AS (2012) CR 12
2012 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(Second part)
REPORT
Twelfth Sitting
Tuesday 24 April 2012 at 10 a.m.
In this report:
1. Speeches in English are reported in full.
2. Speeches in other languages are summarised.
3. Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.
4. Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.
The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.
Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.00 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.
1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – This morning’s agenda calls for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium. The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Document 12789.
The voting will take place in the area behind the President’s Chair. The poll will be open until 1 p.m. and then from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. At 5 p.m. I shall announce the closing of the poll. As usual, counting will take place under the supervision of two tellers. I shall now draw by lot the names of the two tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.
The name of Ms von Cramon-Taubadel and Mr Flego have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s Chair at 5 p.m.
I now declare the ballot open.
2. Lives lost in the Mediterranean Sea: who is responsible?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report, “Lives lost in the Mediterranean Sea: Who is responsible?”, Document 12895, presented by Ms Strik on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. In order to finish by 12 noon, we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 11:20 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.
I call Ms Strik, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – We will remember 2011 as the year when the Arab Spring began and in which the ruthless regime of Gaddafi came to an end. We will also think of 2011 as the deadliest year for the Mediterranean Sea. Most of the 1 500 people who died last year will remain unknown to us; they simply never arrived. However, exactly one year ago, one story gave a face to all these disappeared people – the story of nine survivors who witnessed what had happened at sea and who spoke about their 63 companions: men, women and babies who died of thirst and starvation during a 15-day trip at sea.
As the story is so well documented, the Parliamentary Assembly decided to investigate: what went wrong, why were they not rescued, and what can we learn from this tragedy to avoid more people needlessly dying? As you can read in the report, we have reconstructed what happened during these 15 days on the basis of extensive interviews that we held with four survivors, all separately, and with the priest who received their first call. We had a meeting with the Italian border guards, who provided us with a lot of information, with Malta and with NATO, and we held a hearing with experts. We also sent a number of letters to the relevant authorities – the Ministries of Defence of several countries, those involved in NATO’s sea operations with vessels and aircraft facilities, NATO, Frontex, the International Organisation for Migration, the brigadier of Malta’s armed forces, Italian coastguards, and European Union High Representative Ashton.
The boat departed on 27 March with refugees from sub-Saharan Africa who were no longer safe in Libya as they were harassed both by Gaddafi and by the rebels. It was a rubber dinghy 7 metres long with 72 people on board. The smugglers had overcrowded the boat and with that purpose taken back their food and water. After 14 hours at sea, they rang Father Zerai – a priest living in Rome. He informed Rome’s Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre as well as NATO headquarters. The MRCC managed to locate the position of the boat and sent out various distress calls with the precise position of the boat to NATO headquarters in Naples, to Malta, and to all the vessels in the area.
A few hours after that distress call, a military helicopter brought water and biscuits to the boat, but never came back to rescue the people. The boat also encountered two fishing boats, which did not provide assistance either. The boat ran out of fuel and started to drift and the people started to die. By around day 10 of the trip, when half the boat people had already died, the boat encountered a large military vessel carrying helicopters and other aircraft. The vessel was close enough for the boat people to see the military people on the deck watching them through binoculars and taking pictures of them. This vessel, too, just sailed away without providing any assistance.
On 10 April, the boat drifted back on to Libyan shores, near Zlitan, with 11 survivors on board. One woman died when the boat reached the beach, the 10 survivors were imprisoned in a Libyan prison, one man died due to a lack of medical assistance in the prison, and nine survivors finally managed to come out of prison and to flee the country.
What happened to the distress calls? The telephone call was logged by Rome MRCC. The message was sent every four hours for 10 days. Rome was unable to locate the military vessels as their position constitutes secret information. Rome therefore asked the naval fleet command to give them the information. From the log that was produced, we know that at least two military vessels were in the direct vicinity of the boat when the distress call was launched.
The report mentions the Spanish frigate, Méndez Núñez. According to fleet command, it was 11 miles away; according to the Spanish authorities, that was not the case, and according to a reply that we received from NATO yesterday evening, it was 24 miles away. There was also the supply ship, Borsini, which was 37 miles away, and a Cypriot commercial vessel was in the area, too. We also believe that other military vessels were not far away, but we lack concrete information on that.
We have asked NATO to provide information about the location of vessels under its command, but so far we have not received it. First, NATO denied having received a distress call from Italy. It admitted it only when we showed it the message. At first, Spain did not reply, but when we informed the government about the alleged 11 miles distance, it denied it. It told us that it did not receive a message. Yet NATO told us that its headquarters forwarded the message to all the vessels under its command. We have asked all governments with military vessels and helicopter facilities in the area to provide their registration, logs and data on their location and their communications, but thus far they have not done so. Most have replied that they were not in the area; some have given us their position; others, such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America, have not replied. Yet some survivors thought that they had seen the word “ARMY” on the helicopter.
I was unable to identify the large military vessel that was close to the boat around day 10, but someone must know.
What are our conclusions? First, we have revealed a catalogue of failures. There was not one specific actor or one specific opportunity that meant that these people could have been rescued. The deaths, like many others, could and should have been avoided.
Of course, the smugglers were reckless with the lives of the passengers. They put them in an overloaded boat with inadequate provisions. We also condemn the Libyan authorities, which carried out a de facto expulsion and failed to maintain their search and rescue zone.
The Italian authorities did a lot. They located the boat and broadcast the distress calls, but they did not undertake co-ordinated action to ensure rescue. International law is clear that the first State to receive a distress call has to take the responsibility for co-ordinating a rescue until the authority responsible for the search and rescue zone has taken over. Given that Italy did not recognise that principle, we must conclude that the guidelines on maritime law should be clearer and strengthened to avoid any responsibility gap in future.
When the intervention in Libya started, NATO and the United Nations did not take the exodus of refugees into account. We therefore recommend that, in any future operation, a plan should be made beforehand for protecting refugees. Apparently, NATO did not respond to the distress calls. It refers to member States, but member States refer to NATO. That strategy could also easily lead to a responsibility gap. There should therefore be a clear working plan, agreements and co-operation with neighbouring countries on the response to distress calls.
During this period, Rome was unable to communicate directly with the military vessels. We should therefore make it clear that distress calls can be dealt with in only one way. We should avoid double standards.
Finding out who is responsible is not about looking for someone to blame, but about learning lessons for the future. We can improve our methods only if we dare to look back and look each other in the eye. If we are prepared to admit what we should have done, we start to learn. We therefore urge NATO and its Assembly to begin an inquiry into the incident and provide comprehensive replies to this Assembly’s outstanding questions.
Finally, I propose that we urge the governments of the countries where the survivors currently are to treat them generously and legalise their stay as soon as possible, as they are traumatised and have experienced more than enough.
I look forward to the debate with members, but first I want to thank the survivors and Father Zerai for their crucial assistance. Furthermore, I want to mention two engaged journalists, Jack Shenker and Emiliano Bos, who made sure that this story was heard. I also thank the Centre for Research Architecture, which provided us with the drift model. Of course, I thank the staff, especially Isild Heurtin and Neil Falzon. They could have done this without me, but I could not have done it without them.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Strik. You still have three minutes left. May I remind the Assembly that at yesterday morning’s sitting it was agreed that the speaking time in all debates today be limited to three minutes?
In the debate, I call first Mr Makhmutov, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation) said that the report deserved the serious attention and support of the Assembly. It not only described the events that had taken place in the Mediterranean, but made a balanced attempt to analyse the issues and to reach conclusions that would prevent similar tragedies in future. Those who had died had been attempting to escape from Libya during recent NATO military intervention in that State. While at sea, they had sought assistance and, given that they were within the zone of military activities, it was unlikely that they could not have been seen. Their SOS calls to various ships in the vicinity had been disregarded, and it was clear that maritime rules had not been applied. Although the Russian Federation had not taken part in military intervention in Libya, its government was nevertheless concerned by what had come to pass, particularly over allegations of cover-up. The report did not seek to highlight those who were guilty, instead seeking to avoid a reoccurrence of such a tragedy. The draft resolution deserved the Assembly’s support.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Makhmutov. I call Mr Hancock, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – First, I heartily congratulate the rapporteur on both her generosity in thanking the staff for helping to produce the report and on the frank way in which she introduced it.
Nobody can accept that this was unexpected. For 15 years, people have been trying to cross that part of the Mediterranean in very difficult circumstances and many people have lost their lives. The international community was well aware of the implications and what would happen if the situation in Libya was to heat up in the way that it did, so the international community could not make the excuse that it was ignorant of what might happen or what had been happening for some time. One thing is clear: in maritime law one obligation above all others falls on a ship’s captain – to assist other sailors who are in distress at sea. As a maritime nation, the United Kingdom prides itself on the fact that many ships have gone to the aid of sailors right around the world and continue to do so. We are proud of our record, but this case tarnishes the record of many navies and organisations such as NATO.
The letter of reply from Mr Richard Froh, Deputy Assistant Secretary-General, Operations Directorate of NATO, beggars belief. It really does push credibility to the extreme. He says that there was “a small boat probably in difficulty,” but there was no “probably” – it was in difficulty. There were 72 people sitting in a rubber dinghy with hardly any supplies and they had been at sea for several days. They were not “probably” in difficulty – they had been in difficulty since they left the shore. Mr Froh also says that there is “no record, following the initial 27 March notice”, but what was the response on 27 March? Why was it that every ship in the area did not have knowledge of what was going on? What happened to the responsibility to ensure that the message was heard loud and clear?
