2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Fifteenth Sitting

Wednesday 25 April 2012 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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 verbatim report.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

1. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – A written declaration, No. 513, has been tabled, on “Freedom of expression of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons in Ukraine threatened”, which has been signed by 34 members, Document 12912. Any member, substitute or observer may add his or her signature to this written declaration in the Table Office, Room 1083.

2. Address by Mr Zlatko Lagumdžija, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Zlatko Lagumdžija, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina. After his address, the Minister has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

(The speaker continued in summary)

The President apologised for his pronunciation of the minister’s name – he had been practising it all morning.

The minister was welcome, and was to be thanked for the frank discussion that had been held in the President’s office before the sitting. The presidents of the political groups had been delighted to take the opportunity to have a free discussion with the minister over lunch.

The minister had visited the Assembly before, in June 2002, when a favourable opinion had been presented to the Assembly regarding the entry of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the Council of Europe. At the time, the minister had said that it was a recognition of the progress that Bosnia and Herzegovina had made towards a unified and democratic state, based on a non-nationalist and multi-ethnic government. In the 10 years since, the country had seized opportunities to reform its key institutions, including the military and police, and to create an ombudsman.

Recent reports still showed that political life in Bosnia and Herzegovina was riven by ethnic divisions, which had slowed its progress toward membership of the European Union. There was reason, however, to be optimistic about the future involvement of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina in European life.

The exchanges of views that were about to take place would strengthen co-operation between the Assembly and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and a warm welcome was extended to Mr Bozo Ljubic, a representative of the parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was present in the Chamber on this occasion of the 10th anniversary of the entry of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Council of Europe.

Mr LAGUMDŽIJA (Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina) – Distinguished President Mignon, distinguished Secretary General Jagland, honourable members of the Assembly, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to address the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a key European institution that promotes and safeguards democracy, the rule of law, human rights and parliamentary co-operation at the European level.

Today, we Bosnians – and, I am sure, all of us – celebrate 10 years of the accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Council of Europe. I take this opportunity to congratulate the United Kingdom on its presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Ten years ago, I stood before you at this gathering and said that the decision of the Committee of Ministers to recommend the accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina marked a new chapter in the history of my country. At that moment, we praised the readiness of the Council of Europe to grant Bosnia and Herzegovina full membership, proudly addressing all the achievements that have brought my country into the family of democratic European nations.

Complying with the standard set by the Council of Europe was not an easy endeavour for a war-torn country. We have undertaken sincere reforms in every area of our society – defence, fiscal issues, state administration and border policing – some of which were mentioned by the President in his introductory remarks. We did so in the firm belief that it was for the sake of our own prosperity, not only because of the rules set by the international community. We knew then and we know now that our “Atlantic trajectory” means there is no alternative. These may indeed be the best tools with which to transform ourselves into a cohesive state and society with a functioning economy.

In the past decade, the Council of Europe has played a significant role in the practical transformation of my country. However, along the way the reforms were constantly challenged by adversaries of no political party, nationality or religion, but who are omnipresent as the recidivist relics of the war. There is a thing of no name, but it is known as fear – fear of losing religious and national identity, and of becoming a fragile minority. There was also a fear that those we fought against during the war have a “hidden agenda”, depending on their perspective. There are at least three sides here, at least three sets of fear, and at least three different sets of realities. There has to be more honest communication about how realistic these fears are and how to ease them for everyone once and for all.

That lack of trust has been hijacked in Bosnia by people who have manipulated it for their own political purposes. A decade-long engagement with that adversary – that fear – has resulted in a significant slowdown in our reforms. Now we have reached an impasse, practically a dead end, where we are losing our grip and our regional dynamics.

Our country has, however, benefited greatly from its membership of the Council of Europe. For instance, the membership of Bosnia and Herzegovina has acted as a cornerstone of the promotion of human rights in Europe, and is particularly significant.

The Council of Europe has brought a whole new dimension to our foreign policy. We have embraced common European values such as the rule of law, democracy and the protection of human rights. For us, membership of the Council of Europe is as important as our journey towards the EU. We need to consider the implementation of the Council of Europe conditions, especially in the case of Sejdic and Finci, particularly with regard to so-called “others” who are part of our constitution but whose rights in reality are violated by that same constitution. To stand for elections to the presidency and to the House of Peoples is one of the preconditions of our candidacy for membership of the EU, so it is not only related to our obligations for membership of the Council of Europe. We expect a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, made according to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the opinion of the Venice Commission, to be delivered in a reasonable time. I have discussed the details with my colleagues today.

More importantly, we have to implement this for ourselves – for all the people who live in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have to follow our own traditions, because it has always been natural for different ethnic affiliations to enjoy the same rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina. If that has been the case historically, why should it not be so today, and especially why not tomorrow? Our constitution, which is set out in annexe IV to the Dayton-Paris peace agreement, established a complex institutional architecture. The Sejdic and Finci judgment is the first step in the process of ensuring that the country’s state institutions function more effectively in order to meet European standards.

I want members to know beyond any doubt that there is a strong political will in all the political parties that participate in the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina to tackle and implement the Sejdic and Finci case. Undoubtedly there is a long road ahead, but the achievements we have made give me confidence that we will be able to rise to the challenges. At the same time, we are aware that we have not used all the potential that membership of the Council of Europe offers our country. I recognise that that is our responsibility; we are ready to change and take that responsibility on ourselves.

However, we have always appreciated the remarks and evaluation of the Council of Europe as an objective expert political opinion and part of our joint efforts. We are grateful to the Council of Europe for its persistent support and assistance in the development of democracy and the promotion of human rights and the rule of law. So many resolutions adopted by this very honourable institution on Bosnia and Herzegovina were analysed in different ways in respect of different political factors in my country. Some of them were evaluated as painful, but the point is that Council of Europe recommendations present an objective and much-needed view of the situation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and they represent positive efforts from the Council of Europe.

Today, 10 years after we became part of the family, Bosnia and Herzegovina is subject to Council of Europe monitoring. We are aware, however, that the Council of Europe is our friend, no matter how things that come from here might look to us some times; that is also part of democracy and part of the spirit of the Bosnian and Herzegovinan Parliament, whose chairman is here with us, and of this very honourable House.

Allow me to extend our appreciation and respect to the Council of Europe in general and its Parliamentary Assembly for the productive and persistent engagement concerning the implementation of an extensive list of 73 commitments undertaken in respect of the membership of the Council of Europe. The advisory assistance has been indispensable for us. Since 2002, when we acceded to the Council of Europe, my country has passed through numerous important stages. Bosnia and Herzegovina became party to a number of conventions of the Council of Europe. To this day, we have signed and ratified 80 Council of Europe conventions and protocols. Those conventions had paramount importance for the development of our national legislation before our membership, and they have been especially important.

I am proud to say that the delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has been very active from the outset. We are proud of all of them, regardless of how sometimes they look like a mirror of all of us. I underline again how active that delegation has been.

I have come to Strasbourg to let you know that we will keep our struggle for Bosnia and Herzegovina fully in compliance with international human rights and democratic standards. It sometimes seems slow or even to become futile, but we are ready to try again – to fail again and again and to fail better in order to reach what we firmly believe our citizens deserve. Failure is part of our future success; we should not be afraid of failure because we have only to try again and again. We are ready to do that.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say something not about history but about lessons learned from history. Throughout much of history, Bosnia and Herzegovina has been an example of mutual enrichment, of understanding among all individuals and of mutual respect regarding religious and cultural differences and similarities. In multicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina, with its different historical circumstances, we have respected the rights and freedoms of all people, regardless of their ethnic or religious origin. We knew how to live with differences as an asset rather than as a liability. When we did not do so, we ended up in a tragic conflict and on the wrong side of history. That is one more reason for us to continue our enrolled reforms in the best manner and find a way to make the important jump from ethnocracy to democracy, to peace and cohabitation. Our statehood, our citizenship and our ethnic, religious and national feelings should not be bumping into each other. Our identities, of which we have so many, should not be each other’s enemies or make enemies among us. We should use our different identities to move us forward.

I would also like to take this opportunity to inform you about the challenges that Bosnia and Herzegovina faced in the past decade and what my country faces today, and to reflect that in the past decade Bosnia and Herzegovina has had many things to be proud of. Progress has been achieved in recent years in that context, in particular through the conclusion of the stabilisation and association agreement and admission to the Partnership for Peace – and we hope in the next stage, at the NATO Summit in Chicago, to get into the Membership Action Plan process as the next step to full membership. All that should be on the list, together with solid progress in economic and political reform.

The encouragement of the political process and a number of positive developments that have been made in recent months after years of being stuck, including the adoption of the state aid and census laws – they were in the pipeline of parliamentary procedures for years – are crucial steps in our progress on the European path. There have also been positive recent developments in the adoption of the state budget, which we have not had since 2010. As I said to some of my colleagues today, one good thing about the budget is that although there are disputes about it, they are not disputes between Serbs, Bosnians and Croats, as they were in the past 15 years; they have been normal political disputes among people on two different sides in respect of their opinions on the budget, although they come from the same ethnic group. The current disputes about the budget have a new quality – they are not ethnically based, but are about increases or decreases in salaries. You can call that what you like, but in Bosnia and Herzegovina we call that progress. Our budget is not an ethnic issue, but is becoming a political issue.

Ten years ago we were at an equal level with our Montenegro and Serbian neighbours as far as our EU path was concerned. I just greeted an old friend, Professor Mićunović, who was here before with former Prime Minister Djindjic, one of the biggest promoters of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s membership of the Council of Europe. Regardless of the fact that Serbia was not in the Council of Europe, we had the strong support of former Croatian Prime Minister Račan who was already here; he was also promoting us as a member of the club.

