2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-fourth Sitting

Wednesday 27 June 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 report.

Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 pm.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

1. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – A written declaration has been tabled: Disturbing violations of the rights of LGBT people in Russia in recent weeks, No. 525, Document 12984. Any member, substitute, observer or partner for democracy may add his or her signature to this written declaration in the Table Office, Room 1083.

2. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have to announce the results of the second ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the Czech Republic.

Number of members voting: 162

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 4

Votes cast: 158

The votes cast were as follows:

Ms Mahulena Hofmannová: 24

Mr Zdeněk Kühn: 44

Mr Aleš Pejchal: 90

Mr Pejchal, having obtained a relative majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting on 1 November 2012.

I have to announce the results of the second ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the Netherlands.

Number of members voting: 162

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 8

Votes cast: 154

The votes cast were as follows:

Ms Adriana van Dooijeweert: 38

Mr Johannes Silvis: 59

Ms Taru Spronken: 57

Mr Silvis, having obtained a relative majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting on 1 November 2012.

I have to announce the results of the second ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Poland.

Number of members voting: 162

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 8

Votes cast: 154

The votes cast were as follows:

Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki: 68

Mr Krzysztof Wojtyczek: 69

Ms Anna Wyrozumska: 17

Mr Wojtyczek, having obtained a relative majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting on 1 November 2012.

I have to announce the results of the second ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the United Kingdom.

Number of members voting: 162

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 4

Votes cast: 158

The votes cast were as follows:

Ms Raquel Agnello: 27

Mr Benedict Emmerson: 48

Mr Paul Mahoney: 83

Mr Mahoney, having obtained a relative majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office starting on 1 November 2012.

3. Address by Mr Zoran Milanović, Prime Minister of Croatia

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Zoran Milanović, Prime Minister of Croatia. After his address, Mr Milanović has kindly agreed to take questions from members of the Assembly.

(The President continued in French)

The President welcomed Mr Milanović for a second time after a meeting earlier in the day and said that his presence was very symbolic. It was almost exactly a year before Croatia would become the 28th member of the European Union and it would soon be 16 years since it first became a member of the Council of Europe. This demonstrated the continuity and coherence needed for European ambitions, as the Prime Minister would be aware as a diplomat who had forged close links between Zagreb and Brussels.

The values of the Council of Europe – democracy, human rights and the rule of law – were also the basis for integration into the European Union. The final European Commission report on Croatia’s accession noted that the country was on track in these areas and this was evidenced too by the exemplary role played by Croatia in the Council of Europe. He said that he had not used the word exemplary by accident. He hoped that, by becoming the first western Balkan country to join the European Union, Croatia would serve as a model for other countries in the area and act as a driving force for democratic change, reconciliation and regional co-operation. The whole of Europe needed political and economic stability and he hoped the Prime Minister’s presence would give an impetus to work in pursuit of that common goal.

In the light of a personal memory, when in 1991 he had visited Zagreb to attend the proclamation of the new Republic of Croatia, this was a particularly important moment and Mr Milanović was very welcome. Croatia was a respected country and there would be many opportunities to see its progress and its role in the European Union.

He gave Mr Milanović the floor.

Mr MILANOVIĆ (Prime Minister of Croatia) – Distinguished President of the Parliamentary Assembly, distinguished Secretary General of the Council of Europe, distinguished members of the Assembly, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, it is a distinct pleasure and honour to address you today in this historic European institution, which brings together parliamentarians from all corners of Europe. The founding fathers of the Council of Europe envisaged this hall to serve as a parliament of Europe. Although their dreams seemed idealistic back in 1949, in a Europe divided and still healing the wounds of war, without their ideas and activism we would not have come so far in overcoming the challenges and rising above the dangers.

Strasbourg is not only a seat of European institutions; rather, it is a symbol of how a difficult history and old quarrels can be put aside in a united Europe. This remarkable city has served as a source of inspiration for Croatia since we attained statehood and commenced the process of adhesion to international organisations. The European idea, and commitment to abide by its standards and values, guided us in our request for membership of the Council of Europe.

On my way to this session I was reminded that even before Croatia acceded to the Council of Europe Lujo Tončić-Sorinj, an Austrian politician and a Croatian national, acted as the Secretary General of the Organisation. I am certain that he, himself proudly European, would have enjoyed the fact that one day the country of his ancestry, Croatia, would take a seat at this pan-European table.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am addressing you today as the Prime Minister of the Government of the Republic of Croatia that came to power in December last year following general elections. Let me reiterate that my government espouses all the ideas that the Council of Europe stands for: multilateralism as the core of our foreign policy; a state based on the protection of human, civil and minority rights with the rule of law at its foundations; independent judiciary; gender equality; tolerance and non-discrimination; solidarity; and prevention of corruption.

The President of Croatia, Ivo Josipović, delivered his address before this Assembly two years ago and presented a comprehensive view of the transformation of Croatia and the consolidation of its democracy. Today, I can proudly state that, during the past two years, Croatia has continued along its path of further democratisation, which has resulted in fulfilling all preconditions to achieving one of our major national goals, membership of the European Union. Along with completion of EU accession negotiations, co-operation with neighbouring countries was further increased and contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security was strengthened.

The main task of the Croatian Government is to create a stable and prosperous country, placing strong emphasis on accountability towards its own citizens. We strive to build a society in which the principles of social justice and solidarity prevail, as well as respect for minorities, regardless of their ethnicity, sex, belief or choice. The new government has continued to make further progress in preventing corruption, fighting organised crime, reforming the judiciary, prosecuting war crimes at the Croatian courts, and co-operating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. All these issues have been subject to ongoing monitoring by the EU, and the government is in constant close communication with our European partners, and with civil society in Croatia.

I use this opportunity to call on all parliamentarians present from EU member states that have not yet ratified our accession treaty with the EU to work with their governments and with their colleagues in national parliaments to conclude the process in good time, so that Croatia can become the 28th member of the EU on 1 July 2013, as is envisaged by the treaty.

As we prepare for EU membership, we remain realistic, conscious of the challenges in the EU such as the economic and financial crisis, and the rise of populist rhetoric and extremism among some of its political parties. I welcome the fact that you included in your deliberations the debate on the impact of the financial and economic crisis on our societies and democracies. That proves that the Parliamentary Assembly is keenly aware of the enormous responsibilities that European citizens have entrusted it with.

As I will be attending the meeting of the European Council tomorrow, I am aware that, although the issues of fiscal discipline and economic governance feature prominently on our agenda, the bearings that these issues might have on the future of Europe as our common home, and on its values and standards, should not be overlooked.

The foundation on which this Organisation is built is its relevance and credibility. That was tested some time ago when the Council of Europe and its parliamentarians played a critical role in admitting a large number of countries, including mine, to membership, thus helping us to develop further our European vocation and commitment to European ideas, and to stabilise the continent democratically. It is precisely due to that ability to remain relevant, and to rise up to the challenge, that the Council of Europe has become the bearer of the European torch in furthering individual freedoms and human rights. Maybe the concept of human rights has been invented elsewhere, but no other organisation has developed such a comprehensive structure to safeguard them.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, last year in Croatia we celebrated 15 years of our membership of the Council of Europe. Throughout that journey, we have come a long way from dealing with our traumatic past resulting from the war to presenting the country as a reliable member of the European community of nations.

With our own determination, and assistance offered by organisations such as the Council of Europe, we crossed a threefold transition: a transition from a communist one-party system to a multi-party democracy; a transition from an imposed conflict to post-conflict peace and stability; and a transition from a centralised planned economy to a free-market economy, which is becoming increasingly competitive on the European stage. All three transitions were accompanied by overall economic and societal changes in a relatively short time span. I know that many of you coming from countries with similar historical background are familiar with these transitions and their inherent consequences. At the end of this process, Croatia not only benefited from the expertise and membership of the Council of Europe, but that membership served as a vehicle of transformation for the entire region.

I am particularly pleased that our partner and ally in south-eastern Europe, Albania, is at the helm of the Committee of Ministers, and we wish it all the best in its endeavours. The region has been given a chance to prove its full potential. In particular, I appreciate the focus of Albania’s presidency on diversity and promotion of intercultural change.

Now, all the countries of the region are fully fledged democracies and members of the Council of Europe, with the exception of Kosovo. The ongoing bilateral and regional co-operation, which not only includes political co-operation but spreads to justice and home affairs, defence, trade, economy, energy and transport, points to the fact that it is owned and driven at the regional level. The troubled legacy of the conflict in the 1990s is often best reversed by concrete and resolute measures that testify to the commitment of regional leaders to work together to create conditions for a better future. Here I refer to the closure of the issue of refugees and displaced persons at the recent regional conference in Sarajevo. All four involved countries – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia – have made sincere efforts and were assisted financially by the international community to find durable solutions to that prolonged problem. That is proof of the maturity and responsible nature of the countries concerned.

Distinguished parliamentarians, let me turn to Croatia’s view on current trends in the Council of Europe and challenges ahead. Croatia strongly supports the ongoing reform process launched by the Secretary General to make the Organisation, in his own words, “more relevant, more effective and more visible”. We share the opinion that, in the new European architecture, the Council of Europe should focus on the area of its proven excellence. In that respect we welcome streamlining of the activities and financial resources around three fundamental pillars – human rights, the rule of law and democracy, which represent the core business of the Council of Europe.

Ensuring the long-term effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights remains another important challenge, which requires full commitment and support of the whole membership of the Council of Europe, with a view to preserving its pivotal role and unique character among the human rights protection mechanisms worldwide.

The European Court is trusted by our citizens, and Croatia has always been a strong supporter of the Court and the Convention mechanism. The right of individual application represents, in our view, a cornerstone and a key element of the Strasbourg mechanism. Preservation of the right of individual application represents a key element in ensuring the access of all individuals to the Court.

It is our firm view that the important legacy of the Strasbourg system lies in its direct impact on the promotion and protection of each and every individual in Europe. The adoption of the Brighton Declaration and its dynamic follow-up in the coming months would certainly give a new impetus for the effective application of the European Convention on Human Rights and indispensable reform of the Court, with a view to ensuring, through our joint efforts, the viability of this unique system of human rights.

As a member of the Council of Europe and an EU accession country, Croatia also strongly supports the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights. In our view, that remains essential in the context of achieving full coherence of the Strasbourg mechanism of human rights protection, as well as in the context of avoiding possible loopholes in human rights protection in Europe.

Croatia has ratified all core treaties relating to the protection of human rights, having often drawn inspiration from the Council of Europe’s work in this field. Croatia strongly supports the ongoing efforts of this Organisation to perfect the pan-European area of human rights and to ensure wider acceptance of the standards set out in these instruments, including in those states on our continent that are not yet members of the Council of Europe.

Ensuring protection of human rights in all parts of Europe remains one of the important goals of the Council of Europe, as a true pan-European organisation. The central mission of our Organisation – to promote core values across the European continent – cannot be fully realised if non-member states and respective territories and peoples in Europe are left outside.

In that respect, Croatia supports the pragmatic 2010 Recommendation 1739 of the Parliamentary Assembly, aiming at promoting direct and significant contact between Council of Europe staff and Kosovo authorities at all levels, focused on targeted and concrete co-operation and projects. This would benefit the strengthening of standards of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Kosovo, and represent an additional contribution to the attaining lasting peace and democratic stability in south-eastern Europe.

Croatia is following with great interest and appreciation the active engagement of this Organisation in some of the countries in the region. Croatia recognises the key role that Council of Europe plays in the process of consolidation of democratic stability in the region. We support the existing assistance programmes and encourage the Council of Europe to continue providing its expertise to help those parts of the region in which it is most needed.

There have been positive developments in the regions in the past decade, evidenced most notably by a prevailing readiness to settle outstanding open issues peacefully, in a true European spirit. As an example, let me remind you that Croatia and Slovenia reached an agreement in 2010 to resolve a longstanding border dispute through arbitration. At the same time, we must acknowledge that there are some worrisome signals indicating that certain countries and their leaders have not yet made a sincere effort in confronting the past.

Regardless of these isolated instances, the positive momentum in the region must not be further compromised. Countries and peoples in southern Europe have reached a solid level of mutual trust and reconciliation. This has to be further strengthened in order to preserve the security and prosperity of the region and Europe as well.

We expect the region to receive an additional boost by the European Council’s decision to open accession negotiations with Montenegro at its meeting tomorrow. The validity of the EU project – Magnet Europa, as Konrad Adenauer called it – which in the aftermath of the Second World War started as a peace project with its enlargement policy tool, still holds its relevance.

In this context, I stress that the one significant achievement of the European integration project that has probably made the biggest difference when compared with other instances of political union in the past, is cohesion, or, more precisely, reducing regional differences in the level of development and well-being. Unlike former Yugoslavia, where the difference between the richest and the poorest regions remained virtually constant in the 70 years of its existence, the European Union is a successful example of using cohesion policy to bring underdeveloped states and regions more in line with the EU average.

With this in mind, we support our neighbours in the European Union bid, firmly convinced that it will represent the best framework for their overall development. Croatia has been actively assisting them in transferring our negotiating knowhow and creating a network of bilateral agreements on Euro-Atlantic partnership.

Let me inform you that I have chosen Bosnia and Herzegovina as the first foreign destination in my capacity as a newly elected Prime Minister of Croatia, which demonstrates Croatia’s commitment to the preservation of its sustainability and territorial integrity, and to the equality of its three constituent peoples on the entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Croatia shares the longest borderline with Bosnia and Herzegovina. In recent months, my government has been actively working, in partnership with the EU officials, to allay fears that after our accession to the EU this border will become a dividing line, given the magnitude of our common interests. We see a lot of potential further to exploit this opportunity for increased cross-border co-operation and exchanges to the benefit of citizens of both countries.

The implementation of the Sejdić-Finci judgment in Bosnia and Herzegovina represents one of the challenges ahead not only for Bosnia and Herzegovina, but for the Council of Europe and the credibility of its Convention system. We hope that political dialogue and readiness for compromise will produce concrete results allowing the full implementation of the judgment.

Croatia sees the implementation of the Sejdić-Finci judgment as a part of a wider set of necessary constitutional, legal and institutional reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including those in electoral legislation. The reforms would lead to a more functional state in which the full equality of three constituent peoples and all citizens will be guaranteed and practically implemented at all levels, thus ensuring the long-term stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We highly appreciate the Council of Europe’s response to the developments in the southern Mediterranean and other neighbouring areas through its “Policy towards neighbouring regions”, which is the most obvious proof of relevance of our Organisation and its capability to anticipate and address, adequately and in a timely fashion, social and political challenges in Europe and beyond.

In that respect, the Parliamentary Assembly deserves a special mention, both for its early response to the vast upheavals in the Arab world and for dynamic co-operation already established under the Partnership for Democracy arrangements.

Bearing in mind the fact that the development of societies based on respect for democracy, rule of law and the protection of human rights remains the sole guarantee of the long-term peace and stability in our neighbourhood, we firmly believe that the Council of Europe, through its legal instruments and proven expertise, may provide, within a demand-driven pattern, significant assistance in facilitating the necessary reforms to our neighbours on their way to democratic transition.

As a future EU member with particular experience in post-conflict rehabilitation and democratic transition, Croatia stands ready to share this experience not only with our immediate neighbours, but with other fragile and post-conflict societies, including southern Mediterranean countries. Croatia acquired particular experience and knowledge in areas such as the return of refugees and displaced persons, confidence building, protection of the rights of national minorities, strengthening the judicial system, and co-operation and partnership with civil society. EU accession negotiations could serve as an important tool for institution building in any country, offering particular benefits for post-conflict and transitional societies.

As part of the overall efforts aimed at supporting democratic processes and transition in the European neighbourhood, one session of this year’s Croatia Summit, which will be held in Dubrovnik on 6 and 7 July, will be devoted to partnership and institution building in the southern Mediterranean.

In conclusion, allow me once again to pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Council of Europe in general, and the Parliamentary Assembly in particular. I congratulate the newly elected Deputy Secretary General, Ms Gabriella Battaini-Dragoni, and wish her all the best in discharging her important duties.

I pay tribute to all the people who laid the foundations that make this great Organisation work. As a left-liberal politician, I shall now quote a good solid Conservative. The eminent politician and visionary, Winston Churchill, said of the Organisation back in 1949, “The dangers threatening us are great, but great too is our strength.” The dangers gave way to the challenges of the day, but the rest remained the same. As always, we should continue to build on our strength and shared vision.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Milanović, for your interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you now. I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds. The first question is from Mr Volontè on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that he welcomed the Prime Minister and thanked him for his continued European policies. The EPP had supported Croatia through the accession process, but he was concerned about the proposed amendment changing the Croatian radio television law, which he regarded as appropriate in its current state.

