2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-fifth Sitting

Thursday 28 June 2012 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

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

Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

I congratulate Spain on its victory in the football and express my condolences to Portugal.

1. Written declarations

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Three written declarations have been tabled: No. 526, Syrian aggression is a threat to Europe, Document 12988; No. 527, Homophobic violence openly condoned by certain Armenian members of parliament, Document 12990; and No. 528, Need to prevent interference with the construction of the Kyiv Jewish Community Centre, Document 12991.

Any member, substitute, observer or partner for democracy may add his or her signature to these written declarations in the Table Office, Room 1083.

2. Urgent debate – Crisis of transition to democracy in Egypt

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The first item of business this morning is the urgent debate on the report entitled “Crisis of transition to democracy in Egypt”, Document 12981, presented by Mr Gardetto on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

In order to finish by 12 noon, we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.50 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the Vote.

I call Mr Gardetto, rapporteur. 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 the election of President Morsi, the first civilian to be elected democratically as President of Egypt, was an historic moment. There had been a fear that there might be violence on the streets if Shafiq had won the election. However, there were still real concerns and obstacles in the way of the transition process. These obstructions included the dissolution of the newly elected Egyptian Parliament, which was a result of a decision by the Supreme Court, and the constitutional changes decreed by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. These changes meant that the army was taking power away from the newly elected president in the areas of defence, foreign affairs, and constitutional reform. It also gave power to the military to arrest civilians, who could be charged and brought before a military court, which was an issue of particular concern. There was also the matter of religious minorities and the role of women. There had been repeated acts of violence against certain minorities, especially Christians.

There were several open questions about the future of Egypt, but few answers. The report introduced the issues, but it would have to be followed by another report to flesh the issues out and it would be necessary to travel to Egypt. The open questions related to the balance of power, the role of the armed forces, the powers of the president, constitutional reform, the future of the parliament and the role of Sharia Law. Before his election, the president had declared that equality must be ensured, but he had also stated that Sharia Law should be the basis of Egyptian law. There was a question about whether Sharia Law was consistent with human rights.

The Council of Europe was in a good position to make a positive contribution and the Venice Commission, in particular, could play a useful role. The president was facing a number of challenges. The revolutionary movement was afraid that its revolution was being taken over. The composition of the new Egyptian Government would be very important and there was also the challenge of introducing the reforms necessary to build an administration that was corruption-free and to give new impetus to the Egyptian economy.

There were many questions but few answers. It was important to work on the outstanding issues and to get a better sense of the facts on the ground. When visiting Egypt, it would be necessary to talk to the various parties involved with a view to reporting in more detail later.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Gardetto. You have five and a half minutes left to reply to the speakers. In the debate, there is a maximum speaking time of four minutes. I call Ms Lundgren on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I congratulate Mr Gardetto on this urgently produced report on an interesting and challenging topic. We also congratulate the Egyptian people, because they have managed to make change happen by peaceful demonstrations, almost. What they have done is tremendously important for the whole region and beyond the borders of Egypt as an inspiration for freedom and democracy – for our continent and all over the world.

Tahrir Square stands as a new landmark for democratic protest and change. As has been mentioned, the military has ruled for a very long time, which has a big impact on what is happening now. The military promised to return to barracks, but we have seen how it seems to be trying to keep power in its own hands. We have also seen many doubtful signs – latterly the amended constitution – that would keep power in the hands of SCAF.

We all hope that, on Saturday, the military will hand over power to the elected president. That will be an important event to follow, and we all know that there have been new calls for a big, million-strong demonstration in Tahrir Square next Friday to ensure that the transition is fulfilled.

This process has been followed closely, and the transition seems to have been mostly peaceful so far, although there have been exceptions. There were several elections and, for the first time, several candidates, so people had a choice in deciding who would be elected and who would have the power, as well as who would be president.

In the parliamentary election, not so many women as we had hoped were elected, but let us hope that more women are elected in the next election.

The fear factor is always present during transition, among different groups and in relation to different powers. Change always provides grounds for the fear factor, but we have also seen the acceptance of the outcome of the presidential election by all the people, and that is important. Once again, a former prisoner will be the president, and there is a message in that for all of us.

We have noted the first steps being taken by the president in saying that he wants to be inclusive and to make contact with all political groups and with the young people from Tahrir Square. I have also heard in the media that he is going to appoint one female vice-president who is also a Copt, which is a good sign. We can assure the proud Egyptian people that we will be there if they need our help. We have great hope for them and for the region, and we are ready to help if they want us to.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Sir Roger Gale, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – This afternoon, we shall discuss the situation in the birthplace of the Arab Spring – Tunisia – but it is absolutely right that we now pay particular attention to the situation in the largest country in the Middle East, Egypt. The European Democrat Group thanks Mr Gardetto for setting out the position so admirably in his report this morning.

President-elect Dr Mohammed Morsi’s message of 24 June confirming his commitment to equality for all Egyptians before the law was most welcome. However, that commitment clearly needs to be enshrined in law and in Egypt’s new constitution if it is to guarantee freedom of religion for all faiths, including, most particularly, for the Coptic Christians who have suffered so terribly from sectarian violence since the start of the revolution. Less welcome has been the dissolution of the Egyptians’ newly elected parliament by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Although the administrative court has suspended the decree that reinstated powers of arrest and detention by the military, the threat of further intervention by SCAF clearly remains.

Although order has been restored in the short term, and the balance between security and electoral democracy has to some extent been maintained, the country remains deeply polarised and divided, as Mr Gardetto said. Additionally, it faces enormous economic problems. The financial situation is in meltdown, and the tourist industry, on which Egypt relies heavily for its income, has been decimated as a result of the political turmoil. Unemployment has risen disastrously as a consequence. It is vital, in the interest of Egypt’s economy, that international public confidence be restored as swiftly as possible so that the tourist industry can be rebuilt, the people can regain the jobs that they have lost and the country can move forward economically. The adoption of the democratic constitution and the election of a truly representative parliament are vital in the interests of stability and of Egypt’s faltering economy.

The EDG shares Mr Gardetto’s view that the Council of Europe may, through the Venice Commission, have a significant role to play in helping to facilitate a constitution that would provide for a proper balance of power between the military, the newly elected president and parliament, and proper protection for people of all faiths. I am not sure whether the use of the words “crisis of transition to democracy” in the debate’s title is quite accurate. I would like to think that we are on the threshold of an opportunity – a probability – for a move towards real democracy in Egypt, rather than of the crisis that some have suggested. We ought to send a message of goodwill and hope to the Egyptian people.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Gardetto, for drafting a resolution on “The crisis of transition to democracy in Egypt”. However, many Egyptians might wonder why we here in Europe are calling for an urgent debate on Egyptian democracy, as we did not feel the need to do so during the decades when Egypt was under authoritarian rule with no respect for what we have for decades called our core values: democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Because of our behaviour in the past, many Egyptians do not see us in Europe as those who will help to develop a better future for Egypt and its citizens. I understand that, and I therefore propose to be humble in this debate.