We agreed with former Prime Minister Djindjic that we would then advocate and promote Serbian membership of the Council of Europe. Today I congratulate Croatia on its EU membership. I want to congratulate Serbia on its status, which we envy, on the EU path. We hope that our envy will become a joy because we will catch Serbia up faster and then try to be faster and better so that we can all meet not only in the Council of Europe but in Brussels as well.

There have also been six years of neglecting the constitutional framework. We have decided to address issues of our statehood and our Euro-Atlantic future. We should move forward because, I repeat, for six years we did not do anything on constitutional reforms. Attempts six years ago failed and we cannot and will not fail this time.

I see the way ahead as a triangle. There is trust on one side and fear that has to be dealt with efficiently and effectively by trust. There is a common vision on the future of our country in the European Union and the political will of all the political stakeholders. All that was in short supply in the past and there is a need to recreate momentum for changes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We cannot afford any backsliding in that process. There is full awareness among all of us that we cannot do that and do not want to do that. We will not do it.

What we must do is clear the way for progress on issues that really matter to our citizens regardless of their ethnic or religious origin or economic or social development. We must “Europeanise” the next generation, increase mobility, and facilitate people-to-people contacts, thus bringing the country into the European mainstream. The newly formed council of ministers in Bosnia and Herzegovina is committed to seizing that momentum and making this year an important one for the country in terms of Euro-Atlantic integration. The more honest the debate, the more the chance of reaching 2014, the centenary of the beginning of the First World War, as a country that is significantly closer to being part of NATO, if not a full member of it, and closer to EU membership. After years and years, we solved the problem of military and state property, on which there had been no spending for years, which was a major roadblock to further EU and NATO integration.

We have no more time to waste. Bosnians who were born in 1992, when the war began, are now 20 years old and grew up in a war-torn and tradition-torn country. For them, pre-war Bosnia is a distant historical fact and post-war Bosnia is not a place where they want to live. It would be fatal if we overlooked the urgency of the moment and did not immediately start to establish a state that those youngsters can identify with. We do not have the right to fail because we are aware that there will be no legal remedy for the historical failure of jeopardising full European values and principles not only in my country but in a broader sense.

I would like to extend my warmest gratitude to the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers for making their contribution to the implementation of the commitments undertaken by Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have here some more lines in a very precise register of what was done and what was almost done, but that is something that I will just allow to stand in the record of this distinguished Assembly. Let me be a little bit personal in saying that these lines will be part of the accounting process of what I wanted to say.

Just under an hour ago, I had the privilege, for which I thank you, Mr President, of opening the small exhibition in the foyer showing how people in Bosnia and Herzegovina saved each other during the Second World War. That represents almost a magnificent piece of art depicting how neighbours were real human beings back in 1941 to 1945. When the President ended his remarks in opening the exhibition, he said something that we all know from the history books – that after those events formed part of our tragic history, we all learned that we have to act according to the motto “Never again”. It did happen again in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it happened to us twice. We will do everything in our power to ensure that it never happens to anyone else and that it does not happen to us for a third time.

Historically, Bosnia and Herzegovina was one society that evolved in different circumstances. Under the Ottoman Empire, for hundreds of years, we lived in one society as Muslims, Christians, Jews, Orthodox Christians and Catholics, and we started to establish our ethnic identities. Then we lived under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and we continued to live in one society. In those historical circumstances, we had differences but we were together. Then we had the kingdom of Yugoslavia and then we had the Second World War. Even in those circumstances, most people were living in one society. Then we had Tito’s time – that role model of democracy – and we still lived in one society. Then, back in 1990, the Berlin Wall fell. A few years later, those bricks hit us in Sarajevo, and then we had democracy. A vacuum was created when one system was collapsing and no new modern European democratic system had been established. That period ended with the war. We are still debating what happened and who did what, but basically the war was supposed to be about a result that had us living in one society.

If we cannot live in one society in Europe in the 21st century because we have democracy, and yet we lived in one society under two great empires and totalitarian regimes, that is a very scary conclusion. I am absolutely sure that no one in this room wants to accept that we cannot have diversity together in a 21st century democracy. That is why, standing here 10 years later, I want to thank you for supporting us in creating and institutionalising one society united in diversities.

It is now 2012. We have an obligation to finish the Sejdić and Finci process by 2014 in order to have new elections according to the deadline. We will do everything we can to finish it this year so that in 2014 we get a different outcome and one that marks the year in which we will show that 21st-century Bosnia and Herzegovina is different from 20th-century Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Twenty years ago, the great philosopher, writer, director and intellectual, Susan Sontag, was in Sarajevo saying that the 20th century started in Sarajevo in 1914 and was ending in the siege of the city in 1992 to 1995, and that the 21st century has to be different. The 21st century has not started yet because it is still not significantly different from the 20th century, so I hope that it will begin in 2014. We in Bosnia and Herzegovina want to be part of that beginning. We want to be a full-scale, full-sized NATO country that is on a vertical path to becoming a European Union country and showing that the wars in Europe are over and that the values of this Assembly are not our thoughts and our words but our deeds and our lives.

The Dayton Accord invented and gave us our constitution. The European Convention on Human Rights is a preamble of that constitution and therefore an integral part of it. However, the article that Sejdić and Finci is about is a clear violation of the convention. The architects of the Dayton Accord and legal experts who were there were not people from Bosnia and Herzegovina or even from the region. Those people knew very well that the constitution was already something that would have to be fixed in future because it is so obvious that particular parts of it and the European Convention on Human Rights contradict each other, but they did it because that was the way to stop the war, and the war was efficiently and effectively stopped.

In 1995, when I was thinking to myself that there is a long path in front of us, I did not realise in 15 or 17 years’ time I would be standing here saying, “Wait a second – it’s time to fix it, and, yes, we will fix it.” We have to open the new page of our statehood and I am looking forward to being part of that success story together with you. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Lagumdžija, for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you.

In order to finish by 4.30 p.m., we may need to interrupt the list of speakers. I remind you that questions must be limited to 30 seconds. I ask colleagues to observe the time limit scrupulously, because the minister absolutely has to leave us at 4.30, and it is now 4.11.

The first question is from Mr Vareikis, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Minister, thank you for your optimistic views on the future of your country. However, let us be realistic. Your country is still the sum of different ethnic groups, so how many foreign policies do you have? Do all the ethnic groups have the same attitude to NATO, to Russia, to Kosovo, to European integration and to the United States?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lagumdžija?

Mr LAGUMDŽIJA – According to the Dayton constitution, we have a presidency that forms and defines foreign policy, and we have one foreign policy. Of course, we have some disagreements in a country where the polls try to show how we think about certain things. There are ups and downs in different parts of the country, and perhaps different views among different people about the issues that you mentioned. However, we have one foreign policy, and the policy on our Euro-Atlantic future has the full consensus of all major political parties in parliament. Of course, there are many subjects on which we do not have a position, but that is because we are a small country and we do not have to take a position on everything.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Schennach, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) thanked Mr Lagumdžija. The Dayton constitution had been a good basis for progress. However, an ethnocracy could not be the basis for long-term democracy. Even Bosnia and Herzegovina’s closest allies could see that reforms were going at a snail’s pace. When would Bosnians learn to think outside the Dayton box?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lagumdžija?

Mr LAGUMDŽIJA – The Dayton box has a built-in mechanism for changing it. I could not agree more with you, but I must be realistic and give you a straight answer. The only way to change Dayton is to have the political will to change according to Dayton’s defined mechanisms for changing the constitution.

I want to underline again and again ethnocracy and democracy. If you look at them baldly, they are in conflict, but democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina includes a clear constitutional and political understanding that there are three historically defined ethnic groups with rights that must be protected. At the same time, democracy is about civil society and citizenship. Somehow, we have to put those things together in some sort of cohabitation, so that future generations – or even the next generation – do their best and do better than us. If respect for ethnic differences inside a democratic shell – at its core – is something that you are looking for, it is our common goal.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Ms Woldseth, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I would like to ask the Minister what the situation is regarding the relationship between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Will the border disputes, the issue of the Ploče port and trade relations be solved in time for Croatia’s accession to the EU?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lagumdžija?

Mr LAGUMDŽIJA – I had two fruitful meetings less than a month ago with the Croatian leadership, in particular with Vesna Pusić, the Foreign Minister of Croatia. After meetings with the state leadership, including President Josipović, and after Prime Minister Milanović visited Bosnia, we are fully aware that within the next year or so, we have to sort out certain matters: for example, the free flow of goods, not just between Croatia and Bosnia but between Bosnia and the European Union.

Secondly, we need to sort out free passage to Ploče, which is a major port for Bosnia and Herzegovina, through Neum, which bridges Dubrovnik and mainland Croatia. We think that these things will be sorted out in a reasonable time, because I see positive political will and a positive attitude. We have the good services of key players from Brussels in trying to sort these things out in a troika – Brussels, Zagreb and Sarajevo.

We must be especially aware that we have to use that as a mechanism to speed up our internal capacity-building for certain institutions and agencies to support the Bosnian economy. That is particularly important because out of all the countries with which we trade, our biggest trade deficit is with Croatia. Our trade deficit with Croatia last year was bigger than the budget that we are about to adopt. That says less about the enormousness of the trade deficit and more about the smallness of our budget. However, we have to sort out the trade deficit. There are new challenges ahead of us in the second part of next year, and we hope that Brussels and our friends from Zagreb will be true friends to us in sorting out matters in a mutually beneficial manner.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Ms Beck, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms BECK (Germany) noted that unfortunately there were still voices of doubt regarding the long-term viability of the unitary state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was clearly a dangerous attitude. What was the attitude of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina towards the whole state, given that their budget represented only 7.3% of that state?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lagumdžija?

