AS (2012) CR 08

2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Eighth Sitting

Thursday 26 January 2012 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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

Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.40 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

1. Joint Committee

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I remind members that, in accordance with Rule 55, the Joint Committee will meet at 7 p.m. this evening. It is made up of one member of each national delegation.

2. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – A written declaration, No. 509, has been tabled, entitled “20th anniversary of the Khojaly Massacre”, Document 12855, which has been signed by 24 members. Any member, substitute, observer or partner for democracy may add his or her signature to this written declaration in the Table Office, room 1083.

3. Advancing women’s rights worldwide

Promoting the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Joint Debate)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now come to the joint debate on two reports from the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. The first, entitled “Advancing Women’s Rights Worldwide” (Document 12812), will be presented by Ms Err. The second, entitled “Promoting the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence” (Document 12810), will be presented by Mr Mendes Bota and will be followed by a statement from Ms Michelle Bachelet, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UN Women.

I remind members that we have already agreed that speaking time in debates this afternoon will be limited to three minutes. Please stick to the allotted time so that we can call as many people on the speakers’ list as possible. We have a long list, with 30 to speak in the first debate.

In order to leave time for the next debate and to allow time for replies to this debate and voting I will need to interrupt this debate at 4.45 p.m. Is this agreed?

It is agreed

.

(The speaker continued in summary)

He welcomed Ms Bachelet to the Assembly in her role as United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UN Women. It was a particular pleasure to welcome Ms Bachelet to this debate, given all the work that she had done towards the protection and promotion of women’s rights since taking up her role at the United Nations in 2010. She had also worked to protect and promote women’s rights in her career as a doctor, an activist, as Minister of Health and Minister of Defence, and finally as President of Chile from 2006 to 2010.

Ms Bachelet was the first Executive Director of UN Women, an organisation set up in July 2010. She had contributed to placing the matter of women’s rights and the empowerment of women at the very centre of the work of the United Nations.

He looked forward to the prospect of developing and formalising co-operation between UN Women and the Council of Europe. Co-operation would make the work of both organisations even more effective in fighting discrimination and violence against women.

Ms Bachelet had actively supported the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence. He hoped that Ms Bachelet would continue to promote this convention, including in those countries who were not members of the Council of Europe. It was a particular pleasure for the rapporteurs and for all those delegates who worked hard to promote women’s rights to welcome Ms Bachelet to the Assembly.

He called Ms Err to present the report.

Ms ERR (Luxembourg) said she had been working on the issue of women’s rights for 20 years. She was delighted to be able to present her report in the presence of Ms Bachelet.

Discrimination against women remained an issue even in developing countries. Women were largely excluded from political decision-making, the upper levels of industry and from high salaried positions. Women owned only a minute percentage of the world’s property and many were without any personal income. Women made up the majority of the poorest people in the world, and the majority of refugees. Millions of women died every year in childbirth, with no access to education or family planning. However, in spite of the fact that women composed half of humanity, they were still treated as a minority group. This was unacceptable.

Women were discriminated against due to fundamental inequalities that were caused not only by the physical differences between men and women but by structural hierarchies as defined by men. In a great number of countries, women enjoyed no legal protection for even their basic human rights, in spite of international endeavours such as the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the millennium development goals.

Deaths in childbirth had decreased but at a slower rate than had been hoped for. Improving maternal health was an essential step towards allowing women their rightful control over their own bodies. Action in this area had to go beyond issuing texts on family planning.

Violence against women remained a considerable problem. A significant number of women lived in countries where they had no protection from violence and, depending on the country, 8% to 35% of women would experience violence at least once in their life. As many countries as possible had to adopt the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, which was based on a formula of prevention, protection and prosecution. This convention could be a very useful tool in tackling violence against women.

The United Nations had estimated that 2.5 million people had been the victims of human trafficking, 80% of whom were women and children. Many of those women and children had been subject to sexual exploitation. It was important to look at the causes of this problem and to accept that difficult issues such as prostitution should also be addressed.

Education and training were essential because they offered the only way to change people’s lives. Education and training would lead to many benefits, including the reduction of poverty, better access to paid employment, improved health care, better pregnancy control and postponement of marriage and would help stop female genital mutilation. Other benefits of education and training included improved women’s status within the family and greater influence of women within politics – the influence of women needed to reach a critical mass in order to shape politics.

Equality was a question of human rights, but it was also an economic issue. The cost of medical treatment for dealing with victims of violence was considerable.

The Group of States against Corruption and the Council of Europe gave an example of how it was possible to reduce reservations to treaties, although it was important that the United Nations maintained its monitoring of the situation.

She hoped that the United Nations and the Council of Europe would formalise their relationship and that the Council of Europe would improve relations with other bodies such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the European Union and the OSCE.

The right to equality needed to be in the European Convention on Human Rights. Following the Istanbul Convention, it would be necessary to involve the Venice Commission so that it could put forward proposals to help progress this matter..

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Err. You have a little more than two and a half minutes remaining.

Ms Err, since this is the last time that you will take part in our proceedings, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your commitment, dynamism and active engagement in the work of the Assembly. You have chaired the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, and you have represented the Assembly at the Venice Commission. In addition, you have been rapporteur for a number of important reports, including the one that we are about to discuss. I note in particular the contribution you have made to combating all forms of discrimination and promoting the advancement of women. I wish you success in your new role as the Ombudsman of Luxembourg.

Mr Mendes Bota, you, too, have brought dynamism and enthusiasm to the causes we are talking about this afternoon.

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

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) said that he was left speechless by the President’s compliments.

(The speaker continued in English)

The Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence was opened for signature on 11 May last year in Istanbul, at the closing of the Turkish Presidency of the Council of Europe. Thirteen member States said yes at this historic moment to the cause of women’s rights, putting their signature to an internationally binding legal instrument that may change for the better the lives of hundreds of millions of women in the coming years. Those countries deserve to be mentioned: Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the host country, Turkey. Since then, almost nine months later, only five more member States have added their signatures: Albania, Norway, Slovenia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine. Twenty-nine member States are still missing.

The only ratification, approved by the Turkish Parliament on 24 November, has not yet been conveyed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. To enter into force, the convention requires 10 ratifications, eight of them from member States. I will make just one comment on that. How much work still lies ahead of us if we are to give practical meaning to all the years of coherent political effort involving national parliaments and parliamentarians, especially this Parliamentary Assembly. We should not forget what has been done by the intergovernmental side of the Council of Europe and the years of work done by our deputy Secretary General Ms Maud de Boer-Buquicchio and Secretary General Jagland, who have always supported the convention. Nor should we forget the work of non-governmental organisations, and the many individuals – the many women – who have paid with their lives, their blood and their pain in justifying the urgent need for such an instrument.

Let me highlight three landmarks on the long journey towards recognition that violence against women is not only a crime but a form of discrimination and a violation of human rights: Recommendation (2002)5, of the Committee of Ministers, the pan-European campaign on combating domestic violence between 2006 and 2008, and the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the Opuz v. Turkey case. The outcome of that long journey was the Istanbul Convention, an internationally unique instrument intended to address comprehensively all forms of violence against women, whose geographical scope is potentially unlimited. It is very unsatisfactory that the convention still exists only on paper. It needs to enter into force and be applied as law. The aim of the report is to send a strong message in favour of further signatures and prompt ratification.

The convention is a landmark for five reasons: it covers all forms of violence against women; it applies to other victims of domestic violence; it is based on an holistic approach; it establishes a strong, independent monitoring mechanism; and it recognises, for the first time, the special role of national parliaments and this Parliamentary Assembly. It should be supported for four political reasons: it defines the concept of freedom from violence; it states that violence against women is not a private matter; it helps victims of violence to understand that they are victims and, as a compromise document, it allows the standards that it sets to be over-ruled by member States.

How can we promote the Istanbul Convention? We can do so at intergovernmental level, though regional seminars, events organised by external partners, websites, publications, and promotional material that can be distributed and make the convention more visible. We can also promote it at parliamentary level, and that is mainly what brings us here today. We can promote it through the network of contact parliamentarians committed to combating violence against women, which decided yesterday to use the

shorter and more media-friendly designation “Parliamentary Network Women Free From Violence”. The network currently consists of 37 parliamentarians who can organise hearings and activities and pose questions to their governments. It seems advisable to extend membership of the network to parliaments that enjoy the status of “Partner for Democracy”.

We intend to publish a handbook for parliamentarians, to set up a website calling for voluntary contributions, and to reinforce our partnership with civil society and NGOs. We also intend to appoint an Assembly general rapporteur on violence against women, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination decided this week to submit that proposal to the Bureau for its approval. The appointment of the rapporteur would give more political visibility and relevance to the Assembly’s work on the issue.

We can promote the convention in Europe by ensuring that more and more member States sign and ratify it, and, involving the European Union. We can also promote it worldwide, as it is an open document. Any non-member State can be invited to accede, especially the new Partners for Democracy in neighbouring countries in the south Mediterranean and Asia. We can strengthen partnerships with other international bodies such as United Nations Women, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and we can promote the convention as a model for similar instruments to be adopted at regional level.

I mentioned UN Women. I want to pay a special tribute to you, Ms Michelle Bachelet, and to thank you for coming to Strasbourg and addressing our Assembly today. Our Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has engaged in fruitful co-operation with the agency since its establishment last year, and we look forward to continuing to work together for the promotion and protection of women’s rights in order to place them at the top of the political agenda. As you have heard, one of our priorities this year is promotion of the ratification and implementation of the Council of Europe convention. That is why we are discussing today the role that parliamentarians can play. I thank you for your continued support for the convention, and I hope that it will be ratified and implemented by as many states as possible – even outside Europe, if you can help us. We have made progress, but much remains to be done. We will continue to promote the participation of women in political and public life and their empowerment in all spheres, and we are counting on increased co-operation with UN Women in that regard.

Our efforts to bring the Istanbul Convention into force are not only a big job for us; they are our duty. Every day when we see multiple signs of violence against women on European territory, we must remember that this tragedy affects the majority in our society: women. Every time we watch, or read or hear about, killings, aggression, rapes, mutilations, forced marriages, forced abortions and forced sterilisations on grounds of gender, we will remember that the convention is still incomplete because it has not entered into force. Every time we meet our ministers at the corners of political life, we must look them in the eye and ask them “Why have you not signed it yet?” or “Why have you not ratified it? What are you waiting for?” The victim could be our daughter, friend, sister or colleague, or even an unknown fellow member of humankind. The violence matters, because it hurts flesh, skin and minds, and because it poisons our society. We must declare ourselves to be committed to freedom and safety – safety from fear and from violence. Let us do that.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you for presenting the report. I invite Ms Bachelet to take the floor.

Ms BACHELET (Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UN Women) – I thank Mr Mignon for inviting me here today, and congratulate him on his recent election as President of the Assembly. I wish him all the best in his eminent position. I am convinced that he is committed to gender equality and the struggle to create a world that is free of violence against women and, of course, men as well.

I am pleased to join you today during your joint debate on matters of vital importance to UN Women. I was honoured to be able to hear from Ms Err and Mr Mendes Bota about both the reports that have been discussed today. Much of what I might have said has already been said today, but I want to underline some of the issues that have been raised.

As the Assembly will know, UN Women was established in the belief that delivering on the promise of equal rights of men and women will bring far-reaching gains that will benefit women, and everyone. Now I know that this proposition is far from being a reality for 50% – at least 50% – of the world’s population. That means 3.5 billion women and girls. If we had achieved our goals, women’s rights would be on top of the

political agenda. Unfortunately, that is not yet the case, but that is exactly where women’s rights should be – on the top of the agenda. Whether we are talking about a green economy and sustainable development, the transition to democracy in the Arab world or advancing peace, justice and equality, the world stands a better chance of finding solutions if it taps into the combined experience and potential of all its people – all women and all men.

We have today clear evidence – from the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Economic Forum and private sector think-tanks, as well as women’s and human rights organisations, to demonstrate that gender discrimination and inequality do not just violate human rights – of course, they do violate them – but are economically inefficient. So advancing equal opportunity and equal rights is not only the right thing but the smart thing to do, and there is no better time to act than now. Investing in women is not an expenditure; it is an investment in our common future. The time is now for equality and our priorities at UN Women are clear.