Nevertheless, it must have been noticed that this Assembly has invested a lot of its energy in the recent past in supporting the so-called Arab Spring, in which many citizens of many countries in North Africa and the Middle East went out on to the street to demand that their authoritarian rulers step down and that democracy evolve. They demanded that our core values also apply to their societies. Even if making those demands does not automatically lead to the desired results, we should never forget the bravery of the peoples of that region. They made their revolution by themselves, and they have therefore earned our deep respect and should be entitled to ongoing support in their struggles.

That support needs to include critical evaluation of the developments. Many recent events in Egypt give us reason to worry about the sustainability of the democratic transition. A positive development is that the presidential elections finally led to the decision of the military to accept the choice of the Egyptian people. For the time being, however, negative developments prevail. The dissolution of the freshly elected parliament by the Supreme Court is an attack on the democratic transition. The same can be said of the curtailment of the newly elected President Morsi’s powers by a so-called constitutional declaration by the military, just after polling had closed. The declaration strips important powers from the president and confirms the unacceptable power of the non-elected military over those who have been democratically elected by the citizens of Egypt.

Let us today send a clear signal to the Egyptian military that we will confront those who do not respect the elementary rules of democracy. Their role is not to strangle but to serve the democratically elected representatives, the president and the parliament. I salute the brave people of Egypt, who have done in practice what we used to preach here. They deserve all our respect and our ongoing support.

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

Mr OSCARSSON (Sweden) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Gardetto, for his report, in which we find hope for the future of real democracy but also some serious questions about women’s rights and respect for the fundamental rights of Christians.

A few days ago, Mohammed Morsi won the presidential election in Egypt. Backed by the Muslim Brotherhood movement, he received 13.2 million votes, which was 51% of the total. After winning the election, Morsi said that he would fulfil his promise to create a more inclusive government. In his victory speech, he said, “I will be a president for all Egyptians.” He certainly has an important task in the coming months to restore confidence that Egypt has a leadership that can create order and security. On the other hand, how will the army share power with the newly elected president and his future government?

In today’s draft resolution, the Assembly notes that the situation of the Christian community in Egypt has not improved with the Arab Spring and the fall of Mubarak, and that violence continues to be perpetrated against these communities, as well as other religious minorities. In the Middle East, where Christianity was born, one fifth of the population was Christian 100 years ago. Today, the figure is 5% in general, while in Egypt it is 10%. Emigration from the region has a long history, but it has increased in recent years, particularly as a result of harassment, intimidation and violent attacks by Islamic extremists. The rapporteur indicates in the report that 100 000 Christians have left Egypt during the last few months. These are horrifying figures.

The Arab Spring poses several questions about the future in Egypt. Will Sharia Law be recognised as the primary source of law in the future constitution, and what would this mean? How will equality between men and women, and Muslims and Christians be achieved? How will Christians and other religious minorities be treated in Egypt? We are all deeply concerned about these matters. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” We in the Council of Europe have an important role and obligation to follow developments in Egypt. We share a hope for real democracy in Egypt.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Oscarsson. I call Lord Anderson on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteur and would like to raise three preliminary points. First, Egypt is politically, culturally and demographically the key country in the Arab world and is, of course, geographically central to that world. Secondly, the pharaoh has now gone and the first civilian president has been elected, in broadly free elections. Thirdly, as democrats, we should welcome the change and be ready to adjust our policies, but to what? Currently, as Mr Gardetto quite properly said, there are more questions than answers.

Among the uncertainties are, who is this President Morsi, as he moves from being a candidate to a president who has to make decisions? We know that he is a devout engineer, but what about his experience of governing? How pragmatic will he be with respect to women and minorities, particularly Coptic Christians? How subject is he likely to be to the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood? This takes us back to the conflict between Sharia Law and human rights. How pragmatic will he be in foreign policy, for example, in relations with Hamas, Iran or the United States, which remains a major paymaster of Egypt? If things begin to go wrong, there will be a temptation to make Israel the scapegoat for all the policy failures.

Who now holds the real power? Will Field Marshal Tantawi and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces accept their reduced role and gradually withdraw to barracks? In the immediate future, the army and the Muslim Brotherhood must clearly form a working relationship – a grand bargain – for the benefit of the people of Egypt. Are both sides ready for the necessary compromises which we in the west call politics?

The future, of course, will be decided by the people of Egypt themselves. There is a limited role for outsiders. However, it is important that this Assembly should regularly monitor developments, so I support the proposal that Mr Gardetto should regularly visit Egypt on our behalf and offer our goodwill and our welcome, as well as practical support from our Assembly and, of course, the Venice Commission. Realistically, there will be no Scandinavian-style democracy in Egypt, but the developments so far have been reasonably positive. We as an Assembly should look for co-operative ways of encouraging Egypt along a democratic path and we should stand ready, if asked, to offer our expertise.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Does the rapporteur wish to speak at this point? That is not the case. I call Mr Fournier.

Mr FOURNIER (France) said that presidential elections in Egypt had not allayed fears for its future: Tahrir Square was less and less a symbol of hope and increasingly represented the crumbling of revolutionary ambitions and oppression. On the one side, there was the representative of the Muslim Brotherhood, some of whose doctrine was not in line with what were seen as the values of the Assembly, and on the other, there was a conservative candidate closer to the old regime than to the platform of the Arab Spring.

France was no stranger to change, having seen one emperor and three kings take power in the time between the First and Second Republics, so he was keenly aware that democracy did not take root immediately. Nevertheless, many had thought that in a globalised world the transition would have been swifter. Instead, the head of state had moved away from a conciliatory position by announcing a change of alliance away from Israel and re-establishing diplomatic relations with Iran. At the same time, legislative power was invested in the army following the dissolution of parliament and the judiciary was occupied by the heirs of Mr Mubarak. The three centres of power were therefore out of step with the crowds that had gathered initially in Tahrir Square, which was limiting the spirit that inspired the initial revolutionary turmoil. Concerns persisted too for the Coptic minority and these had not been dispelled; indeed, religious tensions were not resisted by the army, which saw proper democracy as a threat to its interests.