Mr LAGUMDŽIJA – Thank you. Will you clarify the point about 7.3%?

Ms BECK (Germany) – I will ask my question in English. According to my information, only 7.3% of the budget will go to federal state level, with all the rest going to the two entities. That does not convince us that you are working at strengthening state level, which is needed to make Bosnia one entity.

Mr LAGUMDŽIJA – Thank you. On Bosnia and Herzegovina’s viability and its unity, everyone in the country understands that it will be one state and one country entering further stages of Europe-Atlantic integration. Perhaps we have some internal disputes about organisation, but no serious politician in the country talks about dissolution. That is not an option. However, we are discussing how to create a better functioning state, and that is why NATO and the EU, especially through the 33 chapters of hopeful negotiations with the EU, will help us transform ourselves internally into a better functioning state.

Although it was not your fault, I was confused about the figure of 7.3%. Some figures show that the current budget we are about to adopt proposes a 7% increase in indirect taxes compared with the previous year. You therefore confused me with the figure, because it is almost the same. We are increasing the budget in 2012 compared with 2011 and 2010. Indirect taxes are up by about 7%. Some studies show that if you look at consolidated public spending, about 8% to 9% goes to the state level.

About 2% goes to the Brčko district. About 10% goes to all the municipalities’ consolidated budgets, which leaves us with close to 80% of public spending going to cantons and entities. However, according to Dayton the state has nothing to do with social welfare or health care reform in a financial sense – although it does in a legislative sense. It is important that spending at the state level does not decrease relative to other spending, especially because this year there are certain considerations that did not apply in previous years. For example, we have to pay for certain things as a result of our European obligations in relation to border crossings, some institutions, the census and local elections. That did not apply with previous budgets.

This relates to a question that a colleague asked me over lunch about culture. Let me give you an example in relation to culture. Last year, cultural institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina did not have a single penny for one simple reason – we did not have a budget for that. There was temporary, provisional financing and the country was without a budget. For that reason, certain institutions were simply dying. That is one reason why we have a budget now. That is why in the 2012 budget we have put aside some money – a small amount – for cultural institutions and for sporting activities. They were not accounted for in the budget last year. It is important that we have begun the process that will take us in the right direction. What is most important is that we are clear that no one is under any illusion about the country’s future as one country. That is what counts. In the end, we will get there.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I call Mr Villumsen, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – In 2008, both the Venice Commission and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development issued a draft opinion that found a number of faults in your country’s electoral system. One issue was the fact that voters in different parts of the country get significantly different levels of representation for their vote. What prospects are there for addressing this problem?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Villumsen. Would you like to respond, Mr Lagumdžija?

Mr LAGUMDŽIJA – More than two years ago, we set up a parliamentary commission, which is now getting a new impetus after the issues that arose from Sejdic and Finci, which we have been talking about. Currently in our parliament there is very serious debate about such issues. We have set up a parliamentary and expert commission, which is dealing with the reform of election laws. Unfortunately, our election laws are not so perfect and therefore have to be refined. All the issues you have mentioned are in the pipeline to be tackled and I hope that they will be properly sorted in future.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Lagumdžija. I call Mr Michel.

Mr MICHEL (France) thanked Mr Lagumdžija for his lucid and courageous words. Was there the will within political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina to go beyond the Dayton agreement and pursue constitutional reform?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Michel. Would you like to respond, Mr Lagumdžija?

Mr LAGUMDŽIJA – How do we do things step by step? We can try to do a triple jump over a 15-metre canyon, but it will not work, or we can start by building a bridge. I think that from where we are, we have to start to build a bridge. Unfortunately, there are a lot of things that we have to fix. As I have been saying today to colleagues and friends, including in my speech to members, we have to sort out certain things in Dayton that have to be fixed and then start the process of getting beyond Dayton. That requires political will among the major political stakeholders. At this stage – in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 – we have to use the political will that exists in the country to do as much as we can. The situation is positive compared with what was previously the case, but in my personal opinion it is not enough. That is something that we can look forward to, as homework, for beyond 2014.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Lagumdžija. I call Mr Fournier.

Mr FOURNIER (France) noted that on 25 November 2009 Bosnia and Herzegovina had been censured by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the rights of citizens who were not members of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s three principal categories of citizens. That judgment had not yet been implemented. Could Mr Lagumdžija provide a full timetable for the implementation of the Court’s findings?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Fournier. Would you like to respond, Mr Lagumdžija?

Mr LAGUMDŽIJA – The verdict had two elements – one concerning the presidency and one concerning the House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, that verdict did not cover all aspects of our legislative constitution when it comes to contraventions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The verdict tackles only certain, but not all, issues in relation to Serbs, Croats and Bosnians. That might be something that is waiting for us. I think that the next month or two will be crucial for internal political debate about how to tackle the Sejdic and Finci issue comprehensively so that a new verdict does not come our way. In the next few months we will try to create some momentum. We should not, for example, sort out the House of Peoples first and leave the presidency for later. We should try to fix things properly now, before summer, because if we do not fix things before the summer it will be the end of the year before there is any real debate because of the local elections that are part of local political life in every country. That would create certain dynamics that have to be avoided. That is why we should deal with things now. If you are asking me for a time frame, I can say that in the near future – no more than two months – we might fix the Sejdic and Finci issues. At this stage I am an optimist. Had I been here three or four months ago I would have said that I was a pessimist, but things are in slightly better shape. That does not mean that optimism always wins but I will do everything to ensure that we go in the right direction.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Lagumdžija. I call Mr Leyden.

Mr LEYDEN (Ireland) – Minister, may I welcome you to the Council of Europe on behalf of the Irish delegation? We are very grateful for your speech. As someone who promoted membership of the Council of Europe, are you satisfied that you are taking a full part in all the institutions of this great Organisation? Are you concerned about the nationalist issues that have been rearing their head in Republika Srpska, which is causing concern to some people in the region?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Leyden. Would you like to respond, Mr Lagumdžija?

Mr LAGUMDŽIJA – First, I am very happy and proud that we have been part of this Organisation for 10 years. We know that we have not always fulfilled all the things that we could and that that is up to us. We will do our best to ensure that in 10 years’ time someone else can come here and be even more proud than I am today.

On the nationalist issues, we can measure which groups are bigger and which are smaller but the real problem is whether such nationalist issues exist in all major groups and communities. The best way to tackle such issues is to strike at the very core of the problem when there is manipulation and when there are ethnophobic, ethnocentric or other phobic sentiments. We have to tackle issues of poverty, justice and the economy in our country because when there is a bad economy, injustice and corruption that creates excellent opportunities for manipulating today one kind of nationalism and tomorrow another. After all, although there are nationalist issues in my country, those people are living in a common world so we have to address all the relevant issues regardless of which is the bigger today, because who knows which will be the bigger tomorrow. We have to ensure that problems that are smaller today do not become bigger tomorrow. We have to do everything we can to ensure that the big problems become smaller.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Lagumdžija. I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – What do you suggest should happen in countries in which large numbers of different ethnic groups live, as in Romania? You suffered greatly from ethnic conflict. What would be your advice for Hungarian minority groups in Romania? How can we avoid such conflicts in order to find peaceful co-existence?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lagumdžija?

Mr LAGUMDŽIJA – Thank you for that question, and for thinking that we can be of any help. I belong to the political way of thinking that although our differences can easily be manipulated, there is a much greater return on investment if we take those differences as truly our advantages. Today more than 90% of the countries on the globe have more than 10% of people who are an ethnic, racial or religious minority, and when the globe no longer has mono-ethnic states those numbers will be even bigger. More than 95% of countries will have 15% or 20% of people who are mathematically speaking a minority but will be second, third or whatever generation citizens of that country.

We have to find a way globally of avoiding what Bosnia was suffering 15 years ago. Do not get me wrong: if we do not sort out the Bosnian issue and find a way for all 4 million of us to live in a democratic society in Europe, there will be more differences in countries all over the world. We have to find a way today institutionally to guard and support our differences. That is my pledge, but there is no single formula. The formula is very extensive. With all due respect, we have to prepare ourselves for a future that will be significantly different from today, when we will have more differences but be living together and sharing the same space. Thinking today about the mechanisms for creating shared societies, and paying for them, regardless of how high the price is, will be a bargain compared with our failure to find a way of managing the situation in the future.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The last question is from Mr Iwiński.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – Minister, I was in the first delegation from this Assembly to go to Sarajevo 25 years ago. Your capital was besieged longer than Berlin and longer than Leningrad, and 100 000 people were killed during ethnic cleansing. How strong is the process of reconciliation today, and is it irreversible?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lagumdžija?

Mr LAGUMDŽIJA – The process of reconciliation at grass roots level is much bigger and less visible, unfortunately. That is what the book I mentioned earlier talked about. We have not said so much about the good things that were happening in 1992 and 1995 and how many good things are happening today among ordinary people. We have to promote that. You were there 20 years ago. Mr Jagland was there right after Dayton, as were some of you. I will give an example of how we have moved forward.