Mr Froh says in his letter that there is no “record of a phone call from Father Zerai”. What is he saying – that Father Zerai lied? Why would he make up a story that he phoned to say the ship was in difficulty? The letter says that “there is no record of any aircraft or ship under NATO command having seen or made contact with the small boat in question.” How can the information be so precise given that specific answers to questions have not been supplied? At least two of the ships had helicopters and both had radars that could see over the horizon, so whether the distance was 27 miles or 11 miles was irrelevant. They knew – you do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that you can look at a radar screen to see what is going on around you. They would clearly have had to have identified that ship. If they did not, they were not doing the job they were there for. How did they know the ship was not full of terrorists instead of people who were desperately trying to find salvation on the other side of the sea?
I congratulate the rapporteur on the report and I hope that NATO and many others involved in this case learn lessons from it. A lot of people paid a very heavy price for the inadequacies and inability of NATO and its ships to respond to a plea for help.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I call Ms Andersen, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – Thank you, Mr President. I thank the rapporteur for this extremely important report, which describes a most vicious tragedy. The report reveals, as the rapporteur has said, a catalogue of failures and a number of gaps in responsibility that have to be filled. The Italian Government, having been the first to receive information about the ship being in distress, was probably under an obligation to co-ordinate a rescue operation, but it is probably not the only international entity with responsibility for these events. Libya had lost control of its sea areas and the fact that NATO had established a maritime surveillance area meant that NATO had primary responsibility for the relevant areas. Under the law of the sea everybody has a responsibility to assist persons in distress. The report shows that NATO bears a high degree of responsibility. It is outrageous to think that this tragedy took place at a time when a large naval operation was taking place in the area. Not only NATO but Frontex was present in the area, as was the Italian border coastguard. It was probably the most watched sea in the world. Nevertheless, no one took action and people were slowly dying of thirst.
The 63 refugees who died were the victims of failure by many others. It is necessary to look into the causes and to establish systems that prevent such things from happening again. NATO’s operation in Libya was conducted under the name “Unified Protector” and was justified as providing for the “protection of civilians” against attack by Libyan Government troops. The fate of the refugees exposes the fact that NATO took no interest in protecting the lives of civilians and refugees at sea – Libyan or otherwise. The Group of the Unified European Left supports the report and urges representatives of all countries to take all the steps recommended in the draft at national and international level.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. As more colleagues are now present in the Chamber, may I remind you that the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium is taking place now. The vote takes place behind the President’s Chair. The poll will be suspended at 1 p.m. and will resume at 4 p.m. I invite you to cast your vote if you have not done so. I call Mr Beneyto, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) thought that the report was important but full of inexact information and contradictions. A report by NATO had not been taken into account, and some of the nine countries asked to provide information had not done so. Those that had provided the most information were those at which the finger now pointed.
As a professor of international law, he noted that there was an obligation to assist in such situations. The report required a further chapter. It was based on witness testimony and much was said about the loss of life. It was impossible, however, to base accusations against specific countries on the testimony given. Information from international organisations should have been taken into account.
The Spanish frigate had provided support to four vessels in a situation similar to the one described. It would have made no sense for the Spanish navy, which traditionally fulfilled its duty in this way, not to respond. More work was needed, and the report’s mistakes required correction.
(Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Mignon.)
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Marcenaro, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that the report was important, but, as Ms Strik had said, it was still incomplete. Answers were still required in some areas and hesitation and silence had greeted some questions. Members should use their prerogative as parliamentarians to ask their governments to provide information, and it was to be hoped that colleagues would do so at the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO.
Thousands of people had died in the Mediterranean in 2011, and everyone concerned should shoulder responsibility. Improved European policy on immigration was necessary. People would soon take to the sea again come fair weather, and more would surely die. An appeal was required to encourage
European governments to act immediately to prevent a coming massacre, an issue that had to be confronted, not neglected. European governments and the European Union Commission ought to meet to discuss the issue. The report did not simply allocate responsibility but could save lives.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Fournier.
Mr FOURNIER (France) said that there had been fears in recent years of a mismatch between the Council of Europe’s actions and the outside world. The report allayed those fears and showed that it was within the capability of the Organisation to undertake good investigations, resulting in positive press feedback. The report could, however, lead some towards the view that the Mediterranean was a lawless place in which mariners allowed people to die as they flew from repression. To think so would be to do an injustice to those who had aided such people in the past. It was necessary to consider why 72 people had chosen to cast themselves on to the sea; they had been escaping from civil war and the death throes of a repressive regime. It was not only, therefore, seamen who were responsible for the protection of those individuals.
In spite of his reservations, he welcomed the report as it flagged up issues regarding the adequacy of maritime law, which required modernisation to assist in reacting to a developing problem.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Díaz Tejera.
Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said the report dealt with an immense tragedy, involving loss of human life. Such situations arose frequently around the Canary Islands as Africans attempted to reach their shores. It was essential to seek out the truth of the case. At a time when an inquiry was still under way, the finger should not be pointed at the Spanish vessel in question, which had never received an alert. The first message had been received 17 hours after it was sent, during which time the vessel had covered 35 miles. The vessel was a rubber boat, not detectable by radar. Responsibility could not be laid on those who had never received an alert. Neither Spain, which had provided information, nor the Spanish navy should be condemned.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I see that Ms Durrieu is not here, so I call Mr Stucchi.
Mr STUCCHI (Italy) said that no one could deny that a tragedy had taken place and it was important to discuss its and similar incidents. However, it was important, too, to portray the truth, which is why he had submitted his amendment. It was crucial to provide reliable information rather than to apportion responsibility, particularly as public opinion would rely on such a report.
The report should avoid placing unfair blame. There was enough information for a comprehensive report which used only confirmed facts. If the further information requested by the Assembly was not forthcoming, an appropriate course of action could be decided at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Stucchi. The next speaker is Mr Agius.
Mr AGIUS (Malta) – Thank you, Madam President. Lives have been lost. We acknowledge that, but we also have to acknowledge that many more lives have been saved. However, a single life lost is one too many. I remind the Assembly that the scenario behind this tragedy was the deliberate policy of the Gaddafi regime systematically to allow irregular migrants to leave Libya in unsafe conditions. While I acknowledge the depth of the investigations, I beg to differ on their presentation and interpretation. The title of the report does not refer explicitly to a particular incident, but treats the issue as if all the 1 500 deaths during 2011 happened in the same manner. The very question in the title, “Who is to blame?”, sets a pre-judgmental tone.
Since 2002, Maltese search and rescue operations have rescued an average of 1 500 people a year, the majority of whom are irregular migrants attempting to cross from north Africa to Europe. In a typical year, Malta’s centre assumes the co-ordination of more than 400 search and rescue operations. The global SAR regime leaves no legal voids or loopholes and the various stages of maritime incident that may lead to a distress case, along with the appropriate action to be taken, are clearly laid out in the SAR and SOLAS conventions and their associated guidelines, as well as in the international aeronautical and maritime SAR manual. The guidelines provide for cases where the country that is responsible for a particular search and rescue region proves to be unresponsive. In such cases, the first rescue co-ordination centre that receives a distress alert has responsibility for arranging assistance until another centre accepts the co-ordination duties.
Until it has been confirmed that another rescue co-ordination centre has accepted the SAR co-ordination duties, any rescue co-ordination centre initially receiving an alert should consider itself to be the first rescue co-ordination centre. The report makes it clear which was the first rescue co-ordination centre in the incident under scrutiny.
In the light of that, I must disagree with the part of the report which attempts to describe the SAR regime as flawed. Parties to the conventions are suitably guided on the actions to take even when the country responsible for a search and rescue region is unresponsive or unreachable. That is the principle of the “first” rescue co-ordination centre. The rejection by Malta of the 2004 amendments to the SAR and SOLAS conventions was based on the fact, now further proved by experience, that while the co-ordinating rescue co-ordination centre is obliged to identify a place of safe disembarkation of people rescued at sea, a corresponding and equally strong obligation is not put on neighbouring States to co-operate by providing places of safety, especially when the rescue takes place close to such States.
It is Malta’s view that, for the well-being of rescued people and in order to release the rescue vessel as quickly as possible from its obligation to assist such people, they should be disembarked at the nearest place of safety. This is the place where the SAR operation should be considered to be terminated and where people can receive initial medical assistance, food and shelter, and from where they can travel to a final destination. Due to these flaws, Malta has consistently and persistently objected to these amendments.
In conclusion, contrary to the claims made in the report, Malta’s efforts in the particular case here went beyond her obligations. We also note with regret that the report is most unfair, especially to the people who risk their lives on a daily basis to save those in distress at sea.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Agius. The next speaker is Mr Fenech Adami.
Mr FENECH ADAMI (Malta) – This report deals with the very sensitive issue of the rescue at sea of people fleeing their own countries. It highlights an incident that occurred last year in which a number of people, among the hundreds who make immigration voyages in the Mediterranean Sea each year, were drowned. It is the obligation of the Assembly to determine exactly what happened on that fateful day, and it is commendable that it took up the obligation to investigate the incident to determine the facts. It sought to pinpoint responsibility and ensure that such incidents do not happen again.