To advance women’s rights, we are working to increase women’s leadership and political participation, but we also want to strengthen women’s economic power. We continue to work on ending violence against women and girls, and ensuring that women play a central role in peacemaking and peacebuilding. In post-conflict societies, we see women as victims, but we mainly see them as agents of peace, development and change. As we move this agenda forward, we expand justice, equality, democracy and human rights. To make greater progress, I am here to strengthen co-operation with you, the Parliamentary Assembly, and the Council of Europe.

Since UN Women started operations one year ago, we have all witnessed profound economic, political, and social upheaval. This brings opportunities and threats to women’s rights worldwide. Our greatest challenge is to make sure that hard-won gains for women are not lost but protected and advanced even during this time of austerity and transition. I have travelled to all regions of the world and everywhere I have gone, I have heard strong demands by women for increased political participation and economic empowerment. In dramatic circumstances, like in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, women have been victims of rapes, yet we have seen requests for no impunity for the perpetrators. What does reparation mean for them? Some say that they want money for reparation, but it is also important to understand that somebody’s rape is not just their problem – it is also society’s problem, and we all have to deal with that. Having economic opportunities is also an important part of reparation for women and their families.

With the economic crisis, women have been driven into more insecure and precarious positions and jobs as they seek to compensate for loss of household incomes. Women have been hit hard by reductions in public sector employment, by budget cuts in public services such as childcare. It is precisely now, when everyone from government to individuals is looking for solutions to drive economic recovery, that we have to advance women’s full and equal participation in the economy. We need to keep those social programmes that allow them to do so. Today, countries in Europe are responding to the financial crisis and taking action to reduce debts and deficits. We need to be aware that we cannot let austerity policies set back gender equality in the workplace and society. Women want to be part of the solution and they want their voices to be heard. They want to live free of fear and they want their basic human rights respected.

Last year, all of us witnessed women rising up in Arab countries, demanding freedom and democracy shoulder to shoulder with their male friends. I have just come from Beirut where I was attending a high-level meeting on reform and democratic transition. I stressed that democracy is not only about the freedom to elect; it is about the freedom to be elected. It is about all kinds of freedom, and particularly about inclusiveness, human rights and the participation of women. I visited the region four times in 2011 to support women and young people in their aspirations to chart their own futures and the futures of their countries. The desire for change and democracy remains strong in the Arab world, and the support of the international community for democratic forces must remain strong to secure gains towards democracy by and for the people.

A key challenge is to translate women’s leadership in the streets into sustained leadership in the political arena. We need to ensure that transitional bodies and political processes respond to the needs, rights and priorities of women. As the uprisings occurred last year, UN Women provided immediate support in Egypt and Tunisia. Now, of course, we will do the same in Libya. UN Women will continue to support women in the Arab world and all regions in the world in their quest for democracy, justice and human rights. Democracy demands the full and equal participation of women.

The 21st century has finally to be the time when we see equality between men and women. In 1911, women were allowed to vote in just two countries of the world. Today, that right is almost virtually universal. There is one country where they cannot vote at all and there are three countries where voting rights are limited. More than 100 years later, we have almost achieved our objectives on voting. We have witnessed dramatic advances in legal reform to protect the rights of women, but progress remains very uneven across and within nations.

Today, 125 countries outlaw domestic violence. As the rapporteur mentioned, even though that is true, there are more than 600 million women living in countries where domestic violence is not outlawed. Some 117 countries outlaw sexual harassment, and 187 nations have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Maternal mortality has been mentioned, as has the right to health, yet every minute one woman dies of something physiological. I am a medical doctor; I know that there are no secrets when it comes to giving birth. We know exactly how to prevent problems, yet, as I said, one woman dies every minute through pregnancy or related complications. As we know, 260 million women want, but do not have, access to contraception. We know what works; we know what we have to do. Studies of Latin American and Caribbean countries show that the main factor affecting the future of children is the education of the mother. That is why everybody talks about the “girl effect” and the “graduate effect”. When girls are educated sufficiently, we can avoid early pregnancy, early forced marriage and HIV/AIDS. Many things lead to that problem, as we know, so we need to continue our work on women’s rights.

However, we still have a long way to go to achieve equality. Violence against women remains one of the most pervasive violations of human rights and one of the least prosecuted crimes. Women remain terribly under-represented in politics and decision making. Today, women in the world make up less than 10% of world leaders. We are talking about only 21 heads of State or heads of government in the world, and 19% of female parliamentarians in the world. There is a wide range. Rwanda, for example, has 55% female representation in parliament and South Africa has 44%; then there are countries that have only one female parliamentarian. Globally, fewer than one in five members of parliament is a woman. The 30% critical mass mark for women’s representation in parliament has been reached or exceeded in only 28 countries. It has been suggested here today that there should be a fifth world congress on women and women’s rights. As long as 15 years ago that 30% figure was considered to be the minimum proportion in a parliament for establishing gender equality, but 15 years later that 30% figure has been reached or exceeded in only 28 countries. Furthermore, 23 of them have needed special transitional measures to reach that figure.

Now is the time to make a major push to increase women’s political leadership and participation. I commend the Council of Europe on its commitment to making the equal participation of women and men in political life a reality. This commitment is now universal. In December, United Nations member States adopted a resolution in the UN General Assembly outlining, for the first time, concrete steps to increase women’s political participation and leadership in times of peace, conflict and political transition. Now, we need to work together to turn these commitments into action.

Another major achievement in 2011 was the adoption of the landmark Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence. I pay tribute to the outgoing President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, for his leadership on the convention. The provisions include stressing starting early with prevention and ensuring that all women and girls subjected to violence have access to services for their safety, health, well-being and access to justice, and they also cover education and mass media issues. As Mr Mendes Bota mentioned, there is also a mechanism for monitoring progress.

That is important because we know that here in Europe, as elsewhere, impunity is still the norm rather than the exception. A study featured in UN Women’s Progress of the World’s Women Report found that in European countries only 14% of reported rape cases end in convictions of perpetrators. That is why it is so important that, as Mr Mendes Bota said, member States ratify the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence. I urge member States to provide the leadership, mobilisation and necessary resources to lift the burden of violence against women.

During the past year, UN Women has taken great strides forward. We have benefited from an outpouring of good will and support, and I am proud of what we have accomplished together, but we need to do much more.

As parliamentarians, you are the bridge between people and governments and you bring the voices of women to the halls of power. You in this Assembly represent 800 million citizens from diverse backgrounds who share common values – values articulated in the principles of the Council of Europe. All of

us at UN Women look forward to stronger co-operation with the Council of Europe to advance women’s rights and empowerment and gender equality. It is time to put women’s rights at the top of the political agenda. This will benefit current and future generations. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much for that address. Everyone will have been thrilled by what you said, and I hope that you will return so that together we can advance this cause, which you are championing.

I now call Ms Andersen on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – I thank Ms Bachelet and UN Women for their excellent work. I also thank the rapporteur and the leader of the committee for their excellent work. It is important never to give up.

Gender equality is a core value for the European left. It is also a basic human right, of course. As Ms Bachelet said, it is a necessary requirement for economic development, too. We face a political and economic crisis, and we must look for new solutions, rather than hold to the failed, out-dated models of the past. That is not only true for the economy; we must not accept violence against, and the oppression of, women, whatever that may be based on – culture, religion, customs and so forth. That has to be abolished because it is wrong and immoral, and because it hurts society.

There is a moral and political gap. It must be filled with new politics in the interests of human beings and society, not the failed policies of business as usual. The policies of austerity that are currently being pursued also harm women. They therefore also harm society and human rights. That is why this issue must be at the top of the agenda.

We must ratify the relevant conventions, old and new, of the United Nations and the European councils, as well as the Istanbul Convention. However, most importantly, we must translate these conventions into real life. That does not happen often enough. I also call on those who have opted out of various parts of these conventions to change their minds, because what they are doing is not in line with the principle of equal human rights.

We need UN Women; we need special bodies to deal with these issues, because mainstream organisations cannot do so on their own. Every country must be able to tackle gender equality issues and make the necessary changes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Quintanilla on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Ms QUINTANILLA (Spain) thanked Ms Bachelet for addressing the Assembly and also thanked the rapporteurs for their excellent reports, which addressed gender equality, the rights of women and the need for continuing progress on these issues. Much work remained to be done. For example, wage inequality still had to be addressed and women were still not sufficiently involved in decision making at the national level – they made up only 19% of the representatives in national parliaments.

Both rapporteurs had addressed vital issues in their separate reports. The Council of Europe and the United Nations would continue to work together to make progress on gender equality.

The Group of the European People’s Party was united behind the struggle for women’s rights and equality and supported both of the reports. A great Argentinean writer once wrote that one could judge the degree of development of a civilisation according to the status of women in society.

The parliamentarians of Europe and others were dedicated to ensuring that women had a voice.

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

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

Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) thanked Ms Err for her work championing women’s rights and wished her well in her future career.

Unfortunately, after 30 years of positive developments in women’s rights, there was now an increasing counter-reaction. This was partly due to the global upsurge in extremism. Restrictions were beginning to be put in place on gender reform. Political will remained a vital driving force in achieving change at both the national and the local level.

In many ways, the Arab Spring had a major positive impact on women-friendly policies, but it had also unleashed certain dangers. For example, the Libyan Government had suggested that its constitution would accommodate Sharia Law, and that it would lift restrictions on polygamy. These actions disrupted any move towards democracy and secularity.

Violence against women remained a problem in Europe. Women had recently demonstrated against the authorities in Hungary. There was also cause for concern in Turkey.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call now Ms Gafarova, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Dear colleagues, I would like to congratulate and thank my colleagues Ms Err and Mr Mendes Bota for their interesting, assertive and informative reports.

The issues presented for discussion are important for Europe. Nowadays, in most international documents, gender equality, human rights and liberties are considered among the fundamental trends of society. It is no coincidence, therefore, that in many countries the level of democratic development is directly connected to the settlement of such issues.

In international law, women are considered as subjects and are provided with broad guarantees with which to enjoy and implement their rights. It must be taken into account, however, that often those declared equal rights fail to be realised because of the absence of real equal opportunities. It must also be noted that despite all that we have accomplished and all the decisions that we have adopted, in many parts of the world, hundreds of millions of women are the victims of discrimination, particularly domestic violence. As well as holding back the development of society, this important issue also contradicts the notion of fundamental human rights.

Ladies and gentlemen, to realise the guarantees and the practical implementation of our high theoretical values, we must come together in the struggle against the aforementioned problems. That is why the European Democrat Group greatly appreciates the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence and hopes that it will open up more opportunities to take effective action on human rights. I hope that any measure taken to combat discrimination and violence against women, as well as domestic violence, will bring positive results, and I point out again the important role of international co-operation in the settlement of these issues.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call now Ms Schuster, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms SCHUSTER (Germany) thanked the rapporteurs for their report and wished Ms Err all the best for her future role.

The Istanbul Convention was a milestone because it was the only convention in the world that covered all forms of violence against women. This could take many forms such as forced marriage, psychological and sexual violence, stalking, female genital mutilation and sexual exploitation. There was also the violence described as “honour killings”. This was an unacceptable term. Honour could never be used as a pretext for actions of this kind. These were not “honour killings”, these were despicable crimes.

Above all, it was important for delegates to take these reports back to their home countries to ensure they were debated on a national level and that the convention was ratified by their governments. The Council of Europe also needed to consider opening up the convention to countries outside Europe.

Women played a vital role in development work, as shown through the Millennium Development Goals. Women needed to be brought centre stage, especially in the development of the Pan-African Parliament.

It was disheartening that only 2% of the members of the newly elected Egyptian Parliament were female. This meant that there was a real risk that the female demonstrators in Tahrir Square could ultimately end up worse off. It was vital to maintain pressure on national parliaments.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Grosskost first in the general debate.

Ms GROSSKOST (France) welcomed the report, even though she did not necessarily agree with all of its conclusions. In particular there were some confusion in paragraph 3 of the report between gender issues and equality. There was an overlap between these two matters but they did not dovetail.