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

Mr MILANOVIĆ – If my understanding is correct, you were asking me about the preparatory work in the Croatian Parliament on amendments to the media law regulating the status of the national broadcasting service. I understand that that is a matter of the utmost concern to you. In the longstanding process of the European negotiations, we have encountered a number of chapters and benchmarks, the media question being only one of them. We have been tasked with making changes, and the work has been unprecedented in comparison with all previous accession processes.

The media law is not part of the acquis communautaire, so the European law does not have to be directly transposed and is not directly applicable. The Croatian media law has been passed, and the model was established 10 years ago, in 2002. It was remodelled and amended a year and a half ago. Our position is that the institution remains ungovernable. The Croatian national television institution remains one of the pillars – albeit not the most important one – of our identity. Nothing on Croatian television is more important to me than the information and news programmes.

In the political arena, the biggest concern – unfounded and incorrect, in my view – is that the government will influence and tamper with the editorial content of the information programmes. There is long-established competition in the market in that area, so the situation is nothing like that of the late 1990s when the public were being informed through only one channel. Now, there is a plethora of channels and competition is strong. I do not harbour a single ambition to interfere with that.

National television in Croatia is not just daily news; it is drama and cultural programmes as well, and commercial concerns show no interest in those programmes. If we do not establish the correct system to finance and monitor such programmes in the national broadcasting company, those services will evaporate. They will cease to exist. For me, that is the greatest concern.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Lord Anderson on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – In what ways is your country using its own experience technically to help your regional neighbours for preparing for EU entry, and can Croatia help to resolve the name dispute over Macedonia?

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

Mr MILANOVIĆ – The first question relates to the traditional, and expected, health of the new EU member states in the adjacent regions. The second one relates to the altogether different issue of the name dispute over Macedonia. In my meeting with the President of the Parliamentary Assembly in his office a short while ago, I told him that we stand ready to co-operate, to extend our advice and our hand to those countries. We have already traded with Montenegro the whole package of translated European documents – the whole acquis – in languages that are highly mutually intelligible. What serves us, serves Montenegro as well. Beyond that, we stand ready to co-operate and give advice, but not to mentor or hold tutorials. We are not interested in doing that. Given the sheer volume of our economic operation and the reliance of Croatian exports on those markets, my expectation is that the co-operation will be strong and in all our mutual interests.

On Macedonia, frankly, I do not think that the demeanour and attitude displayed towards Macedonia regarding NATO accession some years was necessarily fair. The country was left on the sidelines, with the dispute unresolved. She was left to her own devices, but the issue will have to be addressed shortly. There again, we are not a neighbouring country of hers and we are not in a position to prescribe solutions. At some point, however, a solution must be reached, otherwise we will flunk the exam. The exam involves bringing Macedonia closer. She has been standing on the sidelines for the last three years following the NATO discussions, and that is not fair.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from the Earl of Dundee, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – Prime Minister, while Croatia’s progress with EU entry requirements has been timely and impressive, chapter 8 on the removal of shipbuilding subsidies and chapter 23 on the reform of the judiciary remain outstanding issues. In the light of your country’s current action plan, which further stages of progress will have been reached this autumn, when EU member states that have still to ratify Croatia’s accession treaty will be scrutinising your performance in their national parliaments?

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

Mr MILANOVIĆ – Scrutiny of this process is something that we stand ready for – that is what I am here for. You are all national parliamentarians too, and you will be raising your hand or withdrawing your support when Croatia’s European Union accession agreement appears on the agenda of your parliaments.

You asked about the judicial system and the shipyards – again, not a typical or key issue, but one of paramount importance that speaks volumes about the functioning of the state. The judiciary is an ongoing process, in which the finest and most binding complement is trust in the system. You can appoint as many judges as you like, but if trust is not deeply embedded in the system, it will not be considered reliable or attractive for foreign investments. It will not work. The current European financial crisis is first and foremost a crisis of confidence and trust, and only after that a crisis of quality – a lack of ideas and so forth. We are doing our best. We are a liberal, left-leaning government. We know what human rights are. We are extending the area of freedom every day in Croatia, and it is not always met with applause and cheering – indeed, to the contrary. So, this is a hard and longstanding process.

The shipbuilding industry is the bedrock of Croatian material culture. We are a country that extends over different climactic, geographical and cultural regions. We are a small nation, but we are very much stretched geographically, with a coastline that stretches over close to 2 000 km. There have been a number of shipyards, traditionally employing local people, allowing them to learn skills and pass them from one generation to another, but now we have reached the terminal point at which some of them will have to terminate their activity and cease to exist, although some will continue, under the very strict terms prescribed and agreed upon in the European accession treaty for Croatia.

My government has inherited, if not a mess, then certainly a conundrum of issues, which have been dragging on for 20 years. We have to bring it to a close and resolve the whole package in little more than six months – our first six months in office. The task is not insurmountable but it is hard. So, one shipyard – by the way, the oldest – has been shut down. I will not be cheered by the voters for that, when most of the shipyards represent our political constituency, but that is something that nobody will ask me for or about. Unfortunately, some shipyards will be closed and some already have been – it is very bad news for us – and the others will have to restructure, a process that is already under way. There is one profitable state-owned shipyard that is not part of the package, but the others will have to merge, or else – you know.

We are doing our best to preserve what is the bedrock of Croatian material culture. Rijeka, the northernmost big port in Croatia, was the imperial port of Austria-Hungary, and is the biggest besides Trieste. It is also the place where the first torpedo in the world was produced, at the beginning of the 20th century, and distributed worldwide. It is also where more than three dreadnoughts were built for the Austro-Hungarian fleet, so Rijeka was Austrian but is also Croatian. That is our identity. It is very hard when we have to give up on that, but the rules are very clear and we have to play by them.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Jakić, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr JAKIĆ (Slovenia) – Prime Minister, I congratulate you and your country on your achievements in your path towards the European Union, particularly given the Commission’s positive assessment for Croatia this year. According to the Commission’s report, there are still some shortcomings in respect of the judiciary and fundamental rights – you have just answered these points – but also in respect of justice, freedom and security, which I am confident will soon be addressed. Can you please tell us what measures your government has undertaken to make good on these shortcomings?

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

Mr MILANOVIĆ – As you mentioned, I have already addressed the first part of your question, at the request of your colleague. Maybe something further could or should be added. It is a long process, at the bedrock of which lies trust and confidence. We are on that path; I am quite confident about that. We will also have one of the longest land borders among all EU states with a non-EU member state. The Croatian-Bosnian border is 1 000 km long, and it will cost money to monitor it. As I said, we are working hard. We have good faith and the best intentions. We have achieved a lot so far. We have been exposed to unprecedented scrutiny – deserved but unprecedented – and the number of areas that the EU and the Commission showed a particular interest in scrutinising far exceeds anything seen so far, so the same or an even higher standard will be applied to all new aspiring states. I hope that satisfies you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Leonid Kalashnikov, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr L. KALASHNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that Croatia was very attractive to tourists and had a number of bilateral agreements in place with regard to visas. Now that it was joining the European Union, arrangements would have to be stricter, although there may still be some flexibility. He asked how Mr Milanović intended to implement new measures with regard to visas.

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

Mr MILANOVIĆ – Let me go back 20 years, which might demonstrate the perspective of my country at that time. We were in the midst of the ravages of the war – we were the object of aggression – but we were not for one moment exposed to the European visa regime. It is a weird fact, but it is a fact. So, in 1992 and 1993, when the war was raging in our country and when, by conventional wisdom, we should have been considered a risk country, Croatian citizens were free to enter the United Kingdom without visas. We were free to enter Italy with just our IDs – without passports. It is a strange but true fact. Visas were introduced briefly in the late 1990s, but they were taken away a few years later. All the other countries were far more scrutinised in that respect, and the regime was harsher for them. Once Croatia is a new member, we will have to play by strict rules. We know what the Schengen regime is and we have signed up to it, so we cannot apply a specific, tailor-made regime.

Concerning Russia and Ukraine, which are countries from which an increasing number of tourists, who are welcome guests, come to Croatia, previous governments have introduced, and we have pursued, if not a bizarre, then an interesting visa policy. Now we are here to act; this is the first year of my administration. We would, in principle, have a visa waiver system for Russians and Ukrainians during the summertime, but then reintroduce visas for them in October, which hardly makes any sense to me. This year the Ukrainians and Russians will be free to enter Croatia without visas during the summertime, as though they were trusted during the summertime, with that trust dwindling in October, when visas are reintroduced. Once we become EU members, we will have to play by the Brussels rules. There is nothing I can do about that, but what I have described has been the practice of my country up to this year. If that clarifies the situation for you, I am content with that, but there is not much we can do, because the rules are quite strict.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Ghiletchi.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Prime Minister, Croatia is set to become the 28th member of the EU. I congratulate you on this great achievement. As you probably know, my country, Moldova, is striving to join the European Union. How do you see the extension of the European Union and, given your experience, what chance do you think countries such as Moldova have to join the European Union in the foreseeable future?

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

Mr MILANOVIĆ – I thank you for the question. Well, you have to work hard. The standards are extremely high, and we have experienced that in one of the longest, if not the longest, negotiation processes in history. We have been talking back and forth for six and a half years – a long period, perhaps a bit over-long – and in the process we learned a lot. We have been exposed to harsh scrutiny and high standards not only in the application of the strict acquis directives and regulations, but far beyond. That is something that lies ahead of you as well, but when the time comes, we will be here to assist you. In the meantime, you have to be patient. Something extraordinarily important should be extrapolated from the process: patience. You need patience but do not be naïve.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Gruber to ask the next question.

Mr GRUBER (Hungary) – Mr Prime Minister, first what are the latest developments in the implementation of the constitutional act on the rights of minorities? Secondly, how can Croatia contribute to the energy security of central eastern Europe? What is the added value of the liquefied natural gas terminal at Krk island in terms of the diversification of the region’s gas pipelines? Thank you.

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

Mr MILANOVIĆ – The first question is on the implementation of the constitutional law on the rights of minorities. Actually, 20 years ago, when Croatia was internationally recognised as a sovereign state, that law was one of the fundamental preconditions for the international recognition of Croatia. It has been a long time since then, and we think that it is doing fine and going smoothly, because Croatia is a country of Croatian peoples – of Croats – and the constitution has been written that way. That is also my political platform. I should never lose sight of the fact that we and our ancestors have lived and are still living on soil that has been inhabited by other cultures and peoples, to whom we owe a lot and from whom we have learned a lot, and vice versa. So it is a country of Croatian people, but it is also a country of all ethnicities, religions and faiths that wish to hold other views. They have every right to exercise such diversity and their differences. That is the foundation – the bedrock – of my coalition’s and my party’s policies and programmes for an open and liberal society.

I can say that we as a party attract a large proportion of the minority vote in Croatia, but that should not be taken for granted. The representation of the members of the minorities in my government is probably the highest ever, but that did not happen intentionally. It was spontaneous, because the party and the programme beforehand attracted not only Serbs in the first place but others. Such an outlook and policy builds further trust, but it is not an overnight process. It takes time and confidence between Serbs and Croats in Vukovar, which was ravaged by war – destroyed, razed to the ground – to bring them together on the same political platform and regional council. That speaks volumes regionally. For me, these things matter even more than the strict implementation of the constitutional law on the rights of minorities, which in my view is doing just fine, but beyond that there is something: it is the cultural heart of our society. My party in our coalition is not a strictly ethnic party – it is a party of citizens – and our platform includes Croats, Serbs and the others, and it works in practice.

On energy security, Rijeka is a very deepwater port. You know that the Chinese have to go to the Yangshan islands 30 miles off the Yangtze estuary to find a spot where the depth of the water exceeds 20 metres. So Rijeka port, with the Brsica refinery, is predestined to serve as a container port and as an energy port. The liquefied natural gas terminal is perhaps my government’s most important strategic project. The area for co-operation is open. So somebody may see it as strategic in relation to the position of Russia and the East, but we see it as being strategic for Croatia. That project must go rolling on, and so must the railway from Rijeka to Vienna and Budapest. In bringing those projects to maturity, we rely on European capital and money. Whoever makes an offer on good terms is welcome for business. For us, it is a business issue.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Gaudi Nagy to ask the next question.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – Mr Prime Minister, Hungary and Croatia have a long common history. We lived in the same state for 900 years. We supported the accession of Croatia to the EU. Many Hungarians who live in Croatia fought for it to become a free country. Please help them to live in better conditions, because they live in the poorest region of Croatia. What would you suggest to Serbia, which is striving to become a member of the EU but is not inclined to ensure the territorial autonomy of the Hungarians living in a part of Serbia, according to the norms of the Council of Europe?

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

Mr MILANOVIĆ – If there is one neighbouring country with which Croatia does not have a single open issue, it is certainly Hungary. Over the past 20 years, relations between Croatia and Hungary can be described as impeccable – perfect. Border issues are non-existent. Minority issues are non-existent. I can confirm your statement that the Hungarian minority mostly live in the least-developed and most war-affected region of Croatia. However, I must stress at this point that the Hungarian minority has the right to direct representation in the Croatian Parliament, which is a standard not necessarily exercised elsewhere in every single country. So we have intrinsically good standards. Many minorities have direct representation on lower census and turnout figures. They get direct representation in the Croatian Parliament. For the Social Democratic or Conservative representative to get elected to the parliament and exercise the full rights of a parliamentarian it takes 20 000 votes on average, whereas some minorities can make it into the parliament with 300 votes. That certainly makes a difference, and it shows Croatia’s standards. I am not pressing any country to implement that, but we have it. I will not be tampering with Serbia and its territorial arrangements, the status of minorities and the territorial autonomy of any minority in Serbia. They have the autonomous province of Vojvodina, which regained part of its autonomy compared with its status in the 1970s and `80s, when its autonomy was abolished by Slobodan Milošević. Vojvodina has traditionally been home to Serbs, Hungarians, Germans and Croats among others. It is a multinational, multilingual and multicultural region. It is a central European melting pot. Well, in fact, it is not a melting pot because everyone retained their identities, which have flourished together but separately. Serbia is just about to form its government. The Government of Serbia makes a difference because the role of the president is honorary but not quite concrete in terms of internal and foreign policy. Once we see who rolls the dice in Belgrade, we can talk.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Haugli to ask the next question.

Mr HAUGLI (Norway) – Prime Minister, today, this Assembly is debating the state of democracy in Europe and how the rather negative attitudes towards minority groups are exploited for political purposes. Sexual minorities form one such group, and I want to congratulate you on your statement on securing fundamental rights for all. How do you view the situation for sexual minorities in Croatia, particularly when it comes to partnership law and violence, including police violence?

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

Mr MILANOVIĆ – Our political programme stipulates that we will further extend freedom and equality for LGBT couples. We might not necessarily grant them the status that they enjoy in some Nordic and other European countries, but we will certainly go beyond the current standard. That has been our pledge, and that pledge will be fulfilled.

When I make my statements, I always bear in mind the future, the past and tradition. The tradition of a society, be it Christian, Islamic, Catholic or whatever, is not necessarily the best reference. Traditionally, husbands were allowed to beat up women. That was part of the tradition, not just in my country, but elsewhere. That was a very bad tradition. Things change. It takes time, but we will change the law and implement new standards, and we will talk and talk and talk. That is what the rule of law is all about. It is not just button pressing; it is about permanent conversation to do with the spirit of the law, what the law really means and what it stands for. It is about the element of trust and confidence. It is a lengthy and complicated process, but we think we are on the right and just path.

Only yesterday, two lesbian girls were beaten up in downtown Zagreb on board a tram for exposing their sexual affinity in a very mild and benign fashion. They were approached by a thug and he punched one of them. Such a thing has not happened in Zagreb for a very long time, and Gay Pride attracts very little attention. In Rijeka, there is no march at all, because there is no interest. It is fully open and liberal.

As you might know, in Split, another Croatian city that is very close to my heart, identity and ancestry, the situation is slightly different. If we strike too harshly against opponents who are not getting our message, we might just be paying lip service to the cause. We must do things slowly, permanently and diligently, step by step. Then things will change. Things are already much better in Split this year than last year. Last year, there was a police incident and a mob attacked the march. It did not bode well for my country politically, but things are changing.

Croatia is a country of diversity – a country of the Mediterranean, central Europe and the north, culturally and even in human appearance. It is a small nation, but very diverse.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Nikoloski.

Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – Croatia will be the second country of the former Yugoslavia to become a member of the European Union. As you know, we received our candidate status together in 2005, but unfortunately Macedonia has not started the negotiations because of the Greek veto. We have the same problem with NATO, because Greece is not respecting the decision of the International Court of Justice. Do you believe that the model that you used with Slovenia to resolve the open issues can be used in our case to start negotiations and then resolve the problem? How can you and Slovenia be advocates in that process?