However, as a member of the Maltese delegation to this Assembly, my praise must stop here. While acknowledging the efforts to establish the facts, the report before us today and the resolution being sought put forward statements and conclusions that are presented as facts but are evidently incorrect. They partially burden Malta with the responsibility for these tragic events. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps I may point out that from the details of the report before us, the following facts emerge. The vessel carrying the refugees was located outside the Maltese SAR region and within the Libyan SAR region. The report states clearly that the boat was in Libya’s search and rescue zone. The search and rescue operation was in principle the responsibility of Libya’s search and rescue co-ordination centre. The vessel never entered the Maltese SAR region even after it was located, and the various distress reports were never made within the Maltese region. Italy was the first State to receive the distress call and, as stated in the report, it was Italy that should have taken responsibility for the co-ordination of the operation. The actions taken by the Maltese rescue co-ordination centre in relation to this case exceeded any legal obligation incumbent on the Maltese SAR authorities. For these reasons, the Maltese rescue co-ordination centre did not in any way fail to meet its obligations to conduct a search and rescue operation.
Madam President, my delegation is disturbed by the statements made in the report that put partial responsibility on Malta for these tragic events, which resulted in loss of life. My country has, does, and will always honour its maritime search and rescue obligations. My country is committed to preventing any loss of life at sea, and our track record proves this. Over the past 10 years, our armed forces have rescued no fewer than 15 000 people from boats in distress, and we are committed to doing so in the future.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Fenech Adami. The next speaker is Mr Schennach.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) thanked Ms Strik for the report, which dealt with a tragedy. It did not set out to pillory anyone, but demonstrated a collective failure that had led to significant loss of life. The Assembly should not attempt to shift blame on to individual States, but should investigate the underlying causes of the tragedy.
The distress call sent out by the boat was heard by all, but it was unclear who should provide assistance. In the event, the nearby naval frigates failed, as did NATO and individual member States. They all failed to provide assistance, which, in many countries, was an offence under national law.
The Mediterranean was a crucible that should symbolise shared values, but this event would remind the Assembly of other such tragedies in the region. Although the Assembly should not simply seek to apportion blame, it should seek to draw conclusions that would help prevent such disasters in the future.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Schou.
Ms SCHOU (Norway) – Thank you, Madam President. I also thank the rapporteur for the very important report.
Increased migration from north Africa to Europe has been one result of the Arab Spring. Reading the detailed account of what happened to those people in a small boat was heart-wrenching. There is no doubt that the incident described in the report was a tragedy. All human beings have equal value, and we must do our utmost so that lives are not lost.
How we organise search and rescue work has to be looked at. Are there too many entities, and does that result in the fragmentation of responsibility? Can communication between the entities be improved? How is the legal framework implemented? The bottom line is that people in distress at sea, whether they are recreational boaters, fishermen or refugees, must be helped. As political decision makers, we must make sure that the framework is conducive to the task at hand.
Paragraph 13 of the resolution addresses some of these issues. The suggestion to improve and clarify the guidelines on what amounts to a distress signal is important. We cannot accept a situation in which a simple misunderstanding can result in deaths at sea, and we cannot let different entities have their own interpretations of what a vessel in distress is.
Several relevant questions are raised. Whose responsibility is the search and rescue zone where the State in question is failing? What do we do when States are hesitant about taking responsibility because the inflow of migrants is overwhelming? How can we tackle reluctance by commercial vessels to go to the rescue? Such questions must be dealt with by the international community. We have to draw lessons from this incident.
The duty to help those in distress at sea is not disputed. An international legal framework is in place. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides a duty to render assistance, and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue strengthen it. What remains is to look at how we can live up to our duties. Fortunately, search and rescue operations saved many lives in 2011. However, as this report illustrates, ensuring safety on the seas is a collective responsibility that we must not take lightly. We cannot accept more humanitarian tragedies of this kind.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Voruz.
Mr VORUZ (Switzerland) stated that the report was complete and reflected the available information accurately, although the Assembly was still waiting for information that had been requested from certain organisations and States. There were three questions to consider. How could the migration problem be alleviated? Why did NATO not act to protect citizens in Libya and migrants in that country? Was sufficient support being given to Libya to help it back on its feet?
States did not wish to take responsibility for receiving refugees, many of whom came from north Africa. Their countries of origin often had rich natural resources and should be capable of supporting those refugees. The reason they did not was corruption. Neither Italy nor Malta should take blame in the matter under discussion, but innocents had died and it was appropriate to consider why.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Rouquet.
Mr ROUQUET (France) congratulated the rapporteur on the report, with which he agreed 100%. It was accurate, and the rapporteur had been clear where there were uncertainties or doubts. It had been appropriate for the Assembly to launch an inquiry. In 2011, more than 1 500 people had died in the
Mediterranean. If the Assembly was to safeguard the rights of individuals in Europe effectively it had to go out and investigate on the ground. The draft resolution attempted to answer the key question: who was responsible?
The Assembly should not pretend that the fate of the refugees was sealed at the point at which they left Libya. It was not; there were many who could have intervened to prevent the tragedy. Various groups that could have provided assistance failed to do so when such assistance would have posed little risk to them. The responses to the report of some delegates were deplorable. The committee had an obligation to tell the truth in such circumstances. The draft resolution was to be fully supported, not least as it provided an opportunity to call for enhanced legislation on practice at sea.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Rouquet. The next speaker is Ms Virolainen.
Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – I thank the rapporteur for her report, which has raised interest in my home country. Examples such as those mentioned in the report show the difficult challenges that we are dealing with, and it is important that we can discuss them in this Assembly.
Discussing is one thing and pointing fingers is another, and I hope that we can separate the two in our debate. What happened to the people on that vessel was horrendous, and we need to do everything in our power to prevent such tragedies from happening in future. In order to do so, we must look at what went wrong and learn from it. We also need clear guidelines for the chain of reaction and action. Improving communication and co-operation between different actors is key. Let me emphasise that our focus must be on finding solutions, not on blaming people.
Too many lives have been lost in the Mediterranean Sea, and this must be prevented in future, but let us also think for a minute of those who have survived. Many of those who have made it to Europe are unfortunately still being held in reception centres. I urge those in charge to take immediate action to tackle this problem. We must remember that we are dealing with people in such a desperate and unsustainable situation that they are willing to risk their lives and the lives of their children in search of a better life in Europe. As a result, our second focus should be on their integration, on helping them recover, and on finding ways for them to adjust to their new societies. As guardians of human rights, it is our responsibility to ensure a dignified life for all those staying within our borders.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Virolainen. The next speaker is Mr Sheridan.
Mr SHERIDAN (United Kingdom) – I, too, express my gratitude to Ms Strik for this rather challenging and, all things considered, balanced report, which goes a long way in expressing the wishes of us all. If the report does nothing else but expose the heinous activities of those engaged in human trafficking, then it will be worthwhile. It must have been horrendous to experience what happened, with people being put in such a small boat and having their rations taken out so that more people could be placed on board. We need a concerted international approach to deal with human trafficking and to ensure that nothing like this happens again.
This is not about apportioning blame. I have sought and received clarity from my own government – the United Kingdom Government – that no United Kingdom ships were in the vicinity. I say that from the point of view not of being smug, but of saying that even if a British ship had been in the vicinity, I do not believe that there would have been a different outcome because captains of ships and other people involved in the shipping industry are advised not to pick up such refugees for the obvious reason that if they do they are then responsible for them.
Reading the day-to-day account of the survivors is, as has already been said, heart-wrenching. Imagine, if you will, these people in the boat with their families, their loved ones and their children dying beside them from hunger and thirst. Imagine, if you will, that a ship pulls up alongside, people look at them through binoculars, and then the ship sails away. A helicopter hovers above and they are offered biscuits and water, giving them hope that they and their families will be saved and some sort of consolation, only for the helicopter to leave and never return. These people will be left with those images for the rest of their lives. I am intrigued by a statement by an Italian official who said: “I expect that sailing from Libya towards Italy should be a bit like doing a slalom between military ships”. That sums it up exactly. It was impossible for these people not to be detected.
At a recent plenary session in Brussels, we asked a legal expert what can be done to help such people in future and he failed to come up with an answer. My answer is that we have to make sure that they are picked up and returned safely to where they come from if that is possible. That is the only way to stop such heinous acts happening again.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sheridan. The next speaker is Mr Muñoz Alonso.
Mr MUÑOZ ALONSO (Spain) believed that Ms Strik had had positive intentions in drafting her report on the tragic death of 63 civilians in the Mediterranean. The tragedy had occurred during NATO operations in Libya, the objective of which, ironically, was to protect life. However, the report was disappointing, and the draft resolution could not be supported. The rigorous approach that usually characterised reports to the Assembly had not been taken in this case. It was full of conjecture, inaccurate information and unreliable claims in contradiction with official accounts of events. It assigned responsibilities to particular parties simply because they had been in the area at the time. The evidence presented in the report was incoherent and would be inadmissible in a court of law. It was impossible to pinpoint who was responsible on the basis of the information presented. The report could not be endorsed. Allegations made against the Spanish frigate were of particular concern. Evidence from the Spanish Ministry of Defence showed that the frigate could not have been involved and that a helicopter that had been reported to have flown over the refugees was in fact not in the air at the time. The report was motivated by good intentions but full of inaccuracies.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Muñoz-Alonso.
I remind delegates that the ballot for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium is still open behind the President’s Chair until 1 p.m.
I call Mr Soravilla.