Gender was an important factor to emphasise in the fight against discrimination, but it was damaging to focus too heavily on gender in the fight to ensure equality. The glass ceiling was not a theoretical construct: it was a reality. It was important to consider the use of positive discrimination in order to allow women access to high-profile political positions. It was only by establishing positive female role models that future generations of women would strive to realise their potential in these areas. Ms Bachelet was a living example of the power of female role models.

Gender equality laws had provided better prospects for women but often their implementation was flawed and the laws were used as a fig leaf. For example, a country might have a quota for female political candidates, but how many would get a winnable seat? Positive discrimination was not a panacea if it was diverted from its key purpose.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Grosskost. The next speaker is Ms Bourzaï.

Ms BOURZAÏ (France) said that the Council of Europe had contributed a great deal to gender equality, but more progress was required. Human rights were usually spoken of with regard to abstract, asexual beings, rather than with specific reference to the female condition.

The Convention was long overdue. Violence against women was rooted in the customs of many countries. On average 10% of women would be victims of sexual violence at some point in their lives. It was particularly distressing that sexual violence was increasingly being used as a weapon of war.

The fight to promote women’s rights was made all the more difficult by the fact that rights already achieved, such as the right to abortion, were often challenged. Several governments and parliaments had attempted to restrict access to abortion. For example, in the first half of 2011, 80 laws had been passed by states in the United States placing restrictions on abortion. As long as these restrictions continued, the door was open to attacks on other rights.

The Council of Europe needed to continue to drive progress on women’s rights because women were the future of human rights.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Bourzaï. The next speaker is Ms Christoffersen.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The report underlines that the progress in our common fight against gender discrimination has been far too slow. On the one hand, it makes for discouraging reading, but on the other hand, there is hope. There is hope because things are moving in the right direction and because gender inequality is accepted today as man-made and not the law of nature.

The struggle for women’s liberation has been fought for more than 100 years. The fight has been taken on by brave women who have dared to challenge established power structures, be they in political life, workplace, families, churches and mosques. However, despite this progress, women’s rights are continually violated. Women and children are the most vulnerable to poverty, hunger, natural disasters and climate change. Rape is systematically used as a weapon in war. Women are struck harder by the economic crises in our part of the world.

Gender equality is a matter of justice as well as a matter of self-interest for society as a whole. Over time, a nation’s competitiveness depends significantly on whether and how it utilises its pool of human resources, of which women constitute 50%. Women’s rights are human rights – the Council of Europe is a human rights organisation. Thus, a good principle for members of this Council would be to first sweep up in front of our own doors.

In the annual “Global Gender Gap Report”, the World Economic Forum provides a snapshot of where men and women stand with regard to basic rights such as health, education, economic participation and political empowerment. Among 134 countries worldwide, most of our member States are included, and

the span between European countries is rather large. For several years, Iceland has been the most successful. It is followed by other Nordic countries and some countries in central Europe. At number 19, Latvia is best in the eastern part of Europe, and close to the bottom, we find Azerbaijan ranked at number 91.

Improvements are needed and a good starting point would be to raise women’s representation in this Assembly – a miserable 29% is not much to be proud of. Poland has 11 men and one woman. Russia has 13 men and one woman, while Italy and the United Kingdom have 15 men and three women. To some extent, composition of the delegation reflects the ranking from the World Economic Forum. So let us go home and do some homework.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Christoffersen. The next speaker is Ms Fataliyeva.

Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – Let me express my gratitude for your active position and contribution in this affair. The question of equality between women and men has been in people’s minds since the beginning of the history of mankind. As the wise Socrates once said, only three things can be regarded as happiness: first, you are not a wild animal; secondly, you are Greek but not a barbarian; and thirdly, you are a man but not a woman. Time has passed, and the views on the role of women and men in society have changed.

On the status of women in modern society, it should be noted that every country is following its own development path and has its own unique characteristics. Today in Azerbaijan, we are justifiably proud of the role that women play in our society. Huge attention is paid to securing women’s rights. In 1998, the committee on women’s affairs was founded by a decree of the president. The committee regulates all types of activities connected with all existing problems in this field. Azerbaijan achieved a number of successes in women’s rights protection, and the 20th century could be regarded as a new stage in the life of women.

In 1918, the declaration of independence of the first parliamentary republic in the east provided Azerbaijani women with the right to vote and be elected. Having gained access to education at the beginning of the 20th century, they achieved gender equality in not only secondary but higher education. In 2010, the bill on domestic violence was adopted by the Parliament of Azerbaijan. Today, women are represented in management and the legal and juridical systems, and actively participate in the public and political life of our country.

Generally, a modern woman combines both European and eastern values by being tied to the family and by striving for a higher position in society, but I strongly believe that most instances of the violation of women’s rights are based on stereotypes formed in society. If we manage to distance ourselves from those false stereotypes, it will help us all.

There are many women’s organisations in the world. They solve many problems, perform many functions and improve the position of women in society. These organisations have achieved much success, but unfortunately we live in a world full of conflicts. Every day, thousands of women become victims of rape and murder.

The Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict resulted in the violation of the rights, including women’s rights, of 1 million Azerbaijani citizens. Nearly half the citizens in our country who were rendered refugees and internally displaced persons are female. The access of IDPs to education and medical help, and the creation of normal living conditions, should always be on the agenda not only of government but of international organisations. Unfortunately, in some cases, laws providing equal opportunities to citizens do not guarantee the same opportunities for women as they do for men. It is not enough just to have civic rights: it is also necessary to realise them.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Fataliyeva. Mr Badea is not with us, so I now call Ms Memecan.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I would like to take this opportunity to wish Ms Err well in her new position, and to thank Mr Mendes Bota for his commitment to eradicating violence against women.

The convention is the product of hard work. Members of the former Committee for Equal Opportunities for Men and Women, the Secretariat, experts, and civil society representatives all contributed to making it an effective document. Mr Mendes Bota was always there with his enthusiasm and commitment. I feel that I have the right and responsibility to repeat his call for ratification of the Convention, as a representative of a country that is the first and only country to ratify it so far.

The convention was expedited during the Turkish chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. Turkey was the first country to sign it when it was opened for signatures in Istanbul last May. The first ratification came on 25 November – the elimination of violence against women day – again by Turkey. The only female member of the Turkish Cabinet, Fatma Sahin, made it a personal priority to have it ratified by that day.

The Istanbul Convention, as it is now referred to, aims at eradicating violence against women by preventing violence, prosecuting the perpetrators and protecting the victims. The convention clearly sets out the principles and guidelines for combating violence.

On that note, I would like to share one observation and suggestion to deal with this issue. In the media, in general, the victims, women, are the subject of the news when reporting a case of violence against women. Such cases are associated with and labelled with the name of the victims. The perpetrators are referred to by reference to the victims – as husbands, fathers or boyfriends. This is further victimisation of women. Women are portrayed as weak and vulnerable in the eyes of the public, whereas the perpetrators usually go unnoticed and are soon forgotten. However, proper reporting and presentation could dissuade other potential perpetrators.

As parliamentarians, we should insist on a change in media reporting, and include the media dimension in all legislation we prepare to end violence against women.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Memecan. I now call Mr Ghiletchi.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – On the one hand, I want to thank both rapporteurs for a good report; on the other, I have to say that certain provisions left a sour taste in my mouth. While acknowledging the importance of reproductive health services in general to the health of women, especially those going through pregnancy and childbirth, I am concerned by the general demand to lift limitations on access to such services. This is not because I am against women being healthy – in fact the opposite is true. As a member of parliament, I am willing to do my best to ensure that all women, mothers and newborn babies are healthy. I am against this provision because abortions are included in the definition of reproductive health services, and nearly all European States have legislation that properly regulates access to abortion, even if it is only by having an age limit for the foetus at the time of termination. In addition, this demand could interfere with the right of States to set ethical limits on the provision of assisted fertility treatments.

It makes sense to ask for the signature and ratification of the main Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, but when it comes to the optional protocol, we must keep in mind that optional means optional – period. Let it stay optional until a member State decides otherwise. In addition, there are good reasons to have reservations about the effects of this protocol, because it misinterprets the convention as requiring states to legalise access to abortion on demand.

I liked what Mr Cameron said yesterday in our Assembly: “You should not sign up to things that you are subsequently not prepared to put into your own legal system. We in Britain are great believers that you have to try to answer the questions in advance of signing up to something.” In other words, we should not, to use an English colloquial expression, put the cart before the horse.

I do not think it reasonable to require States to withdraw all reservations without distinction. We can ask for reconsideration of those which may be against the spirit of the convention, but we should leave room for States to protect national sovereignty where justified to maintain their national ethical stance on abortion and other controversial ethical issues.

Another problem is a new and very strange concept that was introduced in the report today: institutionalising the joint decision-making process. We can co-operate and consult and communicate with the NGOs, but the decision-making process belongs solely to the international and national legislative bodies.

I think we can support this report, but we need to accept Amendments 9, 10 and 11, because we do not have the right to change a common practice in signing and ratifying international conventions.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi. The last speaker from our list will be Ms Vėsaitė.

Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania) – There are only three years left to accomplish our commitment to the millennium development goals. The biggest backlash today concerns a woman’s right to control her body, her reproductive capacity and her intimate relationships. This is enforced by men and cultures that exercise psychological and physical violence on women. Today, approximately 1 000 women die every day from complications during pregnancy or childbirth. That is the equivalent of two or three Boeing jets crashing every day. Many of these deaths could be prevented, and none of them receives television coverage.

Every day, more than 25 000 girls under the age of 18 are married as child brides, often to much older men. For them, a sexual relationship is not a choice. Many of them become pregnant before their bodies are able to handle pregnancy. Worldwide, some 14 million girls aged between 15 and 19 give birth each year.

Whether a woman lives or dies is a political decision. Thousands of lives can be saved. Mr Anand Grover, the United Nations special rapporteur on the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, issued a groundbreaking report last November. Anand Grover strongly criticised States that criminalise access to available reproductive health services, goods and information. He believes that criminal laws that restrict access to reproductive health services are violations of women’s rights to life, health and information, and thus violations of their human rights. So women are punished in both cases. If they abide by the laws, they will suffer from poor physical and mental health; if they do not, they will face imprisonment.

Public morality and public health are cited as justifications for restrictive laws on women’s reproductive rights, but public morality cannot serve as a justification for laws that result in violations of human rights. We can and should ensure that policies are geared in the right direction, and that their implementation is strictly observed.

Finally, let me thank Ms Err for her lifelong work, and for her latest report.

THE PRESIDENT – It is 5 p.m. and I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

I call Mr Mendes Bota, rapporteur on the second report, to reply. He has three and a half minutes.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – I thank all members who have attended the debate. I did not hear any negative comments about my report, and I appreciated the kind words of support. I hope that you will all commit yourselves to helping us in the collective task of ensuring that the convention comes into force. It is not my task, it is not the task of the Council of Europe’s Secretary General, and it is not a joint task; it is, as I have said, a collective task.

I want to mention Mrs Memecan, because this week she raised a new issue that I think should be discussed more widely. Newspapers and television reports often mention only the names of female victims. I believe that the names of the perpetrators should also be made public. The publicity should be spread, even if it is negative publicity. I believe that our debates, in our committee and in the Assembly should go more deeply into the question of how to put the perpetrators in full view before all of us, allowing us to know their faces and their names.

Let me extend my personal thanks to Ms Err. She is one of those women who have a special personal charisma. We may or may not like what she says and what she defends, but I generally believe that although those with moral values may be polemical and unable to achieve consensus, that can be a positive quality. Ms Err has produced dozens of reports. Her report on increasing women’s representation in politics through the electoral system is a landmark. Her reports on feminicide and the sexual exploitation of children have had important results, and her report on advancing women’s rights worldwide also deals with a broad topic. Ms Err’s reports and speeches always extend beyond the Council of Europe’s remit.

We all have a palette of colours for our political arguments, but grey is certainly not on Ms Err’s political palette. I wish you, Ms Err – personally and, I believe, on behalf of all our colleagues – the best possible health and personal success. I am sure that you will also succeed as ombudsman in Luxembourg. I thank you for your two decades of work in the Assembly, for your companionship and for the work you have done, and I wish you good luck for the future.

THE PRESIDENT – Ms Err, you have the final word. You have two and a half minutes.