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

Mr MILANOVIĆ – I do not think that the two cases should necessarily be compared. We had a border dispute with Slovenia, not an identity dispute. Identity-wise, the lines were drawn long in the past. It was about the border and maritime delimitation. Eventually, after 20 long years, we have resorted to the solution that should have used in the first instance. We have wasted 20 years. What we – thank God – did in 2011 should by all accounts have been done in 1991, but it was not, because there was a lot of nervousness, despite the ambition to resolve the issue. The issue was used in internal political squabbles on both sides, and it served as a mighty tool for political manipulators year after year. Now it is before the Arbitration Commission, which has a very strict role in setting maritime delimitation. Getting it to the commission was not easy in itself, because we had to agree a set of rules by which the arbitration should operate. However, if you are really committed, it can work – and it has worked, even beyond my expectations, which were quite conservative.

We do have open issues with some other neighbouring countries. I do not completely rule out the possibility that we will resort to arbitration with Serbia, for instance. We will not press or push Serbia on the border issue while it is on its path towards EU membership. That is not a carrot that we wish to hold in our hand. We intend to be fair, because it is a very complex issue. It is not “take it or leave it”. We do not want to abuse our position as an EU member – if you abuse it, it is not nice.

The issue between Macedonia and Greece is an identity and name issue. It is quite weird to me. I really do not have the right advice for you. I have just said what I meant and meant what I said – it has been naturally unfair to Macedonia for the whole international community to leave the country on the sideline for two and a half years due to its own indecision. I am aware of the ruling of the International Court of Justice, but it cannot be forced upon Greece, so you will have to talk further. I know that my answer is highly irritating to you, but that is reality.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The last question comes from Mr Ivanovski.

Mr IVANOVSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – The rule of law is one of the main values of the Council of Europe. Furthermore, you mentioned in your speech your dedication to fighting against organised crime and corruption. I congratulate you on that. You have made excellent and remarkable progress in fighting against crime and particularly against political corruption, and you have increased institutional capacity. How can you transfer your positive legislative and political progress against crime and corruption to the other Balkan countries, especially Macedonia, where a lot of the criminal practices of the former Croatian governing party are being copied by the Macedonian governmental parties?

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

Mr MILANOVIĆ – I do not necessarily share your views. Ever since the trials commenced in Croatia, I have refrained from any comments, because the matter is sub judice. I have been a very strong critic of the previous government and ruling party, but I have been silent during the trials, because I want the matter to be peacefully resolved.

I avoided the phrase “fighting against corruption” for the most part during the campaign and the drafting of our programme, because it is about more than that – the prevention of corruption. I believe that that was the phrase I used in my speech. When the point comes at which you have to fight corruption, that implies that its influence and presence in society are overwhelming. That is a very bad fate.

You prevent corruption through practice, through legislation and through anything else you can. By setting examples personally and through the whole system, we can ensure that corruption simply does not appear. Once it is embedded into the system, it is too late to resolve it quickly. It takes years. Croatia was not necessarily infested with corruption, but in some circles it was a way of life. Now, it will stop.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – That brings to an end the questions to Mr Milanović. I thank you most warmly on behalf of the Assembly for your address and for the remarks that you made in the course of questions. I wish you all the best, and we hope to see you very soon here or in Zagreb.

4. Joint debate – Democracy at risk: the role of citizens and of the state today: (i) The crisis of democracy and the role of the state in today’s Europe; (ii) The portrayal of migrants and refugees during election campaigns

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now return to the joint debate on the state of democracy in Europe. Members of the Assembly may find it helpful to know that the next debate is likely to begin around 5.45 p.m.

The next speaker is Ms Mattila.

Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I thank the rapporteurs. Democracy is one of the most valuable concepts we have in Europe, and we cannot lose it. “European” and “democracy” are inseparable. My colleague from Finland, Mr Sasi, said that we do not have a democratic crisis in Finland, but there is a growing trend for worried voices. In the Finnish Parliament, I represent a party that has acquired a sceptical attitude towards the European Union, particularly its fiscal union. Is it a lack of democracy that nourishes our stance, or just a feeling that we are lacking democracy?

Watching the current developments in the European Union makes us worried and uncomfortable. Is the most prominent institution on our continent losing its desire to promote democracy? The economic crisis has to be solved to ensure that we do not go any deeper into that tendency. The Minister from Iceland put it very clearly: problems have to be solved as soon as possible, and you have to give a clear message to the public about what is going on.

As a member of parliament, I am tangibly reminded about the power of unelected bodies in Europe. In the Finnish Parliament, we discuss plenty of documents that come from the European Commission – proposals and directives suggested by an unelected Commission. The government allows parliament to discuss the issues, but nothing can be modified very easily.

It should be made clear to everyone that we live in Europe, where citizens are listened to and taken account of in decision-making. It seems as though financial institutions and bureaucracy have captured our democracy.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Mr McNamara, you have the floor.

Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – I wish to speak on the draft resolution on “The crisis of democracy and the role of the State in today’s Europe”. I commend the rapporteur for that timely report, particularly paragraph 13 of the resolution, which states: “Refinancing private companies from public budgets resulted in an additional tax burden on citizens, and further eroded their trust in the fairness and efficiency of the State”. Listening to yesterday’s plenary debates, one could be led to believe that the eurozone’s debt crisis was caused exclusively by borrowing by reckless member state governments. That fallacy needs to be dispelled.

This month, Spanish citizens became ultimately responsible for repaying the €100 billion bail-out of its banks announced at the beginning of June. As the Spanish fund for orderly bank restructuring through which the funding will be challenged is part of the Spanish Government, bail-out loans will be on Spain’s sovereign books. That will push the Spanish debt-to-GDP ratio to nearly 80% from the 68.5% level at the end of 2011, and further from the 60% target contained in the fiscal stability treaty, introduced at Angela Merkel’s insistence and agreed by 25 of the 27 EU member states, including all the states that have the euro as their currency, and in Ireland’s case agreed by a referendum of the people only one week before the Spanish so-called bail-out.

Spain, like Ireland, is not in a bail-out programme because of a failure to adhere to the Stability and Growth Pact contained in the Maastricht Treaty, now reinforced in the Fiscal Stability Treaty. Like Spain, Irish Government debt was less than the 60% of gross domestic product allowed in the Stability and Growth Pact in 2007. Ireland’s Government, like Spain’s, was in the process of paying off its debts. Both took in more in tax revenues than their total spending. In contrast, other larger member states regularly broke the maximum annual borrowing level of 3%. Both countries are in bail-outs because private bankers – mainly in Germany but also in other states – loaned cheap money to private bankers in Ireland and Spain, without any regard to where that money was going or to the adequacy of the bank regulatory system.

In 2010, the German Constitutional Court dismissed a challenge to the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the German Basic Law. In doing so, it reiterated that European unification on the basis of a treaty union of sovereign states may not be achieved in a way that leaves sufficient space to the member states for the political formation of economic, cultural and social living conditions. In saddling the Irish and Spanish states and their citizens with debts incurred by profligate bankers from across the eurozone in order, temporarily to maintain the stability of the monetary union, that is exactly what is happening.

The transfer of debt from private bond holders marks the colonisation of European states by the banking system. It delegitimises each and every democratic representative from those states, as it renders them powerless to determine social and economic policy, which is instead determined in response to private investors.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Chagaf from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

Mr CHAGAF (Morocco) said that he thanked and congratulated the rapporteurs. Democracy was a continuous process to promote legitimacy, pluralism and dignity. In following this path Morocco had experienced ups and downs, but it was now committed to democratic reform and change, and was free from violence, which was shown in the adoption of a new constitution, free and transparent elections and the formation of a legitimate government, all of which were to be encouraged. However, paragraph 68 of Mr Gross’s report used the phrase “even in Morocco”, which he considered was harmful and humiliating for citizens of a country with 12 centuries of history, who had fought both for independence and against the Nazis. Democracy was based on respect for people and the choices of countries, so it was important to draw attention to the phrase and to amend it.

THE PRESIDENT called Mr Ameur, from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

Mr AMEUR (Morocco) said that he thanked the rapporteur for an excellent report which was based on a clear and just diagnosis and contained very pertinent recommendations. In addressing the issue of migrants in election campaigns, it dealt squarely with a sensitive and topical issue which had unprecedented dimensions. Extremists had located a profitable vein in the form of vulnerable social groups affected by the economic situation, so it was vital for democracies to break the silence and end the exploitation of migrants in election campaigns.

The objective was not to exclude questions of immigration from debate, but to convey the importance of immigration as a constant in history. He supported the report in its recommendation of more information about the realities of immigration. He had wide experience of Moroccans and people of Moroccan descent and had seen the terrible effects of racism. People who were born in Europe and had full citizenship still faced antagonism and exclusion. It was important to increase the participation of migrants as candidates in elections. These issues called for a balanced approach from governments.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The last speaker is Mr Sabella from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

Mr SABELLA (Palestinian National Council) – First, congratulations to the two rapporteurs on two important reports that touch on issues that are not only related to Europe itself, but have impacts on the neighbourhood and beyond Europe. While Europe is the vieux continent – this could reflect on questions of democracy and of migration – the southern neighbours are going through the birth pangs of revolutionary processes that promote democratic tendencies among others and migratory movements, especially towards the vieux continent.

The challenge for democracy is cross-border and cross-Mediterranean. How Europe deals with the challenges of democracy and migrant communities will certainly influence how we in the southern neighbourhood view Europe and how we can co-operate and partner with the vieux continent.

We hope that Europe will succeed in maintaining its democratic traditions at the same time as working towards integrating migrant communities into the local and national context of their host European societies. Europe needs to be sensitive to socio-cultural particularities of migrant communities, but those should not stop the efforts towards integration. In the end, those efforts will not only promote democracy and maintain the old traditions in Europe, but send a clear message to the southern neighbours and to others that Europe is serious about its democratic vision and values.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you.

That concludes the list of speakers.

I call Ms Dumery to reply. You have seven minutes and 30 seconds.

Ms DUMERY (Belgium) – I thank all speakers who have contributed to the debate. You have confirmed that a joint debate is very useful and we have had a very lively debate on the report produced by Mr Gross. We all have our own point of view, but we have put everything back together.

I want to reply to some comments. I heard that mainstream parties failed in listening to public opinion. That could be a factor, but it is not something that I took with me when I was producing the report. It is something to think about. If you are from a mainstream party, perhaps you should listen to the people and to public opinion, but I can refer to Recommendation 10.2, where I say that we should “promote, where appropriate, open and balanced political debates on the migration issue”. We are all MPs and perhaps we can take that recommendation with us.

Some of you referred to the right to vote for resident migrants. You have the chance to vote for an amendment that would adjust that point in the recommendations. That is something we can discuss. You have the chance to vote and you can decide whether that adjustment would be a good one to make. We should be clear to our voters, and be clear when our voters are migrants, that we will think twice about how to refer to them.

On the effects of integration, as a solution, some of you said that integration should be organised not only by governments, but by local and other institutions. How the state is organised will depend on the constitution of that state. There may be a regional level, for example. Where possible, the level involved in the integration should be that which is closest to the people. Although our states are independent, I think that an effort to achieve that should be made.

Some of you referred to equality, respecting each other and the intentions that people have towards minorities. I can only agree that these things can help. Therefore, I refer also to Recommendation 10.7, where I say that we should “encourage local and regional authorities to work more closely with migrant communities in order to improve mutual understanding”.

Some of you referred to the radical parties on the right, but there are also some on the left of the spectrum. I shall not describe the scope of radicalism, because that is not the point of the report. The point of the report is, as some of you also said, the fact that radicalism leads to the exclusion of people. In this topic, that means migrants, which should not be the case. We cannot accept it when someone excludes someone else from the discussion. That is why it is so important that we implement policies to fight discrimination.

Some of you also recognised the role of the media, especially social media. That is why I have included in the report a separate section on the role of the media. I think we should follow this issue very closely. The media has its role to play, but it is very powerful. That is why, in Recommendation 10.4, I ask that we encourage the media to use factual, balanced and fair formulations by providing them with appropriate data and statistics.

I should like to end by thanking Mr Don Davies, the Canadian observer. He pointed out that the problem exists not only in election campaigns but in our daily political work. We have exchanged that message from peer to peer, but it was also good to hear from someone from Canada that we need to ensure on a daily basis that we do not discriminate against people and that we fight against radicalism.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Santini, the Chair of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that he thanked the rapporteurs, who had worked in a complimentary and calm manner. The state of democracy had been discussed in the Council of Europe between 2007 and 2009 and this would not be the last debate on the matter. Democracy was chronically ill, with racism and xenophobia a dangerous epidemic and finding a cure was paramount.

Immigrants were particularly vulnerable on two counts. First, they were subjected to defamation and widely viewed as adversaries. They found access to public services difficult as a result. Second, some political parties pandered to immigrant voters, making impossible promises. This had the effect of denying immigrants the right to a free vote. He thanked the committee and its staff.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I thank all 50 speakers for their kind words. The general mood in the debate has been totally different from the one that we experienced in the committee in Paris. I am happy about that, because the committee caused me a lot of headaches and I was afraid that I might experience the same thing today. I am grateful that that was not the case.

(The speaker continued in French.)

He stressed to Mr Chagaf that he had not intended to make disparaging remarks on Morocco. Instead, the words “even Morocco” were designed to express surprise. He was willing to delete the words if necessary.

(The speaker continued in English.)

I would also like to thank Mr Chisu from Canada. I praise him for recognising the need for transnational political institutions that can limit market forces when they do not respect the basic needs of the majority of the people. We hear more conservative views being expressed in Canada these days, so I was pleasantly astonished to hear him praising this statement.

I like to should take this opportunity to apologise for using an incorrect number in relation to Lichtenstein. I mentioned a threshold of 9%, but it should have been 8%. Also, our Icelandic friend, Mr Árnason, told me that the formulation concerning the Icelandic democratic change was not totally correct, and I apologise for that as well. Perhaps we should have invited the Icelandic Finance Minister to stay on and give another speech. He showed that Iceland had come through its crisis by respecting the basic social needs of the people and even enhancing democracy. That is perhaps one of the basic lessons to be learned from this discussion. We can meet the needs of democracy only through democratic means.

I was also pleasantly surprised that many of you emphasised that, in order to save democracy, we have to constitute it at transnational level. I also thank those colleagues who added to the strength of the report by contributing information from their own countries. Their arguments made our case that democracy is fragile and that we need to strengthen it at home while enlarging it at transnational level.

We will return to this topic tomorrow in the current affairs debate, when we will have an opportunity to consider how this can be done in Europe. Some of our governmental presidents, and presidents of the European organisations, will be coming together at the weekend to think about the new design of various levels of the European Union. We need to ensure that democracy is not forgotten in that process, not only for Europe. We cannot strengthen Europe without democracy, and we cannot strengthen democracy without Europe.

I also want to thank Anne Brasseur for her kind words. It will be fantastic when some of us take the report back to our own parliaments, and if I can be useful in helping the discussions at home, please let me know. I would like to help you to do that.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does Mr Marcenaro, Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, wish to speak?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that he thanked the rapporteurs. This had been a good debate which offered differing views without falling into the trap of an ideological clash. The Gross report was not just theoretical because tomorrow the EU heads of state were meeting in Brussels. It was important to find long-term solutions to the economic problems, particularly for Europe’s youngest citizens. A new democracy was needed and this had been a modest contribution to those ends.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution in Document 12955, “The crisis of democracy and the role of the State in today’s Europe”, to which 18 amendments have been tabled. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution in Document 12953, “The portrayal of migrants and refugees during election campaigns”, to which seven amendments have been tabled.

We will first consider the draft resolution in Document 12955.

The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution in Document 12955 to which 18 amendments and six sub-amendments have been tabled. I alert members to an error in the compendium of amendments: 18 should be taken after 17.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 6, 8, 16 and 18, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly as unanimously adopted under Rule 33.11.

Is that so, Mr Marcenaro?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) – That is the case.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone object?

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 6, 8, 16 and 18 to the draft resolution have been agreed.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 6, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5, replace the words “in the interest of the basic needs of the people and nature” by the following words:

“in the public interest and wherever such forces have a negative impact upon social and democratic rights or upon the environment”.

Amendment 8, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, after the words “Refinancing private companies from public budgets”, insert the following words:

“and in an untransparent manner”.

Amendment 16, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 20.1, replace the words “by constituting it at the transnational level” with the following words: “by reinforcing it at the transnational level”.

Amendment 18, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 20, insert the following paragraph:

“In particular the Assembly calls upon national parliaments to fulfil their key function to uphold representative democracy in Europe, to reflect and counsel on the best ways in which modern democracy might adapt, and in its own work and debates would also seek to facilitate that purpose within the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.”.

We come to Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 2, add the following sentence:

“In 2012, some Assembly debates are on current “threats to democracy” posed by Europe-wide austerity programmes and their impact upon social and democratic rights, upon local and regional authorities, and in particular upon young people who stand to suffer most from the economic and financial crisis.”

I call the Earl of Dundee to support Amendment 5.

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – The amendment reflects the most recent Assembly debates on the current financial and economic crisis. As these themes are closely related to the rapporteur’s text, the amendment presents a constructive opportunity to make interconnections between them.

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

What is the view of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 7, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5, insert the following paragraph:

“In order to win back the confidence of their citizens, states must meet challenges now confronting them. Such include diminished trust in representative democratic bodies and political parties, the movement of millions of people within the continent, or from outside it into Europe, the inability of the nation state to deal with certain problems beyond its control, as well as increased extremism across Europe, an issue already examined by the Parliamentary Assembly in its Resolution 1754 (2010) on the “Fight against extremism: achievements, deficiencies and failures”.”

I call the Earl of Dundee to support Amendment 7 on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – The amendment has four parts. It refers to “diminished trust in representative democratic bodies”, the “movement of millions of people within the continent, or from outside it into Europe”, the “inability of the nation state to deal with certain problems beyond its control”, and, finally, the fight against political extremism across Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I now call Mr Binley to support Sub-Amendment 1, which is, in Amendment 7, at the end of the first sentence, add the following words:

“, which include the need to fully debate the construct, implementation and evolution of the Euro.”

Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – I have been asked by Mr Gross to speak to this sub-amendment. A failing economy encourages extremism; extremism endangers human rights. The euro lies at the heart of our problems. We need to be discussing the matter and urging the leaders in the European Union to deal with it in a stronger and firmer way. That is what this sub-amendment argues.

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

What is the view of the Earl of Dundee?

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The committee, I take it, is in favour.

The vote is open.

Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted.

I call Mr Gross to support Sub-Amendment 2, which is, in Amendment 7, second sentence, after the words “as well as increased extremism” insert the following words: “and nationalism”.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I would like to add “nationalism” to “extremism”, because nationalism is very much linked to the democratic deficit at home.

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

What is the opinion of the Earl of Dundee?

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Sub-Amendment 2 is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 7, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 7, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 9, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 16, replace the words “investments in infrastructure” by the following words:

“investments in new infrastructure (e.g. housing and sustainable urban development)”.

I call the Earl of Dundee to support the amendment.

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – The background to this amendment is the need to balance austerity measures with growth measures. It strongly recommends investment in new infrastructure, such as housing and sustainable urban development.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I now call Mr Marcenaro to support a sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 9, delete the words “(e.g. housing and sustainable urban development),”

MR MERCENARO (Italy) said that his Committee had suggested the sub-amendment, because its members were not sure that the example was necessary in the context.

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

What is the opinion of the Earl of Dundee?

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – I am in favour. By using fewer words, the sub-amendment subsumes the wider purpose rather better than my amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 9, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 9, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 16, add the following sentence: “Wherever appropriate, planning “red tape” should be reduced or removed in order to facilitate and stimulate sustainable development.”

I call the Earl of Dundee to support Amendment 10.

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – The meaning of this amendment is perhaps self-evident from the words that are printed. The amendment advocates the reduction or removal of unnecessary red tape, where possible, to assist growth measures.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you.

We come now to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 10, tabled by Lord Tomlinson, Mr Binley, the Earl of Dundee, Mr Heald and Ms Osborne, which is, in Amendment 10, replace the words” ‘red tape’ should be reduced or removed in order to” with the following words: “regulations should”.

If Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted, Sub-Amendment 2 will fall.

I call Lord Tomlinson to support the sub-amendment.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – Mr President, I am obviously in favour of the amendment. It would stop the reference to planning conditions as red tape, which is rather pejorative, and say quite simply in the English language that we favour planning regulation

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Lord Tomlinson. Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – I generally always prefer Lord Tomlinson’s words to mine, and I agree with him entirely. I think that he avoids being pejorative and replaces that with being positive.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted

Therefore, Sub-Amendment 2 falls.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 10, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 10, as amended, is adopted.

We come now to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Recordon, Ms Maury Pasquier, Mr Comte, Mr Gross, Mr Van der Maelen and Mr Jakič, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 17, add the following sentence:

“Decision-making bodies should in particular be based on more democratic legitimacy at the European level, where the development of a true economic government could be the next step in the political integration process.”

If Amendment 1 is adopted, Amendment 11 will fall.

I call Mr Gross to support Amendment 1.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – This amendment takes up a good idea from the Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs, but it makes the wording less defensive and deals with things in the future. As Mr Marcenaro said, we will face a lot of developments in the future, and we should not forget to increase democratic legitimacy, which is the main message of the amendment.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Recordon, Ms Maury Pasquier, Mr Comte, Mr Gross, Mr Van der Maelen and Mr Jakič, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 18 with the following paragraph: “Sound States are based on strong democracies. To become strong, democracies need to make the existing democratic structures more representative. This is possible with the inclusion of direct democratic elements which have to be carefully designed in order to increase citizens' participation, as well as with the promotion of active citizenship as suggested by the Parliamentary Assembly in its Resolution 1874 (2012) on “The promotion of active citizenship in Europe”.”

If Amendment 2 is adopted, Amendments 12 to 14 will fall.

I call Mr Gross to support Amendment 2.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I appreciate very much what the committee proposes, because it has improved the original drafting of paragraph 18. We are trying to improve it again with this amendment, which not only repeats the message, but does so with improved drafting.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Gross. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 15, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 18, insert the following paragraphs:

“19.       All tiers of government should serve the public rather than the interest of particular parties. States discharging their functions properly and thus worthy of respect should resist the abuse of political, administrative or judicial power, unethical behaviour such as corruption, favouritism as well as undue influence exerted by the media or by political lobbyists. At the same time states should encourage economic growth and promote social cohesion. However, unless such balanced political directions are pursued in this way, then the disillusion of citizens with their decision-makers will become further exacerbated.

20.       The “Twelve Principles of Good Governance at Local Level” provide useful guidance. They were adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in March 2008 in the framework of its “Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance at Local Level”, the latter applying to all tiers of government, and to their current forms in Europe.”

If Amendment 15 is adopted, Amendments 2 and 4 will fall.

I call the Earl of Dundee to support Amendment 15.

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – This amendment recommends two new paragraphs, which build upon ideas developed in the explanatory memorandum. First, the amendment relates to the definition of a sound state and to the identification of actions required to make states sound. Secondly, the amendment emphasises the necessary connection with all tiers of government and democracy. It does so by reference to the instrument advocating these aims – the 12 principles of good government at local level adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in March 2008 and initially developed for local levels.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – We discussed this in the Political Affairs Committee a great deal. We would prefer not to adopt Amendment 15 and to accept Amendments 3 and 4, which deal with all that is in Amendment 15 but do so by adding more substance that accords with the sense of the report and leaving out things that we think should not be mentioned here. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 15 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Recordon, Ms Maury Pasquier, Mr Comte, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Van der Maelen and Mr Jakič, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 18, insert the following paragraph:

“All levels of government should be guided by the public interest rather than the interests of particular stakeholders. Sound States, capable of performing their main functions and maintaining a high level of trust amongst their citizens, need to be made strong against the abuse of political, administrative or judicial power, unethical behaviour such as corruption, favouritism for private stakeholders as well as undue influence by the media or interest groups, whilst being enabled to develop strong policies in favour of growth and social cohesion. Without permanent efforts to make States strong against such phenomena, citizens’ confidence in decision-makers will further decrease.”

I call Mr Gross to support Amendment 3.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – As before, we have decided to accept this amendment because it represents what the Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Committee proposed.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Recordon, Ms Maury Pasquier, Mr Comte, Mr Gross, Mr Van der Maelen and Mr Jakič, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 18, insert the following paragraph:

“An important reference for political decision-makers are the “Twelve Principles of Good Governance at Local Level”, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in March 2008 in the framework of its “Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance at Local Level”, which represent a modern instrument and an interesting reference for all levels of government.”

I call Mr Gross to support Amendment 4.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – This amendment is just a reminder of the principles mentioned in it.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 17, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 20.2, replace the words “with a view to devising a concerted action plan” with the following words:

“so as to consolidate the Council of Europe’s role as the “guardian” of democracy within the wider Europe, in particular combating extremist movements themselves partially arising from current European policies”.

I call the Earl of Dundee to support Amendment 17. You have 30 seconds.

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – This amendment recommends replacing the advocacy of a concerted action plan with that of the Council of Europe as a guardian against extreme movements.

There are two arguments against supporting a concerted action plan. First, such plans are extremely complex and difficult to implement. Secondly, when they have been attempted in recent years, they have had little impact. Instead of wasting time and energy on just another action plan, a better expedient would be the use of a concrete instrument such as an agenda for the protection of democracy in Europe. However, the specific approach to that remains to be determined once the process is launched.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I call Mr Marcenaro to support a sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 17, delete the words

“in particular combating extremist movements themselves partially arising from current European policies.”

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that the sub-amendment was to delete the final part of the sentence as this would give the Council of Europe a more general role.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment. I call Mr Michel

Mr MICHEL (France) said that it was good to show that extremism did stem partially from government policy

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – I am perfectly content with the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 17, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 17, as amended, is adopted.

We shall proceed to vote on the draft resolution, as amended.

The draft resolution in Document 12955, as amended, is adopted, with 83 votes for, one against and seven abstentions.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution in Document 12953 to which seven amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled.

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

The amendments are 1 and 3 to 7.

Is that so, Mr Santini?

Mr SANTINI (Italy) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 1 and 3 to 7 have been agreed.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons (French only).

Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, after the words “the fear of differences”, insert the following words: “and concerns for cultural identity”.

Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly, referring to its Resolution 1754 (2010) and Recommendation 1933 (2010) on the fight against extremism: achievements, deficiencies and failures, condemns those groups and political leaders who, inspired by racist or xenophobic ideologies, promote or are prepared to condone violence and calls for enhanced ethics in politics to help reduce racist tendencies in society. It reiterates that politicians have a special responsibility to eliminate negative stereotyping or stigmatising of any minority or migrant group from the political discourse, including during election campaigns, and considers that the international election observation missions should pay attention to the issue of racist or xenophobic tendencies during election campaigns and reflect any concerns in their reports.”

Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10.8, insert the following paragraph:

“urge all political parties to adhere to and actively implement and promote the principles contained in the Charter of European Political Parties for a Non-Racist Society, signed by the President of the Parliamentary Assembly and the President of the European Parliament in 2003;”

Amendment 6, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10.8, insert the following paragraph:

“disseminate to the electoral authorities in member States, prior to election campaigns, the 2005 Declaration by the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance on the use of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic elements in political discourse.”

Amendment 7, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10, insert the following paragraph:

“Furthermore, the Assembly invites the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), notably through its Council for Democratic Elections, to carry out a study on the portrayal of migrants and refugees during election campaigns, with a view to possibly amending the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters.”

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Strik, Ms Wurm, Ms Erkal Kara, Ms Andersen, Mr Hunko and Ms Acketoft, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10.1.5, insert the following paragraph:

“the removal of the impediments to democratic participation by granting migrants voting rights, including the right to vote and the right to stand in local and regional elections after a residence period of five years or less;”

Explanatory note: This amendment is based on Resolution 1618 (2008) on the ‘State of democracy in Europe, measures to improve the democratic participation of migrants’. Democratic participation is a vital condition for the integration of migrants in society. Furthermore, granting voting rights to migrants ensures that candidates also take the feelings and interests of migrants into account during their election campaign.

I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 2.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This amendment refers to a longstanding position of the Assembly. There are two arguments for granting voting rights. It enables migrants to get actively involved in democratic society, therefore supporting their integration; and, if migrants can influence the outcome of elections, I am sure that candidates will take their feelings more into account and moderate their voice.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We come to a sub-amendment to Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in Amendment 2, before the words “residence period of five years” insert the following word: “legal”.

I call Ms Dumery to support the sub-amendment.

Ms DUMERY (Belgium) – We want to be clear that when we give voting rights to migrants who have been resident in our states for five years, it should be legal residence. There should be no discussion about illegal or irregular residence; it should be legal residence for a period of five years.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Positive.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 2, as amended? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 2, as amended, is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 12953, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12953, as amended, is adopted, with 78 votes for, 2 votes against and 1 abstention.

5. The honouring of obligations and commitments by Montenegro

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled “The honouring of obligations and commitments by Montenegro”, Document 12952 presented by Mr Gardetto and Ms Memecan on behalf of the Monitoring Committee. I remind colleagues that speaking time in the debates today is limited to three minutes.

We intend to move on to the next debate at around 7 p.m. so I shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 6.45 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

I call Mr Gardetto, co-rapporteur. Together with Ms Memecan you have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that it was an honour to have been co-rapporteur since 2007 and to have observed all elections since Montenegro’s independence. It was clear that there was a political resolve to move towards European standards and the report sought to highlight the positive aspects of this progression. Montenegro was approaching the exit point of monitoring procedures but some questions remained open.

First, reforms to complete and ensure judicial independence were an indispensible part of the rule of law. From the point of view of the Council of Europe it was crucial for all parties to support such changes unconditionally in line with the Venice Commission. Secondly, corruption and organised crime had to be tackled. Greater oversight and a more proactive approach to prosecutions were needed to ensure the rule of law and democracy. Thirdly, minority rights had to be respected, which applied to the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communities and to the LGBT community, although he noted that there were promising initiatives with respect of the latter. Fourthly, it was crucial to take steps to protect the freedom of the media and of journalists. Though measures had been taken, acts of violence were unacceptable, especially where there were no consequences for the perpetrators.

The remaining issue concerned refugees, with 100 000 displaced people from the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo in Montenegro for more that 10 years. There were more than 3 400 people from Bosnia and Herzegovina and from Croatia, 9 000 from Kosovo and 1 300 from Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communities who were at risk of becoming stateless due to a lack of identity papers. The question of whether to return or integrate these groups had to be addressed.

A voluntary solution for refugee return was required. He had been privileged to work with the Montenegrin delegation and he hoped that the negotiations towards European Union accession would end in a positive decision. It was necessary for Montenegro to do more to ensure the independence of the judiciary and to combat organised crime. However, Montenegro had a future in Europe. He thanked the Montenegrin delegation for their co-operation and praised the work of the Secretariat.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Gardetto. I call Ms Memecan, co-rapporteur.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I congratulate Montenegro on the progress made towards fulfilling its obligations and commitments towards the Council of Europe. I am also happy that this progress will help Montenegro to meet the requirements of its future EU membership. As the recently appointed co-rapporteur on this report, I want also to acknowledge the excellent work done by Mr Gardetto and the former co-rapporteur, Mr Holovaty.

The commitment of Montenegrins towards more democracy and human rights is a good example of the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of other countries in the region. Montenegro serves as an example of peaceful co-existence and harmony among different ethnic, cultural and religious communities. With internal peace complemented by good relations and a dialogue with its neighbours, Montenegro is crucial for maintaining enduring peace and stability in the region.

Economic exchanges, tourism, defence co-operation and border management, transport and energy are the fundamental elements of sustainability of the peaceful environment that has been created. So far, joint border crossing arrangements have been achieved with Albania and with Bosnia and Herzegovina. An agreement has been signed with Albania and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, allowing their citizens to travel between the two countries with only a passport or with a biometric ID card, with no visa requirement.

Within that framework, Montenegro signed an agreement with the Islamic community in Montenegro in January of this year, which regulates relations between the government and that community. Similar agreements were also signed last year with the Jewish community and with the Vatican, paving the way for the preparation of a legal framework for the adoption of the law on the legal status of religious communities and the law on the restitution of property rights. Those are welcome developments for ensuring that all legislation regarding minorities is in line with international human rights standards.

I congratulate Montenegro on being one of the first signatories to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, along with signing 82 other Council of Europe conventions.

I reiterate my praise for the progress achieved so far. I am also confident that Montenegro will continue with the same pace further to remedy the shortcomings in the areas of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. As the newly appointed co-rapporteur on Montenegro, I look forward to working with the Montenegrin delegation and being involved in future progress.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The co-rapporteurs will have four minutes and 42 seconds to respond to the speeches. We shall proceed to the debate.

The next speaker is Mr Sasi, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr SASI (Finland) – I congratulate Mr Gardetto and Ms Memecan on a very good report and on good work done in Montenegro.

Montenegro acceded to our Assembly in 2007 and has made very firm progress since then. Since the 2010 report was produced, there has been substantial progress and the country has ratified 83 conventions. It has also undertaken good co-operation with the Venice Commission, the Group of States against Corruption, and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.

The country has undertaken not only internal reforms. It has been a balancing factor in the area, which is so disputed and one where we have different kinds of conflict. Montenegro has been a stability factor and, as Mr Gardetto said, yesterday, the European Union Minister of Foreign Affairs invited Montenegro to negotiations on membership. That shows appreciation of the work done in Montenegro.

As the report states, the country has made progress in many key areas. As far as democracy is concerned, electoral registration is now in place, as are amendments on citizenship laws. There are very positive steps concerning the representation of minorities.

As far as the rule of law is concerned, this is our main concern at the moment. There is new legislation on courts, the state prosecutor’s office and a judicial council. The appointment of high judicial officials is a question that must be resolved. There are two models, and this is an area where a result must be found.

Extradition agreements with Croatia, Serbia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” are very important and show that the country is involved in co-operation. However, corruption is a concern. We should look at the statement by the European Union, which will also concentrate on corruption. There is a lot of work still to be done in this respect in the coming years.

On human rights, a comprehensive anti-discrimination law is now in place and there is an ombudsman, although his role must be strengthened. Also, we have to look at the situation of the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian people in the country.

The media is another concern of ours. If there is violence concerning journalists, it must be tackled very firmly. As a consequence, certain questions remain on corruption, the media and the rights of minorities. The country still has some work to do. We have to prepare our next report within the next two years, and I hope that huge progress will be made in that time and that the report can be produced more speedily.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Schennach on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) said that he congratulated the rapporteurs on the report, which acknowledged progress by Montenegro, but also some problems. Montenegro was a special case regarding policy towards minorities as it was unusually multi-cultural, including small Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communities. It was a stable country despite its history of violence and war.

More needed to be done to promote tolerance of people with alternative lifestyles, such as LGBT, and it was a bad sign if politicians themselves showed hatred. Progress was also needed on the treatment of journalists and ensuring freedom of expression. Similarly, a more independent judiciary was necessary to enhance credibility. The Venice Commission had made proposals for improvement that he hoped would be heeded.

He welcomed the start of the European Union accession negotiations on 29 June. He favoured the resumption of monitoring in a year’s time, but this suggestion had failed in committee. Otherwise, he strongly supported the report.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Holovaty on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine) – On behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I congratulate the Montenegrin authorities on their substantial progress towards the fulfilment of their remaining obligations and commitments since the adoption of the last resolution in 2010. As a rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee since 2007, I have followed the developments in Montenegro and I welcome the efforts that have been taken by this Council of Europe member state. However, I cannot but emphasise two areas in which the ongoing reforms are, in my view, insufficient and unsatisfactory. Both concern the rule of law and human rights.

First, while welcoming the increasing role of the ombudsman in Montenegro, I must express my regret that a number of the recommendations of the Assembly and of the Venice Commission have not yet been implemented. The independence of the ombudsman should be strengthened, and the recommendations in the Venice Commission’s constitutional amendments on this matter should not be neglected any longer by the authorities.

Secondly, there has been no progress at all on the revision of the constitution either in respect of the removal from the Montenegrin fundamental law of any legal possibility of disproportionate political influence over the appointment of judges and prosecutors, or in respect of neutralising the excessive accumulation of authority in the persons of the president of the supreme court and the supreme public prosecutor. Both are appointed in the parliament by a simple majority. The Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the European Commission have all underlined on a number of occasions the necessity of depoliticising the appointment of high-level officials in the judiciary. That is an indispensible precondition of securing the independence of the judiciary. That is why the recommendation of the Venice Commission to amend the constitution in that area must be a top priority for the authorities of Montenegro during the forthcoming period of the monitoring procedure carried out by our Assembly. Let me express the hope that, when the Assembly debates the next Monitoring Committee report – perhaps within two years – progress will have been made in the constitutional system of Montenegro.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Çavuşoğlu on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey) – I too congratulate the rapporteurs on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Montenegro was the last member state to join our Organisation. At that time, accession to the Council of Europe represented a real challenge for that small, young country. Today, Montenegro’s accession to the Council of Europe is a real success story, and I congratulate our friends from Podgorica on the immense progress that they have made. A total of 83 conventions have been signed and ratified, and Montenegro has fully complied with all the formal requirements of our resolutions. The electoral legislation has been revised in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission and of our Assembly. Montenegro’s democratic institutions have also been strengthened greatly, and its parliament’s capacity has been substantially increased.

Montenegro has amended key legislation on the judiciary, bringing it into line with our standards. Constitutional amendments are still needed, but I am confident that that chapter of reforms will soon be closed. Amendments to the penal code and to the code of criminal procedure have strengthened the legal framework for combating corruption and organised crime. A comprehensive anti-discrimination law has been enacted, and a new law on the protector of human rights has been adopted.

Of course, all efforts must now be concentrated on the effective implementation of that legal framework, as well as on training and capacity building. Montenegro is actively co-operating with the Council of Europe in that field, and I have no doubt that all the laws that are adopted will be properly implemented. Montenegro’s progress in all those fields has been acknowledged by the European Union. It is a candidate country for accession, and membership talks started this week. Montenegro is a pillar of stability in south-eastern Europe and an important and positive actor in the reconciliation process.

All those achievements, as well as the clear political will to continue with the reforms, deserve reward. I therefore believe that the Assembly should decide to close the monitoring procedure with regard to Montenegro. However, our rapporteurs suggest that we should give Montenegro more time to make further progress in certain areas. To be frank, I believe that problems in those areas exist in all member states, even those that are not under monitoring procedures. I do not think that Montenegro is lagging behind. The EDG believes that we should not wait another two years to reward that country.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Mr Volontè is not here, so I call Mr Michel.

Mr MICHEL (France) said that he had visited Montenegro two years ago and had been back since to gauge the progress that had been made. Although the political discourse suggested that Montenegro was compliant with the requests of the European Union authorities, that was not always the reality. It was not clear that the fight against corruption had been fully won. However, it was not for the Council of Europe to pass judgment against another member state; rather, it was for the Council of Europe to be aware of the challenges Montenegro faced. The pace of modernisation was frenetic but this was explained by its ambitions in relation to EU integration. There was a possibility that economic change would bring about a rotation in power. He heartily endorsed the recommendation in relation to supporting the monitoring procedure for Montenegro.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Jakič.

Mr JAKIČ (Slovenia) – I congratulate the co-rapporteurs on the comprehensive work they have done. I fully support the conclusions on Montenegro’s positive achievements in the field of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, including the functioning of democratic institutions, and so on. A particularly important point that should not be forgotten is the positive role that Montenegro has played in the stabilisation of the region. Montenegro has proven to be a reliable and constructive partner, and is involved in several regional and multilateral initiatives. I am confident that our colleagues from Montenegro and from neighbouring countries – Serbia, Macedonia and Albania – share that conviction.

We should also take account of the conclusions of the European Commission’s progress report, which underlines Montenegro’s additional progress in virtually all fields, in particular the implementation of reforms related to the key priorities. According to the Commission, Montenegro made additional progress in strengthening the work of parliament, the depoliticisation of public administration, media freedom and co-operation with civil society. The procedure to amend the constitution to ensure firm guarantees of judicial independence was also initiated – I say this to correct slightly the statement made by my good friend Mr Holovaty.

Montenegro has also achieved positive results in the fight against corruption and organised crime. It has started to implement recently adopted anti-discrimination and anti-corruption measures. Likewise, further progress was observed in relation to displaced persons and minority groups. In addition, Montenegro maintains its constructive role in the region and continues to implement the stabilisation and association agreements without interruption. Montenegro has also made substantial progress in fulfilling its remaining obligations and commitments by signing and ratifying 83 Council of Europe conventions, and I have no doubt about its ability to implement them.

I am of course aware that there are still shortcomings, especially given the track record of implementing key tasks, but I am confident that they will be removed in the process of accession talks. In the light of the progress achieved by Montenegro, I am very much in favour of replacing the monitoring procedure for Montenegro with a post-monitoring dialogue, and I urge my colleagues in the Assembly to support this suggestion.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I now call Mr Szabó.

Mr SZABÓ (Hungary) said that important news had just been announced: a decision had been taken that Montenegro could start negotiations for accession to the European Union. He congratulated his colleagues from Montenegro on having passed the preparatory stage, but noted that there were still difficulties ahead and that it would not be plain sailing. It was only right that the Council of Europe should acknowledge the results that Montenegro had achieved in implementing democratic rights. In the 1990s, European integration had been an essential national interest for Hungary. Complying with the accession criteria would be Montenegro’s homework, but Hungary would provide all possible assistance.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Radulović-Šćepanović.

Ms RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ (Montenegro) said the she thanked the rapporteurs for their strong support of Montenegro. Their expertise had contributed to the strong progress that had been made. Montenegro had co-operated with the Council of Europe, especially in relation to the Venice Commission, and had ratified all the required conventions and many more besides, but it was not stopping there. Led by the strength of its convictions and by respect for human rights, Montenegro would continue to work in close co-operation with the Council of Europe. The five recommendations in the report were already producing results. Proposals for judicial reform were in the process of being adopted and should be completed soon,. In relation to LGBT rights, Montenegro was proactive in demonstrating the co-existence of minorities. Anti-corruption measures were being taken and the media situation was improving. Montenegro was paying particular attention to refugees. She was one of the strongest advocates for closing the monitoring procedure because this would act an incentive for those who loved their country and wanted to see it progress even further.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Spahić.

Mr SPAHIĆ (Montenegro) said that it was a privilege to address the Assembly in four languages and congratulated the rapporteurs on their work. Montenegro had displayed great determination – for example, in relation to setting up an anti-corruption committee and to proactive measures in its Parliament. Montenegro had adopted an amnesty in relation to legislation on insults and defamation, which represented a move towards greater freedom of speech. Montenegro was also in the process of amending the constitution to ensure the independence of the judiciary, and it was attempting to resolve the status of the 15 000 displaced persons still in the country. There were stricter criteria for belated democracies, but this was in fact a good thing.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Spahić. I call Ms Jonica.

Ms JONICA (Montenegro) – I thank the co-rapporteurs, Mr Gardetto and Ms Memecan, for their very serious approach to analysing the situation in Montenegro. The resolution and the explanatory memorandum provide a pretty objective view of the situation in Montenegro. As a representative of the strongest opposition party in Montenegro, I think that the monitoring procedure is helping Montenegro to improve democracy. I must also tell you that the Venice Commission has significantly contributed, with its opinion, to improving the quality of our laws.

Each fact-finding visit of our co-rapporteurs has done some good. First, during the co-rapporteurs’ visit in June last year and based on their proposal, the Speaker of the Parliament of Montenegro finally accepted to send the proposal on the law on the ombudsperson to the Venice Commission. After the opinion of the Venice Commission, the amendments that I proposed, which had been rejected before then, were accepted and improved the law. Certainly, Montenegro has a lot of work ahead to strengthen the financial and personnel independence of the ombudsperson’s office, as well as to improve the implementation of the anti-discrimination law. Secondly, during this year’s fact-finding mission by the co-rapporteurs, after five months’ break, consultations on the constitutional amendments have been scheduled. That is also an area where we will have lots of work, and because of that, I said to the co-rapporteurs, “Please visit Montenegro more often – as much as you can.”

When we talk about the fight against corruption, I stress that our activities address micro-level corruption, and nothing has yet been done to suppress the most important form of corruption – political corruption. The great problem in Montenegro is still the complex procedure of granting Montenegrin citizenship, and the lack of political will to tackle that issue. The requirements for granting Montenegrin citizenship to refugees are almost impossible due to the unnecessary and complicated administrative procedure.

There are also unfair conditions for a large number of citizens who have spent their whole life in Montenegro and were citizens of some of the countries in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and who, after independence, stopped being citizens of the country in which they lived without changing their place of residence.

Next year will be very important for Montenegro, because it is a year of parliamentary elections, which must be held by April 2013 at the latest. At the same time, elections should also be organised for the Montenegrin presidency, as well as local elections in Budva and Nikšić.

For obvious reasons, the ruling parties would like to separate parliamentary elections from the presidential and local elections, and to announce extraordinary parliamentary elections, choosing the most appropriate date for them without consulting the others.

We believe that first we must obtain fair and democratic election conditions, and we should then improve the electoral procedure in the areas pointed out by the co-rapporteurs and recognised by the Venice Commission, with the aim of holding fair elections. I therefore support the proposal of the co-rapporteurs that the monitoring should continue, as well as the priorities pointed out in the resolution.

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

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Plotnikov.

Mr PLOTNIKOV (Ukraine) said that he endorsed the report, which had been prepared to a very high standard. Montenegro was an important country in the region, both in terms of political stabilisation and in terms of supporting EU initiatives. The reforms taking place in the civil service between 2011 and 2016 were also important.

With respect to human rights, note should be taken of the adoption of laws against discrimination and the appointment of an adviser to the Prime Minister to tackle discrimination, all of which bolstered the role of Montenegro in the region. The report was welcome as an assessment of the country and its negative points did not outweigh this judgment. As the rapporteur had outlined during the discussion, moves had to be made towards the post-monitoring procedure.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Chisu, Observer from Canada.

Mr CHISU (Canada) – It is encouraging to read the rapporteurs’ thorough study of the substantial progress made by Montenegro in reforming its democratic processes, strengthening the rule of law and protecting human rights. I would like to say a few words of praise for Montenegro.

First, I want to commend Montenegro for its reforms to increase the transparency of its parliament’s work to bring Montenegro’s election legislation in line with its constitutional requirements, for its reforms to the laws on criminal procedure and for its improvements in the situation of ethnic minorities.

These reforms represent a further step in the commitment by Montenegro to become an active member of the community of democratic nations. Montenegro’s progress is encouraging for the cause of Euro-Atlantic integration and EU enlargement, objectives that Montenegro considers priorities. The reforms documented by the rapporteurs can only help Montenegro in its efforts to join the EU. The invitation to EU succession negotiations that has been received is a great milestone.

It is also important to draw attention to the role that Montenegro has played in bringing stability in the Balkan region. Among other efforts at promoting political stability, it has played a key role in collaboration with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Croatia, in solving protracted and complex problems with refugees and internally displaced persons. It is participating in a joint project to fund long-term solutions to facilitate the return of those persons and to improve their living conditions. In addition, there have been significant developments in trade, tourism, defence co-operation, transport and energy. That contribution to stability in the region is commendable.

From the perspective of my government, Montenegro’s integration into the EU and the Euro-Atlantic area is welcomed, as is integration for all countries of the western Balkans. Canada also supports NATO’s open-door policy and supports all countries in the western Balkans joining NATO once they meet the criteria for membership. We believe that EU membership and integration into other regional and continental alliances are the best way for countries to ensure economic prosperity, security and political and social stability. Montenegro should be encouraged to continue on the path of reform.

While much has been achieved, there continue to be areas that are causes for concern. Reforms affecting the judiciary, including the supreme court, need to be completed. Other incomplete reforms include those affecting the rights of some ethnic minorities, such as the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communities. With the support of the Council of Europe, the EU and the international community, there is no reason why Montenegro cannot achieve those reforms.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Chisu. As Mr Jensen is not here, you were the last speaker in the debate. I now call the co-rapporteurs to reply. You have a total of five minutes between you.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that progress had been made but noted that there were still outstanding points, which meant that monitoring was required to ensure progress as otherwise there was no incentive. Monitoring was meant as an aid to help Montenegro to move in the right direction; the end point had not yet been reached but the co-operative spirit of Montenegro was commendable. He hoped that follow-up work would continue to realise benefits so that Montenegro would be able to join the European Union in the future. There were elections in the near future, and it was possible that monitoring could be concluded before then, as Montenegro was clearly moving in the right direction.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does Ms Memecan wish to speak?

That is not the case. Does the chairperson of the Committee, Mr Herkel, wish to speak?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I thank the rapporteurs. Mr Gardetto is very experienced and has been involved for a long time. Ms Memecan is just at the beginning of her mission, but her role will be much more important in the future.

I congratulate Montenegro on its first significant achievements in the EU accession process. From the point of view of our monitoring procedure, Montenegro is one of the best examples that we can give. Mr Gardetto convincingly expressed his feeling that there are still some remaining problems that must be seriously addressed, such as corruption, the media, the judiciary and internally displaced persons. The general attitude must be one of co-operation with the Monitoring Committee. It is not some kind of punishment, but makes it possible to build up strong and sustainable democratic institutions. We would like Montenegro to continue its co-operation, but its achievements are impressive.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The debate is closed.

The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution in Document 12952 to which 13 amendments have been tabled.

Five amendments have been agreed unanimously by the Committee. Two of these – 10 and 13 – link to other amendments on this list and so must be taken separately. I therefore understand that the Chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose that Amendments 9, 11 and 12, which were unanimously approved by the Committee and do not link to any others, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

Is that so, Mr Herkel?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Yes, exactly.

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

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Gardetto, Ms Memecan, Mr Islami, Ms Wohlwend and Mr Bockel, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, replace the first sentence with the following words:

“The Assembly welcomes the efforts undertaken to increase the transparency of the parliament's work and the capacity of the parliamentary committees. It welcomes the adoption of the Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro, in particular the establishment of the new Anti-Corruption Committee, to be led by a representative of the opposition, which should improve the fight against corruption and strengthen the oversight role of the parliament.”

Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Gardetto, Ms Memecan, Ms Jonica, Ms Wohlwend and Mr Bockel, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11.2, replace the second sentence with the following words:

“The Assembly calls on all political parties to support the agreed constitutional reform in compliance with the recommendations of the Venice Commission in order to build a solid and independent judiciary.”

Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Gardetto, Ms Memecan, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Bockel and Ms Woldseth, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 16 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly notes the progress made regarding LGBT rights and congratulates Montenegro for the adoption of a comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Law in 2010, for the recent initiatives taken by the Montenegran authorities, including the appointment of an Adviser to the Prime Minister on Human Rights and Protection against Discrimination and for the leading role taken in this field by Montenegro in the region. The Assembly also welcomes the announced organisation of the Pride Parade, which is planned to be held in June 2013, in co-operation with the Ombudsman and the relevant institutions.”

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Gardetto, Ms Memecan, Mr Islami, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Bockel and Ms Lundgren, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.3, replace the words “to amend the Law on Minorities accordingly, and ensure the smooth functioning of Minority Councils and the transparent use of the Minority Fund” with the following words:

“in order to ensure the smooth functioning of Minority Councils and the transparent use of the Minority Fund. In addition, it also encourages Montenegro to further improve the Law on Minorities”.

If Amendment 10 is agreed to, Amendment 3 falls. I call Mr Gardetto to support Amendment 10.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the amendment sought to clarify the wording of the text following discussions with the delegates from Montenegro.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 10 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Spahić, Mr Vukčević, Mr Shershun, Ms Radulović-Šćepanović and Mr Rzayev, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, delete the words “, such as the dissolution of coalitions and their funding obligations, the extension of the mandate of the State Electoral Commission to municipal elections, and the constitutional two-year residency requirement (instead of six months for the local elections) before citizens can obtain the right to vote”.

I call Ms Radulović-Šćepanović to support the amendment.

Ms RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ (Montenegro) – The signatories to the amendment insist that our wording is broader and less limited, and implies all the other recommendations of the Venice Commission.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the wording was important as it cited the Venice Commission and highlighted the priorities to be followed.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Monitoring Committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Ms Jonica, Mr Spahić, Mr Popescu, Mr Shershun and Ms Bilgehan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11.2, delete the last sentence.

I call Ms Jonica to support the amendment.

Ms JONICA (Montenegro) – We ask that the sentence be deleted as it narrows the room for potential agreement on constitutional amendments concerning the judiciary. The opinion of the Venice Commission, at point 13, offers two options for the election of the Supreme Court’s president. The sentence that we want to delete insists on one of these options. The Venice Commission’s recommendation was, “Should appointment by parliament nevertheless be maintained in the Constitution, in the Venice Commission’s opinion this should at the very least be done with a two-thirds majority”.

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

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine) – This is fundamental. I simply cannot understand why the Montenegrin delegation proposes this. The point is made by the Venice Commission in a number of opinions, and by the Assembly, that the political involvement of parliament in the appointment of high judicial officials should be deleted from the constitution. I am strongly against the amendment and I ask that we keep the relevant sentence of the draft resolution as it is.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Monitoring Committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Spahić, Mr Vukčević, Mr Popescu, Mr Shershun and Ms Radulović-Šćepanović, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 20.4 with the following paragraph:

“invites the Montenegrin authorities to continue with consistent implementation of the Law on Foreigners in order to successfully finalize the process of regulating the status of displaced and internally displaced persons in Montenegro, and to continue the activities aimed at assisting these persons and obtaining the required documents from their countries of origin.”

I call Ms Radulović-Šćepanović to support the amendment.

Ms RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ (Montenegro) – This wording would make for consistent implementation of the law on foreigners.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the text had to be kept as it was in the original document because displaced people were in a stalemate because of the activities of the authorities and so a clear message was required

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 6 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Spahić, Mr Vukčević, Mr Popescu, Mr Shershun, Ms Radulović-Šćepanović, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 21.1 with the following paragraph:

“calls for the strengthening of the cooperation with the civil society and encourages the activities of state officials aimed at creating a more favourable media environment.”

I call Ms Radulović-Šćepanović to support the amendment.

Ms RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ (Montenegro) – There are ongoing mediation cases, and we are obliged to suggest this.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the unusual wording used had to be preserved because journalists were subject to pressure and the clear language was needed to help the situation.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Spahić, Mr Vukčević, Mr Popescu, Mr Shershun and Ms Radulović-Šćepanović, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 21.3, replace the words “; remains however concerned by the fact that, in some old cases of defamation, unpaid fines have been converted to custodial sentences and urges the authorities to address this issue in compliance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights” with the following words:

“welcomes the adoption of the Law on Amnesty for the persons convicted for the criminal offenses of insult and defamation, which significantly contributes to the promotion of the rights and freedoms of public speech and protection of journalists in line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Montenegro remains committed to creating a more favourable media environment in the upcoming period;”

If Amendment is agreed to Amendment 13 will fall.

I understand, Ms Radulović-Šćepanović, that you do not wish to move Amendment 8. Is this correct?

Ms RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ (Montenegro) – In the spirit of good co-operation, we have given up on this amendment and accept Amendment 13, which has been suggested by the co-rapporteurs and amends the same paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT – The amendment is not moved.

We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Mr Gardetto, Ms Memecan, Mr Islami, Ms Wohlwend and Mr Bockel, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 21.3, replace the words “remains however concerned by the fact that, in some old cases of defamation, unpaid fines have been converted to custodial sentences and urges the authorities to address this issue in compliance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights” with the following words:

“welcomes the adoption of the Law on Amnesty for the persons convicted of insult and defamation in June 2012, which should contribute to a better protection of freedom of speech, in line with the case law of the European Court on Human Rights. The Assembly encourages Montenegro to further support a more pluralistic media environment in the upcoming period”.

I call Mr Gardetto to support Amendment 13.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the aim of the amendment was to heighten the protection of the freedom of speech and the respect of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is unanimously in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 13 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Çavuşoğlu, Ms Stavrositu, Mr Jakič, Mr Rzayev, Mr Mustafa, Mr Huseynov, Mr Vukčević, Mr Spahić, Mr Dzurinda, Mr Gaudi Nagy, Ms Radulović-Šćepanović and Mr Popescu, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 25 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly considers that over the past five years, Montenegro has clearly demonstrated its determination and ability to fulfil the undertakings made upon its accession to the Council of Europe and the statutory obligations which it holds as a member State. Having regard to the progress achieved since 2007, the Assembly expresses its confidence that the Montenegrin authorities will continue the reforms they have started. The Assembly therefore decides to close the monitoring procedure and to carry on the post-monitoring dialogue with the Montenegrin authorities on the questions raised in this Resolution, particularly in paragraph 24, or on any other question that may arise out of Montenegro's obligations as a Council of Europe member State.”

If Amendment 2 is adopted, Amendment 1 falls.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment 2.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey) – During the debate everyone, including the rapporteurs, has underlined that Montenegro has been the best example in monitoring. Although we are encouraging and criticising the bad examples, it is not fair if we do not reward good examples or even the best example, Montenegro.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that, as had been outlined previously, progress had been made but fundamental problems relating to the independence of the judiciary and corruption remained. It was therefore necessary to maintain the progress towards European standards.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Schennach, Mr Moriau, Mr Jensen, Mr Marcenaro, Mr Kox and Mr Sasi, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 25, add the following words:

“Against the background of the negotiations for EU-membership and on the basis of the positive report of the European Commission, the monitoring procedure should be reassessed within a year.”

I call Mr Schennach to support Amendment 1.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) said that this was a compromise amendment in the light of the forthcoming European Union accession negotiations. As such a positive impression of progress in Montenegro had been given and exception from the usual process was justified to reassess the monitoring procedure in a year’s time.

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

I call Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that there should not be a different rule for Montenegro and reassessment of the monitoring procedure should take place within the usual two year timetable.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT – We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 12952, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12952, as amended, is adopted, with 58 votes for, 4 against and 10 abstentions.

6. The situation of human rights defenders in Council of Europe member states

THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “The situation of human rights defenders in Council of Europe member states”, Document 12957, presented by Ms Mailis Reps on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I remind colleagues that speaking time in the debates today is limited to three minutes.

I shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.45 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

Ms REPS (Estonia) – I want first to draw your attention to the fact that this report continues the work accomplished by my predecessor, the distinguished Mr Haibach, who was working on the situation of human rights defenders in the Council of Europe member states and who presented a report to this Chamber in 2009.

Following my appointment, I had various meetings with the NGO community, and I had the honour and privilege to be in a seminar organised by the Human Rights Commissioner’s office, which has daily contact with NGOs, human rights defenders, lawyers and journalists.

I also organised a hearing in front of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and we had quite a few exchanges of view with journalists, human rights defenders and organisations that came to Strasbourg.

My report points out a few negative tendencies, but let me start by referring to positive practices. If we consider what has happened over the past few years, we can see that in a number of Council of Europe member states there are very good legal protections, clear infrastructure possibilities, and possibilities for human rights defenders to work successfully and regularly. Also, there are no hindrances to their work.

Unfortunately, our Assembly is obliged to address deficiencies. Thus, the report points out a number of very sad cases. I could conclude that in some member states there are serious difficulties – judicial and fiscal, or even administrative harassment. That can be called selective justice. It can be called just regular check-ups by tax authorities. It can be called other administrative hindrances. For example, it can be asking all organisations to “re-register” themselves. Somehow this applies to organisations working on human rights issues, particularly issues of political rights, economic rights and, often, cultural rights. Also involved are issues related to minorities, LGBT people, immigrants and new migrants.

There are also cases in which the media take a very harsh stand on human rights defenders, sometimes undermining their work and sometimes blaming them, or just using the opportunity to show the activities of journalists and other colleagues, such as lawyers defending human rights workers, in a negative way.

The other serious issue that we have to address is non-state actors. In many Council of Europe member states, the harassment comes not directly from the state, but there is little that the state does to protect against violations from non-state actors. For example, a case might simply not be brought, the prosecutor general might not consider it, the courts might not take it in or the police might simply ignore it. Furthermore, in some states, serious cases of murder, disappearance or grievous bodily harm go unnoticed.

We have mentioned in other reports and we repeat in this one that those who work for the rights of others should always be protected. We call on our member states to take all the necessary action to achieve that. It is also important that the relevant legislation should be passed in our parliaments, and that the NGO community of legal experts should be consulted on that, so that they can give their support and expertise in order to achieve the best outcomes.

Unfortunately, a number of Council of Europe states use their normal, common legislation against certain groups or individual human rights defenders and lawyers. That is why Resolution 6.1 states that all states should refrain from using legislative means to work against human rights defenders and their work, in conformity with international standards.

In committee, we had a number of discussions with member states. We mentioned Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Ukraine and Turkey. Quite a few of our member states felt it unfair that they had been included in the list, but I can guarantee that in all those cases the NGO community has identified deficiencies. Of course, they are not on the same scale of severity as those relating to the North Caucasus that we have heard about here, but there are deficiencies and it is our duty to address them.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. You have 6.5 minutes remaining. I call Mr von Sydow to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The Socialist Group is definitely in favour of Ms Reps’ report. It shows again that severe problems exist for human rights defenders in Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine. Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin and I visited the North Caucasus in the Russian Federation in May. There, I found fear among the human rights defenders. I found grief and fear among the parents, sisters and wives of men who had been kidnapped, and I saw almost no court proceedings.

Human rights defenders are facing threats and attacks on their physical integrity. They are facing judicial harassment, defamation campaigns, arbitrary arrest, detention, administrative obstacles, restrictions on access to funds and restrictions on freedoms of assembly, association and expression. There is impunity for the perpetrators, however. Most of us have met representatives of NGOs who have experienced those problems.

Since 1998, the international community has established a fairly comprehensive system of norms to protect defenders. The United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union and not least the Council of Europe are all clear about those norms. We know that the defenders are invaluable. Terrorism in a member state of the Council of Europe is no excuse for attacks on or hindrances to defenders. The Council of Europe also has a set of controllers and supporters, including the Commissioner for Human Rights – not least the previous one, Mr Hammarberg – the presidency of the Committee of Ministers, the European Court of Human Rights and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Ms Reps has found motives for more of a joint endeavour. She wants to establish an international mechanism of rapid response to violations and threats, and I think that she is right. I think that there should be a joint position for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers and the Commissioner, based here in Strasbourg, to work on the immediate investigation of all reported cases of defenders in danger. I believe that that would have a preventive effect for individuals and for the system in all those countries that have now been listed again in Ms Reps’ report.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Acketoft on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – There is no established legal definition of a human rights defender, but we all recognise them by their work. They are the people who, on their own or with others, take action to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights for all. What distinguishes them is not who they are but what they do.

Indisputably, a world in which people’s rights and liberties are respected is a safer world for all of us to live in. Upholding respect for human rights is the responsibility of national governments, but many fail to do so. Many of our member countries are, rightly, put on the name and shame list by Amnesty, the EU Annual Report on Human Rights, Democracy in the World and other civil rights defenders. That only goes to show that human rights can never be taken for granted, even in a democracy.

A strong civil society is needed to examine and constantly draw attention to human rights violations. A strong civil society is also an important counterweight to the power of the state, as the state’s definition of itself is only ever good. By empowering local human rights defenders, we strengthen civil society in the countries where we are active. Similarly, by impeding them, we make our societies weaker.

The list of ways in which a state can operate to silence human rights defenders’ voices in our member states is a long one – death threats and torture, persecution through the use of the judicial system, silencing by restrictive laws, public defamation, disappearance and murder – but, for some reason, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression seem to be under particularly heavy attack by governments at the moment. Sometimes the pretext is that of saving our children from immorality – that is, homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality – by passing laws against freedom of speech, as Russia, Moldova and others have done.

Another pretext can be that of keeping the city in order, as we saw recently during the Eurovision song contest in Azerbaijan. Those member states that have been included in the report deserve to be mentioned, but they are by no means the only member states of this Assembly that attack human rights and human rights defenders. Time does not permit me to go through the whole list, but the report and the rapporteur have painted a very clear picture for us all.

I congratulate the rapporteur on her substantial report and its recommendations for our member states. Let us not forget that we in this room should all be human rights defenders, so this is not only a report by us, but a report for us.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Seyidov, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – It gives me great pleasure to say, on behalf of the European Democrat Group, that we are definitely in favour of this report. We want to express our gratitude to Ms Reps for her excellent report, which is so important for the Council of Europe. As Ms Acketoft has just said, this is not just about NGO representatives; it is about human beings, about members of parliament and about ordinary people. Today, human rights problems exist not just in one or two countries, but in countries all over the world. Ms Reps has done a great job in showing us that the problems for human rights defenders and NGO representatives are not confined to one country. It is a problem we can find in different member states, and we should do our best to solve it, not only in one country, but in all member countries, and maybe across the world.

I express my gratitude to Ms Reps, because she has again shown us that the Council of Europe needs the values of human rights – that we should not use human rights as a political tool, but defend them and protect those who try to defend us as representatives of civil society. That is a great message from her report. I am in favour of the suggestions she makes in the report. We should consider them seriously. We should do our best to adopt international measures to prevent violations in different countries. This is the main problem we see in different countries. Maybe we need an international conference; maybe we need consultation and advice for national parliaments; maybe we need to do a little more than we have in the past. But Ms Reps has made the right decision, in the right way. The Council of Europe should applaud her because she has done a great job for human rights and the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Kürkçü, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – We fully agree with the draft resolution and express our gratitude to the rapporteur, Ms Mailis Reps. However, we would like to discuss a crucial point in the explanatory memorandum, regarding the definition of “human rights defender”, and to propose that the Assembly stick to a relatively broader interpretation of “human rights” and “human rights defenders” than that implied in the explanatory memorandum. The rapporteur proceeds, quite justifiably, to what the report characterises as the general agreement that “human rights defenders are those who, individually or together with others, act to promote and protect human rights”.

However, when proceeding from abstract definitions to concrete cases, we see that the Council of Europe countries where the rights of human rights defenders are challenged – occasionally or, even, regularly – with obstacles or a hostile environment are limited to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine. Based on abundant personal experience, I admit that this is indeed the case in Turkey. However, if we reconsider the terms “human rights” and “human rights defenders” in the context of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, we have to recognise that other Council of Europe countries are not exempt from such violations either. The ICECSR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the latter’s first and second optional protocols.

Thus, the people who work for the rights referred to in those documents – the right of all peoples to self-determination; the right to work under “just and favourable conditions”; the right to form and join trade unions; the right to social security; the right to family life, including paid parental leave and the protection of children; the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and the “continuous improvement of living conditions”; the right to health, including the “highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”; the right to education, including free universal primary education, generally available secondary education and equally accessible higher education; and the right to participate in cultural life – should also be included among the human rights defenders “who, individually or together with others, act to promote and protect human rights”.

This is particularly the case in view of the three reports we adopted this morning, all of which underline the increased threats to social and political rights across Europe in this period of crisis. We can further claim that greater threats are pending to the rights of the people and the rights defenders in the relatively more developed areas of Europe, as these countries will be more heavily affected by the crisis. Therefore, we should be prepared to protect rights and the rights defenders across Europe, notwithstanding the degree of economic development in any given country.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I, too, thank Ms Reps for this important and timely report. Even the title says a lot. We are here not only to defend human rights; we must also defend the defenders. Unfortunately, however, in many cases they are in danger.

I would like to give an overview of the options that are open to us. We need general reports, but sometimes we urgently need case studies too. For example, let us take the Magnitsky case, which is one that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights ought to make a profound study of. I am of course aware of the efforts of monitoring rapporteurs, but the more we can do, the better.

We must certainly consider the North Caucasus, which is an area where there are a number of unresolved cases of human rights defenders being murdered, including Natalia Estemirova. This climate of impunity is not acceptable. The Assembly’s Human Rights Prize is one way of attracting attention to the situation. Indeed, I remind you that the last winner, Mr Kalyapin, is under a criminal investigation in the Russian Federation, as is Mr Orlov, who received a similar prize from the European Parliament. There is of course co-operation between the monitoring rapporteurs and human rights defenders, but in some cases it could be better and more intense. Indeed, there have been signs of misunderstandings in some cases.

The option is also always open to us to have side-events in this place. For example, the EPP has had meetings with the relatives and defenders of eminent political prisoners, such as Ms Tymoshenko from Ukraine and Mr Khodorkovsky. Another good example is the hearings that Ms Brasseur organised for the ALDE group. The last one in this session was about women’s rights in the North Caucasus, to which a lot of human rights defenders were invited. However, we can always do more. Indeed, sometimes even the opportunities for Assembly members are restricted. I refer to what happened to Mr Strässer: he was denied access to Azerbaijan, but thereafter became a much more well-known rapporteur.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Ms Reps will reply at the end of the debate, but does she wish to speak now? That is not the case.

I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin.

Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – I thank the rapporteur, Mailis Reps, for her excellent report. Human rights are a core value of the Council of Europe, so we should give all the support we can, and we should be proud all those who work locally on a daily basis to defend human rights. Unfortunately, however, in some member states the opposite is the case, as we have heard from many speakers. Human rights defenders face threats and harassment, and some are even murdered.

As Björn von Sydow said, I was in the North Caucasus at the beginning of May, together with a Swedish NGO, Civil Rights Defenders. We visited North Ossetia, Ingushetia and Chechnya. We met a lot of people who told us heartbreaking stories of how their human rights had been violated. There were forced disappearances, torture, murders, a lack of investigation by the authorities, impunity for the perpetrators, and so on. Of course, we met a lot of human rights defenders and organisations, and one of them said, “The law is our only weapon, but if the judiciary does not work and we cannot defend ourselves, how can we defend our citizens?” When we asked them whether we could do anything, one request was to make it easier for them to get visas to leave the country quickly, perhaps just for a couple of weeks or a month because they want to come back. That was included in an amendment that I hope we will adopt because it was approved in the committee.

I will now give a concrete example. Since 2005, Mr Mutsolgov has been the head of MASHR, the Ingushetian human rights organisation, which offers free legal advice and assistance in cases involving disappearance, extra-judicial execution, torture and so on. Mr Mutsolgov’s life has been threatened four times. His family have been threatened. He has been kidnapped several times. When we met him in his home, he had a lot of surveillance cameras to make sure that no one could enter his house, because he was really afraid.

I asked the Committee of Ministers about this case, and I got the answer yesterday. The committee says that it will write to the authorities in the Russian Federation to ask them for an answer. I hope that the answer will be a good one. I think that it is time that we had a permanent rapporteur for human rights defenders, as we have on other issues. I have written on behalf of the Swedish delegation to the appropriate people to ask them about that. I know that we have the Human Rights Commissioner, but we need a special one to defend human rights defenders.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Pourbaix-Lundin. I call Mr Plotnikov.

Mr PLOTNIKOV (Ukraine) said that the report was of high quality and topical. For Ukraine and other former Soviet republics, and for the countries of eastern Europe, the problems experienced by human rights defenders were very important. It was essential to keep in mind those who had fought for human rights in totalitarian conditions. The memory of those who had fought for their countries to become members of the Council of Europe should be honoured. It was important that those memories were not used for political purposes. There had been a Helsinki group in Ukraine, and there had been other similar groups in other countries, which were unofficial and illegal. However, rather than respecting the memory of those who had taken part in such groups, a so-called Helsinki group from another country had now come to Ukraine and was causing difficulties. They were dishonouring the memory of those who had been members of the original group. He supported the report and hoped that it would be distributed as widely as possible, both inside and outside the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Plotnikov. I call Mr Sidyakin.

Mr SIDYAKIN (Russian Federation) said that he welcomed the report, which was topical. It was important to note the growing role of human rights defenders. They were a bridge between civil society and the state. They could even contribute to economic development by combating corruption. Organisations that defended human rights should be seen to have not just rights, but responsibilities. The report made a distinction between activity to defend human rights and political activity, but some people in Russia were engaging in political activity under the umbrella of human rights. The freedoms of an individual could not be put above the rights of an entire society and the rights offered to every citizen. There were huge problems in the North Caucasus and terrorist attacks had taken place. It was essential that there were joint measures to combat this. He noted that the Magnitsky case had been mentioned but pointed out that it was also important not to forget the situation of Russians in Estonia.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sidyakin. I call Mr Sobolev.

Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – This is an excellent report on a very complicated theme, and I think that we need such reports in every parliamentary session. On the situation of human rights defenders in Ukraine, during the previous week we have heard more about the famous case of Anatoly Ilchenko, who was arrested in the centre of Kiev and put into a psychiatric clinic. The leader of another organisation, Bogdan Padzerski, was killed a few years ago, but we still have no information about him. Such cases involve independent defenders of human rights.

What do we now have in the ombudsman’s office? Perhaps you know names such as Nina Karpachova, the previous ombudsman, who visited Tymoshenko on the day after she was beaten in jail and published all the photos in newspapers all over the world, including in Ukraine. She was dismissed from her position, and now we have another woman who is protected here in Strasbourg at the European Court of Human Rights. What is the position of the state when thousands of the heroes of Chernobyl still have not received the compensation awarded to them by Ukrainian courts and by the European Court of Human Rights?

Moreover, for the past two weeks, we have had the horrible situation of our ombudsman remaining silent when the high court decided to refuse Tymoshenko permission to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The first decision took 45 days and the next one two weeks, and it is possible that the criminal proceedings are now finished. It is not Tymoshenko’s duty to be in the court, it is her right. At the same court, in the same building, Kuchma was found innocent in the Gongadze case without his being in the court. That is a good example of how the official ombudsmen protect human rights in Ukraine.

One last example. Two weeks ago the president of our state, President Yanukovych, announced that Tymoshenko was guilty of killing a businessman 16 years ago. That was announced without an investigation by the prosecutor’s office or a court decision. Afterwards, the general prosecutor’s first deputy announced not one case, but 25 cases in which she was supposed to have killed somebody or tried to kill somebody. Again, that was without any court decision. Even in those circumstances, our official ombudsman kept silent even though hundreds of independent human rights protectors have announced their positions.

We now have in opposition famous names such as Lukyanenko, who was given 25 years under the Soviet regime, and Kosiv, who was given 11 years. Now they are all struggling against the Yanukovych regime.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sobolev. Mr Huseynov, you have the floor.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – The protection of human rights has been among the major priorities of the Council of Europe since the foundation of this organisation. That delicate mission is still going on today, and debates such as this on human rights defenders should be considered as one of its components.

This report has emerged thanks to the signatures of one or two people, but it is generally perceived as the position and view of the Assembly. Each issue should have been thoroughly inspected before being added to the text, to ensure the precision of the report. Also, the report reflects the claims made by one side. Balance should have been preserved through investigation of the opposite side’s position.

It is difficult to agree with the assumptions about Azerbaijan in the report, which should be reconsidered. It contains points that contradict the truth. Paragraph 23 mentions the closure of the Human Rights House Association in Baku. Azerbaijan is interested in the functioning of the various international organisations in the country and wants to facilitate their activities by all means. The suspension of that particular organisation’s activities can be explained by a very simple reason – there has been an amendment to the legislation relating to the registration of foreign non-governmental organisations in Azerbaijan. In accordance with that amendment, NGOs wishing to operate in Azerbaijan should make a treaty with the Ministry of Justice. That is an ordinary rule of procedure. If that clear detail is not declared, a negative impression of Azerbaijan can emerge.

The report also indicates that in August 2011, the building in Baku used as an office by a human rights defender was dramatically demolished by bulldozers. In this case, too, the view created by incomplete information is incorrect. An old quarter of the city was removed in favour of a modern complex in the centre of Baku. For that purpose, hundreds of old buildings located there that did not fit the modern city have been demolished, and more than 1 500 residents have been provided with due compensation and been resettled. That is such a complicated process that one or two discontented persons – or people wishing to benefit from those developments for propaganda purposes – have emerged. It cannot be disputed that the accentuation of such details in the report is not rooted in positive intentions. It is unfair, and not objective.

The Parliamentary Assembly has many opportunities to assist human rights defenders and facilitate their more effective functioning. I propose to arrange regular training for human rights defenders in the Council of Europe, with the involvement of experienced politicians. Such systematic courses would make a decent contribution to improving human rights defenders’ professionalism in member countries, and it would make their activities more successful.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Bondarenko.

Ms BONDARENKO (Ukraine) – First, I extend my sincere gratitude to the rapporteur, Ms Reps, for her considerable work in producing such an important and timely report. Under conditions in which democracy is eradicated, human rights defenders are the sole pillar of strength for people whose rights are being infringed. When then human rights environment is destroyed, people lose their last hope of justice and fairness.

Today in Ukraine, assaults continue to take place against La Strada Ukraine, the international centre that deals with women’s human rights protection. There are demands to ban its activity, but the authorities pretend not to see what is happening. For them, the rights of an individual are not a priority. Moreover, it is not seldom that the authorities themselves are the source of human rights infringements.

I will give some examples. Anatoliy Ilchenko, the human rights defender, who stands for the right for the official Ukrainian language to exist, has been detained and put into a psychiatric hospital. For many years the killer of Bogdan Pazderski, another human rights defender, has not been found, and the case of Georgiy Gongadze, a murdered journalist, has been led into a dead end.

There is brutal violation of the rights of Yulia Tymoshenko, an unlawfully imprisoned opposition leader. As is known, the court continues to transfer her appeal hearing to the court of cassation, thus depriving her of the right to bring the case before the European Court of Human Rights.

A former Ukrainian government agent in the European Court of Human Rights – a person closely related to the authorities – has been placed in the position of being the parliament’s ombudsperson for human rights. Thus the independence of the ombudsperson has been liquidated and the post is now part of the power structure.

The Assembly must carefully review the situation of human rights defenders and take effective care of their free activities. Human rights are one of the most important values and we have to stand for their defence.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Dişli from Turkey.

Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – I, too, thank Ms Reps for her good work.

The names of some human rights defenders are internationally recognised, but the majority remain unknown. In fact, no qualification is required to be a human rights defender, and the UN declaration on human rights defenders makes it clear that basically, we can all be defenders if we wish to be so. According to the declaration, defenders have not only rights but responsibilities. It is worth mentioning that they must accept the universality of human rights. A person cannot be a human rights defender just because they are an advocate for some other people if they also deny some human rights.

I wish to say a few words about the references to Turkey in the report. Through a comprehensive set of reforms to legislation in recent years, Turkey has made substantial progress towards strengthening democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights. When you listen to what I tell you about recent reforms, please bear it in mind that we have lost 30 000 lives to terror in Turkey. I sincerely wish that colleagues who make statements such as “Terrorism is not an excuse” will never experience the terrorism that we have been combating for decades in Turkey. I would expect the same colleagues to not only be critical but to be supportive and display solidarity when needed.

The comprehensive constitutional amendments that were adopted in September 2010 introduced the rights to submit individual applications to the Turkish Constitutional Court. On the other hand, wide-ranging reforms have also been made to the judiciary. The third reform package, which is currently before the Turkish Parliament, contains several additional components, including the postponement of proceedings and sentences in respect of those investigated, tried or convicted for breaking the law through the media or the expression of a thought or opinion. The package also includes several provisions to affect certain major causes of violations that have been identified by the European Court of Human Rights.

Most recently, on 21 June 2012, the Turkish Parliament adopted the law on the establishment of the Turkish independent human rights institution in line with the relevant United Nations framework. An ombudsman institution has also been established and soon an appointment will be made.

I assure the rapporteur and others who may have similar concerns on the situation of human rights defenders in Turkey that a lively and free public debate takes place in Turkey, not only on some specific facts but on how to best improve the protection of human rights in all its aspects.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Belyakov is not here, so the next speaker is Mr Chisu, Observer from Canada.

Mr CHISU (Canada) – Human rights defenders play an essential role in ensuring healthy, vibrant democracies and the rule of law. They are critical to our societies in exposing corruption and criminality at the political level, protecting those wrongly accused of crimes by political opponents, and generally ensuring that our political and governmental institutions function properly. Their work enables the rest of us to exercise our human rights, especially our freedom of speech, and our political freedoms – our freedom to participate freely in the political life of our respective countries, and to pursue ideas and policies that we believe in without fear that we will be vilified, marginalised or even harmed because of the views that we hold. They do that work typically for little economic gain, motivated purely by a belief in what is just and right. They expose themselves and their families to considerable physical risk, including the risk of death, and to the risk of being marginalised or ostracised. Instead of being rewarded and recognised for their work, they are often labelled as extremists, traitors and agents of foreign powers.

The rapporteur has done an admirable job of exposing how widespread the ill treatment of human rights defenders is in some member states. It is disappointing that many of the documented cases of maltreatment of human rights defenders are in member countries of the Council of Europe. That cannot be tolerated. The Council of Europe is looked to for inspiration as a model of promoting and defending human rights. Canada is a strong defender of human rights, and of human rights defenders. The rapporteur is correct to say that the primary responsibility for protecting human rights defenders lies with the member countries, and rightly calls on each member country of the Council of Europe to take immediate steps to put an end to the harassment of human rights defenders and the dangers they face. At the same time, however, we cannot be complacent about the dire situation that they face in many countries. It is imperative that a concerted and sustained effort be made by all countries, even those with admirable human rights records, to apply pressure on those countries to remedy the intolerable conditions faced by those courageous individuals who do so much to safeguard my rights and yours.

I am encouraged that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the rapporteur in particular, has taken this important step of bringing to light the deplorable situations still faced by many human rights defenders in some countries. I am confident that with the Council of Europe’s continued attention to this issue, combined with the efforts of member countries, we can change the culture of impunity in the treatment of human rights advocates.

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

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I am really glad to be here and I thank Ms Reps for her wonderful idea of bringing the issue of human rights defenders to the Assembly. Human rights defenders are the soldiers of human rights. Without them, no one would pursue the goal of protecting someone who is struggling for his or her rights or been deprived of them and oppressed by a government or an organisation. Human rights defenders stand beside such people and try to ensure they enjoy all the beautiful ideas adopted by the Council of Europe.

I am a human rights defender as well; that is why I take this so personally. I lead an association – it was created in 2004 in Hungary – specialising in defending patriotic people living in Hungary, and in neighbouring countries because of the unjust Treaty of Trianon. I have personally experienced harassment as a human rights defender. I was sometimes punished by judges on certain issues – without legal grounds, of course. My colleague Morvai Krisztina and I tried to defend people from police attack, and the police attacked us as well; they used tear gas against us. We managed to get compensation because we used the law as a tool to defend people’s dignity and human rights.

The report and the draft resolution say that it is important that we stop accusing human rights defenders of being extremists. Of course, I agree. My daily experience is that people say that I am defending terrorists and extremists – that I am on the same side as them, and am not reliable.

It is important to support this wonderful report, and it is most important to follow the United Nations resolution and to force member states to adopt national legislation to protect human rights defenders. The greatest human rights defender was Mahatma Gandhi, and he was really successful.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Leonid Kalashnikov.

Mr L. KALASHNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that Ms Reps had dealt well with a thorny issue addressing both national legislation and international agreements, and had found a way between the hammer and the anvil in doing so. As a politician, he noted that he was often attacked by the media and official structure, but was protected by parliamentary immunity and also had the know-how to put up a robust defence. This was not always the case for NGOs, which often lacked access to the aid they needed.

However, it was also true that individuals had to be accountable for actions that were against the law. Human rights defenders were not imprisoned per se, as there could be other pretexts to do so as in the case where a simple statement was used. The case of Mr Magnitsky, who had died in prison, was often cited in this regard, but his company, Hermitage, had profited illegally for a number of years before his imprisonment. Therefore, while it was arguable that the case was an example of crooks chasing crooks, some claimed that it was related to human rights. It was therefore essential to find the borderline between genuine human rights defenders and others. The report had succeeded in this task, though the Committee faced more issues with respect to reference to political prisoners, and deserved congratulation for doing so.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Slutsky.

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said it was an objective and well thought-out report and the presence of Ms Reps’ baby had not got in the way. Human rights defenders were irritating to authorities and people in power often did not want to hear from them. However, they were fighting for the fundamental principles of the Council of Europe. He supported the report.

Russia had had a problem with kidnapping in the 1990s and early 2000s, but this was now on the decline. Human rights defence had been used as a cover for political or criminal activity. A Russian NGO had been set-up by a professional burglar, who claimed to be a human rights defender when he was arrested.

It was necessary to build a mature and strong civil society. He supported bringing NGOs into government activity at all levels and public discussion of a recent police law in Russia had resulted in better legislation.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers.

I call Ms Reps to reply. You have six and a half minutes left.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – First, I thank all the participants who are here or who are listening to us, and, of course, all the speakers. I also thank the Secretariat for its excellent work and co-operation, as well as the office of the Human Rights Commissioner, which has been giving us very good continuous updates.

What conclusion can we draw from the debate? We could start by saying that if all the countries mentioned in a rather negative context had complimented the report there must have been something wrong with it, or something very right with it. I hope that it is the latter. I hope, too, that the issue here is the fact that we understand that there are deficiencies and that those deficiencies arise in a number of Council of Europe member states. Unfortunately, that includes very longstanding members of the Council of Europe. It is just that the level of problems is different.

In some countries, we are talking about murder. In others, we are talking about impunity. Unfortunately, in cases such as the North Caucasus, the problems are so grave that we often address them separately.

Sadly, there are new tendencies, which are the ones referred to here. Many countries are using administrative and fiscal, or sometimes judicial, ways to harass human rights organisations or human rights defenders such as journalists and lawyers.

There is also a widespread tendency in a number of countries to threaten lawyers who are defending the ones whose rights have been violated. Sadly, it is not one or two countries that are involved, but quite a few.

What further could the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights do to propose that the Assembly work in detail case by case? The office of the Human Rights Commissioner is working on general issues, but we could address individual cases and work on the most severe. Impunity, I hope, is not continuing, but in some cases perpetrators are getting away with it.

We need to address widespread problems – for example, the fiscal issues that I referred to. Thus, the next proposal for you to consider is to undertake studies country by country and region by region.

Furthermore, there is the proposal, which quite a few of you mentioned, to have for the most urgent cases a European system of early warning, as well as in cases of serious attacks against human rights defenders. There could be a special fund established to support that work and we could have a widespread mechanism to react as well.

It is important to realise that, as many of you said, there is no definition of “human rights defender”. We define them by the work that they are doing, and quite rightly so. I hope that, in future, even more human rights defenders are going to be members of this Assembly, because we have an obligation in that regard. Co-operating with NGOs in legislative work, here as well as at home, is extremely important.

We are taking a step – considering where we stand now and then continuing the work. We are not going to vote for this resolution and then forget it. I want to assure you that this resolution will not provide a pretext for any organisation that we might call a terrorist organisation to describe itself as a human rights defender and then get away with it. Nor will it provide a pretext for any organisation that is undertaking a general violation of laws. We are not putting anybody above the law. However, the resolution calls on all our member states not to use their ordinary legislative mechanisms to hinder the work of the human rights organisations, human rights defenders, lawyers and journalists who cover these matters. We do not want to confuse the issue, but a new practice now exists and it is growing more and more widespread. It is our obligation to identify it and to fight against it. I am looking forward to working together on this issue with the Committee, the Commissioner’s office and everyone else to ensure that, after this vote, the process does not stop. We need to reassure all those who put their trust in us that we have not forgotten them, whether they are in North Caucasus, in Turkey, in Hungary or in Estonia. It is important for them to know that we are looking after them, studying them and following them.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Reps. Does the Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Chope, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – There is much agreement on the report; that it is refreshing in comparison to what happened in our committee yesterday, when we discussed a very contentious report. As Mr Kalashnikov said, it is a great credit to the rapporteur that there is this degree of agreement on a report that contains some quite contentious material. The committee and the Assembly operate at their most effective when they go for consensus rather than creating confrontation and division. I hope that this will be an example of how we can carry forward such reports in the future. Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin asked whether we could make the role a permanent one. I am not sure that we want to do that, but perhaps we could have a rapporteur carrying on this work for a couple of years under the new standing orders. I am sure that our committee will look into that.

I agree with almost all the comments that have been made in the debate. A richness of experience has been brought to the Assembly today, including that of Mr Gaudi Nagy, who is a human rights defender. The only point with which I would disagree strongly was that made by Mr Kalashnikov, when he said that the Magnitsky case was a matter of crooks chasing crooks. From what I know about that case, I would not typify it in that way.

We have heard measured, reasonable contributions from many people on these issues. We know that we cannot be complacent and that we need to continue to be extremely vigilant. We need to look at the facts and ensure that the core work of our committee and our Assembly continues. At the moment, it is in the very good hands of our excellent rapporteur.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Chope.

The debate is closed.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution in Document 12957 to which five amendments have been tabled. There is also an oral amendment and an oral sub-amendment.

Three amendments have been agreed unanimously by the Committee. One of these – Amendment 3 – links to another amendment on the list and so must be taken separately. I therefore understand that the Chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose that Amendments 2 and 1, which were unanimously approved by the committee and do not link to any others, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

Is that so, Mr Chope?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – That is correct.

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

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 2 and 1 have been adopted.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Mailis Reps, Mr Klaas Vries, Mr Christoph Strässer, Mr Serhii Kivalov, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.2, before the word “harassment”, insert the following words: “administrative, fiscal or judicial”.

Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin, Mr Björn Sydow, Mr Andrej Hunko, Mr Jonas Gunnarsson, Kent Härstedt, Ms Kerstin Lundgren, Ms Tina Acketoft, Mr Mikael Cederbratt, Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Andreas Gross, which is in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5.2, insert the following paragraph:

“facilitate the visa issuing process for human rights defenders during periods of intense disturbances and extreme violence in their country of residence;”

We come now to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Leonid Kalashnikov, Mr Sergey Kalashnikov, Ms Svetlana Goryacheva, Mr Alexander Sidyakin, Ms Nadezda Gerasimova, Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh, Mr Yury Shamkov, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.2, after the word “activities”, insert the following words:

“in accordance with international human rights standards and the national legislation of the country where they work”.

I call Mr Kalashnikov to support Amendment No. 4. You have 30 seconds.

Mr L. KALASHNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that he had agreed with the rapporteur to withdraw his amendment on the basis of another amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much. The amendment is not moved.

I call Mr Chope on a point of order.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – We do not wish to withdraw the amendment. We wish to allow a sub-amendment to be tabled to it so that it can be changed in that way.

THE PRESIDENT – My understanding of English is not that good. I think that Ms Reps wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment.

Mr L. KALASHNIKOV (Russian Federation) (Translation) – That is correct.

THE PRESIDENT – Ms Reps wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows: to leave out the words “the national legislation of the country where they work” and insert the words “relevant national legislation”.

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

Ms REPS (Estonia) – My aim as rapporteur was to take Mr Kalashnikov’s amendment and put it into better wording. International human rights standards are applicable to everybody, including human rights defenders, and relevant national legislation places an obligation on everybody.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of Mr Kalashnikov?

Mr L. KALASHNIKOV (Russian Federation) (Translation) – I support the proposal.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the view of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – We are unanimously in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 4, as amended?

That is not the case.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4, as amended, is adopted.

I have received an oral amendment from Ms Reps which reads as follows:

“In the draft resolution, paragraph 5.2, delete the words “without any hindrance, reprisals or threat thereof.”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7 which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from ten or more members to it being debated.

In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.7. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Reps to support the oral amendment.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – After amending it, as we have just done, it became rather long and heavy, so we want to delete a little bit to make it easier to read.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you.

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

Is the committee in favour?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – We are unanimously in support.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

We come now to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Leonid Kalashnikov, Mr Sergey Kalashnikov, Ms Svetlana Goryacheva, Mr Alexander Sidyakin, Ms Nadezda Gerasimova, Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh, Mr Yury Shamkov, which is in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 5.6 with the following paragraph:

“avoid groundless accusations against human rights defenders of being extremists or agents of foreign powers, as well as their unfounded administrative, fiscal and judicial harassment;”

If Amendment 5 is agreed to, Amendment 3 will fall.

I understand, Mr Kalashnikov, that you do not wish to move Amendment 5.

Mr KALASHNIKOV (Russian Federation) (Translation) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone else wish to move the amendment? That is not the case.

We move now to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Mailis Reps, Mr Klaas Vries, Mr Christoph Strässer, Mr Serhii Kivalov, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.6, after the words “foreign powers”, replace the words “and subjecting them to administrative, fiscal and judicial harassment” by the following words:

“unless there exists compelling evidence to this effect”.

I call Ms Reps to support Amendment 3. You have 30 seconds.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – Quite a few member states of our Assembly have been concerned that human rights defenders can be used by certain organisations that we do not want to protect, to put them above the law. We have therefore decided to add the words: “unless there exists compelling evidence to this effect”.

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

Is the Committee in favour?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – We are unanimously in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 12957, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12957, as amended, is adopted, with 46 votes for, 1 against and 0 abstentions.

7. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

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

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 8.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Written declarations

2. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

3. Address by Mr Zoran Milanović, Prime Minister of Croatia

Questions:

Mr Volontè (Italy)

Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)

Earl of Dundee (United Kingdom)

Mr Jakič (Slovenia)

Mr L. Kalashnikov (Russian Federation)

Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Gruber (Hungary)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Mr Haugli (Norway)

Mr Nikoloski (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)

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

4. Resumed joint debate

(i) The crisis of democracy and the role of the state in today’s Europe

(ii) The portrayal of migrants and refugees during election campaigns

Speakers:

Ms Mattila (Finland)

Mr McNamara (Ireland)

Mr Chagaf (Morocco)

Mr Ameur (Morocco)

Mr Sabella (Palestinian National Council)

Replies:

Ms Dumery (Belgium)

Mr Santini (Italy)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mr Marcenaro (Italy)

Amendments 6, 8, 16, 18, 5, 7 as amended, 9 as amended, 10 as amended, 1 to 4, and 17 as amended adopted

Draft resolution in Doc. 12955, as amended, adopted

Amendments 1, 3 to 7 and 2 as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Doc. 12953, as amended, adopted

5. The honouring of obligations and commitments by Montenegro

Presentation of report of the Monitoring Committee by Mr Gardetto and Ms Memecan in Doc. 12952

Speakers:

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Mr Schennach (Austria)

Mr Holovaty (Ukraine)

Mr Çavuşoğlu (Turkey)

Mr Michel (France)

Mr Jakič (Slovenia)

Mr Szabó (Hungary)

Ms Radulović-Šćepanović (Montenegro)

Mr Spahić (Montenegro)

Ms Jonica (Montenegro)

Mr Plotnikov (Ukraine)

Mr Chisu (Canada)

Replies:

Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Amendments 9, 11, 12, 10, and 13 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

6. The situation of human rights defenders in the Council of Europe member states

Presentation of report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights by Ms Reps in Doc. 12957

Speakers:

Mr von Sydow (Sweden)

Ms Acketoft (Sweden)

Mr Seyidov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Kürkçü (Turkey)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden)

Mr Plotnikov (Ukraine)

Mr Sidyakin (Russian Federation)

Mr Sobolev (Ukraine)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Bondarenko (Ukraine)

Mr Dişli (Turkey)

Mr Chisu (Canada)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Mr L. Kalashnikov (Russian Federation)

Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)

Replies:

Ms Reps (Estonia)

Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Amendments 2, 1, 4 as amended, 3, and Oral Amendment 1 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

7. 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*

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Khadija ARIB

Mörður ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Þuriður BACKMAN

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN*

Pelin Gündeş BAKIR*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Carmen Quintanilla

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Alexander van der BELLEN

José María BENEYTO/Ángel Pintado

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Robert BIEDROŃ*

Grzegorz BIERECKI*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Roland BLUM*

Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Eric BOCQUET*

Olena BONDARENKO

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL

Piet DE BRUYN*

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT/ Mikael Oscarsson

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Irena Sokolova

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS

James CLAPPISON/Amber Rudd

Deirdre CLUNE*

Georges COLOMBIER

Agustín CONDE*

Titus CORLĂŢEAN*

Igor CORMAN*

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Cristian DAVID*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Giovanna DEBONO*

Armand De DECKER/Ludo Sannen

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Klaas DIJKHOFF/Tineke Strik

Şaban DİŞLİ

Karl DONABAUER*

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander (The Earl of) DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU*

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

József ÉKES/Péter Hoppál

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Gianni FARINA*

Nikolay FEDOROV/Alexander Sidyakin

Relu FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Tomáš Jirsa

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Paul FLYNN*

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Bernadette Bourzai

Erich Georg FRITZ

György FRUNDA

Giorgi GABASHVILI*

Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ

Sir Roger GALE*

Jean-Charles GARDETTO*

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Sophia GIANNAKA*

Paolo GIARETTA/Paolo Grimoldi

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Alain Cousin

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU/ Corina Fusu

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON/Indrek Saar

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Oliver HEALD

Alfred HEER/Eric Voruz

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Serhiy HOLOVATY

Jim HOOD/Jim Dobbin

Joachim HÖRSTER*

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO

Susanna HUOVINEN*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Stanisław HUSKOWSKI*

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Željko IVANJI*

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Bernard Fournier

Roman JAKIČ

Ramón JÁUREGUI*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON/Tina Acketoft

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Armand JUNG*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA/Melita Mulić

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Michail KATRINIS*

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Bogdan KLICH/Jagna Marczułajtis-Walczak

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Tiny KOX

Marie KRARUP*

Borjana KRIŠTO

Václav KUBATA

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA/Jean-Pierre Michel

Dalia KUODYTĖ*

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides

Igor LEBEDEV/ Nadezda Gerasimova

Jean-Paul LECOQ*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

Jean-Louis LORRAIN

George LOUKAIDES

Younal LOUTFI*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ/Krunoslav Vrdoljak

Philippe MAHOUX

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET

Pietro MARCENARO

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/Imer Aliu

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV/ Leonid Kalashnikov

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ*

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin

Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ*

Akaki MINASHVILI*

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI

Andrey MOLCHANOV*

Jerzy MONTAG*

Patrick MORIAU

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO

Lydia MUTSCH

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Adrian NĂSTASE*

Gebhard NEGELE*

Aleksandar NENKOV*

Pasquale NESSA*

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON

Elena NIKOLAEVA/Anton Belyakov

Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Sandra OSBORNE

Nadia OTTAVIANI*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU*

Eva PARERA

Ganira PASHAYEVA/Fazil Mustafa

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Alexander POCHINOK*

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN*

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA*

Lord John PRESCOTT/Michael Connarty

Jakob PRESEČNIK/Andreja Crnak Meglič

Radoslav PROCHÁZKA*

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Valeriy PYSARENKO*

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ

Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA

Mailis REPS

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE/Rudy Salles

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Ilir RUSMALI*

M. Armen RUSTAMYAN

Branko RUŽIĆ

Volodymyr RYBAK/Oleksiy Plotnikov

Rovshan RZAYEV

Džavid ŠABOVIĆ/Ervin Spahić

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER*

Urs SCHWALLER

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN

Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV*

Robert SHLEGEL*

Ladislav SKOPAL/Václav Mencl

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Roberto SORAVILLA/Luz Elena Sanín

Maria STAVROSITU

Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ*

Yanaki STOILOV

Fiorenzo STOLFI*

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Giacomo STUCCHI

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ*

Dragan TODOROVIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Romana TOMC/Iva Dimic

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI*

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Tomáš ÚLEHLA/Lenka Andrýsová

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Giuseppe VALENTINO/ Renato Farina

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS*

Stefaan VERCAMER

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN*

Tanja VRBAT/Ivan Račan

Konstantinos VRETTOS*

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND/Doris Frommelt

Karin S. WOLDSETH/Øyvind Vaksdal

Gisela WURM*

Karl ZELLER/Paolo Corsini

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Terence FLANAGAN

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Observers:

Corneliu CHISU

Aldo GIORDANO

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

José Luis JAIME CORREA

Ms Yeidckol POLEVNSKY GURWITZ

Partners for democracy:

Mohammed AMEUR

Najat ALASTAL

Abdelkebir BERKIA

Ali Salem CHAGAF

Bernard SABELLA