Mr SORAVILLA (Spain) believed the report to be important but could not support the draft resolution as it did not meet the usual standards for reports produced by the Assembly, based as it was on unreliable sources. There was no doubt that the event was a tragedy, and such tragedies were a daily occurrence in the Mediterranean. Spain, more often than not, was the country to which it fell to pick up refugees who had become stranded. As noted by previous speakers, it was important to remember the NATO context surrounding the events covered in the report and the presence at that time of an arms embargo. The report claimed it did not level accusations of who was responsible but had specifically referred to the role of the Spanish frigate. It quoted press reports as reliable sources while failing to highlight evidence from the Spanish Ministry of Defence. Before levelling accusations it was vital to learn lessons and to take an analytical and systematic approach to evidence gathering. The report could not be approved.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Soravilla. I call Mr Franken.
Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – I greatly appreciate the difficult and careful work that the rapporteur has done on an issue of great importance. I stress that this horrible and tragic story must never be repeated. Measures should be prepared to ensure better surveillance, with clear procedures for who will act and how. Those who conduct rescue activities should not be hindered by regulations that forbid the entry of immigrants. I therefore underline the rapporteur’s strong proposals to improve the chances for successful rescue operations. However, I refrain from raising questions about past responsibility and liability.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Alonso.
Mr ALONSO (Spain) said that the events in the Mediterranean were a terrible tragedy and the loss of life under horrible conditions regrettable. However, a full understanding of the facts was required. Spanish parliamentarians at the Assembly had received reliable information from the Spanish Ministry of Defence about the role of the frigate at the time of the incident. Neither the wider Spanish navy nor the frigate had received an alert or request for assistance from the refugee boat. Had they done so, they would have sought to provide such assistance as soon as possible. The Spanish Government had also provided clear evidence on the use of radar and the distance of the frigate from the refugee ship at that time. It had not been possible for the frigate to locate and assist the boat. The Spanish military had always sought to provide assistance to boats in distress when requested, and it had clear standards that it sought to apply. It was necessary to understand what had happened, but the report contained many inaccuracies and left many questions unanswered. If the Assembly adopted the report, it still would not know what had taken place.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Alonso. I call Ms Marin.
Ms MARIN (France) thanked Ms Strik for her report. As part of her inquiries in 2011 she had taken a number of hearings into the circumstances surrounding the events in question. It was disappointing that the draft resolution did not refer to more general issues on migration flows. If such humanitarian disasters were to be avoided in future it was vital to understand why people sought to leave the Horn of Africa and other areas, often paying substantial sums to do so. Many risked their lives on a false promise. Part of the solution was to improve communication with those people. European countries had a responsibility to help their poorer neighbours and could, for example, provide assistance in the establishment of micro enterprises among other interventions.
Work was currently under way on a project to enable people to return to their countries. There was a need to identify professions that victims could undertake in Europe without causing a negative effect or “brain drain” from their country of origin. There was also a need to improve capacity in transit countries and to assist Partnership for Democracy countries. It was necessary to think about migration more widely.
The inquiry had been undertaken with a sense of conviction but whether the Council of Europe was the right place for such activity was questionable. Tribute had to be paid to the Italian coastguard, which had saved 52 refugees. While lives had been lost, lives had also been saved.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Marin. The next speaker is Ms von Cramon-Taubadel.
Ms VON CRAMON-TAUBADEL (Germany) expressed her gratitude to the rapporteur. Since the start of the Arab uprising tens of thousands of people had crossed into Europe. As it was virtually impossible to enter Europe illegally, such people were forced to go by sea. The report had, for the first time, listed all the different actors involved in the situation, clarifying who held responsibilities in such matters. All involved in the NATO mission should be required to give the information sought. The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea needed attention and it was necessary to ensure that States were able to fulfil their duties. On 23 February 2011, the European Court of Human Rights had found that Italy had not fulfilled its duties in relation to Libyan refugees and had recognised the need for clearer asylum procedures. A change was required in European Union asylum procedures. A sustainable solution to guarantee the security of the European Union’s southern border had to be found without introducing a new iron curtain.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms von Cramon-Taubadel. We now come to our last speaker, Mr Agramunt.
Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) highlighted the comments of Mr Alonso, who had been Minister for Defence in Spain under the socialist government. The opinion of the Socialist Group was clearly united. It was clear, however, that there was no unanimity within the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons or the plenary. There were many arguments against the report, which was unusual for the Assembly, which normally acted by consensus. This was not good for the Council of Europe. While he regretted the deaths and the tragedy that had taken place, it was clear that information was missing. Particularly in relation to the Spanish frigate, there seemed to be no reliable source of information. If members were unable to improve the report through the amendments, they should vote against it.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Agramunt.
It is now 11.30 a.m. and I must interrupt the list of speakers. 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 Ms Strik, the rapporteur, to reply. You have three minutes.
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – As Mr Marcenaro correctly said, boats started to depart again in springtime, and our main purpose is to prevent tragic incidents such as this from happening again. Laying blame is not a purpose in itself but we cannot learn from this case if we do not make an accurate and frank assessment of what went wrong.
I received a mandate from this Parliamentary Assembly to find out what happened, but now I hear people say that many of the facts in the report might be wrong. I can tell them, however, that we assessed very carefully the information we received and that we used only reliable sources. We did not use anonymous sources – they were named in the report. We mentioned reliable sources and we referred to the communication with the Italian naval fleet and the Rome rescue authorities and border guards. Time after time we have urged the governments of all the countries involved to give us information and I must say that I have been disappointed by the lack of co-operation with the Council of Europe in order to reveal what went wrong. We would like more specific and complete information and I hope we will have more replies in the future. Some Spanish colleagues say that they have had a lot of information from their Ministry of Defence. That is good but I should have preferred that the Ministry of Defence gave us that information. We did not get a reply until recently when we said that we had information that a vessel was very close to the boat. Then the ministry said that was not true and that it had not received any messages at all, but we have asked it to provide us with information and access to the data. We still insist on that. The United Kingdom, too, did not respond at all. I urge you as parliamentarians to use all your competences to demand the relevant information from your ministries of defence.
NATO’s reply, which we received yesterday, informs us that it will continue actively to review the records so as to be certain what happened. NATO already takes the draft recommendations seriously, so I take that as advice from NATO to adopt the recommendations.
We should not create the wrong impression of all the border guards in the southern member States. We have visited them and watched them work, and all of us were very impressed by their attitude, their way of working and their willingness to save as many lives as possible. I pay tribute to them. The report does not blame any of them. We just want to look at everything that could create hesitation or delay in commands to take action, such as the lack of clarity in maritime law or the possibility that ship owners might be prosecuted after rescuing people. People might not be able to disembark when they have been saved because no country will let them land or there is the practice that southern member States are responsible for search and rescue but are then left on their own when people ask for asylum.
The northern member States should show that the southern border is a common European border, with common responsibilities. We should therefore share the responsibility and be more generous to resettlement programmes for refugees stuck in camps in northern Africa. Deciding to take the risk of sailing to Europe in a rubber dinghy is a negative choice that people make when they see no alternative. We should not make them play with their lives.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Mr Santini, wish to speak? You have two minutes.
Mr SANTINI (Italy) thanked the President. On behalf of the committee he joined in giving thanks to Ms Strik and extended those thanks to the secretariat of the committee. The fact that 63 people died 60 nautical miles from Libya was the only certainty in the matter under debate. NATO had only yesterday responded to questions that had been posed in recent months. A tendency to hide behind military secrecy had been unhelpful. The report had relied therefore mainly on the testimony of nine survivors, one of whom had later died in a prison cell in Libya. There was a need to establish the legal situation. Everyone had expressed solidarity with the families of the victims and the survivors in detention centres. There were cases of true heroism among the rescue authorities. The rapporteur had brought intellectual honestly to the issue but it was likely that new information would emerge over time and interest in the incident would remain high. In the coming summer there would inevitably be more people trying to cross the Mediterranean. This time, it was to be hoped, there would be better response to those in difficulty in the high seas.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The debate is closed.
The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution, to which 23 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 19, 21, 10 and 15.
I should also tell the Assembly that the committee will accept Amendment 22 unanimously, if Amendment 16 is not agreed to.
Is that so Mr Santini?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case. As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 19, 21, 10 and 15 to the draft resolution are agreed.
The following amendments have been adopted.
Amendment 19, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Ms Quintanilla, Ms Parera and Mr Jáuregui, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, to replace the words “a large aircraft carrier” with the following words: “an unknown aircraft carrier”.
Amendment 21, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Ms Quintanilla, Ms Parera and Mr Jáuregui, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, after the words “to see the sailors” to insert the following words: “, which were not identified as belonging to specific navy,”.
Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mr Soravilla, Ms Parera, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Alonso and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, before the words “Despite obvious distress signals”, to insert the following words: “According to the witnesses,”.
Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mr Soravilla, Ms Parera, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Alonso and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, to replace the words “In the light of information from reliable sources,” with the following words: “In the light of the information available,”.
I call Mr Beneyto to support Amendment 1.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) said that the amendment was aimed at inserting “a small patrol aircraft” into paragraph 2 of the draft resolution. This would ensure that complete information was provided as the reference was to be found elsewhere only in paragraph 33 of the report.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Strik.
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The proposal would be incorrect as the picture was taken by the patrolling craft before the distress call was made. It would be wrong to create the impression that it had ignored the distress call.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – The committee rejected the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 1 is rejected.
I understand that Mr Beneyto does not wish to move Amendment 8.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to move it? No, that is not the case. The amendment is not moved.
We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mr Soravilla, Ms Parera, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Alonso and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, after the words “It never did.”, to insert the following words: “According to the survivors’ testimonies,”.
