AS (2012) CR 11

2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Eleventh Sitting

Monday 23 April 2012 at 3 p.m.

ADDENDUM 1

Free Debate

The following texts were submitted for inclusion in the official report by members who were present in the Chamber but were prevented by lack of time from delivering them.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) — Today, numerous States, parliaments and international organisations have recognised and condemned the genocide committed in 1915 in the Ottoman empire. We express our gratitude to them for their contribution to the fight against crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, it is logical that the Turkish Republic, the assignee of the Ottoman empire, should have to be the first to recognise and condemn the genocide.

In 1918, the Turkish Military Court sentenced to death the high-ranking officials who ordered the massacres. Then Turkey forgot its own history to such an extent that calls were made to establish a Commission of Historians to inquire into these events.

For those, who want to know the opinion of prominent historians, lawyers and politicians, I would like to cite some quotations. The first quote is: “In 1915 the Turkish Government began and carried out the infamous general massacre and deportation of Armenians. There is no reasonable doubt that this crime was planned and executed for political reasons.” These words belong to one of the world’s most prominent politicians and historians. His name is Winston Churchill. Secondly, in a speech in 1938, somebody asked the rhetorical question, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” And he answered his question: nobody. With this conviction he implemented the Holocaust of Jews, which was recognised and apologised for by subsequent leaders of Germany. His name is Adolf Hitler. Thirdly, the joint declaration by Britain, France and Russia in May 1915 vowed that all members of the Ottoman government would be held personally liable for a “crime against humanity”. Fourthly, the US government made a submission to the International Court of Justice that “the Turkish massacres of Armenians” was one of the “outstanding examples of the crime of genocide.” I would also like to draw attention to a survey made in 2009 by Geoffrey Robertson, Queen's Counsel, a distinguished British lawyer, which is a comprehensive and complete analysis of facts and legal documents.

Here are some important conclusions. Erroneous and illogical arguments are given today to avoid giving truthful answers about the Armenian genocide and prevent causing discomfort for the Turkish government. One of them is requesting the support of historians for the solution of a legal issue. The issue of genocide is a matter of court judgment according to international law and by no means an issue for historians. Historians establish facts, but the lawyers judge whether these facts are violation of international law.

As a descendant of Armenians from Igdir, today, when my country is commemorating the day of the genocide, I bow my head before millions of victims and believe that my Turkish colleagues will join me in the near future, as it is never late to look into the eyes of your own history. We are looking forward and we are confident that the truth does not look for the truth.

Ms MATTILA (Finland) — I have decided to speak to you today about linguistic issues in my home country which are important all over Europe and the whole world. Finland is officially a bilingual country: Finnish is our primary means of communication but there is also a 5.4% Swedish minority living mostly along the coastline.

In addition to these two languages, Finland is also a home for three Sami languages – North Sami, Inari Sami and Skolt Sami. This is the kind of information we read in books and other sources. But actually there is another not official but minority language in Finland, the one I have not yet mentioned. And, as it happens, it is also my mother tongue - sign language.

The report of the committee of Experts on the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages discusses the application of the Charter in Finland. It says hardly anything about sign language. Why? The report says that, “in the same Programme of the Government, it is stated that the realisation of the rights of those who use sign language will be developed and the possibilities to enact a Sign Language Act will be looked into.”

What would the Finnish politicians do without the passive form? Yes, the programme says that the rights will be developed and the possibilities will be looked into. But who are they who will develop and look into it?

Deaf people must have an equal chance to choose how, when and in what form they receive information. Similarly, they must have a chance to choose how, when and in what way they convey information themselves. In the most ideal situation, lingual information would be in sign language and the non-lingual information should be visual.

The Constitutional Law Committee in the Finnish Parliament stated two years ago that the most essential legislation must also be available in sign language. In addition, all legislation concerning sign language and the deaf must be provided in Finnish, Swedish and sign language; furthermore, in Swedish sign language and Finnish sign language.

Many of those challenges deaf people face are closely related to everyday life situations. In many countries, all TV programmes are subtitled. Not in Finland. Our national broadcasting company YLE has agreed to subtitle all its programmes from 2015 onwards. Commercial channels, however, have not followed suit, at least not yet. Another question is whether subtitles are enough or would it be possible to have a small ‘window’ with an interpreter on the screen?

Deaf and hearing impaired people deserve equal rights and opportunities with other citizens. And even though I can easily describe Finland as a country of equality, there is still a lot of work to do. I know that the current economic situation is difficult and it sets certain limits, but we do possess several core values that cannot be compromised or compensated. I strongly agree that Finland must tighten the belt and cut public expenditures. But when we do it, we really need to think what we honestly and deeply in our hearts really value.

Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) — In this honorable Assembly we promote a just juridical system, where those responsible for a crime are punished according to the rule of law. I favour such a system very much.