I was elected to parliament for the first time in 2006. At the time, I was a member of the only party whose members did not come from a single ethnic or religious group. I have to correct myself: in 2006 my party, too, was mono-ethnic in parliament because I was the only one of its members to be elected. Since then, things have been different. I remember that for six months the presidency of the country tried to get together to decide how they would sit. High Representative Carl Bildt, my good friend and colleague, managed to get them to come together in a session in a restaurant near Sarajevo that was close enough both to Sarajevo and Republika Srpska. But then they had a problem. How could they sit, because all three were equal? They found a round table, but the meeting was postponed because their advisers could not agree who should sit in the middle. They had found that there was a middle, because when journalists take photos they do it from one point and someone looks as though he is sitting in the middle. We convened six months later because we could not agree where to meet and where to sit. There was even an international project to set up a parliament on demarcation lines in Sarajevo, with one entrance from Republika Srpska and one from the Federation. That was how even the creative thinkers on the international committee were thinking, together with our great heroes who won the war – I am sorry, lost the war, because we all lost.

In the end, the project was too expensive. It could not be carried out quickly so we had a temporary sitting of parliament in a national museum. They had to empty a room that was full of extinct species from Bosnia and Herzegovina. I walked into that small room and the sign “Extinct species” was still there. They had to empty that room of small creatures that could no longer live in our atmosphere to put us there. [Laughter] I am glad you are laughing. Perhaps one day we can make a “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” series about what happened in Bosnia 15 or 20 years ago and then we will be a normal country.

Things have moved on. The extinct species are back in the museum. The extinct species of political life are still around and we will have to do something. We will have to keep going along the path that you are already on. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Lagumdžija. On behalf of the Assembly, I thank you most warmly for your address and for the answers you have given to questions. We wish you an excellent return home. I am sorry that our schedule was a little late.

3. The protection of freedom of expression and information on the Internet and online media

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report on “The protection of freedom of expression and information on the Internet and online media” presented by Sir Roger Gale on behalf of the rapporteur, Ms Zaruhi Postanjyan, and the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 12874 and addendum.

I call Sir Roger Gale. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Mr President. I propose to use the time available to me to speak briefly to introduce the report and to explain how we come to be where we are today. I shall use the remainder of the time to reply to the debate and to indicate why the committee will oppose the amendments that have been tabled.

The report on the protection of freedom of expression and information on the Internet and online media owes its prominence to a motion tabled by the late Lord Andrew McIntosh in December 2009. The motion was picked up by Ms Postanjyan in October 2010. She presented the first draft of her report in Ljubljana in May 2011, and that draft then came before the committee here during the plenary session in June 2011. Let me place on record my appreciation of the work done by Ms Postanjyan in creating this report. I would also pay particular credit to her for her receptive manner in accepting the many amendments we sought to table and her acceptance of the delay that caused to the production of the report.

When the report was introduced in June 2011, we felt that it needed further work. That work was done here, in Paris and in Stockholm, and the report was finalised in December 2011 in Paris. That is where we are today. The UK presidency of the Council of Europe has thrown its weight behind the importance of freedom of expression and information on the Internet, and, indeed, only today in this building the United Kingdom Permanent Representative indicated in terms that media freedom has the power to transform society. That, in fact, is what this report is all about.

The difficulties we faced in meeting our aims during the preparation of this report for the Assembly have centred on the reconciliation of conflicting tensions. On the one hand, there is the human rights desire to see freedom of access to information and freedom of access to exchange on the Internet, while on the other hand it is necessary to recognise and pay attention to the need to protect the sovereign rights of individual nations and, perhaps most important, the question of security in a world of terrorism as experienced by individual nations.

It is very easy to say that everything should be free. The Arab Spring has been cited over and over again as an example of how social media have been used to promote democracy. However, the other side of that equation, as I said earlier, was last summer in London where those same social media were used to promote criminality. Striking a balance between those two needs and problems has been very difficult indeed.

Members have had the opportunity to study this report since almost the beginning of this year. We believe that the amendments are covered in the report or are in conflict with the report, and I shall explain why later. But now I want to let the Assembly consider the report, listen to the comments made by colleagues and respond in due course.

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

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Sir Roger.

I remind the Assembly that speaking times this afternoon are limited to four minutes.

In the debate I call first Mr McNamara, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – I commend the rapporteur for her work and the ongoing work of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media in this difficult and dynamic field of human activity. As Sir Roger said, the central issue covered in the report and, indeed, with regard to the Internet and online media is the tension between the central technical characteristics of the Internet and the existing legislative arrangements around issues such as copyright and defamation, along with the progressively more precisely articulated rights of individuals. These factors are complex, fluid and recursive, and there are few simple answers to the challenges posed. However, the paper opens up some interesting avenues of potential approaches for discussion.

Most of the member states of the Council of Europe have long since incorporated a recognition of the right of freedom of speech in national legislation or in their constitutions, so to a large degree that matter has been settled. It has been the development of increasingly pervasive information and communications technology that has posed the new challenge. Balancing intellectual property rights with the right to one’s own good name against the overarching democratic rights of freedom of speech is far more complex in this new domain. The primary reasons for this arise from the characteristics of the technology. It is global, allowing single commercial concerns access to truly massive amounts of information and thus to power. The user-led nature of the technology also makes it extremely difficult to regulate or govern these activities without impinging on the rights of all users.

I want to look particularly at the recommendations made in the report. Recommendation 10.2, like practically all the others, is complicated by the global nature of much Internet activity and the local nature of this type of governance. In the first instance, a web of different and sometimes conflicting national self-regulatory schemes is likely to be difficult to operate in practice and will also encounter difficulties in securing full engagement from larger Internet companies. Moreover, the ability of intermediaries actively to police the content posted by users of these services is very limited both by practical restrictions and EU-mandated legal restrictions.

Recommendation 10.3 is entirely commendable and worthy of support. However, I want to mention recommendation 10.5, where there is a central legal difficulty in that intermediaries are turned into mere conduits in the EU e-commerce directive 2000/31/EC, so part of the recommendation is largely redundant in that it essentially calls on member states to do what is already enshrined in national law in the context of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Recommendation 10.6 would constitute a very significant legislative development and require far greater consideration before it could be implemented, not least given that it appears to be at odds with the existing EU legislative framework which states that intermediaries cannot be held accountable. In principle, freedom of expression must be upheld and developments online pose a number of potential challenges to this. Dealing with it will require a very careful investigation of the options available and sensitive implementation.

Finally, I want to deal with the addendum to the report which deals with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. I commend the recommendation of the author that invites member states that are signatories to the ACTA to pursue public consultation about future domestic legislation resulting from the ACTA, taking into account Assembly Resolution 17/44.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr McNamara. The next speaker is Baroness Eccles, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Baroness ECCLES (United Kingdom) – I am pleased to be representing the European Democrat Group in this debate. As Sir Roger has already outlined, this report has been long in the making. I became aware of it at the first meeting I attended as a new member of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media in Ljubljana in May last year when Ms Postanjyan presented her outline report. It is a shame she cannot be with us today owing to the forthcoming elections in Armenia. Since then, I have been present at all seven meetings of the committee when the report has been on the agenda.

The Internet and online media are no respecters of national frontiers and in many ways are out of the control of mere humans. The subject of this report is constantly under debate and review and is a moving target. The position of the United Kingdom is that it supports freedom of expression and information on the Internet. Individuals have the right to free and uncensored access to the Internet. States should interfere with these rights only in exceptional circumstances. Such measures should not be taken lightly, and only if they are effective, appropriate, proportionate and in accordance with international legal obligation.

The report was adopted in Paris last December and has been available since mid Feb. An addendum was added after the approval of the committee on 6 March. The report came up for discussion at the meeting of the European Democrat Group this morning and was considered with seven amendments, six of which are to the text of the draft resolution and the seventh of which was tabled by the committee on the conclusion of the addendum.

It is not possible to present to the Assembly a comprehensive summary of the European Democrat Group’s opinions on the report, owing to the complexity of the subject and the late introduction of substantial amendments. However, it is accepted that the subject is inevitably a part of work in progress, and the report makes a useful contribution to an extremely complex subject.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Memecan, who will speak for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – Dear colleagues, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Postanjyan, for her report. It draws attention to important challenges in the modern era of information and technology. Information and communication technologies have become indispensable tools of our lives. We can talk about life before the Internet and life after it. It is really difficult to keep up with the technological advances, and it is equally difficult to foresee the implications of such inventions in our social and private lives. It is also difficult to keep that under control.

The Internet, and especially social media, have for ever changed how we interact with each other. Our so sacredly kept private lives and personalities are on display on Facebook pages, on LinkedIn connections and so on. From moment to moment, we report about ourselves by tweeting and spread news by re-tweeting. We upload and download videos of ourselves and others. In a way, we are now much more open and transparent.

The ethics and etiquette of yesterday will need to be revisited and revised in our societies, which will have more open and transparent individuals. Unfortunately, due to our human nature, there will be abuses in the virtual world, just as there are in the real world. We will have to fight against those abuses in the virtual world, just as we will always have to fight against abuses in the real world. Laws, rules and regulations are the means of fighting against such abuses and crimes.

It seems only logical to have rules and regulations against cybercrime and online abuses such as defamation, hacking, stealing and using personal information. But the fine line between freedom of speech and respect for privacy and security should be very well calculated. There will be individual crimes as well as organised online crimes.

The protection and security of our information are in the hands of intermediaries who store and transmit such information. So much of the information at hand is sometimes considered an asset to be marketed and profited from by the intermediaries. So much information on citizens being so easily accessible makes it attractive for governments to go after their citizens for security reasons – or so-called security reasons, which are abuses of privacy and violations of basic human rights.

The Internet is a medium whereby freedom of expression is so easily and widely exercised. The revealing of information, as well as access to information, are basic rights. The introduction of laws, rules and regulations to limit what one can do on the Internet is limiting freedom of expression, which is a violation of a basic human right. There is definitely a need for ongoing research and debate on the relationship between privacy, freedom and security, and for advances in technology to address these complex issues.