I call Mr Beneyto to support Amendment 9.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – In paragraph 5, after the words “It never did”, we would like to insert the words “according to the survivors’ testimonies,” because we think that this is the exact evidence. The testimonies of the survivors are not facts and we should be more rigorous about them.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Hancock.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – If that was the case, there would be evidence to say that they returned. The report makes it clear that the ship never did return, and that is a fact. Whether it is the survivors or anyone else saying it, the truth of the matter is that the ship did not return, and that cannot be refuted. If people are now saying that the ship did return, where is the evidence to support that? The report should remain as it is.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 9 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 20, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Ms Quintanilla, Ms Parera and Mr Jáuregui, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, after the words “at least two fishing vessels”, to insert the following words: “of unknown flag,”.
I understand that Mr Beneyto wishes not to speak to Amendment 20.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to move it? No, that is not the case. The amendment is not moved.
We now come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mrs Quintanilla, Ms Batet, Mr Puche and Mr Jáuregui, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, sixth sentence, to delete the words “or helicopter-carrying vessel”.
I understand that Mr Beneyto wishes not to speak to Amendment 2.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to move it? No, that is not the case. The amendment is not moved.
We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mr Soravilla, Ms Parera, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Alonso and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, to replace the words “From this tragedy a catalogue of failures becomes apparent.” with the following words: “Due to these facts, the following conclusions might be made.”
I understand that Mr Beneyto wishes not to speak to Amendment 11.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone else wish to move it? No, that is not the case. The amendment is not moved.
We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Stucchi, Ms Bergamini, Mr Nessa, Mr Renato Farina, Grimoldi and Mr Vitali, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 7.
I call Mr Stucchi to support Amendment 4. If this amendment is agreed, Amendment 12 will fall. He is not here. I call Mr Vitali.
Mr VITALI (Italy) said that if the Assembly could adopt this recommendation then he could vote in favour of the report. He argued that Rome MRCC received the distress call and relayed an emergency alert every four hours.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Strick.
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This is one of our core conclusions. There was a gap in responsibility because Italy is of the opinion that Libya should have rescued these people as the ship was in Libya’s zone. We say that the zone is not covered at the moment by a member State. It is the member State that receives the first request for help that should take responsibility. If we do not insist on that we will keep on having gaps in responsibility.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) – The committee rejected the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 4 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mr Soravilla, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Alonso and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, to delete the words “Since it was known that the Libyan SAR zone was not covered, Italy, as the first State to receive the distress call, should have taken responsibility for the co-ordination of the SAR operation.”
I call Mr Beneyto to support Amendment 12.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – I do not want to speak to Amendment 12.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case. It is withdrawn.
We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mrs Quintanilla, Ms Batet, Mr Puche and Mr Jáuregui, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, after the first sentence, to delete the remainder of the paragraph.
I call Mr Beneyto to support Amendment 3. If this amendment is adopted, Amendments 5 and 6 will fall.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – This is the most important amendment for the Spanish delegation. I understand that the committee has already agreed to introduce the words “prima facie” into the final sentence. We would like to withdraw what in our eyes is the specific blame that has been put without justification on the Spanish frigate. We have argued this matter this morning. Our amendment seeks the suppression and deletion of the paragraph which starts “According to a reliable source” to the end.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against this amendment?
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – We wanted to insert the words “prima facie” in order to make it clear that, based on the information we have now, it is a fact that the ships in the area did not take responsibility for saving those people’s lives. That is the conclusion we must draw at the moment because we know all the messages were sent. NATO states that it forwarded the messages to all military vessels in the area, so at this time we can conclude that obligations were not met. However, if other information is revealed later, the wording makes it clear that we can take additional information into account.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) – We are against.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 3 is rejected.
I have received an oral amendment from Ms Strick which reads as follows “In the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the words ‘According to a reliable source’ with the words ‘On the basis of information available’”.
I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.6, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.
In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.
I therefore call Ms Strik to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This amendment has already been referred to. “Prima facie” makes it clear that this is only on the basis of the information we have received until now, so it does not exclude the possibility that more information will come to us. We therefore urge all parliamentarians to get access to this information.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? I call Mr Beneyto.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – I understand that the phrase “prima facie” is going to be included after “NATO command” and before “the flag State of this ship”. Is that the correct wording?
THE PRESIDENT – The amendment is the one that I read.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – Could you please read it again?
THE PRESIDENT – “According to a reliable source” was to be taken out and replaced with the words “on the basis of information available”.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – That is not clear.
THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Strik.
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This has been agreed by the committee.
THE PRESIDENT – That is not the information that we have.
I have new information. The amendment is just to leave out “also” and put in “prima facie”. Is that correct now? We had completely different information, and I am sorry about that. Do you still wish to speak against the amendment, Mr Beneyto?
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – Will you read the entire paragraph after “According to a reliable source”, so that we are clear about it?
THE PRESIDENT – “Although the Spanish vessel was under NATO command, the flag State of this ship and of other ships in the area prima facie failed to act in accordance with their search and rescue obligations.”
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – That is correct. Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT – So you are not against now?
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – No.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
The oral amendment is adopted.
We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Stucchi, Mr Vitali, Ms Bergamini, Mr Nessa, Mr Renato Farina and Mr Grimoldi, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, to delete the words: “Although the Spanish vessel was under NATO command, the flag State of this ship and of other ships in the area also failed to act in accordance with their search and rescue obligations.”
I call Mr Stucchi to support Amendment 5. He is not here. Mr Vitali will speak to it.
Mr VITALI (Italy) stated that although an alert was sent there was no proof that it was received so he requested the deletion of these lines.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – It was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 5 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Stucchi, Mr Vitali, Ms Bergamini, Mr Nessa, Mr Renato Farina and Mr Grimoldi, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, to delete the words: “and of other ships in the area also”.
I call Mr Vitali to support Amendment 6.
Mr VITALI (Italy) noted that the reasons for this amendment had already been discussed and asked the Assembly to accept it.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Strik.
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I think it is important not to exclude other ships, whose names we still do not know, as also being responsible for what happened.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – Against.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 6 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mr Soravilla, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Alonso and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 9.
I understand that Mr Beneyto wishes not to speak to Amendment 13. Does anyone wish to move it?
It is withdrawn.
We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Muñoz-Alonso, Mr Soravilla, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Alonso and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 11.
I call Mr Díaz Tejera to support Amendment 14.
Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that the amendment aimed to remove speculation.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Hancock.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – If we delete this paragraph, it will deny the reality of the situation. It is inconceivable that it was not foreseeable that there was going to be a problem. The paragraph explains that in classic wording. To deny the inevitability of the exodus is to believe that you can change history. You cannot. We should leave the paragraph in. It is stating the very obvious.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – The committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 14 is rejected.
THE PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 16, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mr Soravilla, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Alonso and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, to delete the words “This non-communication contributed to the situation in which those on the boat were denied help.”
I understand that Mr Beneyto wishes not to move Amendment 16.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone else wish to move it? That is not the case. The amendment is not moved.
We come to Amendment 22, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mrs Quintanilla, Ms Parera and Mr Jáuregui, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, to replace the words “those on the boat were denied help” with the following words: “help was not given to those on board.”
I call Mr Díaz Tejera to support Amendment 22.
Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) asked delegates to imagine a court of law in which a fact was approved prima facie on the basis of a single source. He suggested that Spanish vessels had helped ships in distress both before and after this event. There was no reason to think that they had not given help when requested.
THE PRESIDENT – This amendment has been unanimously agreed by the committee. Because Amendment 16 was not adopted, we do not need to vote on the amendment.
We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Stucchi, Mr Vitali, Ms Bergamini, Mr Nessa, Mr Renato Farina and Mr Grimoldi, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.1, to delete the words: “but neither took the responsibility to start a SAR operation. Rome, being the first MRCC informed of the distress situation, had a greater responsibility to ensure the boat’s rescue;”.
I call on Mr Vitali to support Amendment 7.
Mr VITALI (Italy) thanked the President and called on the Assembly to support this important amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Strik.
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This is about the same dispute that we mentioned earlier regarding who has to take the responsibility in case the SAR zone is not covered adequately. This is a core paragraph in order to avoid a gap in responsibility.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – The committee rejected the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 7 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 17, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mr Soravilla, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Alonso and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.9, to delete the words “ensure that the lack of communication and understanding between the Rome MRCC and NATO, which led to no one taking responsibility for the boat, is not reproduced in future NATO operations, and”.
I call Mr Díaz Tejera to support Amendment 17.
Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) noted that the amendment helped clarify some of the lessons learned and provided further evidence in respect of the use of radar on the Spanish frigate, which had been found to be 24 miles from the refugee boat, which would therefore have been impossible to detect.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Hancock.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – If we seek to delete these words from the report, it suggests that this could happen again. Because of a failure of communication, scores of people lost their lives, and that could ultimately have been prevented. The words in the recommendation ask that it does not happen again and that there is better communication, which is what most of us would want to happen.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – The committee rejected the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 17 rejected.
THE PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 23, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mrs Quintanilla, Ms Parera and Mr Jáuregui, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 13, to insert the following paragraph:
“The previous recommendations should be considered in the context of military operations and taking in consideration the crew’s safety, under the command of the commander of the naval force.”
I call Mr Díaz Tejera to support Amendment 23.
Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) asked whether anyone in the Assembly had seen the bodies of refugees washed up on beaches as he had. He questioned the evidence of some of the survivors which had referred to the profile of an aircraft carrier appearing on the horizon, when no such boat had been in the vicinity.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Strik.