The Assembly was active with respect to Tunisia and Morocco, but it had to keep the focus on Cairo too. It was important not to ignore the cries from Tahrir Square, nor the threat of religious purification – a bold term which he considered might not sound far-fetched in a few months’ time.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Fournier. I do not see Mr Pushkov or Mr Agramunt, so I call Ms Memecan.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I congratulate the rapporteur and the Secretariat for drafting this report in such a short time. The presidential elections in Egypt have exposed the simmering power struggle on the Egyptian political scene between the old guard and the new actors in the political spectrum. However, this does not change the historic fact that the Egyptian people have elected their own president with their own free will for the first time in their history.

We should therefore first congratulate Mr Mohammed Morsi and the Egyptian people and then wish that the results of these elections will be for the good of the Egyptian people and for the entire region. There is no doubt that this is a major step and “a victory for the emerging Egyptian democracy”, as Mr Gardetto puts it in his report.

Now, in order to preserve social peace and stability during the ongoing sensitive and difficult period in Egypt, it will be essential that the Egyptian people’s free will is respected by all sides and that the transition process is completed in a successful and timely manner, with due regard to democratic legitimacy, national unity and compromise. In this respect, the maintenance of the constructive, conciliatory and inclusive approach displayed by Mr Morsi in his electoral campaign and the continuation of the support that he received from all segments of Egyptian society will be essential.

Democracy cannot be achieved overnight. Democratic transformation in Egypt will take time. So let us be cautious – sceptical, if you will – but let us also be supportive and hopeful. Instead of blaming those who have just come to power for lacking the necessary democratic experience and values, we should make our experience available to them and be ready to co-operate. During this transitional period, it is still heartening that the unexpected dissolution of parliament is being appealed, and we hope that the relevant court’s decision will be decisive.

Let me say a few words about the situation of Christians in Egypt. Etymologically, the word “Copt” means “Egypt” and throughout the history of Egypt, Coptic Christians and Egyptian Muslims have never, except in a limited number of isolated incidents, lost the sense of belonging to Egypt and living together. Recorded cases of intra-communal tensions and violence have generally originated in isolated acts of provocation and not in sectarian hatred. While certain observers and some of our colleagues here may be concerned about the negative fallout from social earthquakes caused by the Arab Spring in regional states – I fully respect those concerns – we believe that Egyptian national identity is strong enough to prevail over sectarian tensions.

Our Prime Minister Erdoğan, during his visit to Cairo last September, met the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar and late Pope Shenouda of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and highlighted to both leaders the importance of maintaining and reinforcing a spirit of unity among all Egyptians. Prime Minister Erdoğan also underlined the importance of secularism, while stressing that Islam and democracy are compatible. His message on secularism, which has long been a subject of debate, was well received by the Egyptian people – a reflection of the Egyptian people’s preferred way of life.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mrs Memecan. I call Mr Ghiletchi.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I, too, congratulate Mr Gardetto on a good and balanced report. From the very beginning of the draft resolution, we see that good balance, which underlines the essence of the report. Although the Parliamentary Assembly welcomes the election of the Egyptian President, it is deeply concerned. On the one hand, we must congratulate the people of Egypt and Mr Morsi on his historic victory, but on the other hand, we must raise our concerns.

One of our concerns, as I mentioned on Monday during the free debate, is religious freedom. Unfortunately, the situation of Christian communities in Egypt has not improved with the Arab Spring. Over 100 000 Christians have already left the country, so one of the new government’s main challenges will be to ensure the rights of Egypt’s religious minorities – in particular, those of Christians.

The Council of Europe must offer its full support for all the democratic changes that will take place in Egypt. We need to be present there to help the Egyptian people to achieve this progress. We should not allow any deterioration of the conditions in which Christian communities are living. On the contrary, we must do our best to improve them. Some people say that the Muslim Brotherhood’s win is disastrous for Christians in Egypt and Jews in the state of Israel, so it is very good to hear Mr Morsi say that he will be a president “for all Egyptians” – Muslims and Christians. Naturally, after the spring we expect the summer to come, but the fear is that from spring we will move directly to winter.

I agree with what Mr Kox said: we must be humble because we forgot about Egypt until these events. However, it is true that if we recognise that we made a mistake, we now need to be there to be with the people of Egypt and to help them to overcome this crisis. It is unfortunate that the first prognosis of many politicians proved to be wrong, as the report mentions. We want to see something different happen now, after the democratic election of the first civilian Egyptian President. I personally support the people of Egypt, and I believe that we in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe must be open to supporting Egypt on its democratic way to building a better country and having a better future for all Egyptians, including Christians.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi. I call Mr Muñoz-Alonso.

Mr MUÑOZ-ALONSO (Spain) said that he was concerned about the situation in Egypt and asked whether it was a genuine democracy. Elections alone did not make a democracy and many countries that claimed to be democratic violated human rights and denied freedom of expression. Egypt was currently in a grey area and it remained to be seen whether it would move to the white of liberal democracy or the black of authoritarianism. Hopes had been raised 18 months ago but the Arab Spring had not been followed by a summer of democracy. This second summer now offered an opportunity.

Although presidential elections had taken place, the democratically elected parliament had been dissolved, an act of authoritarianism, and the military had taken powers from the president. It was unclear what the new president would do, but if he held to his electoral promises, there would be no need to worry. While the situation in Tunisia had improved and the moderates in office in Morocco had made a good start, there was more uncertainty in Egypt as the military still held the reins of power and it was unclear whether it would seek to continue to hold them. The treatment of minority groups, especially the persecuted Coptic Christians, was a yardstick of progress. Its population and culture made Egypt the most important Arab country and the success or otherwise of its democracy would have substantial repercussions for the region and beyond.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Hägg.

Ms HÄGG (Sweden) – Europe must not betray its principles yet again. We must support developments towards democracy and demand the rule of law and respect for human rights. Taking responsibility for making the Mediterranean an inland sea once again is a long-term joint project for all of us. Great challenges await Egypt’s President-elect Mohammed Morsi following his victory in the historic presidential election. Morsi was in prison during the presidency of Mubarak – the same Mubarak whom his rival Shafiq served. Some people voted for Shafiq despite their loathing for him, because the alternative appeared more intimidating in the long term. Now Morsi is Egypt’s first ever popularly elected president.

The military council has not lost its grip on the country completely, however. People in Cairo are saying, “The head is gone, but the body is still here.” Recently, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces decided to expand its authority at the expense of parliament and the presidency. Many question marks remain over the work involved in forming a new constitution, and women’s organisations in particular feel that they are being excluded from the process.

What will Morsi’s approach to human rights and freedom be? Will the rights of ethnic minorities such as the Copts be safeguarded, and what about women’s rights? Morsi has made a clear declaration that he is an Islamist, but the people want to have work and see an end to corruption. The result of the election was not a declaration of support for the idea that religion has the answer to Egypt’s problems. What the people want is an end to illiteracy and more investment in schools. The president must immediately put a stop to sexual harassment and sexual violence against female demonstrators and he must ensure that women who have been subjected to “virginity tests” are duly compensated.