The liberal way to tackle the issue is to adopt a value-based approach. We should encourage the creation of a system of online ethics that respects human rights, basic freedoms and privacy concerns – just as we do in real life. We should persistently call for the support of such liberal values in the online world, rather than trying to devise complex legal tools for each development.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Lecoq, who will speak for the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr LECOQ (France) hailed the rapporteurs for their excellent report. He wished to focus on codes of conduct. The Internet was a tool that allowed everyone to engage in the production of information. But the converse was that it was also a means of producing disinformation. Increasingly, journalists and bloggers elided their duty to inform and the need for accuracy. The immediacy of the Internet left little time for reflection, which could be to the detriment of the truth. It was important to remember that the journalist’s first duty to the public was to tell the truth.

The events of the Arab Spring in 2011 had demonstrated the power of blogosphere and the role of social media in bringing about political change. But such tools could also be used against individuals. Those wishing to do harm were capable of hiding behind pseudonyms. There was a balance to be struck between freedom of expression and protecting the rights of the individual and their data. Both users and civil society more generally had a role to play in defining those rights.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Franken, who will speak for the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – Freedom of information and expression is the basic rule of democracy, but each rule has its exceptions. The only exception to this basic rule is formulated in paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It states that the exception has to be prescribed by the law, that there has to be a pressing social need for the measure and that the measure has to be in proportion to the goal that is wanted.

New means of communication mean that there is a multitude of different ways to provide, disseminate and receive information. Through those means, everybody can inform anybody anywhere. If we take the freedom of information seriously, then those tools of communication must be at the free disposal of everybody everywhere. Because of those possibilities, we are confronted with the problem that governments and private companies can block information or build surveillance capacities into their products. Is that allowed or even justified? In principle, the answer is no, unless it happens with the clear and explicit consent of the user.

How do we control whether that consent is really given? We need the concept of transparency, which is having the ability to control the data and their flow. To arrange that, we need to notice and take down procedures. On request, the process has to be shown and all data have to be removed. Only a judge or an independent authority could fulfil that task. At the same time, we are confronted with the next problem, which is that a judge has only a limited competence – limited to his national borders. We see more and more that judges use the concept of a ubiquitous competence. That means that the judge in the country where harm is suffered decides that he is competent to rule on the case. A lot of cases will be caught under this rule, but not all the problems can be solved, and so we need international co-operation. The cybercrime treaty is a good example of that necessary activity.

We have taken only some first steps along the way. The resolution that we are discussing is one of those steps towards preventing harm and at the same time preserving freedom of communication as much as possible. Thanks to the rapporteurs and the other people who worked on this resolution, we are under way and on the right track.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Franken. I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) disagreed with some of the points made earlier in the debate. No fundamental rights were absolute. Rather, all rights had a limit and were relative especially when they came into conflict with other rights. The Internet was not a closed concept. Like democracy, it was constantly moving backwards and forwards and concepts of rights needed to adapt accordingly. The tension between different rights posed new challenges, especially when it came to responding to cybercrime. It was becoming increasingly clear that the state was too small a concept when considering human rights and the Internet. In the future, cyber treaties between countries would be necessary to respond to such challenges. Although that would be insufficient in itself to deal with some of the difficulties the Internet posed, it was better to act than to do nothing. Finally, education would play a key role in making people more aware of how they used the Internet. It was vital that they had a greater understanding of a powerful instrument.

The rapporteurs deserved congratulations on their excellent report. However, in two to three years it would be necessary to revisit the issue to keep pace with the changing role and use of the Internet.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Sidyakin.

Mr SIDYAKIN (Russian Federation) thanked the rapporteurs for their report, which made a number of important points. It dealt with the role that individuals could play in sharing information about misgovernment, and that was worth discussion. A recent example was the role that social media had played in spreading news and encouraging demonstrations in Moscow. However, such resources could also be used by those with evil intent such as extremists and hooligans. It was difficult to respond to such issues when they occurred in other countries. The report rightly focused on the importance of co-operation between the states and the role of intermediaries.

It was a matter of concern that the report referred explicitly to the actions of China, Belarus and other countries. What criteria had the committee used to select those countries, given that they were not members of the Council of Europe? The reference should be removed as it was not possible to intervene directly in the actions of those countries. He hoped that the Assembly would agree his amendment to that effect.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Renato Farina.

MR R. FARINA (Italy) thanked the rapporteurs. Communication was the essence of being; to be human was to communicate and to relate to others. Such was its power that totalitarian regimes had been known to limit communications between citizens in order to limit power, while communication from those above to those below had remained open. There was, however, a risk that the Internet could become totalitarian. Communication via the Internet should be assisted, as navigation would be assisted on the open sea. Like the sea, which had no boundaries, freedom to use and access information on the Internet should be unlimited and promoted.

Like the sea, the Internet carried a danger of encountering pirates. The question was whether the greater risk lay in limiting freedom or in running the risk of encountering pirates. Hate speech should not be prevented by means of the law. Hate was a feeling and thus could not be prevented. The question was where the limits should lie, whether Catholics, for example, could be prevented from discussing their views on homosexuality, or those discussing Dante’s views of Mohammed be censored. Accessing paedophilic material on the Internet was, on the other hand, unacceptable; that was not a matter of feeling or belief but of accessing material that was criminal in nature. There was a need to defend the reputations of individuals from libellous claims. In addition, intermediaries who collected an immense amount of information about their users should not be left unchecked. A requirement for the annual destruction of information could assist in that respect.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Bugnano.

Ms BUGNANO (Italy) said that the debate was one of great importance and thanked the rapporteurs for their work. Freedom of expression and information formed a core part of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was a fundamental task of the Assembly to explore anything that threatened those rights. The addendum to the report and the amendment that had been tabled discussed the recent Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement of 1 October 2011. The agreement had provoked more than 2 million people in Europe to sign a petition calling for their governments not to sign. It was necessary to ask, therefore, whether ACTA was the true means for protecting intellectual property on the web. Intellectual property was one of the main outputs of industry in Europe, and thus of great importance, but it had to be asked at what price protecting property should come.

There were concerns that ACTA would adversely affect freedom on the Internet, that its agreement lacked transparency and that it might have an adverse effect on Internet service providers. Italy had signed ACTA with a view to ratification in June. But there was still time to consider the instrument carefully. Companies that provided Internet services could become liable for what their users did, not before the courts, but before copyright holders. Providers would have a duty to provide information regarding users suspected of copyright violation. The matter required thorough discussion, but the freedom of the Internet should not be jeopardised.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Biedroń.

Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – I congratulate Ms Zaruhi Postanjyan on her report. It is very important that the Parliamentary Assembly makes an effort to engage in human rights issues with regard to Internet regulation. As we all know, as well as opportunities, the Internet carries certain risks, and one of the main threats nowadays is obviously various infringements of the right to privacy.

It goes without saying that the effective combating of cybercrime requires global co-operation. Cases of struggles to block websites that contain hate speech, such as RedWatch and Blood and Honour, are good examples of that. I therefore appreciate that both the draft resolution and the draft recommendation call for the promotion and better implementation of the convention on cybercrime. Unfortunately, several countries have still not signed it, and some countries have signed but not ratified it. However, extending the membership of the convention is not enough to solve the problem. Without amending some of its provisions, its potential will never be fully exploited.

The convention’s effectiveness is weakened by provisions such as Article 27, paragraph 4B, which allows a member state to refuse the application of the convention basically on any grounds, if it considers it “likely to prejudice its essential interests”. There are also reservations about other aspects of the convention, including lack of effective jurisdictional rules, provisions on the criminalisation of intellectual property infringement, lack of effective monitoring mechanisms and so on. Although the convention was created within the legal framework of the Council of Europe, which is known for its contribution to promoting human rights, there is hardly any reference to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, such as privacy or freedom of expression, which are crucial in online communication.

I understand the difficulty of hammering out an acceptable political compromise, which resulted in the current text of the convention. However, if we really want to reinforce the effectiveness of this international agreement, it is not enough to implement the existing provisions. We need to revise them. That applies especially because the enhancement of the cybercrime convention was included in the Council of Europe’s strategy on Internet governance 2012 to 2015, which was adopted in March 2012.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Biedron. I call Ms Clune.

Ms CLUNE (Ireland) – The Internet and online media have made the world smaller and have allowed citizens the opportunity to have their opinions heard across the world and to receive and impart ideas and information. We so often hear about the value of the Internet to mankind and we hear stories about people who live in an oppressive situation but use the freedom that comes with the Internet to tell their story and inform the world of the situation where they are. Previous speakers have mentioned the success of the Internet and online media during the recent Arab Spring.

Last night, we debated the important issue of active citizenship. I believe that the freedom provided by the Internet and online media plays an important role in encouraging citizens’ participation in the democratic process. Individuals can put their own comments out there at any time of day and on any subject they choose without fear or favour. They do not have to belong to a group, obtain a licence or seek permission from any body.

The Council of Europe has a proud history of ensuring that freedom of expression and the freedom to hold an opinion are seen as fundamental human rights and are protected. The report proposes to extend and enhance that provision. However, there must be a balance when it comes to the privacy of individuals and to ensuring that people’s personal data are not being processed unfairly or in an unlawful manner. Most importantly, we must ensure that a person’s good name is not tarnished and that they are not defamed in any way. That is a challenge for those of us who are responsible for creating legislation and implementing the necessary controls. We know that there will always be some development or new process trying to circumvent regulations and guidelines so we must be constantly vigilant and react to changes. Convention 108, which was set up to protect personal data and acknowledged in 2010, needs to be modernised in light of the new challenges posed by technology and the globalisation of information.