Ms ERR (Luxembourg) thanked members for their best wishes and hoped that they would provide inspiration for her. She thanked all those who had spoken in support of the report and agreed with them all except Mr Ghiletchi. She noted that if a protocol was optional it did not mean countries should not be invited to sign up to it. It was logical to encourage countries to lift reservations. That was the nature of the convention itself.

Non-governmental organisations should be involved in the dialogue as representatives of civil society.

Women were the future of human rights.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Err. The debate is closed. The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has presented a draft resolution, to which 11 amendments have been tabled.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

The amendments are Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7.

Is that so, Mr Mendes Bota?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal)– That is correct.

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

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 2, tabled by Mrs Err, Ms Wurm, Ms Barnett, Mrs Quintanilla and Ms Mogherini Rebesani, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace the words “Beijing Conference in 1995” with the following words:

“UN Millennium Summit, the Beijing Conference in 1995 and the Cairo Conference in 1994”.

Amendment 4, tabled by Mrs Err, Ms Wurm, Ms Barnett, Mrs Quintanilla and Ms Mogherini Rebesani, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.3, replace the words “, and support research on this topic” with the following words:

“, as well as of failure to address maternal health needs, and support research on this topic; encourage gender and age specific data collection in these fields”.

Amendment 6, tabled by Mrs Err, Ms Wurm, Ms Barnett, Mrs Quintanilla and Ms Mogherini Rebesani, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.4, after the words “UN Women national committees” insert the following words: “and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)”.

Amendment 7, tabled by Mrs Err, Ms Wurm, Ms Barnett, Mrs Quintanilla and Ms Mogherini Rebesani, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14, after the words “non-government organisations”, insert the following words: “and parliamentary networks”.

We will now consider the remaining amendments in the order in which they appear in the compendium and order of debates. I remind members that speaking time on amendments is limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Err, Ms Wurm, Ms Barnett, Ms Quintanlla and Ms Mogherini Rebesani, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 1, add the following words:

“In view of the latest development in the Arab Spring countries, the Assembly underlines that the separation of church and State is necessary for the realisation of equality and non-discrimination, both de-jure and de facto”.

I call Ms Err to support Amendment 1.

Ms ERR (Luxembourg) said that the amendment stipulated the separation of the state and religion. This separation was necessary to ensure equality between men and women. The two oral sub-amendments had been agreed by all but one member of the committee.

THE PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Ms Saidi wishes to propose Oral Sub-amendment 1, as follows: in Amendment 1, delete the words “In view of the latest development in the Arab Spring countries”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

I therefore call Ms Saïdi to support the oral sub-amendment.

Ms SAÏDI (Belgium) said that, while the separation of the State and religion was appropriate, the oral sub-amendment would constrain dialogue in those States which had more recently joined the Council of Europe.

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

What is the opinion of Ms Err?

Ms ERR (Luxembourg) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open

The sub-amendment is adopted.

I have been informed that Mr Bilgehan wishes to propose Oral Sub-amendment 2, as follows: in Amendment 1, replace the word “church” with “religion”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

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

Ms BILGEHAN (Turkey) agreed with the principle of the separation of State and religion. She thought that the formulation in the amendment, which read “separation of church and State” was wrong and that it should be amended to read “separation of religion and State”.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against Oral Sub-amendment 2. That is not the case.

What is the opinion of Ms Err?

Ms ERR (Luxembourg) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 1, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open

Amendment 1, as amended, is adopted.

We now come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mrs Err, Ms Wurm, Ms Barnett, Mrs Quintanilla and Ms Mogherini Rebesani, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6, add the following words:

“Some 358,000 women die annually due to complications during pregnancy and childbirth and worldwide around 14 million girls between 15 and 19 give birth each year”.

I have been informed that Ms Err wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows: in Amendment 3, replace the words “at the end of paragraph 6, add the following words:” with “after paragraph 6, add the following new paragraph”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

The amendment is self-explanatory.

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

The committee is in favour.

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

The vote is open

The sub-amendment is adopted.

We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

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

I call Mr. Ghiletchi to speak against the amendment.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I do not like it when we have approximate figures – around this or between that. I do not think that that is relevant for a report or a resolution. We need to be very exact; otherwise, we risk manipulation of the figures. I am totally against this amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment, as amended?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 3, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 3, as amended, is adopted.

We now come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mrs Err, Ms Wurm, Ms Barnett, Mrs Quintanilla and Ms Mogherini Rebesani, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 9.5 with the following paragraph:

“ensure that comprehensive reproductive health programmes receive adequate funding, and to lift limitations on access to reproductive health services both domestically and within development
co-operation”.

If this amendment is adopted, Amendment 9 falls.

I have been informed that Ms Err wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment.

Ms ERR (Luxembourg) – I do not want to move the oral sub-amendment. It has no relevance anymore.

THE PRESIDENT – The oral sub-amendment is as follows: in Amendment 5, at the end add the words “within the limits of the law”. I understand Mr Ghiletchi wishes to move this oral sub-amendment.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

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

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I regret that Ms Err decided not to move the sub-amendment, as a kind of consensus had been reached. As I mentioned, there are limits in every member State when it comes to access to abortion. We do not have the right to exclude national legislation. The oral sub-amendment is needed.

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

I call Ms Mogherini Rebesani to speak against the oral sub-amendment.

Ms MOGHERINI REBESANI (Italy) – It does not make sense in logical terms to say that we want to lift the limitations and then to refer to the limits of the law. If a condom is declared illegal in a country, we should not lift the limitations on access to condoms. As I say, that does not make sense in logical terms. There is a later amendment to deal with the issue. We should leave our discussion for that amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Omtzigt on a point of order.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – I am surprised at the progress of business. I wanted to discuss the oral sub-amendment, so it was not for the rapporteur to withdraw it. Reproductive health services include the issue of abortion.

THE PRESIDENT – I understand your position. The oral sub-amendment has been moved and we will put it to the vote, as the committee is in favour.

The vote is open

The sub-amendment is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT – We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open

Amendment 5, as amended, is adopted and Amendment 9 falls.

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr O’Reilly, Mr Dobbin, Mr Omtzigt, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Halicki, Ms Palihovici, Mr Vareikis, Ms Bilozir, Mr Volontè, Mr Farina, Ms Bergamini and Mr Benton, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.9, replace the words “ratify the Optional Protocol to” with the following words: “sign and ratify”.

I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 10.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – We must remove the reference to the “Optional Protocol” because it draws attention away from the convention, which is the most important instrument.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Err.

Ms ERR (Luxembourg) said that the fact that there was a monitoring mechanism did not mean the amendment should be agreed to.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open

Amendment 10 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Ghiletchi, Mr O’Reilly, Mr Omtzigt, Mr Halicki, Ms Palihovici, Mr Vareikis, Ms Bilozir, Mr Volontè, Mr Farina, Mr Benton and Mr Dobbin, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 10.2 with the following sub-paragraph:

“reconsider existing reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, insofar as these go against the spirit of the Convention;”.

I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 11.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I regret that the members of parliament do not realise that “optional” means optional. It is common practice for member States to be allowed to formulate reservations when they ratify conventions. We must not twist the arms of member States and try to get them to give up previous reservations. We must respect those reservations.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Err.

Ms ERR (Luxembourg) said that the fact that there had been problems with ratifying the convention did not mean that restrictions should be lifted. Political will was needed.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 11 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mrs Err, Ms Wurm, Ms Barnett, Mrs Quintanilla and Ms Mogherini Rebesani, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14, add the following new paragraph:

“The Assembly calls on the Council of Europe member States and observer states to increase effective technical and political dialogue between Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and the government by institutionalizing spaces for joint decsion-making in countries where they do not exist and effectively using spaces already in existence”.

I call Ms Err to support Amendment 8.

Ms ERR (Luxembourg) said that the amendment was self-explanatory. It addressed parliamentary networks and the need for liaison between non-governmental organisations, parliaments and governments.

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

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The phrase “joint decision-making” introduces confusion as nobody understands it. The term “partnership” is much better; we always use it in respect of non-governmental organisations. If I were able to propose an oral sub-amendment, I would suggest that we use the term “partnership”.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open

Amendment 8 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 12812, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12812, as amended, is adopted, with 78 votes for, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

The Committee on Equality and Non-discrimination has presented a draft resolution in Document 12810, to which three amendments have been tabled.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Equality and Non-discrimination wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 2, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

Is that so, Mr Mendes Bota?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – That is correct.

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

The following amendment has been adopted:

Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Ms Quintanilla, Ms Mogherini Rebesani, Ms Carloni, Ms Stavrositu and Ms Gafarova, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 12.2 with the following sub-paragraph:

“welcomes the decision taken by the Committee on Equality and Non-discrimination to appoint a general rapporteur on violence against women, and believes that such a step would contribute to enhancing the visibility and relevance of the Assembly's work in this area.”

We will now consider the remaining amendments. I remind members that speaking time on amendments is limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Memecan, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Hancock, Mr Omtzigt, Ms Strik, Ms Arib, Baroness Nicholson, Mr Gardetto, Ms Gajdůšková and Ms Váhalová, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10.4, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“recognising the important role NGOs and civil society play in this field, decides to reinforce the partnership with civil society and NGOs as described in paragraph 43 of the report.”

I call Ms Memecan to support Amendment 3.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – We want to highlight the significance of engaging NGOs and civil society in partner countries in moving on with the convention.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Ms Mogherini Rebesani, Ms Carlino, Ms Stavrositu, Ms Gafarova and Ms Quintanilla, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10, insert the following paragraph:

“Expressing appreciation for the work accomplished by non-governmental organisations in a wide range of activities aimed at preventing violence against women and assisting its victims, the Assembly encourages them to pursue their work to promote the signature and ratification of the Convention and resolves to work in close co-operation with them.”

I call Mr Mendes Bota to support Amendment 1.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – I have nothing against the previous amendment but I prefer this amendment. They have the same objective of reinforcing the role of NGOs. The text of this amendment is just better than that of the previous amendment.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open

Amendment 1 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 12810, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12810, as amended, is adopted with 85 votes for and 2 abstentions.

4. The functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine

THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report on “The functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine”, Document 12814, presented by Ms Reps and Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

I remind colleagues that speaking time this afternoon is limited to three minutes. In order to finish by 7.00 p.m. and allow sufficient time for responses to the debate and for voting, we will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the debate at about 6.30 p.m.

Is that agreed?

It is agreed.

I first call Ms Reps, co-rapporteur. You and Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – Thank you Mr President. We are here today to discuss the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine because the Parliamentary Assembly has serious doubts about the criminal prosecution of opposition leaders, most notably Ms Timoshenko. Nobody should be above the law, and only charges that have been proven in an independent court of law, and after a fair trial that conformed fully with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, should be upheld. Unfortunately, there are serious doubts about whether these opposition leaders have had, or are getting, a fair trial, especially given the questions about possible political motivations and upcoming parliamentary elections.

Our resolution is not only about Yulia Timoshenko or other opposition leaders; it is about the systematic deficiencies that impact on all Ukrainians. There is extended use of pre-trial detention, and even though Ukraine has received judgments against it from the European Court of Human Rights, the situation has not improved.

On the independence of the judiciary, we have serious concerns about the appointment of judges, the probationary period for charges of a sensitive nature, the high council of judges, the whole appointment procedure and so on. On the equality of arms between the prosecution and defence, the prosecution wins almost 98% of all cases. The defence has less of a role in Ukraine and that does not guarantee the presumption of innocence. That is why the Parliamentary Assembly requests the prompt reform of many substantial issues: criminal procedure, the criminal code, the full reform of the prosecution office, law and bar and so on.

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

Ms DE POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – We all know that the path to democracy is a long and winding slippery road, and you might end up in a ditch and need a little help from a friend. We are those friends who can help you. We know that it takes time and political will. It is not one step forward and two steps back; it should be the other way around. As rapporteurs, we are always told that changes and improvements are on the way, but those are only words and not action. That goes not only for the current government but for previous governments. Most of the shortcomings can be rapidly addressed only through a new constitution, but we know that that takes time. Nevertheless, Ukraine must start to amend its constitution so that other changes can be made.