Despite the feeling of unease today, let us not forget that the Egyptians stood united in Tahrir Square during the revolution. The presidential election was mainly about the past, but now the young generation is waiting impatiently for policies that will give it hope for a better future. Finally, to quote Nawal El-Saadawi, “I’m an optimist, because hope is power.”

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Renato Farina.

Mr R. FARINA (Italy) said that the title of the urgent debate did not reflect the most urgent issue. The most pressing concern was the future of the Coptic Christians, who were central to the history of Egypt, but had an uncertain future under an Islamic regime. Egypt had conducted an election but had not yet demonstrated the respect for human rights characteristic of a genuine democracy. President Morsi had shown promising signs: he had pledged to appoint a female Coptic vice-president and had reassured the acting head of the Coptic Church in Egypt, Bishop Pachomius, that their freedoms were guaranteed. However, the previous regime had specialised in ornamental gestures and it remained to be seen whether actions would entirely match these words. The Egyptian army and other extremists were behind the killing of 27 Coptic Christians, and the injuring of 327 others, in recent times. Furthermore, large numbers of Coptic Christians, fleeing persecution, were arriving in Italy. He was further concerned about the use of Sharia Law as the basis for legislation and about the plight of Eritrean and Somali refugees in Sinai. The true realities of the new Egypt were not yet apparent.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Schennach.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) said that neither the election nor the revolution proved that there was democracy in Egypt. Indeed, the presidential election may have been premature. It was a restricted election in that it had not been open to all groups. For one or two groups, it could almost be said to have been a fraudulent election. More than 50% of the people in Tahrir Square had been women, but women had not been adequately represented in the constituent assembly. There was a question about what role women would play in Egypt’s future.

Education played an important part in democracy, so in this context it was significant that Egypt needed 100 000 new teachers. He had spoken to some representatives of women’s rights groups and they had told him that the transition process would take about 10 years. In moving towards democracy, it would not be possible to go directly from A to B. The fact that an election had been held did not mean that Egypt was automatically a democracy. The military had the best connections to the United States and to Israel.

Egypt had said that it wanted to co-operate with the Council of Europe and it was important that it received support. In the 1970s, a famous book had been published about women’s rights in Egypt but he was concerned that they were likely to be neglected in the years ahead. The support of Europe would be crucial to counteract this.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr O’Reilly.

Mr O’REILLY (Ireland) – At the outset, we have to welcome the election in Egypt. Despite its imperfections from a western perspective, it is a huge breakthrough and achievement, and we congratulate Egypt on that. We should also congratulate Mr Morsi on his election. Let us hope that he gives practical expression to his commitment to be a president for all the people. Therein lies the kernel of the issue. Mr Gardetto, our rapporteur, has done an excellent job. I agree that he should visit Egypt regularly and monitor the situation, and that we should go on monitoring it on a day-to-day basis.

Among the first objectives of the president will be to rebuild tourism, to reconstruct the economy and to get internal economic activity going again to create a normal society. That is an important objective for the world and for ordinary Egyptians. A first step towards achieving it would surely be religious toleration, freedom of worship, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. For the hundreds of thousands of Christians who live in Egypt, it is vital that state repression be removed. We should be unequivocal in stating this; we should not mince our words. We utterly condemn, and take grave exception to, the oppression of the Christian people in Egypt. If state oppression goes, that will help reduce sectarian violence, because state oppression is almost a green light for sectarian violence in local communities.

Christians constitute 10% of the population, so they are a significant element who need our support. We should not be shy of reminding ourselves that by and large, with very unfortunate exceptions, we in Europe have freedom of worship, conscience and religion. We offer that to all sects and religious groupings, and properly so. It is on the basis of that moral authority that we call for the same in Egypt.

Similarly, we must assert women’s rights as a priority in the new regime in Egypt. The message that needs to go out from this morning is that we demand freedom of religion and expression, and proper rights for women, non-discrimination, non-harassment and the removal of all sexual oppression, even that supported by the state. If we address those two questions, we will make real progress. We welcome the progress to date, but we have to monitor the situation and continue to be a loud, clear and unequivocal voice for the freedom of religion and expression and the rights of women in that society. We have the moral authority to do that based on our record here.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Blondin.

Ms BLONDIN (France) said that just over a year ago, Egyptian people, and especially young people, had demonstrated en masse to demand democracy. The economic crisis had not been the sole cause of the demonstration; the social crisis was also significant. For the first time, Egypt had elected a civilian as president. However, many people considered that the revolution had in fact been aborted as the army was still omnipresent in political life and had been taking major political decisions. In France, when the office of president was vacant, the constitution prohibited anything other than routine decisions being made.

The result of the election gave rise to new concerns. There was a question about whether the president could be truly representative. Some people who felt that they could not vote for Shafiq had chosen Morsi almost by default and only candidates who had a proper electoral machine behind them could have been successful in the election. Egypt was at a crossroads and people were wondering whether the president would be able to represent all Egyptians. He had promised to create three vice-presidents: a Copt, a woman, and a young person. The transition to democracy was a long process and Egyptians would need the toolbox of the Council of Europe. The commitment of the Council of Europe to Egypt should not stop once a new constitution had been drafted.

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

Mr SABELLA (Palestinian National Council) – I thank Mr Gardetto and the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for producing a well-rounded and meticulous report on Egypt.

We Palestinians feel that Egypt is on the right track with respect to democratic transition. We look to see in Egypt a genuine respect for democracy and internal balance. Hence, the role of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood will be crucial in that process.

We are confident that the election results, with not only Muslim Brotherhood members voting for Mr Morsi, and the revolutionary process that started early in 2011 will ensure that the Egyptian people do not allow new forms of dictatorship to emerge, or allow it to be said that one form of dictatorship will replace another, irrespective of claims made for such a new dictatorship.

It is very important that external powers refrain from interfering in Egypt’s internal affairs as Egyptians are very sensitive to any form of external intervention, yet the nascent democratic processes should be encouraged and nourished.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has a role to play in strengthening relations with the democratic forces in Egypt and in establishing ties with the Egyptian Parliament. We wish Egypt to go further towards respect for the constitution and the judiciary, and to work to ensure their independence.

We also wish for an internal balance to be struck among the various groups and parties that make up Egypt’s body politic. We hope that that balance will herald stability, economic prosperity and the rule of law for all citizens, irrespective of who they are.