We also have to be vigilant when it comes to the whole issue of child pornography, the sexual abuse of children and the distribution of such material on the Internet. There was recently a debate in my parliament about these issues and the need to ensure there is an effective system in place to block such material. Every image of a child being sexually abused is a crime scene and the freedom of the Internet has allowed such activities to flourish. I realise that there will always be some new way of distributing such material, but I was struck by the submission to our debate by a member of Interpol asking for that kind of blocking mechanism to be put in place as we do not have that in my country. He said that some individuals casually browsing the Internet come across such material, go back to it again and again and can then become abusers. The appeal was that we should provide a facility to block such material and ensure that casual voyeurs do not become serial abusers.

This is a complex and difficult issue. We need to balance intellectual property rights, music rights, freedom of expression and issues of privacy and we need to protect the individual. I commend the authors of the report for striking a balance. They have addressed these issues in a positive way and have grappled with a difficult situation.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Clune. I call Mr Corman.

Mr CORMAN (Republic of Moldova) – Dear colleagues, over recent years the new media boom has really disrupted our lives. New media have generated entire social cyber phenomena and have increased enormously communication between people all over the world. They have become an extraordinary resource for freedom of expression and information. It was as impossible for the north African regimes to block the Twitter revolutions as it was for the communist regime in Moldova to prevent what happened in April 2009. Right after those events, the situation of the media in Moldova, including online media, improved significantly. Freedom of speech, political pluralism and free media are among the most visible achievements of the governing Alliance for European Integration. According to Reporters Without Borders, in its 2011 press freedom index, the press in Moldova is freer than in some EU countries. In Moldova today there are 60 television stations and 57 radio stations in operation and more than 200 newspapers being published. In addition, more than 20 news portals operate online and there are many news agencies. According to international reports: “Market entry for media in Moldova is free, non-discriminatory and generally easy”.

The situation was absolutely different only a few years ago when the communists governed. It was quite funny to hear the communists’ leader complaining here on Monday about the revocation of the licence for NIT, its TV channel of communist propaganda, because the communists used to suppress freedom of speech and shut down channels that respected the law and had an objective approach. Now, the Broadcasting Coordinating Council has revoked the NIT licence as a result of repeated and multiple violations of the law, including for lack of pluralism of opinion, incitement to hatred and open propaganda in favour of the Communist party. Despite the fact that the competent authority conducted 13 surveys and applied 11 sanctions to this channel over three years, it has not come more into line with legal requirements.

We are firmly convinced that freedom of expression and freedom of the media are essential for a democratic society. It is necessary to protect users’ freedom of expression and ability to access information on the Internet and online media against threats from public authorities and private companies. Online media represent an enormous resource but also present a range of serious challenges and threats. Child pornography, incitement to racism, hatred, violence and terrorism can sit comfortably in cyberspace. Often the zone of virtual reality is seen as a place in which freedom of expression is unrestricted and responsibility is exempted, but responsibility must be real in this virtual space and freedoms must be exercised within the law. This presents a serious dilemma, but, as the previous speaker said, we need to find a fair balance. The report clearly highlights the main issues and makes pertinent recommendations. We must adopt efficient instruments in order to face these challenges and protect human rights against any kind of violation or abuse.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Corman. The next speaker is Mr Mustafa.

Mr MUSTAFA (Azerbaijan) – Thank you, Mr President.

Dear colleagues, Internet resources have been developing rapidly in Azerbaijan in the past decade. There is no problem using the Internet. The issue was solved on the legislative and administrative levels. It is interesting that the Internet media are the freest media outlets in Azerbaijan.

In general, it is clear that it is impossible to solve problems arising from freedom of expression and freedom of information by means of legislation alone. It is an issue at the cultural level of communities and each individual Internet user, so it would be more helpful to think of implementing arrangements through social institutions. As an example I mention the disturbing issues that arose during discussion of the draft defamation law. Although the abolition of criminal liability for libel and insult was positively appreciated, and elements of libel and insult decreased considerably in broadcast and print media, they penetrated to the Internet and online media. That is a cause for concern.

Although it is reassuring that it is difficult to intervene by legislation in freedom of expression and freedom of speech in Internet and online media, intervention in private life from those media outlets – libels, insults from unknown addresses and illegal attacks on individuals – has grown to a dangerous level. In other words, the misuse of freedom of expression and information has become an urgent issue.

Such issues should be seriously discussed by international organisations, because regardless of the level of democratic development, the majority of states avoid restricting Internet and online access so as not to be denounced by international human rights organisations. Therefore, it would be reasonable in future to include in the reports proposals on the prevention of the misuse of freedom of expression and information.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Mustafa. I now call Mr Ivanovski.

Mr IVANOVSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – I agree with some of the points made by colleagues and by the rapporteur. The report has found a good way of addressing the issues. I think we all agree that they will persist in the future.

The primary obligation for the Council of Europe is to defend freedom of expression and the freedom of the media in general, regardless of their possible misuse by any individual or organisation. The Internet and the so-called new media have fundamentally changed the world. How can we, or other organisations, possibly decide what is to be acceptable or not acceptable for the media? As has been mentioned in the report and the draft resolution, which I will vote for, we must find a way at European and international level of deciding precisely which issues cannot be disseminated on the Internet or through new media.

Something may be acceptable in one country, not acceptable in another or forbidden in another. Freedom of the media may be blocked for political reasons and not for the reasons that we agreed in the resolution, such as xenophobia, nationalism, terrorism or other immoral abuses. We must find a way of dealing with the reasons for rather than the consequences of restrictions. The freedom to distribute information is a consequence of new media, which should not be used for abuse. Even with strict regulation of the Internet, we could not reduce child pornography; unfortunately, it would still exist. Nor would strict regulation reduce any other negative social situations.

The primacy of freedom of expression and freedom of the media must be a constant for all of us, yet at the same time we must find a way of dealing with the things that we all agree should be regulated. If we find a way of regulating the new media that is only partially international, we will create problems. We would make the world a worse place, not a better one. Iran, Syria, China and Belarus already have restrictions on freedom of expression but not for reasons that we agree with.

The report is a solid basis for further communication and discussion so that in the years to come we have an even more precise position, and even more freedom of expression and freedom of the media.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Ivanovski. The next speaker is Mr Nicolaides.

Mr NICOLAIDES (Cyprus) – Information and communication technologies are by far the most dominant means for the dissemination of information and ideas among the general public all over the world. Access and use of the Internet and online media have become so popular and widespread nowadays that they have turned into a very powerful tool for shaping major social and political developments at national and international level. Those developments go beyond the domain of purely commercial activity. At the core of the matter lie issues relating to the protection of freedom of information and the right of access to that information as well as protection of the right of expression and the right to shape information.

There are a number of important but difficult questions that have to be addressed effectively. Where does freedom of information end and where does the need for objectivity begin, and who defines objectivity? Where can one draw the line between freedom of information and the need to protect society from racism, xenophobia, hostility, violence and child pornography? Things are even more complex due to the involvement in the electronic information industry of private intermediaries who may have a tendency to compromise, and unduly restrict access to, dissemination of information for commercial or other purposes.

To achieve an environment that ensures productive and harmonious co-existence on all these issues, member states must actively co-operate with the Council of Europe, the European Union and other international bodies to encourage private intermediaries to adopt self-regulatory codes of conduct, thus ensuring that they work transparently and can be held accountable for the dissemination of unlawful content. Moreover, member states must ensure and facilitate the jurisdiction of domestic courts in cases of violation, in accordance with Articles 10 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As these matters are constantly changing and new issues are arising, the international community must keep monitoring them closely and intensely.

Of course, we must bear it in mind that censorship is no solution when it comes to freedom of information. Therefore, we should turn our attention to the need for the public to be properly educated, especially minors, so that they develop a necessary awareness of these issues. We need to pay decisive attention to this area in order to protect vulnerable groups from being put in any form of danger through using the Internet. In conclusion, I congratulate the rapporteur on this well-informed report, which deserves our full support.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Nicolaides The next speaker is Ms Guţu.

Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova) endorsed the view of those members who had welcomed the report. It was on a topical subject, one that lay at the very heart of democracy.

Article IV of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen had stated that freedom consisted of the power to do anything that did not hurt someone else. It was important to recall, however, that the European Convention on Human Rights did not protect hate speech, a point stressed in the draft resolution, which also noted that the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stated that any incitement to discrimination or hatred would be prohibited. In that context, it was important that national legislation should be able to make intermediaries prevent abuse by Internet users.

Many politicians would have had experience of online attack by journalists, and that raised the question of how states should deal with online media that promoted hatred. One recent example was a Russian journalist who had posted online a photograph of President Medvedev holding a rifle followed by pictures of foreign politicians such as John McCain, the President of Georgia and the Prime Minister of Estonia. Once, such individuals would have been called “enemies of the state”. It was unclear whether the journalist realised how irresponsible her behaviour was.

The report was important, but was only the beginning of a long debate on this subject.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Guţu. The next speaker is Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I would like to talk about two very important aspects of this report. I agree absolutely with the recommendation made by the Committee of Ministers that was adopted in 2011. It states that the right to freedom of expression includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive important information and ideas without interference. That is essential in order that citizens can participate in the democratic process. The right to freedom of expression applies to both online and offline activities, regardless of frontiers. In the context of the Council of Europe, these protections should be ensured in accordance with Article 10 of the convention and relevant case law in the European Court of Human Rights.

The other aspect I can support is that states should have a duty to ensure the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of their citizens and that they should be called upon to respond to the legitimate expectations of their electorates regarding the critical role of the Internet. As a result, it is the role of the state to ensure protection of the public interest within the context of an international Internet-related policy.