A lot has been said about the case of former Prime Minister Timoshenko. Much of it might be true. Her case is an example of the shortcomings in Ukraine’s justice system, and of the unequal arms of the prosecution and defence, both in practice and in law. For example, the defence does not get any copies for the case so cannot read them. Such shortcomings are not new, and this Assembly has long been concerned that Ukraine do something about them.

As you have heard, the fact that the prosecutor wins 99.8% of court cases shows that there is no real chance of a fair trial. The politically motivated charges against former government members has criminalised former political decision making. That is not acceptable. We are all politicians here, and we know that sometimes we take a decision that afterwards we find was no good. We should be judged by the electorate and our people at the next election, not by the courts.

I want to talk about the health of the former Interior Minister, Mr Lucenko, and former acting Minister of Defence, Mr Ivaschenko, who have been in pre-trial detention for more than one year. Their health is rapidly getting worse. That also goes for former Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko, who, as you will know, has been sentenced to seven years in prison and was moved on 30 December last year to a prison for women in Kharkiv. She is in a cell with the light constantly on.

The President of Ukraine should consider all legal means to release these former government members and allow them to participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections. There is a law in Ukraine that says that if you have committed a crime, regardless of whether it is just a small crime, you can never participate in political life again. Ukraine has been a member of the Council of Europe since 9 November 1995. As I said, both this government and former governments have had many years to fulfil their obligations and commitments. The patience of the Council of Europe and the Monitoring Committee is running out. Ukraine should fulfil its obligations and commitments not for the sake of the Council of Europe, but for the sake of Ukraine and its people. We know that it can. The question is: is there the political will to go from words to action?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The co-rapporteurs have six and a half minutes left for their contribution. In the debate, I now call Mr Omtzigt who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – First and foremost, I thank our two colleagues for their painstaking work done in quite difficult circumstances with the Ukrainian authorities on what is now becoming a long case. The world has been watching and watching, and we thought that the Ukrainian authorities would understand that they needed at least to start moving. They have not done so.

Let me speak about the most serious issue in the report, which is about the functioning of the democratic institutions in Ukraine. Being named in a title like that should worry any country. There are serious doubts whether Ukraine complies with Article 6 of the convention. Courts do not appear to be independent and there do not appear to be fair trials. Ms Tymoshenko and her former ministers from the former government may have made a number of political mistakes; they may have even done other things wrong, but they have not been given a fair trial in which to prove themselves.

In a system where the Danish Helsinki Committee shows that more than 90% of cases end in a guilty verdict; where lawyers do not have access to files, which is particularly worrisome if those files are large, as they are in political cases; and where the appointment of judges is anything but independent, you can be pretty sure that you will not get an independent trial.

Time is running out for the Ukrainian Government, at least according to the European People’s Party. We would like to see a quick reform of the system, not only to electoral law – I do not have time to talk about that now – but especially the criminal law system. Article 364 should be removed and article 365 should be almost completely removed in order to comply with European standards. Perhaps my Ukrainian colleagues who will be speaking later can give us a hint about when that will happen.

This Assembly should set a limit on how long we will wait for Ukraine to take the first steps on the road. Therefore, the EPP will propose in its last amendment that next time the Assembly should not refrain from taking further measures against Ukraine. We hope that that will not be necessary, which will be for the benefit of the Ukrainian people.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Omtzigt. The next speaker is Ms Bourzaï, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Ms BOURZAÏ (France) congratulated the rapporteurs and said that it had been 17 years since Ukraine has acceded to the Council of Europe and it was only a few months since Ukraine’s Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. Even so, it was clear that Ukraine was not a good pupil of the Council of Europe “school of democracy”. It was true that Ukraine had shown goodwill in recent days by agreeing not to suspend gas deliveries to eastern Europe and by continuing to work towards a free trade agreement with the European Union. Nevertheless, Ukraine had to make the democratic reforms required by its membership of the Council of Europe.

Some of these reforms would be difficult to achieve and would take a long time to implement. It was possible that this accounted for the lack of progress in Ukraine, but it did not excuse the absence of reform to vital areas such as the justice system.

It was deplorable that electoral law was not being reformed in advance of the elections in October 2012. There was seemingly no will to do this. At the same time, no timeframe had been set for the urgent constitutional reform required by the Council of Europe.

It was worth bearing in mind the words of the Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko who had written that the path leading away from paradise was broad and full of people, but the path leading to paradise was narrow and full of thorns. This could also be applied to the path to democracy. The Council of Europe could help Ukraine along this path by removing some of the thorns that barred its way.

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

Ms BAKIR (Turkey) – On behalf of the EDG, I would like to thank both rapporteurs for their balanced report. Ukraine is an important country, contributing significantly to peace and security in the Black Sea basin. Since the adoption of Assembly Resolution 1755 (2010), the Government of Ukraine has taken numerous steps to harmonise its political and economic system to bring the country closer to Europe and strengthen its role as a stabilising force in the region.

In that regard, once adopted, the draft procedure code, which is a good example of the close co-operation between the Council of Europe and the Ukrainian authorities, will be another important step to reforming the Ukrainian justice system.

Due to the challenges faced by the government, encouraging and supporting Ukraine in the realisation of its reform programme is important. Shortcomings should be identified and guidance should be offered to Ukraine in a constructive manner to support its efforts to further democratise the country. Our Assembly and the Council of Europe as a whole can provide a useful forum in that respect. As representatives of the Council of Europe member States, we should extend our support to Ukraine to fulfil its obligations exactly as stated in the report. We believe that the Ukrainian authorities will welcome and positively respond to the concerns voiced in this report. The strong political will underlined by the statements of the Ukrainian leadership for integration into Europe should be matched by reciprocal efforts.

The developments concerning the trial of the main opposition party leader and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko are closely followed by the EDG. Ms Tymoshenko and her colleagues, as my friend has said, may have made a number of mistakes but they deserve a fair trial.

The EDG expects and hopes that the rule of law will be the main applied principle during the proceedings, as our valuable rapporteurs have stated in their report.

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

Ms MATEU PI (Andorra) said that the report was excellent and gave an objective overview of the situation in Ukraine.

It was clear that the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine left much to be desired. The Council of Europe was based on the principles of the rule of law, fundamental freedoms and human rights. These principles were clearly not being met by Ukraine. Ukraine had to honour the commitments it had made when it had acceded to the Council of Europe. It was evident that there was some way to go before the people of Ukraine would be able to live in a democratic State governed by the rule of law and respect for human rights.

The report also highlighted shortcomings in the judicial system. For example, there was no presumption of innocence. Judges were appointed on a discretionary basis for five years before their appointment was confirmed for life. This left them open to pressure from the authorities. It was also a problem that people could be held on remand indefinitely.

It was important to remember that, in addition to the prominent cases, many ordinary Ukrainians were suffering from the shortcomings of the justice system. There appeared to be an absence of the principle of equality of access and equality of treatment in the institutions of the country. There had been inequality and violation of human rights.

The presumption of innocence was particularly important at present because people were unable to object, and because the nature in which judges were selected had meant that they ruled in line with political wishes. She hoped that the report would lead to certain penal laws being scrapped and that reform would take place of the constitution and the judiciary

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Mateu Pi. I see that Ms Reps and Ms Pourbaix-Lundin wish to respond later. I call Ms Marin, the first speaker in the general debate.

Ms MARIN (France) congratulated the rapporteurs and said that she was very concerned by the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine. She noted the charges brought against the former Prime Minster Yulia Timoshenko and more than 20 people who have been connected to her. This included the former minister, Yuri Lutsenko, who, despite a serious liver condition, was being detained in prison and had not been visited by a doctor. She questioned whether the Council of Europe would allow him to die before taking action, in particular given failure by Ukraine to uphold Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

She was not seeking to take a position on whether those defendants were guilty or innocent but rather wished to ensure that their human rights were fully respected.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Marin. I call Mr Rouquet.

Mr ROUQUET (France) said that this was an excellent report that showed a worrying authoritarian drift in Ukraine. He was concerned that the Ukraine was entering an autocratic winter. He was concerned about the health of Yulia Timoshenko and others.

Ukraine had held the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers prior to the current holder and he questioned what progress Ukraine had made during that time.

The judicial authorities had been corrupted by the slide into authoritarianism which meant that Ukraine no longer complied with the European Convention on Human Rights. This development meant that the European Court of Human Rights had received a large number of repetitive cases concerning abuses in Ukraine.

There were few chances for the Ukrainian opposition to make their voice heard so it was important for the Council of Europe to take robust action. The publication of the report was an important step.

Ukraine could not turn away from the path of democracy. It was part of Europe. He fully endorsed the draft resolution.

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

Ms LIOVOCHKINA (Ukraine) – First, I would like to thank the rapporteurs for taking Ukraine’s problems so closely to their hearts and for trying to be as objective and neutral as possible. Let me also approach the current Ukrainian Government’s actions in a balanced manner.

The Ukrainian Government has committed itself to bringing about fundamental changes in all spheres of Ukrainian society. These reforms are long term and strategic in nature. They go against vested interests and naturally give rise to significant resistance, especially those dealing with corruption. We also realise that current government reforms go against populist promises and might be painful in the short term. Today, for the first time, the implementation of reforms constitutes real action rather than just words and promises. Even opposition leaders admit to the unprecedented scope of the European integration effort recently undertaken by Ukraine.

The current government also fully understands the importance of co-operation with the opposition. The voting for the law of Ukraine on parliamentary elections was a vivid example of such collaboration. Out of a total of 450 deputies, 366 members of parliament supported this law. The law introduced a mixed electoral system and thus brought Ukraine’s system into compliance with European standards.

The Ukrainian Government’s reform agenda is not exhausted by these policy initiatives. It has taken administrative reforms seriously. To streamline Ukraine’s civil service, eradicate corruption and reduce government waste, the number of central executive bodies was slashed from 112 to 63, and the number of ministries from 20 to 16.

I would like to emphasise that the hard work is done on constitutional reform. As you may know, the Constitutional Assembly created by the President of Ukraine is working in close co-operation with the Venice Commission. Ukraine’s national anti-corruption strategy for 2011-14 received praise from many European observers.

These are, in short, the priorities of the current Ukrainian leadership. We have a blueprint for a new way of doing things that I strongly believe will bring us closer to European practices and standards.

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

THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Ms Čigāne.

Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – I thank the authors of the report for a detailed, insightful and very alarming account. As they observe, there is serious doubt about whether the two clauses under which former opposition leaders are being tried should remain in the criminal code. How is it possible to assess a policy that has caused substantial damage to individuals’ interests? In such cases, decisions are always very arbitrary. According to the authors, those two clauses – and, indeed, the way in which trials proceed in general – will have a long-term detrimental effect on political participation in Ukraine. People will be unwilling to join political parties, and unwilling to take part in politics generally.

As the authors note, the process of trials has been marred by procedural errors, a lack of transparency, and the fact that the defence has not had proper access to the files. Unfortunately, what is happening now strongly resembles the old Soviet show trials. The saying that prevailed then was “Find a human being, and we will find the clause in the law that tells us how to punish that human being.” The number of procedural errors, and the way in which trials have been conducted, reminds me of a highly politicised process that was intended to take prominent opposition leaders out of the game. For instance, it puts me in mind of the Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who was under house arrest for 15 years. It is regrettable that such a comparison should be made when we are talking about a member of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Shershun.

Mr SHERSHUN (Ukraine) said that it was important to present the Ukrainian side. Articles 364 and 365 of the criminal code of Ukraine were key to fighting corruption. Their removal would mean that Ukraine no longer complied with the United Nations anti-corruption treaty. The plenary of the Ukrainian Supreme Court had showed that the articles could be used as and when was necessary to prevent corruption. Work was actively under way to amend articles 364 and 365 to bring Ukraine into line with the Council of Europe’s approach. A group was also taking forward the development of new laws to allow national and local referendums. Some of these measures had been agreed with a broad consensus. He thanked the Assembly for its interest and said that Ukraine was doing all it that could to make progress in the long term.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Popescu.

Mr POPESCU (Ukraine) said that it was not helpful to take a partisan view of the situation in the Ukraine. Ukraine had made considerable progress since it joined the Council of Europe and, while three commitments remained outstanding, the urgent review of parts of the criminal code being undertaken by the Ukrainian Parliament would be completed by the end of 2012. This would help fulfil the outstanding commitments. Ukraine had travelled a long way to meet its commitments, for example with laws giving free legal aid and to prevent corruption. It had also allowed citizens to take their final year exams in their own language, something that the previous government had not permitted.