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The amendment says, “The previous recommendations should be considered in the context of military operations”, but paragraph 13 deals not only with military operations, but all kinds of vessels that are in the area. The amendment therefore would not fit with the paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – The amendment was rejected in committee.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 23 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 18, tabled by Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mr Soravilla, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Alonso and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 14.3.
I understand that Mr Beneyto does not wish to speak to Amendment 18. Is that right?
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – Yes.
Does anyone wish to move the amendment?
It is not moved.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 12895, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution contained in Document 12895, as amended, is adopted, with 108 votes for, 36 against and 7 abstentions.
(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin.)
3. Address by Mr Saad Dine el Otmani, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of Morocco
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Saad Dine el Otmani, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of Morocco. After his address, the Minister has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.
(The speaker continued in summary)
It was a great honour to welcome the Minister to the Assembly. He had previously made various visits to the Council of Europe, partially in preparation for its admittance for Partnership for Democracy status, which Morocco had been the first country to obtain. Today the Assembly had the pleasure of hosting both the address by the Minister as well as the speech later this afternoon from the Moroccan Minister of Solidarity, Family, Women and Social Development. Their presence represented the embodiment of the status of Partner for Democracy and demonstrated the need to promote further dialogue.
As part of Morocco’s new status an assessment of its parliament was under way, led by Mr Volontè, whose conclusions the Assembly eagerly awaited. There had also been observations of the new elections, and the current process of constitutional reform was also to be welcomed. The Assembly supported Morocco in its efforts to forge closer ties with its neighbours. He gave the minister the floor.
Mr SAAD DINE EL OTMANI (Minister for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of Morocco) expressed gratitude to the President for his kind words and congratulated him on his recent election as President of the Assembly, an achievement that crowned an exceptional career. He also paid tribute to the former President, who had done much work to establish Partnership for Democracy status.
The Kingdom of Morocco was working hard to strengthen and implement its partnership status. Today an important movement towards reform, modernisation and promotion of human rights was taking place in Morocco and throughout the wider region. It was necessary to move forward and strengthen that role in a constructive fashion, working actively and creatively to meet the challenges, especially given the current geopolitical context.
This was not the first time that he had been to the Assembly as he had taken part as a parliamentarian in the past and had played a role in the establishment of the Partnership for Democracy programme. He had also recently met the Secretary General of the Council of Europe when they had discussed regional issues and the need to strengthen co-operation between Morocco and the various Council of Europe bodies.
The southern shores of the Mediterranean had experienced a watershed year in 2011. The profound changes that had taken place provided the opportunity to build solid foundations for the rule of law and sustainable development. The Arab Spring had also shown the need to strengthen further the Council of Europe’s Partnership for Democracy programme.
The process of social and political reform that was under way at present in Morocco reflected a profound belief among people in that country in human rights and the rule of law. It was important that Morocco should take part in the process of change and find a balance between social justice and justice for each individual. An opportunity for reconciliation between the north and south had now presented itself; shared values would help bring the nation together. This would make it possible to help the region as a whole to overcome its problems and move forward.
Morocco had undertaken a process of democratisation that harked back to independence, when Morocco’s first consultative Assembly had been established. In 1962 Morocco’s first constitution had been implemented following a referendum. Despite political changes and difficulties, these institutions had made it possible to achieve consensus and there was now general agreement in Morocco on the process of democratisation. The implementation of reforms had begun under the late King. There had been changes to the electoral system and law, and a council had been established to protect human rights. This council had extensive authority and presented its conclusions to parliament. A body for reconciliation and implementation of human rights had achieved concrete results and a 2004 family code had established the principle of equal rights for women. This progress showed that it was possible to overcome the difficulties seen in the region. In fact, turmoil within the region had caused Morocco to step up its implementation of the reform process for the benefit of all social groups.
The new constitution in 2011 provided new opportunities to protect freedom. Alongside various new agencies and institutions, efforts were under way to counter corruption. Work was also being undertaken to ensure the independence of the judiciary. The aim was to ensure all bodies worked effectively to ensure equal opportunities and prevent discrimination. The rights of citizens had been established in a number of legal documents that outlined protections from minority languages and cultures.
Gratitude was owed to international observers including those from the Council of Europe. The elections in 2011 had been commended for their fairness. This progress had made it possible to develop a new national elite, encourage new blood and those who had not previously been involved, such as women, to engage in the political process.
Morocco was grateful for its partnerships with European institutions, which made it possible for it to achieve its goals. It had obtained Partnership for Democracy status in 2008 and had a non-permanent place on the United Nations Security Council. These institutions allowed it to develop links between parliaments and strengthen relations with European colleagues. Greater links with such European institutions would open the way for Morocco to sign various international agreements in a range of areas including technology exchange, protection of wildlife, and the Venice Commission, for example. Such agreements would solidify the foundations of its relationship with Europe and enhance co-operation. Morocco’s relationship with the Council of Europe in particular would improve the situation overall and create a positive dynamic; he particularly wanted to strengthen co-operation with the Committee of Ministers. Both parties wanted to make the partnership a success and overcome difficulties. It was important to work together if Morocco was to play an effective role. It had contributions to make, not just financially and economically, but for example to support the Syrian people and actions by Arab nations and others. His aim was to create common prosperity and peaceful interdependence. In conclusion, strengthening co-operation and ties with Europe opening dialogues and working side by side was crucial to the reform process in Morocco.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr El Otmani, for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you.
I remind colleagues that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues should be asking questions and not making speeches.
The first question is from Mr Volontè, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) thanked Mr El Otmani for his speech. He asked whether it would be possible for Morocco to take into account its responsibilities relating to its Partnership for Democracy status in the introduction of 20 new items of legislation, following its recent approval of its new constitution.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr El Otmani?
Mr EL OTMANI said that Morocco would like to meet all of its obligations under its partnership. He explained that 18 “organic laws” would be introduced during the course of the next five years, which would radically change Morocco’s governance arrangements, based on the principles of the new constitution.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Lord Anderson, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Mr Minister, on behalf of the Socialist Group, welcome home. Since 1995 and the Barcelona process – Euromed – there have been a number of initiatives designed to deepen the relationship between Europe and not just your country but north Africa as a whole – great expectations, but very limited results. From your perspective, as a Partnership for Democracy country, what can be done to learn the lessons and improve the relationship between north Africa as a whole and Europe?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr El Otmani?
Mr EL OTMANI said that the support and development of partnerships with Morocco would encourage others to develop their democratic institutions and give more attention to the Council of Europe. When a country such as Morocco moved forward on democracy and human rights the countries of Europe should help and not simply criticise.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Lord Boswell, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Lord BOSWELL (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Mr President.
Minister, while we greatly welcome your speech this morning and the membership of your country in Partnership for Democracy, may I ask you to give more detail on your country’s approach to safeguarding religious diversity? I mean by that not merely the freedom to worship but also the freedom for legitimate faith groups to carry out genuine humanitarian activities.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr El Otmani?
Mr EL OTMANI said that Morocco was a very open country and attached to the freedoms of all minority groups. Minority religions do not encounter any problems in Morocco. Christian Churches and Jewish groups all played a role in society. The Jews for example had always been able to practise their religion freely, and the new constitution clearly enshrined that right for all religions.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr El Otmani. The next question is from Mr Xuclà, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mr XUCLÀ (Spain) appreciated the progress that Morocco had made on human rights, but understood that the United Nations planned to extend the mandate of its mission to Western Sahara.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Xuclà. Do you wish to answer, Mr El Otmani?
Mr EL OTMANI said that a large number of humanitarian groups were present in Morocco writing reports on its progress. He saw no justification for an expansion of the United Nations mission mandate.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr El Otmani. I call Mr Petrenco, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. He is not here so I shall call Ms Durrieu. However, she does not wish to ask her question. I call Mr Ghiletchi.
Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Your Excellency, I do not want to underline the negative aspects that you have told us about, but I do want to put to you a question similar to that raised by Lord Boswell. What steps are being taken by your Government to ensure respect for freedom of religious practice for all citizens, in particular for those who are practising Christians and who may be foreigners living in your country? As you know, some have been denied entry into Morocco.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi. Do you wish to answer, Mr El Otmani?
Mr EL OTMANI was surprised at how the question was asked. He was not suggesting that Morocco should not be criticised; indeed Morocco was open to criticism and needed to listen to it to overcome its shortcomings. He was surprised, however, that some people had suggested that Christians in Morocco were oppressed. Christians had lived in Morocco for centuries and practised their faith freely and openly.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr El Otmani. The next question is from Mr Lecoq.
Mr LECOQ (France) asked whether political prisoners would be released and crimes related to the Western Sahara be brought before the civil courts.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Lecoq. Would you like to answer that question, Mr El Otmani?
Mr EL OTMANI responded that Morocco had recently ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture. His country was happy for special envoys to visit and the United Nations special envoy on torture would visit Morocco soon. Morocco was ready and willing to talk about any continuing problems.
The Western Sahara was not “colonised”. People from the Western Sahara lived throughout Morocco and held many important positions in that country including as members of parliament and ambassadors.
Moves for Western Sahara’s secession were difficult. As in some European countries, calls for secession or independence could threaten the integrity of the State. The main question was how more sovereignty could be devolved without threatening the integrity of the Moroccan State.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Agramunt.
Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) stated that it was an honour to address Mr El Otmani. The Assembly had that morning debated a report on the deaths of migrants crossing the Mediterranean. He asked what action the Moroccan Government would be taking to prevent illegal migration.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr El Otmani?