The convention on cybercrime has special links with Hungary because it was introduced in Budapest in 2001 for a large number of states to sign. Many countries have now ratified the convention, which has made a good start in defending through international legal prescription the rights to privacy and dignity of communities and individuals.

I want to highlight an important legal point with regard to human rights. The reason I cannot support this report is the unclear thinking behind ideas about the content of freedom of expression. Human rights and freedom of expression should not make any difference to content. That is why I like the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It allows people to express their views and raise disputes in a democratic way. However, where we are going here is absolutely unacceptable. For example, child pornography is a really bad thing and I am absolutely against it. However, we cannot apply an equal level of sanction to all such material or put it alongside things like material that incites xenophobic discrimination. It is easy to make judgments based on personal opinion or to express one’s personal view. Democracy might be endangered if we always fight against others’ uncomfortable opinions.

We have to fight against child pornography and we have to fight against the sex industry, but what about those web pages that deal with services in the sex industry? I suggest that there are ways of coping with these problems. People should be free to express their views about policy and about those things that affect individuals’ dignity.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gaudi Nagy. The final speaker in this debate is Mr Kolman.

Mr KOLMAN (Croatia) – Dear colleagues, when looking at the Internet today, the first thing that we must be aware of is that it is not run by a bunch of guys sitting in garages and doing work on computers that they have built themselves. The Internet today is run by a small number of huge, multi-billion-dollar – euro or whatever currency – multinational companies.

We all seem to agree that the largest benefit that the Internet has brought to the world is the exponential and exceptional growth of the opportunities for free expression and the exchange of opinions and ideas. However, the problem that we face today is that at the moment that freedom is completely in the hands of the aforementioned few large companies. At the end of the day, it is they who decide what can and cannot be said.

Humanity has formed powerful institutions for the protection of our individual freedoms, the democratic state being one of them. International organisations such as the Council of Europe also play an important part. There may be others as well, but I cannot ever remember seeing large profit-orientated companies on any list of institutions aimed at protecting our freedoms and human rights.

In my opinion, states and international organisations need to take control of protecting the freedom I have mentioned so often in this speech. The Internet is not a virtual world; both the restrictions to freedom and the misuse of freedom affect real people in their real lives, and both can have terrible consequences.

I am very sceptical about the ability of self-regulatory mechanisms to work in this context. We need action. In technical terms, that means that the location of service providers and the jurisdiction of courts in cases of violation must be made clear. National and international legislation needs to be improved in that respect and brought in accordance with the reality in which we live. We need to know who it is we are talking to. In political terms, that means that the values of life, dignity, freedom of expression, private space and personal property need to be formally protected.

We need to be able to enforce those values on the Internet just as we enforce them outside it. If we do not succeed in that, there is a danger that freedom will turn into quite the opposite – limitless opportunity for control, invasion of private life, insult, defamation, theft and crime of any kind. If that happened, it would mean irreparable damage to all our freedoms everywhere in the world.

I thank the rapporteur for this report and I completely agree with colleagues who said that we should keep returning to this issue, following the progress of legislation among Council of Europe members and international institutions.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers. I call Sir Roger Gale to reply. You have a total of nine minutes remaining.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – It has been a splendid debate and I will endeavour to summarise a little of it if I have the time. However, it would be discourteous of me if I did not first comment on the seven amendments that have been tabled. The first was tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media in response to ACTA. Clearly, we support that amendment and we hope that the Assembly will vote for it.

I am not going to run through all the amendments tabled by the Russian delegation. They were discussed by the committee this afternoon and voted on – without exception, they were voted against. I think I owe it to the Assembly to explain why we wish to reject some of them in particular.

Mr Sidyakin referred specifically to Amendment 2 and wanted to delete the examples of China and Belarus from the report on the grounds that we did not name other such countries. Clearly, there are other such countries, but equally clearly those examples are very valid indeed. We believe they are legitimate examples and for that reason the committee opposes Amendment 2.

Amendment 5 refers to the “inviolability of the state’s sovereignty in the national information space.” Basically, that means that it is down to the individual state to decide what it does and does not control. If you were to place that power in the hands of, for example, a Mubarak, an al-Assad or a Ben Ali, we could see precisely where that would go. Fundamentally, the amendment suggests that it would be an offence to annoy the government. We do not believe that the amendment is acceptable and we opposed it – when I say “we”, of course, I refer to the committee.

Amendment 6 sought to include Nazism as an example in the category of racist abuse. We did not include any examples. The committee debated the matter very carefully this afternoon and took a vote. The amendment, which I supported myself, was defeated by 12 votes to 11 – a very fine line indeed. But on balance, the committee felt that if we included Nazism, we should perhaps include all sorts of totalitarianism. For that reason, the amendment was rejected.

The final amendment that I want to touch on is Amendment 7, which seeks to delete paragraph 2.4 of the draft recommendation, which is the second item which we will vote on, on the basis that the Council of Europe is considering amendments to the convention on cyberspace, which one of our colleagues referred to and which I will come back to in a minute because I cannot find it immediately. We believe that that is a recipe for doing nothing.

The fact that there is work in progress should not mean that we do not wish to add to the 100 countries that have already signed the convention. Although we understand why it has been tabled and that work is in progress, we hope very much that the amendment will nevertheless be opposed.

The debate has revealed very clearly indeed the problem that we face as a committee. Even within a broadly supportive group of Assembly members here this evening, there are tensions. For example, there were Ms Memecan’s concerns about abuses of privacy. We recognise that within freedom there has to be a provision to protect privacy. But how do we do that? Mr Lecoq was very concerned about disinformation and pseudonymous libel, as we are.

Others, however – Mr Farina, for example – believe in freedom at the cost of risk. As I understand what he said, the price of freedom is worth any risk. That is a point of view; it is not one that I share personally, but I believe that he is entitled to that point of view. Again, it highlights the tensions. Ms Bugnano referred to liability. Who takes liability for defamation on the Internet and how is that to be enforced? Ms Clune also referred to privacy and defamation. I was delighted that she, at least, felt able to go on the record and say that she believed that this was a balanced report. Madam President, we have tried to make it a balanced report.

I want to touch on the last two speakers. Real concerns were forcefully expressed, and rightly so, about the contents of what is on the table before us this evening. I am saddened that Mr Gaudi Nagy does not wish to support this report. He clearly believes that there is more work to be done, and we accept that. However, we do believe that the report constitutes a step in the right direction; I personally would put it no higher than that. We have never claimed that it is an end in itself or a solution in itself, but we do believe that what is before the Assembly this evening takes – let us be humble about this – a small step forward.

Mr Kolman made the final speech of the debate. He referred to a matter that is a very clear concern across the board – that is, the fact that the Internet itself is in the hands of a very few, very large companies and that therefore, effectively, freedom of expression is also in the hands of a very few, very large companies. His solution is international legislation, but I cannot agree with that. If we believe in freedom, we also have to believe in the relative freedom of self-regulation.

Of course there is a difference in the attitude that we take towards child pornography, for example. I doubt that one single person in the Chamber would advocate that the Internet should be so free as to carry anything at all up to and including the most vile pictures of child abuse, but where do we draw the line? That is an easy case, but if we move back a bit we start to move into grey areas. With great respect to the Assembly, those are the issues that we must continue to try to address. The dividing line is a very hard line indeed. Mr Nicolaides asked where we draw the line between freedom, objectivity, and the protection of people. That is something for the future.

I hope that a majority of the Assembly will feel free and able to vote for the resolution and the recommendation. I commend both to the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Sir Roger. Does the chairperson of the committee, Mr Flego, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – From the very beginning, the Internet was used to intensify and enlarge human communication. This extremely dynamic area offers exponential growth that deserves our permanent attention. The Internet enabled the immediate transfer of messages and all kinds of information, including online media, online encyclopaedias, e-books, e-reviews, e-newspapers, social networks, business correspondence, online local or national government information, massive advertising, financial transfers in real time, and mobile platforms. Those are only some of the possibilities of the newly established e-reality.

Electronic communication changed not only our communication but our lives. It is evident that the Internet has its advantages but brings some risks. It needs to be regulated in order to disable misuse and violations of privacy, but in such a way that that regulation does not destroy freedom of expression and freedom of information or the innovative character of electronic communication. There is no absolute freedom. There are no absolute rights without the possibility of obligations; there should be a balance between the two. We believe that this report is a contribution to balanced initial regulation of the Internet and online media, and that where we put a dividing line will be a question of time and perspective.

I thank all the people who have worked on the report, particularly Sir Roger Gale, who has contributed substantially to the report by Ms Postanjyan,

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Flego. The debate is now closed.

The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented a draft resolution to which six amendments have been tabled. The committee has also presented a draft recommendation to which one amendment has been tabled, Document 12874.

We will first consider the draft resolution.

I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 1, which has been tabled on behalf of the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

Is that so Mr Flego?

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – Yes.

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

The following amendment has been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6, to insert the following paragraph:

“Referring to the wide criticism and concerns over the restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy, raised by Internet stakeholders and governments as regards the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) of 1 October 2011, the Assembly invites member States which are signatories to the ACTA to pursue public consultations about future domestic legislation resulting from the ACTA, taking into account Assembly Resolution 1744 (2010) on extra-institutional actors in the democratic system. Such domestic legislation must respect in particular Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of its first Protocol (ETS No. 9). ACTA parties which are also Parties to the Convention on Cybercrime (ETS No. 185) or the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108) should not derogate from the latter conventions, in accordance with Article 1 of the ACTA.”

We therefore move to consideration of the other amendments in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Sidyakin, Ms Nikolaeva, Mr Zerenkov, Mr Knyshov, Mr Ziuganov, Mr Huseynov and Mr Petrenco, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, to replace the words “China, Belarus and other countries” with the words: “some countries”.