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

Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I thank the rapporteurs for an excellent report. I cannot imagine how those who do not live under the regime of Yanukovych are able to analyse the situation in Ukraine so openly and objectively.

My colleagues representing the majority in the Ukraine Parliament have said a great deal about their struggle against corruption. What struggle against corruption? President Yanukovych is living in a state residence which he privatised. Can you, as members of the Council of Europe, imagine your prime ministers or presidents privatising state residences? In a previous year, our energy minister, Mr Boyko, bought two gas platforms for $400 million when the market price was $200 million. Can we imagine this level of corruption at the highest levels of our authorities?

Secondly, there is the question of reforms. What kind of reforms are being provided? Can we imagine this situation? The Constitutional Court adopted the Constitution of the State. This was not parliament adopting the constitution after a referendum; this was the Constitutional Court adopting the Constitution, and it was changed dramatically by Yanukovych and his team.

Then there is the case of Tymoshenko, and we need to remember that it was not seven years just for her; it was seven years for all the relevant European leaders and Russian leaders. That brings me to the horrible winter of 2009 when half of Europe was without gas and half of Ukraine was without it, too. There was just one key decision – how to sign the agreement about how much Ukraine pays each month. Before the Russian Federation, we did not have comparable debts.

Last but not least, there is a situation with Tymoshenko. Can we imagine a video tape being taken in prison 24 hours a day and the prosecuting office putting it on the internet when Tymoshenko had serious back problems? They taped it and put it on the internet, as I say. Then, on Christmas day, she was unconscious for two hours and for 20 minutes her neighbour tried to knock on doors to get some medical services – but that was impossible.

If all the proposed amendments of the rapporteurs are adopted, it will help us to change the situation in Ukraine. It is not just about saving Tymoshenko and the opposition; we must save ourselves, and we must save democracy in Ukraine. We must uphold the democratic traditions of Ukraine.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Ms Lundgren is not here, so I call Mr Plotnikov.

Mr PLOTNIKOV (Ukraine) – We are grateful to the Parliamentary Assembly for its contribution to the implementation of democratic reforms in Ukraine. Those viewing the current situation with an exclusively critical approach are wrong. Our main goal today is to recognise both the achievements and the problems, to define the responsibilities and tasks for everyone – for Ukraine as well as for the Council of Europe – and to move forward with the reforms.

As to the fulfilment of the commitments of Ukraine to the Council of Europe, it should be noted that in 2010-11 the President of Ukraine did the following things. He approved the action plan on implementation of the obligations and commitments of Ukraine deriving from its membership of the Council of Europe — and it is being acted on now. He established the commission on strengthening of democracy and the rule of law, and he approved the national anti-corruption strategy for 2011 to 2015. He took a decision to establish the constitutional assembly in order to work out amendments to the Ukraine constitution, and he established the commission on the prevention of torture, executing the functions of the national preventive mechanism. In close co-operation with Council of Europe experts and the Venice Commission, he established working groups on the reform of the judiciary and on the improvement of electoral legislation.

The Parliament of Ukraine adopted the laws of Ukraine in amending the law “on information”, “on the access to the public information”, “on the principles of corruption prevention and counteraction”, “on free legal aid”, and “on the election of people’s deputies of Ukraine”. A draft code of criminal procedure was submitted to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in the first working week of January. A number of important laws – such as “on the advocacy”, “on peaceful assembly” and “on the judiciary” – were examined by the Venice Commission at the request of Ukraine.

All the current developments taking place in Ukraine should be viewed within the framework of legislation that has largely been adopted by previous governments and practised for a long time. I include the acting authorities in this as well. If this legislation is not regarded as flawless, the respective changes made to it should be done in accordance with the best European practice and experience.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Vareikis.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – At the outset, let me say that I agree with everything in the report, which I believe came to the right conclusions. What it concluded with is effectively a road map, setting out what Ukraine has to do. I offer my congratulations to the rapporteurs – and to Ukraine – on the production of such an excellent report.

Listening to the discussion about Ukraine, I thought there were a few key words. One is complexity. Ukraine is a very complex country – probably even more complex than Russia. There used to be eastern Ukraine and western Ukraine, but that is already outdated. What there is, however, is the Ukraine of the cities, the Ukraine of the villages, the Ukraine of the sea coast and the Ukraine of the mountains. All those Ukraines are very different; sometimes they are not co-ordinated with each other. We also need to acknowledge that there is the Ukraine of Yanukovych, the Ukraine of Tymoshenko, the Ukraine of Yushchenko. These are different Ukraines. It is not very good for a country if it changes when the President or the Prime Minister changes. This is a big problem, which Ukraine has to solve. We have even seen different Ukraines today. My supreme wish is to see one Ukraine with one policy and one orientation. That is in the best interests of the country.

Another problem is that Ukrainians are fighting too much. They are fighting against corruption; they are fighting against crime; they are fighting against each other. That is all well and good, but the country must not be a fighting arena; it must be an arena where the country is built up. I see very little of what Ukraine is supposed to have achieved in the crucial area of building up the country.

Ukraine should also be much more interested in the job of politics. I speak about Ukraine very frequently, but I still do not know whether it is a sea power, a continental or European power or a border area of Russia or of Europe. My suggestion is clear. Europe is not heaven or hell. We need to help Ukraine to become a European State rather than wait for Ukraine itself to achieve something important.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Badea of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr BADEA (Romania) commended the two rapporteurs on the objective analysis contained in the report. He entirely agreed that political and judicial responsibilities had to be clearly separated. A number of former members of the Ukrainian Government had taken decisions when in office that had done serious harm to democracy in Ukraine. In the light of this fact, the current Ukrainian administration should perhaps be viewed with more sympathy.

There were, however, problems. The excessive length of remand in custody permitted in Ukraine violated the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. In addition, the Ukrainian authorities ought to respect human rights regardless of ethnicity and yet violation of the rights of ethnic minorities was a reality in Ukraine.

Schools in certain regions, including the Odessa region, were no longer permitted to be bilingual but were required to use the language of the Ukrainian majority. This was problematic because, although ethnic Romanians were in the minority nationally, in regions such as Odessa they formed a significant proportion of the population. The Romanian language had also been banned in dealings with the authorities and it was not always possible even to register a Romanian name in its original form.

Electoral reform was urgently needed. Over the last 20 years, there had been times when ethnic minorities had been properly represented in the Ukrainian Parliament and this had received international approbation. He had no doubt that certain of his colleagues in Kiev would be listening carefully to the issues that had been raised in this debate.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker on the list is Mr Symonenko of Ukraine, but he does not appear to be in his place. If that is the case, I call Ms Bateman, observer from Canada,

Ms BATEMAN (Canada) – I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the state of democracy and human rights in Ukraine. I applaud the work of the rapporteurs in highlighting the deteriorating conditions of the rule of law and democracy in Ukraine. The concerns that have been chronicled by the rapporteurs echo many of the concerns expressed in Canada. The recent developments have created difficulties in Canada’s bilateral relationship with Ukraine.

It should be noted that Canada was the first western nation to recognise Ukraine’s independence, in December 1991. We have enjoyed close relations since that time. Canada believes that an independent and democratic Ukraine contributes significantly to regional stability, and it supports Ukraine’s eventual integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions.

Canadian engagement with Ukraine has many dimensions. Canada deployed hundreds of Canadian election observers to monitor Ukraine’s elections, including the Orange revolution and the 2010 presidential elections. Substantial financial contributions have been made to the Chernobyl shelter fund and the nuclear safety account. Canada is the fourth largest donor of technical assistance to Ukraine, having invested over 360 million Canadian dollars in bilateral official development assistance since 1991. This engagement has been accompanied by high-level State visits, such as Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s visit to Ukraine in October 2010, when he took the opportunity to urge President Yanukovich to stand firm on Ukraine’s commitments to democracy and human rights.

Although the bilateral relations between Canada and Ukraine remain active, the deterioration of democracy in Ukraine after the 2010 Ukrainian elections has been a particular cause for concern to the Government of Canada. The trial and sentencing of former Prime Minister Tymoshenko exemplifies the declining state of democracy, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in Ukraine.

In September 2011, Prime Minister Harper and Foreign Minister Baird wrote to President Yanukovich, expressing Canada’s concerns about the Tymoshenko trial. Following the 23 December 2011 decision of the Kiev court of appeals to uphold Tymoshenko’s conviction, Canada’s Foreign Minister issued a statement expressing disappointment in the ruling and urging the Ukrainian Government to strengthen judicial independence and capacity.

On behalf of the Canadian delegation and Parliament, I reiterate our grave concern and urge the Assembly to adopt the draft resolution.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Our final speaker is Ms Bondarenko.

Ms BONDARENKO (Ukraine) – First, I want to express my gratitude to the co-rapporteurs for their great work and their objective and urgently necessary report.

Back in October 2010, the Assembly issued its recommendations. If Ukraine had implemented them, we could have made great strides towards the rule of law, democracy and the protection of human rights. The European course must involve implementing democratic measures; otherwise it is a mere bluff – the curtains drawn to cover the outrages and injustices.

What do we really have in Ukraine? It has rapidly become a country where the authorities are openly cynical of the law and where there is an almost unbelievable lack of protections for their citizens and non-enforcement of their rights. Ukrainian criminal law badly needs to be reformed; the problems with it were created by the Ukrainian Parliament.

Let us consider some of the criminal prosecutions, threats of imprisonment, and targeting of political opponents – first of all, of Yulia Tymoshenko. That primitive political revenge has now moved into a new phase involving torture, but the perpetrators say they are fighting against torture.

Let us consider this specific example. People with camera equipment enter a ward and film, despite her protests, a helpless lady who is lying there. A video then appears on the internet and on television. The ward is videotaped, non-stop, day and night. The authorities are repeatedly imposing medical treatments without the participation of independent experts. Their “findings” are then made public. What is this, if it is not psychological torture aimed at breaking the human will and human dignity? Unidentified medicines were given to Yulia Tymoshenko. She lost consciousness in the ward and no assistance was provided for a very long time. What is this, if it is not an assassination attempt on a national politician – the opposition leader, but also just a helpless woman deprived of her human rights?

The main pillars of the regime being established in Ukraine are non-independent judges, bodies of repression and prisons. In my humble opinion, it is high time for action. Mere calls and requests for Ukraine to meet its obligations and commitments will not work. Sanctions against officials who ruin democracy and human rights are certainly among the final measures to be taken, but they are very efficient medicines, and they are the only ones that will help.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. We now conclude the list of speakers. It was announced at the beginning that we would interrupt the list at approximately 6.30 p.m. The speeches of members on the speakers’ list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given, in typescript only, to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

I call Mr Gaudi Nagy on a point of order.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I am disappointed that the remaining members were unable to speak. There were only about six of us. We could make two-minute speeches. Many Hungarians live in Ukraine, and we were keen to express our concerns about the electoral discrimination against minorities. I kindly ask you, Mr President, to allow us perhaps one minute each. It is important that we say something.

THE PRESIDENT – I am afraid, Mr Gaudi Nagy, that that was not a point of order. It was announced at the beginning of the debate that we would conclude the list of speakers at 6.30 p.m. Originally, in fact, the intention had been to conclude the debate at 6.20 p.m. I am sorry about that. However, you can have your speech included in the official report if you supply it to the Table Office.

I now call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, co-rapporteur, to reply. You and Ms Reps have six and a half minutes remaining.

Ms DE POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – This is an interim report, and the full report will come later, so we shall have a lot of time to discuss Ukraine in the future. I thank colleagues who expressed their concern about the situation there. I say to other colleagues that Ukraine has not only commitments but obligations. I appreciate that many colleagues asked questions. Those are questions to which I too want answers. For example, we have not had the timetable for the new – or amended – constitution. We would like answers to those questions. Finally, I would like to thank Bas Klein, without whose help we would not have this report.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Ms Reps, you have approximately five minutes and 15 seconds.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – In order to reply to everyone fairly, I shall respond first to the Ukrainian speakers who pointed out the success of Ukraine in many legislative reforms. That is true. Many recently adopted laws are laws that we asked Ukraine to adopt. Those have been adopted in a good spirit, and some of them take into consideration what the Venice Commission suggested and what we have suggested in our resolutions. That has not always been the case – we have something to say about that – but it is true that Ukraine has done a lot, which is why many paragraphs in the report congratulate and welcome developments in Ukraine.