I visited the small Kurdish village of Roboski in Turkey in March. This was a disturbing experience because 34 civilian inhabitants of the village were killed by Turkish military bombs just before new year’s eve. Nineteen of the 34 were children. All were innocent civilians.

I think we all know that the situation in Turkey is tense. That is also why it is crucial for me to point out that the Turkish government has to ensure justice and judge those responsible for this terrible massacre.

Mr PYLYPENKO (Ukraine) — On 13 April, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the new Criminal Procedure Code. The draft Criminal Procedure Code was mainly aimed at guaranteeing the proper observance of human rights in criminal procedure, respect for individuals and maintenance of human rights and freedoms.

During the period between the adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure, much hard work was done to improve the text, filling the gaps and contradictions therein. This work and the preparation of the draft code was carried out in close co-operation with leading legal European experts, and was aimed at implementation of the recommendations of the Council of Europe and adjusting the rules of the code in accordance with international standards.

A huge number of amendments were submitted to the draft CPC. The fact that in most cases they did not meet the concept of the code and contradicted the positions expressed by the experts of the Council of Europe led to the rejection of nearly 90% thereof. Unfortunately, this fact was an incitement for some internal politicians to start groundless accusations concerning the non-democratic process of the adoption of the CPC.

I thank my colleagues here – Mailis Reps and Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin – for their prompt and unbiased position expressed on the official site of the Assembly. Ukraine is much obliged to you for the support expressed regarding the adoption of the CPC and completely shares your opinion as to final examination of this important code by the Council of Europe before its signing. I avail myself of this opportunity to assure our desire that such examination will be carried out as soon as possible; and for this purpose the code is already on its way to Strasbourg.

Despite the lack of time, I would like to draw your attention to a few amendments that were made to the CPC between the first and second readings that fully reflect the opinion of the leading experts in criminal justice. A new body of pre-trial investigation has been established: the State Bureau of Investigations of Ukraine will conduct all cases involving judges, law-enforcement and high-ranking officials. The norms regulating the investigative jurisdiction of criminal proceedings have been improved. Special requirements are provided for the judges who are hearing cases concerning both acting and former high-ranking officials. The military prosecutor’s office has been abolished.

The provisions concerning lawyers’ participation in criminal procedure have also been improved to the standards of the Council of Europe.

I am convinced that the adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine will make it possible to take an important step towards strengthening the rule of law and building up Ukraine as a democratic state and it will be a decisive factor that will bring our justice system to European standards.

Ms PALIHOVICI, (Republic of Moldova) — I am honoured to represent here the Republic of Moldova, which is improving its democracy, transparency and freedom of speech indicators.

For the past three years the Alliance for European Integration, which is ruling the country, has begun to reform justice and the system of the interior. We started the reform to strengthen the economic development of the country and to ensure the security of investments; the reform of local public administration in order to consolidate its independence.

Moldova has made significant progress towards democratisation and reforms. These achievements have been recognised internationally. Institutions, political forces and European leaders, have commented on the democratic changes in the Republic of Moldova.

Moldova is rising from a long political crisis. For three years we could not elect a president due to a tricky constitution change made in 2001 by the communist powers. In March, a respected judge was elected as the head of the country.

Moldova’s performance on democracy and reform has been underlined in many international indexes. For instance Reporters without Borders have moved Moldova from 98th positions in 2008 to 53rd in 2012. According to the ratings Moldova has clearly improved its levels of democracy and freedom compared to the situation under the previous government. The indexes also show that Moldova’s degree of democracy is comparable to that of several European Union candidate countries from the western Balkans. While a lot remains to be done in Moldova, the country is clearly on a path of democratic consolidation.

Although, the recognition of the results is very important, democratisation of the public institutions and liberalisation of the media market should be further promoted.

We understand the communist opposition’s desire for power. They will have to wait two more years until the next democratic elections. Moldova is an open country - we do not close our borders to European Union citizens as the communists did. We do not expel European Union members’ ambassadors as they did. And all citizens of Moldova strongly believe that this will never happen again.

We stand for a real democracy, where everyone has the right to express himself and where institutions have to serve citizens.

We understand that because of our past of authoritarian communist rule, transformations will not be easy. The most important thing is to resist propaganda that relies on using democracy as a weak point, showing it as weakness rather than an opportunity for our country’s development and European integration.

We stand for: more independent TV channels, independent newspapers and electronic media sites informing people and helping them to be more active and involved in the state development processes.

Therefore, we need to be aware of the risk of totalitarian regimes and the renaissance of radical movements. The most important thing is to understand that those movements can use democratic conditions and instruments in order to regain power and importance. There is no place for concessions in that sense. It is hard to be a democrat under totalitarian communism and very easy to be a communist under democratic rule.