Mr EL OTMANI said that the question should be what action had the Moroccan Government already taken. The past two years had seen a 90% drop in illegal migration to Spain. This progress resulted from increased co-operation with Spain, which the Moroccan Government was determined to continue.
He noted, however, that this work had cost Morocco, not only economically but socially. Thousands of migrants from Africa ended up staying in Morocco. These migrants were often the source of social problems such as drug dealing and prostitution. While not all illegal immigrants participated, of course, it was not uncommon for those with no other form of support. This was an area where Europe could offer greater support.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Chagaf, who represents a Partnership for Democracy country.
Mr CHAGAF (Morocco) said that it was crucial that States south of the Mediterranean worked together. The Minister was the representative of a democratic process and Morocco had a responsibility to help other peoples in the region who were striving towards democracy, such as Algeria.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr El Otmani?
Mr EL OTMANI said that Morocco felt that responsibility. Countries in the region could benefit from its experience on issues such as transitioning to a democratic government or reforming legal systems. Morocco had a reasonably peaceful and successful transition and could share its lessons with others going through the same process.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Jáuregui.
Mr JÁUREGUI (Spain) commended the Minister’s efforts. He asked how Europe could help the Minister in his efforts to modernise Morocco.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr El Otmani?
Mr EL OTMANI thought that Europe had understood Morocco. For example, Morocco was represented in a number of European institutions and had obtained Partnership for Democracy status from the Council of Europe.
Europe needed to make more effort in two areas, however: first, it needed to understand the countries south of the Mediterranean better. It needed deeper dialogue on fundamental issues. The countries of north Africa would never be identical to those of Europe; there had to be give and take. While countries such as Morocco could benefit from Europe’s long experience of democracy, they had a long history themselves from which European countries could benefit. In particular they could help Europe have a meaningful dialogue with citizens who had originated in north Africa and were now settled in many European cities.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Beneyto.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain) thanked the President and stated that it was a pleasure to have the Minister present to talk to the Assembly. He asked the Minister’s view on cultural co-operation and the learning of foreign languages.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to reply, Mr El Otmani?
Mr EL OTMANI felt that the root of many of the issues between Europe and north African countries were cultural. The Council of Europe, for example, was an organisation that dealt more with culture than with politics. If there could be more meetings and seminars dedicated to cultural understanding, it could only be beneficial.
He was convinced that Morocco did not have a problem with languages. There were a large number of French and Spanish schools throughout the country, and a strong presence of other languages. It was important to maintain this linguistic diversity.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Díaz Tejera.
Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that it had been a pleasure to hear the Minister speak. The prospect of oil exploration was a matter of concern. Account needed to be taken of environmental risks as drilling could take place only 6 kilometres from the coast of the Canary Islands.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr El Otmani?
Mr EL OTMANI said that government representatives had recently met representatives of the islands to discuss the prospect of oil exploration and the environmental issues it raised. The Moroccan government was aware that Morocco’s environment was a shared resource and that pollution in the country meant equally pollution in Spain. A common agreement therefore needed to be reached.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Davies.
Mr D. DAVIES (United Kingdom) – Minister, may I congratulate you and the Moroccan Government on the enormous strides towards democracy that are being made in your country? What progress has been made in getting acceptance of the proposals for self-governance in the Western Sahara desert region?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr El Otmani?
Mr EL OTMANI said that the Moroccan Government had taken a courageous approach in its dealings with the Sahrawis, responding to requests from the international community that it respect the people’s call for self-rule. The goal was to provide the conditions for the Sahrawis to be able to run their own affairs and the United Nations had described the efforts made by the Moroccan Government in that respect as credible and serious. It now hoped for an agreement that was based on negotiation.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Unfortunately, colleagues, we now have to conclude questions because it is 1.07 p.m. I thank you for your questions and apologise to those who have not had the opportunity to ask their question. Thank you, Minister, for your speech.
Voting for the election of a judge to the Council of Europe in respect of Belgium is now suspended. The ballot will re-open at 4 p.m.
4. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The Assembly will hold its next public meeting this afternoon at 4 p.m. with the agenda that was agreed yesterday.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 1.10 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Election of a judge to the European court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium
2. Lives lost in the Mediterranean Sea: who is responsible?
Presentation by Ms Strik of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugess and Displaced Persons, Document 12895
Speakers:
Mr Makhmutov (Russian Federation)
Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)
Ms Andersen (Norway)
Mr Beneyto (Spain)
Mr Marcenaro (Italy)
Mr Fournier (France)
Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)
Mr Stucchi (Italy)
Mr Agius (Malta)
Mr Fenech Adami (Malta)
Mr Schennach (Austria)
Ms Schou (Norway)
Mr Voruz (Switzerland)
Mr Rouquet (France)
Ms Virolainen (Finland)
Mr Sheridan (United Kingdom)
Mr Muñoz Alonso (Spain)
Mr Soravilla (Spain)
Mr Franken (Netherlands)
Mr Alonso (Spain)
Ms Marin (France)
Ms von Cramon-Taubadel (Germany)
Mr Agramunt (Spain)
Replies:
Ms Strik (Norway)
Mr Santini (Italy)
Amendments 9, 10, 15, 19, 21 and Oral Amendment 1 adopted
Draft resolution, as amended, adopted
3. Address by Mr Saad Dine El Otmani, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of Morocco
Questions:
Mr Volontè (Italy)
Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)
Lord Boswell (United Kingdom)
Mr Xuclà (Spain)
Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova)
Mr Lecoq (France)
Mr Agramunt (Spain)
Mr Chagaf (Morocco)
Mr Jáuregui (Spain)
Mr Beneyto (Spain)
Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)
Mr D Davies (United Kingdom)
4. 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*
Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV/Yury Solonin
Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*
José Antonio ALONSO
Karin ANDERSEN
Donald ANDERSON
Florin Serghei ANGHEL*
Khadija ARIB*
Mörður ÁRNASON
Francisco ASSIS*
Þuriður BACKMAN
Daniel BACQUELAINE*
Viorel Riceard BADEA*
Gagik BAGHDASARYAN*
Pelin Gündeş BAKIR
Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA
Doris BARNETT
José Manuel BARREIRO/Carmen Quintanilla
Deniz BAYKAL
Marieluise BECK
Alexander van der BELLEN
Anna BELOUSOVOVÁ*
José María BENEYTO
Deborah BERGAMINI
Robert BIEDROŃ
Grzegorz BIERECKI/Marek Borowski
Gülsün BİLGEHAN*
Oksana BILOZIR
Brian BINLEY
Roland BLUM
Jean-Marie BOCKEL
Eric BOCQUET/Jean-Pierre Michel
Olena BONDARENKO
Olga BORZOVA
Mladen BOSIĆ*
António BRAGA
Anne BRASSEUR
Márton BRAUN
Federico BRICOLO*
Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL
Piet DE BRUYN
Patrizia BUGNANO*
André BUGNON
Natalia BURYKINA/ Valeriy Zerenkov
Sylvia CANEL*
Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU
Mikael CEDERBRATT
Otto CHALOUPKA*
Vannino CHITI/Paolo Corsini
Christopher CHOPE
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN/Tor Bremer
Desislav CHUKOLOV*
Lolita ČIGĀNE*
Boriss CILEVIČS
James CLAPPISON
Ms Deirdre CLUNE
M. Georges COLOMBIER
Agustín CONDE
Titus CORLĂŢEAN*
Igor CORMAN
Telmo CORREIA*
Carlos COSTA NEVES*
Cristian DAVID*
Joseph DEBONO GRECH/ Joseph Falzon
Giovanna DEBONO/ Joseph Fenech Adami
Armand De DECKER
Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA
Peter van DIJK
Klaas DIJKHOFF*
Şaban DİŞLİ
Karl DONABAUER
Daphné DUMERY*
Alexander (The Earl of) DUNDEE
Josette DURRIEU
Baroness Diana ECCLES*
József ÉKES*
Tülin ERKAL KARA
Gianni FARINA
Nikolay FEDOROV
Relu FENECHIU*
Vyacheslav FETISOV/Vladimir Zhidkikh
Doris FIALA*
Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*
Axel E. FISCHER
Jana FISCHEROVÁ*
Gvozden Srećko FLEGO
Paul FLYNN*
Stanislav FOŘT*
Hans FRANKEN
Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Maryvonne Blondin
Erich Georg FRITZ*
Martin FRONC
György FRUNDA
Giorgi GABASHVILI*
Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ
Sir Roger GALE*
Jean-Charles GARDETTO
Tamás GAUDI NAGY