As we have said, Ukraine has done a good job on European integration and has shown a desire to co-operate with the European Union. Furthermore, it has done a lot in the economic field and has adopted much legislation. As I said at the beginning, though, we are here today to discuss one very clear issue: the fact that numerous opposition leaders are facing criminal prosecution. We are concerned that they are not getting a fair trial, and that this undermines all the work that Ukraine has done, much of what Ukraine has done to impress us and many of the speeches today stating that Ukraine is a firm democracy – or at least on the path towards becoming a firm democracy.

The report points out systematic deficiencies. We ask that Ukraine reforms them. It is not the first time that we have called for reform of the prosecutors office, criminal procedure and the criminal code. We are aware that Ukraine is working on them, but we urge it to do so promptly. That it is working on them, however, does not give Ukraine an excuse to conduct these doubtful criminal prosecutions. They cause the Assembly concern. We can see from numerous speeches today that those prosecutions are politically motivated, although we would be more than happy to be proved wrong.

To colleagues who raised concerns about Ukraine, I would say that, as we have said on numerous occasions in meetings with people on both sides of the Ukrainian political spectrum – especially with civil society – Ukraine is not moving in the wrong direction. People are interested in having Ukraine in Europe – people are working towards that. However, the Assembly is committed to calling attention to any misdeeds of Ukraine and to asking it to pay attention to certain things. We are here today to tell it what it is doing wrong and to help it return to the right track; we are not here to criticise it, to threaten it or to punish it – we are just here to help.

Yes, this is just an interim report. It was a response to unfortunate events – the pre-trial detention and imprisonment of opposition leaders – but we are working on a full report. Many colleagues commented on the inclusion of minorities, educational reform and language issues. Those subjects will be dealt with in our full report.

Finally, I would like to thank the secretariat and colleagues for their fruitful comments and collaboration on our reports. Many of the amendments were drafted in co-operation with rapporteurs and people on all sides of the Ukrainian political spectrum. We are thankful for the spirit in which they worked to help us produce these and previous reports, and I am sure that that co-operation will continue to be fruitful in the future.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Ukraine has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1995 but it is still under monitoring procedures, which means that it still has not fulfilled its membership commitments. Over 17 years, its institutions have still not been reformed in line with Council of Europe standards. That is a problem in itself. It demonstrates a lack of political will that is unworthy of a member State of a human rights organisation. Personal gain seems to have been a more important leading star than democracy, and corruption is a widespread phenomenon.

In saying that, we should acknowledge the growing will to reform, as today’s report describes and as has been demonstrated in this discussion. However, the criminalisation of political opponents and normal political decision making has overshadowed the positive signs of a willingness for change. This is in contempt of Council of Europe values and standards. A member State doing so harms this Organisation’s reputation, but it is also bad for the image of the country itself. It is in Ukraine’s own interest, therefore, that the Ukrainian authorities pay attention to the good advice given in this Assembly today.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Christoffersen.

The debate is closed.

The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution, to which 15 amendments have been tabled.

I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

The amendments are 9, 12, 13 and 5 to the draft resolution.

Is that so, Ms Christoffersen?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Yes.

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

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 9, tabled by Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Reps, Mr Omtzigt, Ms Lundgren, Mr Saar, Mr Vareikis, Mr Gardetto, Mr Frunda, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Toshev and Ms Brasseur, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly welcomes the continuing co-operation with the Ukrainian authorities in the framework of the monitoring procedure of the Assembly. It notes with satisfaction that a number of important steps have been undertaken by the authorities in order to honour outstanding accession commitments, including with regard to the fight against corruption. It welcomes the close co-operation developed between the Council of Europe and the Ukrainian authorities in implementing the necessary reforms. However, the Assembly regrets that the prosecution of former government leaders in Ukraine is negatively affecting the country's closer European integration.”

Amendment 12, tabled by Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Reps, Mr Omtzigt, Mr Saar, Mr Vareikis, Mr Gardetto, Mr Frunda, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Toshev and Ms Brasseur, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.3, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“welcomes the fact that the President of Ukraine has submitted a new draft Criminal Procedure Code for consideration of the Verkhovna Rada and calls on the Verkhovna Rada to promptly adopt this law fully taking into consideration the recommendations made by the Council of Europe in its expertise on the draft law.”

Amendment 13, tabled by Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Reps, Mr Omtzigt, Mr Saar, Mr Vareikis, Mr Gardetto, Mr Frunda, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Toshev and Ms Brasseur, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 8, insert the following paragraph:

“With regard to the systemic deficiencies in the legal system, the Assembly regrets that the reform of the Prosecutor's Office in line with Council of Europe standards, which is an accession commitment of Ukraine, has yet to be carried out. As a result the Prokuratura remains an excessively centralised institution with excessive powers.”

Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Plotnikov, Mr Popescu, Mr Shershun, Mr Pylypenko, Mr Seyidov, Mr Zhidkikh, Mr Lebedev, Mr Stoilov, Mr Holovaty, Ms Bilozir, Mr Corlăţean, Ms Liovochkina, Mr Hajiyev, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Çavuşoğlu and Mr Vukčević, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 12.1, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“welcomes the adoption, by a broad consensus, with the participation of the opposition, of the parliamentary electoral law as a first step on the way to unified electoral legislation.”

We will proceed to consider the amendments in the order set out in the compendium and the order of debates. I remind members that speaking time on amendments is limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Liovochkina, Mr Popescu, Mr Plotnikov, Mr Shershun, Mr Zhidkikh, Mr Lebedev, Mr Stoilov, Mr Hajiyev, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Çavusoglu, Mr Vukčević and Mr Seyidov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, replace the words “The Assembly therefore urges the authorities to promptly remove these two articles from the Criminal Code and for the charges against former government officials which are based on these provisions to be dropped”, with the following words:

“The Assembly therefore urges the authorities to promptly amend these two articles of the Criminal Code in line with the Council of Europe’s standards”.

I call Ms Liovochkina to support Amendment 2.

Ms LIOVOCHKINA (Ukraine) – Since the removal of articles 364 and 365 from the criminal code of Ukraine will result in breaching the international obligations undertaken by Ukraine with the ratification of the United Nations convention against corruption, we suggest replacing the word “remove” by “amend”.

THE PRESIDENT – We come now to the sub-amendment to Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Reps, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), which is, at the end of Amendment 2, add the following words:

“and for the charges against former government officials which are based on these provisions to be dropped”.

I call Ms de Pourbaix- Lundin to support the sub-amendment.

Ms DE POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – We want to keep this in the text and for charges against former government officials which are based on these provisions to be dropped.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment? I call Ms Liovochkina.

Ms LIOVOCHKINA (Ukraine) – As we discussed in the committee, this is a compromise in order to get the amendment through, so I agree.

THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is agreed to.

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

Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – These two chapters in the criminal code allow action against political opponents in Ukraine. If we kept them, it would be a direct thing for the Ukrainian Parliament to fulfil. We, as an opposition, tried three times to change these two chapters, but it was not possible.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 2, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Omtzigt, Mr Saar, Mr Vareikis, Mr Gardetto, Mr Frunda, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Toshev, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin and Ms Reps, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, after the third sentence, insert the following words:

“In this respect, the Assembly asks the President of Ukraine to consider all legal means available to him to release these former government members and to allow them to compete in the upcoming parliamentary elections.”

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment 10.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – This is the heart of the report. Most of the former government ministers are in prison. You cannot proceed against them, but now it looks as if they are locked up for political reasons so that they cannot participate in the upcoming elections. We appeal to the President of Ukraine to release them and to carry out sanctions separately, so that at least they can participate in the elections.

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

Mr POPESCU (Ukraine) said that he did not support Amendment 10. Under the Ukrainian constitution, people who had not served their full sentence had no right to participate in elections. This had to be taken into account.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 10 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Reps, Mr Omtzigt, Mr Saar, Mr Vareikis, Mr Gardetto, Mr Frunda, Mr Rustamyan and Mr Toshev, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 3, add the following sentence:

“In this respect, the Assembly takes note of the fact that the European Court of Human Rights decided to fast track an application of Ms Timoshenko concerning her detention in which she alleges violations of articles 3, 5 and 18 of the Convention.”

I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin to support Amendment 11.

Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – It is a fact that the European Court of Human Rights decided to have a fast-track procedure; we wanted to add that because it arose after the report was taken in Paris.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 11 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Shershun, Mr Plotnikov, Mr Popescu, Mr Pylypenko, Mr Seyidov, Mr Zhidkikh, Mr Lebedev, Mr Stoilov, Ms Liovochkina, Mr Hajiyev, Mr Sudarenkov and Mr Vukcevic, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 5.6 with the following sub-paragraph:

“expresses its concern about the reports which allege that disciplinary actions have been initiated against judges on the basis of complaints of the Prosecutor’s office for the decisions taken in a given court case. Such practices are incompatible with the principle of the rule of law and should be stopped at once.”

I call Ms Shershun to support Amendment 3.

Mr SHERSHUN (Ukraine) said that Amendment 3 was necessary because of a lack of evidence for the statements in the report.

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

Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – In the process of appeal, in the case of Tymoshenko, seven out of eight judges were changed for two months. Three judges were changed one day before this process. That is the real situation with judges in Ukraine. I am against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Mr Omtzigt, Mr Saar, Mr Vareikis, Mr Gardetto, Mr Frunda, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Toshev, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin and Ms Reps, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 8, add the following sentence:

“The Assembly also expresses its concern about the deteriorating health of Ms Yulia Timoshenko and calls upon the authorities to allow, without preconditions, medical examinations and, if necessary, treatment by independent doctors outside the prison service.”

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment 14.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – We have heard credible reports of this situation, and our colleague referred to the fact that Ms Tymoshenko’s health is deteriorating; she lost consciousness on one occasion for quite a while. Requests for doctors and medical advice have been ignored. So we call for treatment for her by independent doctors.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 14 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Vareikis, Mr Dombrava, Mr Gardetto, Mr Toshev, Ms Čigāne, Mr Saar and Mr Ghiletchi. I understand that Mr Vareikis wishes to withdraw this amendment.

Does anybody else wish to support this amendment? That is not the case.

Amendment 1 is withdrawn.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Popescu, Mr Plotnikov, Mr Shershun, Mr Pylypenko, Mr Seyidov, Mr Zhidkikh, Mr Lebedev, Mr Stoilov, Mr Holovaty, Ms Bilozir, Mr Corlăţean, Ms Liovochkina, Mr Hajiyev, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Çavusoglu and Mr Vukcevic, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly welcomes the major outcome of the 15th Ukraine - EU Summit which took place on 19 December, 2011 in Kyiv in relation with the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU. It is particularly important that both sides recognized that the Association Agreement would constitute the new stage in the development of Ukraine – EU contractual relations aiming at political association and economic integration.”

I call Mr Popescu to support Amendment 4.

Mr POPESCU (Ukraine) said that Amendment 4 was necessary in order to provide factual information on events affecting the contractual relationship between Ukraine and the European Union.

THE PRESIDENT – We come to the sub-amendment to Amendment 4, tabled by Ms Reps and Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, 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 Amendment 4, replace the words “welcomes the major” with the following words:” recognises the”.

I call one of the co-rapporteurs to support the sub-amendment.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – We want to delete the words “welcomes the major” and replace them with “recognises the”.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?

Mr POPESCU (Ukraine) said that he agreed with the sub-amendment, which represented a constructive approach.

THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is agreed to.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 4, as amended, is agreed to.

We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Pylypenko, Mr Plotnikov, Mr Popescu, Mr Shershun, Mr Seyidov, Mr Zhidkikh, Mr Lebedev, Mr Stoilov, Mr Corlăţean, Ms Liovochkina, Mr Hajiyev, Mr Sudarenkov and Mr Çavusoglu, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12.2, replace the words “will negatively affect the opportunities for new or smaller parties to enter Parliament. The Assembly is concerned that these provisions may” with the following words:

“would negatively affect the opportunities for new or smaller parties to enter Parliament. The Assembly is concerned that these provisions could”.