If Mr Morsi and the Egyptians succeed in reaching a stable internal balance, that, we are sure, will not only be good for Egypt, but might promote the role that Egypt has continuously played towards Palestinian internal reconciliation on the one hand and a comprehensive peace in our region on the other.

The challenges for Egypt are also our challenges, whether here in Europe or in the southern Mediterranean, and as we look for a future of peace, stability and economic prosperity, we know that we need not only good will, but support, including that of your Assembly, to help Egypt towards an era in which its citizens – all its citizens – feel equal in a pluralist and truly democratic society.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Mattila.

Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I congratulate Egypt on carrying out its presidential election and thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for this excellent report.

Stabilising Egypt is very important because that will lay the foundation for the country’s economic development. It is necessary for promoting welfare and ensuring the well-being of Egypt’s citizens. Reports of unrest in Egypt have unfortunately resulted in the disturbance of commercial activities, and tourism has paid a high price for partly unfounded allegations of violence and crime. I had the pleasure of spending my vacation in Egypt last Christmas. I stayed 900 km south of Cairo and I did not experience any fear or unrest. On the contrary, I have many fond memories of my stay. Many locals I spoke to regretted the loss of income resulting from the decrease in tourism.

Democracy will bring positive developments for Egypt’s economy. The economy can bring about welfare, but that development will not happen on its own. When Iceland introduced measures to make economic adaptations during the financial crisis, it made it clear that it would protect the Nordic welfare model at any cost. A strong society needs to be based on democratic values and the rule of law, but the same model does not work for all. It is therefore important for the Egyptians to engage in dialogue and mutually agree on what kind of society best fits them. That is the true measurement of democratic maturity.

Guaranteeing democracy through politics always demands a value-based discussion and the reconciliation of differing opinions, but it also demands respect for mutual agreements so that the citizens and the rest of the world are convinced that such efforts are genuine. In this process – this transition to democracy – children will get their new schools, hospitals will be built and families will be taken care of.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Avital, Observer from Israel.

Mr AVITAL (Observer from Israel) – On behalf of the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, I want to take the opportunity of the debate on this fine report to congratulate the Egyptian people on the completion of a major step in what we hope will be their successful transition to true democracy: the election of the new President of the Egyptian Republic, Mr Mohammed Morsi. I wish him success in the heavy mission that he has taken upon himself to lead the great state of Egypt into a new future and, for the first time in its modern history, into a future of democracy. The transition will not be easy. We in Israel, and many others around the world, are hopeful but cautious, in case things take a wrong turn.

It is fair to say that, since his election, Mr Morsi has shown through his statements and deeds – including his appointment of a woman vice-president and Coptic Christian vice-president – that he understands the need to reassure the part of the world that is committed to liberal democratic values that the election of a leader from the Muslim Brotherhood will not mean a new Iran-like future for Egypt. Instead, he acknowledges the need for a new democratic and liberal second republic of Egypt that will satisfy the wishes, cries and sacrifices of millions of Egyptians who moved on to the streets of Cairo and the other Egyptian cities and spent their days and nights in Tahrir Square for the purpose of shaping a new democratic chapter in the history of Egypt.

Mr Morsi will have to prove himself a leader of the whole Egyptian nation. Today, it is divided almost in half between its more traditional Islamic people and those who are more liberal. He will have to choose his direction carefully so that liberal democratic values can live side by side with the traditional religious values of his people. If he and the Egyptians succeed, the significance of that success will carry much weight beyond the borders of Egypt and out into our region, the Middle East, the Islamic world and the world at large. They will have created a model in which democracy and the respected religion of Islam can live together in harmony.

I hope that the new Egypt will also be an Egypt of peace. We in Israel expect the new regime to respect the peace agreements and the other agreements signed between our two countries. Our two nations have a history of wars and bloody conflicts, starting with our war of independence in 1948. The war over the Suez canal in 1956 followed, as did the war of 1967 in which we conquered the Sinai peninsula. We fought over that region again in the surprise attack of 1973, the Yom Kippur war. However, the cease-fire agreements signed at the point known as Kilometre 101 – 101 km from Cairo – were the starting point of a process that culminated in the historic visit of President Sadat of Egypt to Israel and the signing of the historic peace agreement between us in 1979. That peace has remained relatively steady, despite some ups and downs. That was the first peace agreement to be signed between Israel and a neighbouring Arab state or, indeed, any Arab state.

I have mentioned these historical events in order to reiterate our desire to write a new chapter of peace with the new Egypt that is being formed before our eyes. Both our countries have vital shared interests and concerns, including stability and lawfulness in the Sinai peninsula. The situation there has been quite bad recently, with activities ranging from smuggling to grave acts of terror. We also have vital energy and gas agreements that are beneficial to both sides, but they too have been the target of sabotage by extreme terror elements. Neither we nor the new regime should let those acts of aggression threaten the relationship between our two countries. Our army and the Egyptian army should continue to collaborate to keep the peace along our shared border. I should like to join my Palestinian colleague, Mr Sabella, in stating that we value the help of Egypt in making progress with our peace process with the Palestinians.

The old Egypt was a pioneer in seeking peace with Israel, which led the way to the peace with the Kingdom of Jordan as well as to the Oslo Accords and the peace process with the Palestinians. I hope that the new Egypt will lead the way in shaping a democracy for its people and improving their daily lives. I hope that it will also keep its commitments to us and continue to play a positive, supportive leading role in the historic process of reconciliation between us, our Palestinian neighbours and the rest of the Arab world.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The list of speakers has been completed, but we have a little time left. Would anyone else like to speak on this subject? I call Ms Nezha El Ouafi, from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

Ms EL OUAFI (Morocco) said that she thanked the president for allowing her to speak. It was important to take up the theme of the respect for democracy and human values within Islamic movements. It was not appropriate to draw analogies between different movements in this respect because in Morocco, the parliament, supported by her party, had approved an international agreement which protected universal rights and the rights of women, which was a tangible demonstration of its commitment to human rights and democratic values.

It was possible and desirable for an internal dialogue within these new movements to take place, in order to provide opportunities for young men and women to adopt democracy and human values and to put them into practice. This was important because it reflected the demands in Tahrir Square and similar demands in Morocco. Ultimately, Christians, Muslims and others were all asking for more dignity, less humiliation and greater freedom. It was vital to foster a climate to allow this, but it was not right to draw unjustified conclusions about Islam. Efforts should instead focus on the strong messages that young people were trying to get across: they were interested in politics and democracy and opportunities had to be provided for them to gain experience in them.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Are there any further requests to speak from the floor? That is not the case.

I call Mr Gardetto to respond to the debate. You have five and a half minutes, but we are ahead of time, so you may take more if you wish.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that he recognised the concerns about Egypt, but that the report sought to emphasise positive elements, as demonstrated by the election of Mr Morsi – an event that represented the continuation of the revolutionary process and the rejection of the past as represented by Mr Shafiq, even with military interference in the process. Nevertheless, concerns remained regarding the behaviour of the military and the threat of Islamisation. Internally, the new government had to deal with issues of the economy, the balance of power in the country, education and the position of women, as well as the safety and status of Christians, which was a particularly grave concern. There were external challenges too, because Egypt was a very important power in the region and so its dealings with Israel and the Palestinian authorities would be very important, and there were open questions about its relations with Iran and Iraq.

The Assembly had faith in the commitment to the rule of law, democracy and human rights, but the situation had to be monitored. However, it should not be paternalistic in doing so, as such an approach would be poorly received. The better approach was to make its experience of transition to democracy available and to do so in a way which respected Egyptian society. In this, the Council of Europe was ready to help and co-operate in areas such as the drafting of the constitution. He paid tribute to the courage and determination of Egyptians, who had endured a dictatorship until what was now an irreversible situation. They had eliminated the father and were no longer afraid, which was the hallmark of the revolution and the cause for optimism. Finally, he thanked Ms Gameela Ismail.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I am sure the Assembly will echo your thanks and congratulations. I now give the floor to Mr Marcenaro.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that the report laid out a clear path and he was confident that the conditions were in place for it to be followed. Everybody in the Assembly was aware of the importance of the issue and of the role that Egypt played in the region. It was a key factor in peace and therefore the debate had been important and timely. Over time, the Council of Europe had stood firmly behind Egypt and would continue to do so. It also played a key role as a cultural centre, because it set trends and developed cultural policy in the region, which was also true of the academic centres in Fez and the University of Tunis. It was therefore crucial to harness this influence to develop the concept of democratic Islam, which was the condition for the democratic development of the region. The country was at a crucial point with various paths open to it, thus the path to democracy was not linear. An Italian academic had noted that democracy was not a harmony but a cacophony. As a result, discussions had to continue, because while Tunisia and Morocco were very important, the Arab Spring would not exist without Egypt, and it was the spirit and message of that spring that demanded Europe’s attention.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The debate is closed.

The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution in Document 12981. No amendments have been tabled.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 12981.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12981 is adopted, with 82 votes for, 0 against and 1 abstention.

I congratulate the rapporteur and the committee on the excellent work that they have done in drafting a report on such a complex matter in such a brief period. That is quite a feat, so bravo to the secretary of the committee.

3. Current affairs debate – European institutions and human rights in Europe

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this morning is a current affairs debate on European institutions and human rights in Europe.

Under the agenda we agreed on Monday the debate is limited to an hour. As this is a current affairs debate, the chairperson and the rapporteur can remain in their seats.

The first speaker, chosen by the Bureau, will be Ms Brasseur, who is allowed 10 minutes to introduce the debate. Ms Brasseur, you have the floor.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that it was necessary to discuss the respective human rights responsibilities of the Council of Europe and the European Union following the European Union decision to appoint a Special Representative for Human Rights. The European Union press release of 25 June 2012 announcing this change made reference to working with the European Parliament, the European Commission and international partners on human rights issues, but made no specific mention of the Council of Europe. The 23 May 2007 Memorandum of Agreement between the European Union and the Council of Europe made the division of responsibilities very clear. This had built on the foundations of the 2006 report, Council of Europe – European Union: “A sole ambition for the European continent”, written by Jean-Claude Juncker. There was now a danger of overlap and duplication.

It was not possible to do too much to defend human rights, but having an additional voice on human rights for the 27 European Union member states but not the other 20 members of the Council of Europe risked double standards and confusion. At a time of budgetary constraint, she asked whether it was necessary to create new posts. The European Union budgets were out of proportion to those available to the Council of Europe and potentially undermined existing work. This action was contrary to the spirit of the 2007 Memorandum of Agreement, which the Council of Europe had adhered to, as evidenced by Ms Kerstin Lundgren’s report, Document 12713, on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the Council of Europe. She called on Mr Marcenaro in his capacity as Rapporteur of the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights to investigate these matters to find coherent and consistent common ground. This was in the interests of both the Council of Europe and of the taxpayer.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Brasseur. As always, I will tell Mr Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, about our discussions here when I meet him. I call Mr Chope, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – You say, Mr President, that you will continue to raise this issue with members of the European Union, but the problem is that they are not listening. What came out very clearly in Anne Brasseur’s brilliant introduction to the debate was that over the years, we have been told that there will be a spirit of co-operation and that there will not be any duplication, but a European Union agenda to take over this body has consistently crept up on us. This latest European Council decision, to have a special representative whose work will duplicate that of our own Commissioner for Human Rights, is a further step in that process.

What can we do about it? The only way we can tackle it is through the EU budget. The EU continues to expand its budget and bureaucracy as though there were no age of austerity. In the United Kingdom, our government is having to reduce the police budget by 20% over four years. Meanwhile, the contribution of the British taxpayer to the European Union is expected to increase. However, we have a window of opportunity, because contributing members can veto the seven-year budget and insist on cuts. Unless we get cuts to the European Union budget, there is no doubt that it will continue to expand its field of activities in the way that we have heard about this morning.

I have a draft of the European Council decision in front of me, and there is no reference whatever to limiting the activities of the new special representative to EU activities beyond the 47 countries of the Council of Europe. We are not even talking about just one person. Article 6, entitled “Composition and constitution of the team”, states: “Within the limits of the mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate.” Those specific issues include enhancing the EU’s contribution to democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide. Article 6 gives the special representative the opportunity to have a whole team, so perhaps we can make a suggestion that we be the team. Why do we not say that we, the Council of Europe, will specialise in that field? Of course, that would not be accepted, because the EU wants to take over from us. That is why this is such a timely and critical debate.

It is no good our just talking about this. I have been in this Assembly for a number of years, and we have just gone on talking about these things and assuming that the fine words in the Juncker report will be implemented. They never have been, and we have to do something about it. Twenty-seven members of this Parliamentary Assembly – soon to be 28 – are members of the European Union, and we can and must insist through our governments that the European Union gets its tanks off our lawn and reduces its expenditure. It must not carry on expanding at a time when we are being told we have to be tight with our budget.

I am emotional about this, and I hope, Mr President, that having listened to our debate you will take the message to the EU that we cannot carry on like this. The EUSR is a step far too far.

THE PRESIDENT said that he had prepared a draft memorandum for the Council of Europe delegations of the 27 member states of the European Union to assist in raising awareness of this problem in national parliaments. He had conveyed this message to the French Senate. He regretted that this had yet to have any effect but it was necessary to continue pressing. He called Mr Elzinga on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) – In this debate we are discussing European institutions and human rights in Europe. Of course, we think first of the Council of Europe institutions, but then we think of EU institutions, because they increasingly touch upon the topic of human rights. Many things currently happening in the EU institutions affect human rights in one way or another, such as the co-ordinated European austerity measures that are endangering democracy and social human rights. We debated that highly important subject on Tuesday.

I too want to concentrate on the EU’s plan to appoint a Special Representative for Human Rights. That human rights ambassador will report directly to Catherine Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

First, I compliment the EU for its ambition to promote human rights in the rest of the world as well as in its own countries. However, the question is how effective and efficient the EU is in promoting and upholding human rights standards. The EU’s core business is political and economic co-operation between its member states, which lately has been defined largely by the agenda of more financial, monetary and economic integration. The EU’s foreign policy is mainly about security and defence, and about trade and commercial policy. Will international human rights standards be a goal in themselves, or will they remain a means of supporting the EU’s main foreign policy goals? It is clear what interests are considered to be of the highest importance within the EU, because some human rights, especially economic freedom for corporations, often win the battle over other fundamental human rights such as the right to organise, the right of collective bargaining and the right to strike.

The best protection for the human rights of European citizens is the European Convention on Human Rights, and the EU should first of all make an effort to speed up its accession to the Convention if it takes human rights seriously. The really good thing about the Convention is that it is a Council of Europe convention and covers 47 member states. Since human rights are part of the core business of the Council of Europe, it is much more efficient and effective in the field than the EU – just compare the budgets.

What we definitely do not want is an EU Special Representative for Human Rights who will operate in the Council of Europe’s non-EU member states. That would not be efficient, since the Council of Europe has its own Commissioner for Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. It could even prove counterproductive if – perhaps because of the EU’s broader political and economic agenda – the institutions of the EU and the Council of Europe disagreed on the human rights situation in non-EU member states of the Council of Europe. This Assembly should therefore use its contacts with the EU and the European Parliament to agree that it is, and will be, the Council of Europe that takes the lead in monitoring, protecting and developing human rights in non-EU member states.

After the much criticised foundation of the Agency for Fundamental Rights, the new EU decision about the special representative will not increase co-operation. Instead, it represents a new threat of competition between both organisations, which we should avoid at all costs.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Franken, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – The Council of Europe was started by a bright initiative of Winston Churchill’s. Along with an organisation for co-operation on the governance of mineral exploitation, Europe needed a common approach to emphasising the values of humanity and European culture. The immediate reason was the experience of two world wars, which resulted in more than 40 million deaths in Europe and an absolute denial of human rights and values. We can be proud that the Council of Europe has been a real human rights defender for individuals against the overwhelming power of bureaucratic governments for more than 60 years.

As we all know, the Council of Europe has two monitoring organisations. First, there is the European Court of Human Rights to investigate complaints from individuals, and then there is the Commissioner for Human Rights to guarantee human rights at governmental level. The Commissioner is a person with authority who can report independently on the human rights situation in every member state, and he has done his work effectively and efficiently during the past few decades. With a small office and a relatively small budget, he is a good example of how a governmental organisation ought to be. Therefore, my EPP colleagues and I were astonished to be informed that the EU would start up an office for a human rights commissioner of its own – a special officer with a similar task to that of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, but for only part of the domain constituted by the members of the Council of Europe.

I ask our colleagues in the European Parliament how we can explain that in our constituencies. How do we explain to the voters that, in a period of diminishing budgets and sharp cuts in government spending, the work of the well-functioning Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe will be doubled by an EU organisation for the very same subject and for a far smaller territorial domain? Is that effective? Doubling the monitoring functions will lead to bureaucracy. For instance, who will be competent in the same case? Such questions will impede work on the protection of human rights in Europe. Will it be efficient? The answer is no.

My conclusion is that it is appropriate to ask our President to bring our view to the urgent attention of the European Parliament, and I appeal to members of the Assembly to call on our colleagues in the European Parliament to block this project.

THE PRESIDENT said that the chairs of political groups could take the floor on behalf of the political groups in the European Parliament. That was an important point. A collective effort was necessary, but he had a responsibility too and he would convey the points that Mr Franken had just made. He called Mr Cilevičs, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – Two years ago, this Assembly adopted a resolution, for which I was rapporteur, on the need to avoid duplication of work of the Council of Europe by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. It was neither the first nor the last debate on the issue. Serious concerns are regularly expressed within the Council of Europe about unnecessary duplication of our work by the European Union. In particular, following the creation of the Agency for Fundamental Rights in 2007 and the entry into force of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty, EU competence over human rights has further expanded. The establishment of a position of EU special representative on human rights is the next step in that direction.

What should be the Council of Europe’s attitude towards these developments? We should not be jealous but pragmatic. We should accept that we cannot prevent the EU from moving in this direction; this has been decided by our own governments. In fact, were the political influence and economic might of the EU behind our recommendations on human rights, it would be beneficial for achieving our statutory goals of the protection and promotion of democracy and human rights. In the meantime, we should do our best to prevent the EU from setting parallel standards. EU bodies dealing with human rights should recognise the Council of Europe’s competence in this field. It would be extremely counterproductive to create double standards in Europe – human rights for the rich, and different human rights for the poor. It would be unacceptable, even disastrous, if the EU and Council of Europe sent different messages. In this case, the EU’s “political conditionality” approach would be successful.

In practical terms, the only way to achieve coherence is close co-operation and co-ordination between the EU and the Council of Europe at all levels, including co-operation between the Committee of Ministers and the European Commission, as well as between the European Parliament and our Assembly. The mandate of the special representative provides that he shall liaise and seek complementary synergies with other international and regional actors, at headquarters level and in the field. It would be best to ensure that the Council of Europe was explicitly mentioned in the special representative’s mandate. That is essential to ensure institutional forms of such co-operation. For example, a representative of the Council of Europe has a permanent seat on the board of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. We should make similar arrangements in respect of all EU bodies that deal with human rights.

Avoiding competition and developing closer co-operation is the best way to ensure synergy between European institutions in protecting human rights.

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

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine) – In my capacity as rapporteur on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, with responsibility for the election of judges, I have some brief points to raise in response to the recent European Union Foreign Affairs Council announcement that it intends to create a new office, that of the EU Special Representative for Human Rights.

The creation of new institutions to promote human rights across Europe and beyond is not a bad thing per se if it leads to greater progress in advancing human rights protections. However, the focus of the European Union is wrong. Its energies should be focused on speeding up the process of accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and stepping up its co-operation with and within the ECHR machinery.