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Sophia GIANNAKA*
Paolo GIARETTA/Vladimiro Crisafulli
Michael GLOS*
Obrad GOJKOVIĆ/Snežana Jonica
Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI
Svetlana GORYACHEVA/Yury Shamkov
Martin GRAF
Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou
Andreas GROSS
Arlette GROSSKOST
Dzhema GROZDANOVA*
Attila GRUBER/László Koszorús
Antonio GUTIÉRREZ
Ana GUŢU
Carina HÄGG
Sabir HAJIYEV
Andrzej HALICKI
Mike HANCOCK
Margus HANSON/Indrek Saar
Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Hermine Naghdalyan
Håkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen
Norbert HAUPERT
Oliver HEALD
Alfred HEER/Eric Voruz
Olha HERASYM'YUK
Andres HERKEL/Paul-Eerik Rummo
Adam HOFMAN
Serhiy HOLOVATY
Jim HOOD/Michael Connarty
Joachim HÖRSTER
Anette HÜBINGER*
Andrej HUNKO
Susanna HUOVINEN
Ali HUSEYNLI*
Rafael HUSEYNOV
Stanisław HUSKOWSKI
Shpëtim IDRIZI*
Željko IVANJI*
Igor IVANOVSKI*
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI
Denis JACQUAT/Marie-Jo Zimmermann
Roman JAKIČ*
Ramón JÁUREGUI
Michael Aastrup JENSEN*
Mats JOHANSSON
Birkir Jón JÓNSSON/Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson
Armand JUNG*
Antti KAIKKONEN/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila
Ferenc KALMÁR*
Božidar KALMETA*
Mariusz KAMIŃSKI
Michail KATRINIS*
Burhan KAYATÜRK
Bogdan KLICH/Adam Rogacki
Haluk KOÇ
Igor KOLMAN
Tiny KOX*
Marie KRARUP/Sophie Løhde
Borjana KRIŠTO
Václav KUBATA
Pavol KUBOVIČ*
Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA/André Schneider
Dalia KUODYTĖ/Arminas Lydeka
Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ
Athina KYRIAKIDOU
Henrik Sass LARSEN/Mette Reissmann
Igor LEBEDEV*
Jean-Paul LECOQ
Harald LEIBRECHT/Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE
Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA*
Lone LOKLINDT
François LONCLE/Bernadette Bourzai
Jean-Louis LORRAIN
George LOUKAIDES
Younal LOUTFI
Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ
Philippe MAHOUX/Fatiha Saïdi
Gennaro MALGIERI
Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET
Pietro MARCENARO
Milica MARKOVIĆ
Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO
Meritxell MATEU PI
Pirkko MATTILA
Frano MATUŠIĆ*
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA
Sir Alan MEALE
Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/Sonja Mirakovska
Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*
Ivan MELNIKOV/Alexander Sidyakin
Nursuna MEMECAN
José MENDES BOTA
Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ*
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin
Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ
Akaki MINASHVILI*
Krasimir MINCHEV*
Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI*
Andrey MOLCHANOV/Alexander Ter-Avanesov
Jerzy MONTAG*
Patrick MORIAU
João Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK
Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO
Lydia MUTSCH
Philippe NACHBAR/Bernard Fournier
Adrian NĂSTASE*
Mr Gebhard NEGELE
Pasquale NESSA
Fritz NEUGEBAUER*
Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Lord Tim Boswell
Elena NIKOLAEVA
Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*
Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*
Carina OHLSSON
Joseph O'REILLY
Sandra OSBORNE/David Davies
Nadia OTTAVIANI*
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou
Eva PARERA
Ganira PASHAYEVA*
Peter PELLEGRINI*
Lajla PERNASKA*
Johannes PFLUG
Alexander POCHINOK
Ivan POPESCU*
Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/Nikolaj Villumsen
Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN
Cezar Florin PREDA*
Lord John PRESCOTT/Jim Dobbin
Jakob PRESEČNIK/ Andreja Crnak Meglič
Gabino PUCHE
Alexey PUSHKOV*
Valeriy PYSARENKO*
Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ
Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA
Mailis REPS/Ester Tuiksoo
Andrea RIGONI
François ROCHEBLOINE/Frédéric Reiss
Maria de Belém ROSEIRA
René ROUQUET
Marlene RUPPRECHT
lir RUSMALI*
Armen RUSTAMYAN*
Branko RUŽIĆ*
Volodymyr RYBAK*
Rovshan RZAYEV*
Džavid ŠABOVIĆ/Ervin Spahić
Giacomo SANTINI
Giuseppe SARO*
Kimmo SASI
Stefan SCHENNACH
Marina SCHUSTER
Urs SCHWALLER*
Senad ŠEPIĆ
Samad SEYIDOV*
Jim SHERIDAN
Mykola SHERSHUN*
Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV/Alexey Knyshov
Robert SHLEGEL/Anvar Makhmutov
Ladislav SKOPAL
Leonid SLUTSKY*
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Roberto SORAVILLA
Maria STAVROSITU*
Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ
Yanaki STOILOV*
Fiorenzo STOLFI*
Christoph STRÄSSER
Karin STRENZ*
Giacomo STUCCHI
Valeriy SUDARENKOV
Björn von SYDOW
Petro SYMONENKO*
Vilmos SZABÓ*
Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/Imre Vejkey
Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*
Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ*
Dragan TODOROVIĆ*
Romana TOMC*
Lord John E. TOMLINSON
Latchezar TOSHEV*
Petré TSISKARISHVILI*
Mihai TUDOSE*
Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ
Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ
Konstantinos TZAVARAS*
Tomáš ÚLEHLA*
Ilyas UMAKHANOV/Boris Shpigel
Giuseppe VALENTINO/Renato Farina
Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS*
Stefaan VERCAMER
Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN
Luigi VITALI
Luca VOLONTÈ
Vladimir VORONIN*
Tanja VRBAT/ Ivan Račan
Konstantinos VRETTOS*
Klaas de VRIES
Nataša VUČKOVIĆ
Piotr WACH
Johann WADEPHUL*
Robert WALTER*
Katrin WERNER/Annette Groth
Renate WOHLWEND/ Doris Frommelt
Karin S. WOLDSETH/Øyvind Vaksdal
Gisela WURM
Karl ZELLER*
Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO
Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Egidijus Vareikis
Guennady ZIUGANOV
Naira ZOHRABYAN*
Vacant Seat, Cyprus*
ALSO PRESENT
Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:
Kerstin LUNDGREN
Martina SCHENK
Jordi XUCLÀ
Observers:
Ms Rosario GREEN MACÍAS
Aldo GIORDANO
Hervé Pierre GUILLOT
Mr Valentin GUZMÁN SOTO
Partners for democracy:
Walid ASSAF
Najat ALASTAL
Bernard SABELLA
APPENDIX II
Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium
Francis AGIUS
Pedro AGRAMUNT
Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV/Yury Solonin
Donald ANDERSON
Mörður ÁRNASON
Þuriður BACKMAN
Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA
Doris BARNETT
José Manuel BARREIRO/Carmen Quintanilla
Deniz BAYKAL
Marieluise BECK
Grzegorz BIERECKI/Marek Borowski
Jean-Marie BOCKEL
Eric BOCQUET/Jean-Pierre Michel
Olga BORZOVA
Anne BRASSEUR
Márton BRAUN
Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL
Piet DE BRUYN
André BUGNON
Natalia BURYKINA/ Valeriy Zerenkov
Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU
Mikael CEDERBRATT
Christopher CHOPE
Lolita ČIGĀNE*
Boriss CILEVIČS
James CLAPPISON
Ms Deirdre CLUNE
M. Georges COLOMBIER
Joseph DEBONO GRECH/ Joseph Falzon
Giovanna DEBONO/ Joseph Fenech Adami
Peter van DIJK
Şaban DİŞLİ
Karl DONABAUER
Josette DURRIEU
Baroness Diana ECCLES*
Tülin ERKAL KARA
Nikolay FEDOROV
Vyacheslav FETISOV/Vladimir Zhidkikh
Axel E. FISCHER
Gvozden Srećko FLEGO
Hans FRANKEN
Martin FRONC
György FRUNDA
Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ
Sir Roger GALE*
Jean-Charles GARDETTO
Tamás GAUDI NAGY
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI
Martin GRAF
Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou
Attila GRUBER/László Koszorús
Antonio GUTIÉRREZ
Ana GUŢU
Carina HÄGG
Andrzej HALICKI
Mike HANCOCK
Norbert HAUPERT
Oliver HEALD
Alfred HEER/Eric Voruz
Andres HERKEL/Paul-Eerik Rummo
Serhiy HOLOVATY
Jim HOOD/Michael Connarty
Joachim HÖRSTER
Andrej HUNKO
Susanna HUOVINEN
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI
Ramón JÁUREGUI
Mats JOHANSSON
Birkir Jón JÓNSSON/Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson
Antti KAIKKONEN/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila
Ferenc KALMÁR*
Haluk KOÇ
Václav KUBATA
Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA/André Schneider
Dalia KUODYTĖ/Arminas Lydeka
Henrik Sass LARSEN/Mette Reissmann
Jean-Paul LECOQ
Harald LEIBRECHT/Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE
Lone LOKLINDT
Younal LOUTFI
Philippe MAHOUX/Fatiha Saïdi
Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET
Pietro MARCENARO
Meritxell MATEU PI
Pirkko MATTILA
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA
Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/Sonja Mirakovska
José MENDES BOTA
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin
Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ
Andrey MOLCHANOV/Alexander Ter-Avanesov
Patrick MORIAU
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK
Lydia MUTSCH
Mr Gebhard NEGELE
Pasquale NESSA
Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Lord Tim Boswell
Elena NIKOLAEVA
Carina OHLSSON
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou
Eva PARERA
Alexander POCHINOK
Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/Nikolaj Villumsen
Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN
Jakob PRESEČNIK/ Andreja Crnak Meglič
Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA
Maria de Belém ROSEIRA
Marlene RUPPRECHT
Giacomo SANTINI
Kimmo SASI
Stefan SCHENNACH
Marina SCHUSTER
Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV/Alexey Knyshov
Robert SHLEGEL/Anvar Makhmutov
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ
Valeriy SUDARENKOV
Björn von SYDOW
Romana TOMC*
Lord John E. TOMLINSON
Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ
Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ
Ilyas UMAKHANOV/Boris Shpigel
Giuseppe VALENTINO/Renato Farina
Stefaan VERCAMER
Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN
Luigi VITALI
Luca VOLONTÈ
Nataša VUČKOVIĆ
Piotr WACH
Katrin WERNER/ Annette Groth
Renate WOHLWEND/ Doris Frommelt
Gisela WURM
Guennady ZIUGANOV