I call Mr Pylypenko to support Amendment 6.

Mr PYLYPENKO (Ukraine) – As we predicted, nobody knows what the real consequences of these changes to the law will be. This amendment would demonstrate the Assembly’s concern regarding the outcomes of the upcoming elections in Ukraine.

THE PRESIDENT – We come to the sub-amendment to Amendment 6, tabled by Ms Reps and Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, which is, in Amendment 6, replace the word “would” with the following word:” might”.

I call one of the co-rapporteurs to support the sub-amendment.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – In a committee meeting, we decided that “might” is a better word.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?

Mr PYLYPENKO (Ukraine) – I totally agree.

THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is agreed to.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 6, as amended, is agreed to.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Badea, Mr Pantiru, Mr Kalmár, Mr Hoppál, Ms Gutu, Ms Palihovici, Mr Vejkey, Mr Gruber, Mr Ékes and Mr Corlăţean, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 12.2, add the following words:

“In order to increase pluralism and encourage participation of national minorities to public life, the Assembly recommends that, when delineating constituencies for the 2012 parliamentary elections, the Central Electoral Commission ensures inclusion in a single constituency of national minority groups who live compactly in certain areas”.

I call Mr Badea to support Amendment 8.

Mr BADEA (Romania) said that allowing independent candidates would mean that minorities would be able to stand, which would assist pluralism and was in line with Council of Europe principles.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 8 is agreed to.

We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Ms Liovochkina, Mr Popescu, Mr Plotnikov, Mr Shershun, Mr Pylypenko, Mr Seyidov, Mr Zhidkikh, Mr Lebedev, Mr Stoilov, Mr Holovaty, Mr Hajiyev, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Çavusoglu and Mr Vukčević, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 12.3 with the following paragraph:

“regrets the provisions included in this law that limit the right to stand for election for anyone convicted of a crime, regardless of the severity of the crime committed. Recognizing that these provisions are based on Article 76 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Assembly proposes to promptly consider removing these in the framework of the Constitutional Reform process that was recommended by the Assembly”.

I call Ms Liovochkina to support Amendment 7.

Ms LIOVOCHKINA (Ukraine) – Since the provision that limits the right to stand for election of anyone convicted of a crime is a constitutional provision, we suggest that this be removed from the framework of the constitutional reform process.

THE PRESIDENT – We come to the sub-amendment to Amendment 7, tabled by Ms Reps and Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, 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 Amendment 7, replace the words “consider removing these” with the following words:” remove them”.

I call one of the co-rapporteurs to support the sub-amendment 1.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – The sub-amendment speaks for itself.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment? I call Ms Liovochkina.

Ms LIOVOCHKINA (Ukraine) – I agree.

THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is agreed to.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 7, as amended, is agreed to.

We come to Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Omtzigt, Mr Saar, Mr Vareikis, Mr Gardetto, Mr Frunda, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Toshev, Ms Brasseur, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin and Ms Reps, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14, add the following paragraph:

“The Assembly considers that the implementation of its recommendations, and especially those relating to the criminal prosecution of former government members, would signal the commitment of the authorities to the norms and values of the Council of Europe. Conversely, failing to do so, within a reasonable timeframe, would raise serious questions regarding the authorities commitment to the principles of democracy and the rule of law, which should lead to an appropriate response of the Assembly. The Assembly therefore invites the Monitoring Committee to follow the situation closely and to propose any further action to be taken by the Assembly as required by the situation, including with regard to the possible consideration of sanctions if the Assembly’s demands are not met.”

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment 15.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – This report is not the first report on Ukraine, and not the first giving advice to the Ukrainian Government from the Parliamentary Assembly. That is why we call for the close monitoring of the situation by the Committee of Ministers and the rapporteurs, and if no action is being taken, the Parliamentary Assembly should consider further measures at its next session.

THE PRESIDENT – We come to the sub-amendment to Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Hancock, Mr Popescu, Ms Pashayeva, Mr Seydov and Ms Liovochkina, which is, in Amendment 15, delete the words “including with regard to the possible consideration of sanctions if the Assembly’s demands are not met.”

I call Mr Hancock to support the sub-amendment .

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – In the committee today, there was a unique experience in my time here: a 10:10 vote, and the chairman made a casting decision. Unfortunately, I think it was made along partisan lines, and that is not a good thing in a report. The rapporteur said today, “We are not threatening, we are trying to help Ukraine to work with us.” If it is not a threat to include the phrase that we seek to delete, I do not know what is. This is a bad step. I have never seen those words in any other report. I suggest to colleagues whose countries are in a similar position that the threat is there. Diplomacy will win this argument, not threats.

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

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – The sub-amendment was rejected in the committee for the simple reason that Ukraine has had quite a few chances, and it now has another chance. The amendment provides an option: it says that the possibility of sanctions should be considered; it does not say precisely when and what. However, Ukraine really has to show progress in the next few months, and that is why the amendment was also supported by the rapporteurs.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the sub-amendment?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is rejected.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I am sorry, but I think that there is something appallingly wrong with this Assembly. If we are trying to open up diplomatic lines, welcome achievements and work with people, we should not threaten those people. That is the way in which kids in the schoolyard react.

Let us be above that. Let us not dish out threats just because we do not like what is happening at the present time. Let us try to work constructively with people. I hope that the Assembly will reject the amendment in its entirety.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 15 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 12814, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12814, as amended, is adopted, with 69 votes for, 8 against, and 14 abstentions.

5. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

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

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 7 p.m.)

CONTENTS

Thursday 26 January 2012 pm

1.       Joint Committee

2.       Written declaration

3.       Advancing women’s rights worldwide

Presentation by Mrs Err of report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Doc. 12812

Presentation by Mr Mendes Bota of report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Doc. 12810

Statement by Ms Bachelet, Executive Director of UN Women

Speakers:

Ms Andersen (Norway)

Ms Quintanilla (Spain)

Ms Bilgehan (Turkey)

Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan)

Ms Schuster (Germany)

Ms Grosskost (France)

Ms Bourzäi (France)

Ms Christoffersen (Norway)

Ms Fataliyeva (Azerbaijan)

Ms Memecan (Turkey)

Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova)

Ms Vėsaitė (Lithuania)

Replies:

Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal)

Mrs Err (Luxembourg)

Amendments 2, 4, 6, 7, 1 as amended, 3 as amended, 5 as amended, 8 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

Amendments 2 and 1 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

4.       Functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine

Presentation by Ms Reps and Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin of report on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, Doc. 12814

Speakers:

Mr Omtzigt (Netherlands)

Ms Bourzäi (France)

Ms Bakir (Turkey)

Ms Mateu Pi (Andorra)

Ms Marin (France)

Mr Rouquet (France)

Ms Liovochkina (Ukraine)

Ms Čigāne (Latvia)

Mr Shershun (Ukraine)

Mr Popescu (Ukraine)

Mr Sobolev (Ukraine)

Mr Plotnikov (Ukraine)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Badea (Romania)

Ms Bateman (Canada)

Ms Bondarenko (Ukraine)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Replies:

Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden)

Ms Reps (Estonia)

Ms Christoffersen (Norway)

Amendments 9, 12, 13, 5, 2 as amended, 10, 11, 4 and 6 as amended, 8, 7 as amended, 15

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

5.       Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

APPENDIX

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

Francis AGIUS*

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*

Karin ANDERSEN

Donald ANDERSON*

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Khadija ARIB*

Mörður ÁRNASON*

Francisco ASSIS*

Alexander BABAKOV*

Þuriður 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*

Anna BELOUSOVOVÁ*

Deborah BERGAMINI

Robert BIEDROŃ*

Grzegorz BIERECKI

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY*

Delia BLANCO*

Roland BLUM*

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET/ Bernadette Bourzaï

Olena BONDARENKO

Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN/László Koszorús

Federico BRICOLO*

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL*

Piet DE BRUYN*

Patrizia BUGNANO/Giuliana Carlino

André BUGNON

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT*

Otto CHALOUPKA

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Yuliana Koleva

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS*

James CLAPPISON*

Deirdre CLUNE*

Georges COLOMBIER/Rudy Salles

Agustín CONDE*

Titus CORLĂŢEAN*

Igor CORMAN/Stella Jantuan

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Cristian DAVID*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Giovanna DEBONO*

Armand DE DECKER/Fatiha Saïdi

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter VAN DIJK

Klaas DIJKHOFF

Şaban DİŞLİ

Karl DONABAUER*

Gianpaolo DOZZO/ Paolo Corsini

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU*

Diana ECCLES*

József ÉKES

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Lydie ERR

Nikolay FEDOROV/ Vladimir Zhidkikh

Valeriy FEDOROV

Relu FENECHIU*

Doris FIALA*

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Paul FLYNN*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Stanislav FOŘT*

Dario FRANCESCHINI*

Hans FRANKEN/Pieter Omtzigt

Jean-Claude FRÉCON*

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC*

György FRUNDA*

Giorgi GABASHVILI*

Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ

Roger GALE/Jeffrey Donaldson

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Sophia GIANNAKA*

Paolo GIARETTA*

Michael GLOS*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Martin GRAF/Johannes Hübner

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER

Ana GUŢU

Carina HÄGG/Jonas Gunnarsson

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Andrzej HALICKI*

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON*

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT*

Oliver HEALD*

Alfred HEER/Eric Voruz

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL*

Adam HOFMAN*

Serhiy HOLOVATY

Jim HOOD*

Joachim HÖRSTER

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO*

Susanna HUOVINEN

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Stanisław HUSKOWSKI*

Shpëtim IDRIZI/Kastriot Islami

Željko IVANJI*

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mats JOHANSSON/Tina Acketoft

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON

Armand JUNG*

Antti KAIKKONEN/Jaana Pelkonen

Ferenc KALMÁR

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Michail KATRINIS*

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Bogdan KLICH*

Haluk KOÇ

Konstantin KOSACHEV/Oleg Lebedev

Tiny KOX

Marie KRARUP*

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Václav KUBATA/Dana Váhalová

Pavol KUBOVIČ*

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA/Jean-Pierre Michel

Dalia KUODYTĖ/Egidijus Vareikis

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Henrik Sass LARSEN*

Jean-Paul LECOQ*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA

Lone LOKLINDT

François LONCLE/André Schneider

Jean-Louis LORRAIN

George LOUKAIDES*

Younal LOUTFI

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET*

Pietro MARCENARO*

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV/Oleg Panteleev

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ*

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin

Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ

Akaki MINASHVILI*

Krasimir MINCHEV/Petar Petrov

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI

Andrey MOLCHANOV*

Jerzy MONTAG*

Patrick MORIAU*

Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Alejandro MUÑOZ ALONSO

Philippe NACHBAR*

Adrian NĂSTASE*

Gebhard NEGELE/Leander Schädler

Pasquale NESSA

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Emma NICHOLSON

Tomislav NIKOLIĆ

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Sandra OSBORNE

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*

Jakob PRESEČNIK*

Gabino PUCHE

Milorad PUPOVAC*

Valeriy PYSARENKO/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Carmen QUINTANILLA

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ/Zoran Vukčević

Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA*

Mailis REPS

Andrea RIGONI*

Gonzalo ROBLES/ Luz Elena Sanín

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

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER

Valery SELEZNEV*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN*

Mykola SHERSHUN

Ladislav SKOPAL*

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Maria STAVROSITU

Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ/Birutė Vėsaitė

Yanaki STOILOV

Fiorenzo STOLFI*

Christoph STRÄSSER

Karin STRENZ*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ/David Darchiashvili

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO*

Dragan TODOROVIĆ

John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI*

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Tomáš ÚLEHLA

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Giuseppe VALENTINO*

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS*

Stefaan VERCAMER

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ

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 XUCLÀ*

Karl ZELLER*

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO/Yevgeniy Suslov

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

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:

Johannes HÜBNER

Reinette KLEVER

João RAMOS

Luc RECORDON

Renate WOHLWEND

Observers:

Joyce BATEMAN

Sladan ĆOSIĆ

Blanca Judith DÍAZ DELGADO

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Martha Leticia SOSA GOVEA

Partners for democracy:

Najat ALASTAL

Walid ASSAF

Bernard SABELLA