I call Mr Sidyakin to support Amendment 2. He is not here. Does anyone else wish to speak in support of the amendment? The amendment is not moved.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Makhmutov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Solonin, Mr Belyakov and Mr Sidyakin, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 3, to add the following words:

“The Assembly firmly condemns the abuse of freedom of information for propaganda and the disinformation of the public opinion in certain countries and of the international community.”

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

Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation) said that the report expressed support for Internet users to uncover examples of abuse and criminal activities, but it said nothing with respect to the role of the Internet in allowing propaganda. The amendment sought to address this issue.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Sir Roger Gale.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – The committee believes that the amendment is covered by paragraph 5 and is therefore unnecessary. For that reason, the committee opposes the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – The committee was against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Makhmutov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Solonin, Mr Belyakov and Mr Sidyakin, which is, in the draft resolution, in paragraph 4, in the second sentence, to delete the words “as well as national security and anti-terrorist laws”.

I call Mr Makhmutov to support Amendment 4. You have 30 seconds.

Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation) said the amendment sought to touch upon the issue of terrorism and the threat that existed in the Russian Federation and European countries. This was why the deletion of text was proposed.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Sir Roger Gale.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – The committee believes very strongly that the amendment is an “It is an offence to annoy the Government” amendment. It is highly dangerous and it should be resisted.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – The committee was against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Makhmutov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Solonin, Mr Belyakov and Mr Sidyakin, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 4, to add the following words:

“The observation of human rights online, including the freedom of expression and the freedom of access to Internet resources, should be consistent with the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of states and of the inviolability of the state's sovereignty in the national information space.”

I call Mr Makhmutov to support Amendment 5.

Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation) proposed to add words in paragraph 4 of the report to make it clear that the Assembly should not seek to interfere in the affairs of other states.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Sir Roger Gale.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – While supporting the principle of subsidiarity, the committee nevertheless felt very strongly that this, again, was an unnecessary and dangerous amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – Against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Makhmutov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Solonin, Mr Belyakov and Mr Sidyakin, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5, to add the following words:

“The Assembly condemns the glorification of Nazism in all its manifestations as a form of dangerous extremism.”

I call Mr Makhmutov to support Amendment 6.

Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation) said that the amendment sought to add a reference in paragraph 5 to the condemnation of Nazism.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Sir Roger Gale.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – The committee opposed this amendment by only 12 votes to 11, on the ground that an example was not necessary. However, I believe that the committee would not be very concerned if the amendment were carried.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 6 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 12874, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12874, as amended, is adopted, with 57 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention.

We will now proceed to consider the draft recommendation.

We come now to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Makhmutov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Solonin, Mr Belyakov and Mr Sidyakin, which is, in the draft recommendation, to delete paragraph 2.4.

I call Mr Makhmutov to support Amendment 7.

Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation) said that the amendment was intended to delete paragraph 2.4, which included an appeal to support signatories of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. A new document was likely to be drawn up to replace the convention, which would have more universal application and guarantee state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs of states.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Sir Roger Gale.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – The committee accepts entirely that a new convention is in preparation, but these conventions take time. It would be a great sadness if countries that had not signed the existing convention were deterred from doing so, so we oppose the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 12874.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 12874 is adopted, with 55 votes for, 2 against and 1 abstention.

4. Time limits on speeches

THE PRESIDENT – Because it is clear that there will be a large number of speakers and amendments in the debate tomorrow morning on “The situation in Syria”, I propose that the speaking time in the debate be limited to three minutes.

Is that agreed?

It is agreed.

5. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. with the agenda that has already been agreed.

The sitting is adjourned.

The sitting was closed at 6.15 p.m.

CONTENTS

1.       Written declaration

2.       Address by Mr Zlatko Lagumdžija, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Questions:

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Schennach (Austria)

Ms Woldseth (Norway)

Ms Beck (Germany)

Mr Villumsen (Denmark)

Mr Michel (France)

Mr Fournier (France)

Mr Leyden (Ireland)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Mr Iwiński (Poland)

3.       The protection of freedom of expression and information in the Internet and online media

Presentation by Sir Roger Gale of report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 12874 and addendum

Speakers:

Mr McNamara (Ireland)

Baroness Eccles (United Kingdom)

Mr Lecoq (France)

Mr Franken (Netherlands)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Sidyakin (Russian Federation)

Mr R. Farina (Italy)

Ms Bugnano (Italy)

Mr Biedroń (Poland)

Ms Clune (Ireland)

Mr Corman (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Mustafa (Azerbaijan)

Mr Ivanovski (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)

Mr Nicolaides (Cyprus)

Mr Guţu (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Mr Kolman (Croatia)

      Replies:

      Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom)

      Mr Flego (Croatia)

      Amendment 1 adopted.

Draft resolution in Document 12874, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation in Document 12874 adopted.

4.        Time Limits on speeches

5.       Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

APPENDIX

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

Francis AGIUS*

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*

José Antonio ALONSO/Delia Blanco

Karin ANDERSEN

Donald ANDERSON*

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Khadija ARIB*

Mörður ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Þuriður BACKMAN*

Daniel BACQUELAINE/Ludo Sannen

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN*

Pelin Gündeş BAKIR

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA

Doris BARNETT

José Manuel BARREIRO*

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*

Olena BONDARENKO

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO*

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL*

Piet DE BRUYN*

Patrizia BUGNANO

André BUGNON/Raphaël Comte

Natalia BURYKINA*

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT*

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Vannino CHITI/Paolo Corsini

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS

James CLAPPISON

Ms Deirdre CLUNE

M. Georges COLOMBIER/André Schneider

Agustín CONDE*

Titus CORLĂŢEAN*

Igor CORMAN

Telmo CORREIA*

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Cristian DAVID*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Giovanna DEBONO/ Joseph Falzon

Armand De DECKER/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Klaas DIJKHOFF*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Karl DONABAUER/Edgar Mayer

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander (The Earl of) DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU/Maryvonne Blondin

Baroness Diana ECCLES

József ÉKES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Gianni FARINA

Nikolay FEDOROV*

Relu FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Paul FLYNN*

Stanislav FOŘT*

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Jean-Pierre Michel

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*

Michael GLOS*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ*

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Martin GRAF

Sylvi GRAHAM

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Alain Cousin

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU

Carina HÄGG/Kent Härstedt

Sabir HAJIYEV/ Fazil Mustafa

Andrzej HALICKI*

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Hermine Naghdalyan

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Oliver HEALD*

Alfred HEER*

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL/Ester Tuiksoo

Adam HOFMAN*

Serhiy HOLOVATY*

Jim HOOD/Michael Connarty

Joachim HÖRSTER

Anette HÜBINGER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Susanna HUOVINEN/Riitta Myller

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Stanisław HUSKOWSKI*

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Željko IVANJI*

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Bernard Fournier

Roman JAKIČ

Ramón JÁUREGUI*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mats JOHANSSON/Tina Acketoft

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON/Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson

Armand JUNG*

Antti KAIKKONEN

Ferenc KALMÁR*

Božidar KALMETA*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Michail KATRINIS*

Burhan KAYATÜRK

Bogdan KLICH/Łukasz Zbonikowski

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Tiny KOX

Marie KRARUP*

Borjana KRIŠTO

Václav KUBATA*

Pavol KUBOVIČ*

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA

Dalia KUODYTĖ/Birutė Vėsaitė

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Henrik Sass LARSEN*

Igor LEBEDEV

Jean-Paul LECOQ

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA*

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

Jean-Louis LORRAIN

George LOUKAIDES/Nicos Nicolaides

Younal LOUTFI*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET/Bernard Marquet

Pietro MARCENARO*

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

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/Arminas Lydeka

Akaki MINASHVILI*

Krasimir MINCHEV*

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI*

Andrey MOLCHANOV*

Jerzy MONTAG*

Patrick MORIAU

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO

Lydia MUTSCH

Philippe NACHBAR

Adrian NĂSTASE*

Mr Gebhard NEGELE*

Pasquale NESSA*

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Ian Liddell-Grainger

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Sandra OSBORNE/Jeffrey Donaldson

Nadia OTTAVIANI

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU*

Eva PARERA*

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Peter PELLEGRINI*

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Alexander POCHINOK*

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/Nikolaj Villumsen

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN/ Kerstin Lundgren

Cezar Florin PREDA*

Lord John PRESCOTT/ Jim Dobbin

Jakob PRESEČNIK/Andreja Crnak Meglič

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Valeriy PYSARENKO/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ/Zoran Vukčević

Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA*

Mailis REPS/Paul-Eerik Rummo

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT

lir RUSMALI*

Armen RUSTAMYAN*

Branko RUŽIĆ*

Volodymyr RYBAK*

Rovshan RZAYEV

Džavid ŠABOVIĆ*

Giacomo SANTINI*

Giuseppe SARO*

Kimmo SASI/Jaana Pelkonen

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER*

Urs SCHWALLER

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN*

Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV*

Robert SHLEGEL/Anvar Makhmutov

Ladislav SKOPAL*

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV*

Roberto SORAVILLA*

Maria STAVROSITU

Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ/Egidijus Vareikis

Yanaki STOILOV*

Fiorenzo STOLFI

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Giacomo STUCCHI*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI*

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*

Giuseppe VALENTINO/Renato Farina

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS*

Stefaan VERCAMER

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ*

Vladimir VORONIN*

Tanja VRBAT*

Konstantinos VRETTOS*

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER*

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND*

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM

Karl ZELLER*

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Reinette KLEVER

Martina SCHENK

Observers:

Ms Rosario GREEN MACÍAS

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT