA
Dalia KUODYTĖ/Egidijus Vareikis
Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ
Athina KYRIAKIDOU
Henrik Sass LARSEN
Jean-Paul LECOQ
Harald LEIBRECHT/Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE
Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA
Lone LOKLINDT
François LONCLE
Jean-Louis LORRAIN*
George LOUKAIDES
Younal LOUTFI*
Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ
Philippe MAHOUX
Gennaro MALGIERI
Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET/Bernard Marquet
Pietro MARCENARO
Milica MARKOVIĆ
Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO*
Meritxell MATEU PI
Pirkko MATTILA/Jouko Skinnari
Frano MATUŠIĆ
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA/Maureen O'Sullivan
Alan MEALE
Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*
Evangelos MEIMARAKIS
Ivan MELNIKOV*
Nursuna MEMECAN
José MENDES BOTA
Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ*
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin
Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ/Arminas Lydeka
Akaki MINASHVILI*
Krasimir MINCHEV/Petar Petrov
Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI
Andrey MOLCHANOV*
Jerzy MONTAG
Patrick MORIAU
Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO
Joăo Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK
Alejandro MUŃOZ ALONSO*
Philippe NACHBAR*
Adrian NĂSTASE/Tudor Panţiru
Gebhard NEGELE
Pasquale NESSA
Fritz NEUGEBAUER
Emma NICHOLSON
Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*
Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI
Carina OHLSSON
Joseph O'REILLY
Sandra OSBORNE/Michael Connarty
Nadia OTTAVIANI
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou
Ganira PASHAYEVA
Peter PELLEGRINI*
Lajla PERNASKA
Johannes PFLUG
Ivan POPESCU
Lisbeth Bech POULSEN
Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN
Cezar Florin PREDA
John PRESCOTT/Joe Benton
Jakob PRESEČNIK
Gabino PUCHE
Milorad PUPOVAC/Gvozden Srećko Flego
Valeriy PYSARENKO/Volodymyr Pylypenko
Carmen QUINTANILLA
Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ/ Zoran Vukčević
Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA
Mailis REPS
Andrea RIGONI*
Gonzalo ROBLES*
François ROCHEBLOINE
Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*
René ROUQUET
Marlene RUPPRECHT*
Ilir RUSMALI
Armen RUSTAMYAN
Branko RUŽIĆ/Elvira Kovács
Volodymyr RYBAK/Oleksiy Plotnikov
Rovshan RZAYEV
Joan SABATÉ*
Džavid ŠABOVIĆ/Ervin Spahić
Giacomo SANTINI
Giuseppe SARO*
Kimmo SASI/Jaana Pelkonen
Stefan SCHENNACH
Marina SCHUSTER
Urs SCHWALLER*
Valery SELEZNEV*
Samad SEYIDOV
Jim SHERIDAN
Mykola SHERSHUN
Ladislav SKOPAL/Kateřina Konečná
Leonid SLUTSKY
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Maria STAVROSITU
Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ
Yanaki STOILOV
Fiorenzo STOLFI
Christoph STRÄSSER
Karin STRENZ
Valeriy SUDARENKOV
Björn von SYDOW
Petro SYMONENKO
Vilmos SZABÓ
Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/Gábor Tamás Nagy
Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI
Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ*
Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Natalia Burykina
Dragan TODOROVIĆ
John E. TOMLINSON
Latchezar TOSHEV
Petré TSISKARISHVILI
Mihai TUDOSE*
Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ
Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ
Konstantinos TZAVARAS
Tomáš ÚLEHLA/Pavel Lebeda
Ilyas UMAKHANOV*
Giuseppe VALENTINO/Renato Farina
Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS
Stefaan VERCAMER
Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN
Luigi VITALI
Luca VOLONTČ
Vladimir VORONIN*
Konstantinos VRETTOS
Klaas de VRIES
Nataša VUČKOVIĆ
Dmitry VYATKIN*
Piotr WACH
Johann WADEPHUL
Robert WALTER
Katrin WERNER*
Renate WOHLWEND/Doris Frommelt
Karin S. WOLDSETH
Gisela WURM
Jordi XUCLŔ
Karl ZELLER
Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*
Emanuelis ZINGERIS
Guennady ZIUGANOV*
Naira ZOHRABYAN
Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*
Vacant Seat, Cyprus*
Vacant Seat, Croatia*
Vacant Seat, Croatia*
Vacant Seat, Croatia*
Vacant Seat, Russian Federation*
Vacant Seat, Russian Federation*
Vacant Seat, Russian Federation*
Vacant Seat, Russian Federation*
Vacant Seat, Slovenia*
Vacant Seat, Slovenia*
ALSO PRESENT
Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:
Gábor HARANGOZÓ
Johannes HÜBNER
Esben Lunde LARSEN
Edgar MAYER
Jean-Pierre MICHEL
Pieter OMTZIGT
Luc RECORDON
Observers:
Joyce BATEMAN
Corneliu CHISU
Mr José Luis JAIME CORREA
Ms Blanca Judith DÍAZ DELGADO
Aldo GIORDANO
Hervé Pierre GUILLOT
Mr Valentin GUZMÁN SOTO
Ms Martha Leticia SOSA GOVEA
Partners for democracy:
Walid ASSAF
Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community
Ahmet ETI, (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)
APPENDIX II
Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
Arben AHMETAJ/ Damian Gjiknuri
Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ
Karin ANDERSEN
Donald ANDERSON
Khadija ARIB
Mörđur ÁRNASON
Ţuriđur BACKMAN
Daniel BACQUELAINE
Viorel Riceard BADEA
Pelin Gündeş BAKIR
Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA
Doris BARNETT
Deniz BAYKAL
Marieluise BECK
Robert BIEDROŃ
Grzegorz BIERECKI
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Oksana BILOZIR
Brian BINLEY
Delia BLANCO
Roland BLUM/Rudy Salles
Eric BOCQUET
Olena BONDARENKO
Anne BRASSEUR
Márton BRAUN
Federico BRICOLO/Giacomo Stucchi
Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL
André BUGNON
Sylvia CANEL
Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU
Mikael CEDERBRATT
Otto CHALOUPKA
Vannino CHITI/Anna Maria Carloni
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN
Desislav CHUKOLOV/ Yuliana Koleva
Lolita ČIGĀNE
Boriss CILEVIČS
James CLAPPISON
Deirdre CLUNE
Georges COLOMBIER
Titus CORLĂŢEAN
Carlos COSTA NEVES
Peter VAN DIJK*
Klaas DIJKHOFF
Şaban DİŞLİ
Karl DONABAUER
Gianpaolo DOZZO/Mario Barbi
Josette DURRIEU
Diana ECCLES
József ÉKES
Tülin ERKAL KARA
Lydie ERR
Valeriy FEDOROV
Doris FIALA
Axel E. FISCHER
Jana FISCHEROVÁ
Paul FLYNN
Dario FRANCESCHINI/ Gianni Farina
Hans FRANKEN
Jean-Claude FRÉCON
Erich Georg FRITZ
György FRUNDA
Giorgi GABASHVILI
Roger GALE
Jean-Charles GARDETTO
Tamás GAUDI NAGY
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Sophia GIANNAKA/ Georges Charalambopoulos
Michael GLOS*
Obrad GOJKOVIĆ/ Snežana Jonica
Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI
Martin GRAF
Sylvi GRAHAM/ Ingjerd Schou
Andreas GROSS
Arlette GROSSKOST
Dzhema GROZDANOVA
Attila GRUBER
Ana GUŢU
Carina HÄGG/Lennart Axelsson
Sabir HAJIYEV
Andrzej HALICKI
Mike HANCOCK
Hĺkon HAUGLI/Tor Bremer
Norbert HAUPERT
Alfred HEER
Andres HERKEL
Serhiy HOLOVATY
Jim HOOD
Joachim HÖRSTER
Anette HÜBINGER
Andrej HUNKO
Susanna HUOVINEN
Stanisław HUSKOWSKI/ Mirosława Nykiel
Željko IVANJI
Igor IVANOVSKI/Sonja Mirakovska
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI
Mats JOHANSSON
Armand JUNG
Ferenc KALMÁR*
Mariusz KAMIŃSKI
Michail KATRINIS
Burhan KAYATÜRK
Bogdan KLICH/Jan Kaźmierczak
Haluk KOÇ
Konstantin KOSACHEV/Oleg Lebedev
Tiny KOX
Marie KRARUP
Václav KUBATA
Dalia KUODYTĖ/Egidijus Vareikis
Athina KYRIAKIDOU
Henrik Sass LARSEN
Jean-Paul LECOQ
Harald LEIBRECHT/Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE
Lone LOKLINDT
François LONCLE
George LOUKAIDES
Younal LOUTFI*
Gennaro MALGIERI
Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET/Bernard Marquet
Pietro MARCENARO
Meritxell MATEU PI
Pirkko MATTILA/Jouko Skinnari
Frano MATUŠIĆ
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA/Maureen O'Sullivan
Alan MEALE
Evangelos MEIMARAKIS
Nursuna MEMECAN
Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ/Arminas Lydeka
Akaki MINASHVILI*
Krasimir MINCHEV/Petar Petrov
Patrick MORIAU
Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO
Joăo Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK
Adrian NĂSTASE/Tudor Panţiru
Gebhard NEGELE
Fritz NEUGEBAUER
Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI
Carina OHLSSON
Sandra OSBORNE/Michael Connarty
Nadia OTTAVIANI
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou
Johannes PFLUG
Lisbeth Bech POULSEN
Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN
Cezar Florin PREDA
John PRESCOTT/Joe Benton
Jakob PRESEČNIK
Gabino PUCHE
Milorad PUPOVAC/Gvozden Srećko Flego
Valeriy PYSARENKO/Volodymyr Pylypenko
Carmen QUINTANILLA
Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ/ Zoran Vukčević
Mailis REPS
René ROUQUET
Ilir RUSMALI
Branko RUŽIĆ/Elvira Kovács
Rovshan RZAYEV
Džavid ŠABOVIĆ/Ervin Spahić
Giacomo SANTINI
Kimmo SASI/Jaana Pelkonen
Stefan SCHENNACH
Marina SCHUSTER
Samad SEYIDOV
Ladislav SKOPAL/Kateřina Konečná
Leonid SLUTSKY
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Maria STAVROSITU
Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ
Yanaki STOILOV
Fiorenzo STOLFI
Christoph STRÄSSER
Valeriy SUDARENKOV
Björn von SYDOW
Vilmos SZABÓ
Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/Gábor Tamás Nagy
Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI
Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Natalia Burykina
John E. TOMLINSON
Latchezar TOSHEV
Petré TSISKARISHVILI
Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ
Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ
Konstantinos TZAVARAS
Tomáš ÚLEHLA/Pavel Lebeda
Giuseppe VALENTINO/Renato Farina
Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS
Stefaan VERCAMER
Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN
Vladimir VORONIN*
Konstantinos VRETTOS
Klaas de VRIES
Nataša VUČKOVIĆ
Piotr WACH
Renate WOHLWEND/Doris Frommelt
Gisela WURM
Karl ZELLER
Emanuelis ZINGERIS
Naira ZOHRABYAN