A new office with a broad mandate threatens to increase duplication of the work of the Council of Europe by the EU. The drawbacks of such duplication have already been depicted to the Assembly in Resolution 1756, as mentioned by previous speakers. It is unnecessary to go into detail on this matter, other than to reiterate that unnecessarily duplicating work does not advance a common standard of human rights protection throughout Europe. The result could be new dividing lines between those Council of Europe member states that are also members of the European Union and those that are not, and the temptation for offenders to go “forum shopping”. Therefore, it is imperative that the new office co-ordinates closely with the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, especially on those matters relating to non-EU member states that are members of the Council of Europe, to avoid unnecessary duplication of work and possible contradictions.

The priority of the EU should be on advancing the accession process to the Convention, and on ensuring that its institutions and laws fulfil Convention standards. All EU member states are signatories to the Convention, but they have ceded significant powers and authority to EU institutions. Those institutions are not externally judicially accountable at present. Common European standards of human rights will be enhanced by focusing energy and resources on making this possible rather than by creating new offices and institutions that divert what limited resources are available.

The EU is increasingly moving to incorporate human rights in its dealings with third-party nations, but it is paradoxical and open to easy criticism by the countries concerned that it should require such standards of others when it has not yet accepted external scrutiny for its own actions. Thus I repeat that EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights should be the main focus at this time. I hope that when the new special representative on human rights takes office he or she will make accession a priority.

As well as problems with overlapping competences and duplication of work, financial considerations are raised such as the fact that both the EU and the Council of Europe are funded by states – and ultimately by taxpayers throughout Europe. Duplication means that EU citizens will pay twice, which is difficult to defend in these times of budgetary crisis in most member states. Instead, scarce budgetary resources should be used to fund real progress – the kind that can best be achieved by accession to the ECHR by the European Union, as soon as possible.

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

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – As promised yesterday, I shall enlarge the debate a little. Not only is the EU forgetting the Council of Europe, as Ms Brasseur said, but the EU leaders in the Commission and in the Council are forgetting democracy itself. We see that when we consider what we shall witness today and tomorrow in Brussels. I am right to enlarge the debate because European human rights institutions cannot respect any aspect of human rights when they do not respect democracy. You cannot have a dignified life when you feel that you are an object, not a subject, of political decision making.

In that sense, it is correct to represent the voices of 800 million people, who will be affected by the decisions envisaged today by the leaders of the Council and the Commission. There is a proposal to unify – to Europeanise – banking, fiscal, tax, and social policy without the incorporation of democracy. That is unacceptable. With regard to what was said yesterday, we must take care, because sound democracies and strong democracies need not only strong states, but a strong Europe. However, Europe cannot be strong and sound without a strong democracy. We need to state that that is true.

There are two elements to the whole picture. We cannot go on with what the French would call dirigisme exécutif. This is a reduction of politics and an exclusion of the citizen, which is a shame in the month of the 300th anniversary of Mr Rousseau.

Today in Libération, we have the former Foreign Minister of France saying that sovereignty is gone. When sovereignty is gone, democracy is gone. That is why we must take it back, but not to the nation state, Mr Chope. There we disagree totally. Even the big United Kingdom alone cannot save democracy in the United Kingdom. You need Europe for this, but you need a democratic Europe, as Mr Franken also said yesterday. To do that – this is another positive aspect – we have people on the executive side and they remember it.

Mr Schäuble, the Finance Minister of Germany, this week gave a fantastic interview where he made the case for a Europeanisation of democracy based not only on the European Parliament as we know it today, but on a kind of senate, which would be a second chamber with delegates from national parliaments, like we are. However, we should say that we are the second chamber. Why not integrate that idea in his vision?

There is another guy who is not so well known, but who is today the No. 2 in the French Government as Education Minister. In a fantastic article produced last November – on the day on which we held the first hearing in our committee on the democracy report – he said that the outcome of the crisis in decision making in Europe needs to have democratic legitimacy. Democratic legitimacy cannot be denied unless you want to face disaster.

That is why we must say to those who direct the European Union that not only should they not forget the Council of Europe, but that they should not forget the citizens, who must be represented in real democratic bodies. That is the case for us and for the European Parliament. They cannot Europeanise policies without Europeanising democracy.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Pozzo di Borgo.

Mr POZZO di BORGO (France) said that he agreed with Mr Gross. Four years ago, the Committee of Ministers had said that there was a growing risk of an overlap between the Council of Europe and the European Union. It was difficult to reproach the European Union for wanting to defend democracy and human rights, but there was a danger that, in the long term, the European Union could swallow the Council of Europe. Members of the Council of Europe often referred to the European Union, but members of the European Parliament almost never referred to the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe’s Internet site said that the two bodies should not compete with one another. That was a joke. In recent years, the European Union had multiplied to an unprecedented degree its activity in areas that had traditionally been the responsibility of the Council of Europe.

It was important to recall the origins of the Council of Europe. The Jagland and Mignon reforms could help to strengthen the visibility of the Council of Europe and its focus on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The goals of the Council of Europe and of the European Union were not identical and their composition would never be the same. It would not be wise to sweep away the heritage of the Council of Europe, and in particular, the role of the European Court of Human Rights. The European Union should recognise the legitimacy of the Council of Europe. There were red lines that should not be crossed.

THE PRESIDENT said that the creation of Euronest could be added to the list of activities that duplicated the role of the Council of Europe. He had been rather surprised by its creation. He called Mr Michel.

Mr MICHEL (France) said that he apologised for his late arrival. The debate had started early but because there were no screens in his office he had no way of knowing about the change in timing. It was not a good idea to change the time of debates without informing delegates.

Last spring, a €100 million European fund for democracy had been created. This led to many questions. The European Union already had various programmes in this field. Moreover, member states were suffering from the effects of budgetary rigour. It was incredible that no one was taking advantage of the expertise of the Council of Europe in this context.

Since 2007, the European Union had taken a number of steps that had brought it into competition with the Council of Europe. It had established an EU Agency for Fundamental Rights with a budget in excess of that of the Council of Europe, set up an institute for gender equality, created the Euronest parliamentary assembly had been created and appointed a Special Representative for Human Rights, a role which was supposed to be played by the Commissioner on Human Rights of the Council of Europe. The Agency for Fundamental Rights had many shortcomings and was not active in Arab states. Although it was possible that the nature of the EU’s diplomacy would shift with the development of the position of special representative, other elements of its strategy had had no discernible effect and raised concerns in this regard, with money being spent to no useful end.

The European Union was putting itself in direct competition with the Council of Europe, and showing a disdain for the history of the Council of Europe in doing so. Though reforms to the Council of Europe would allow it to better demonstrate its experience and expertise, there were nevertheless legitimate fears for its future. Though he was not in favour of federalism, it was important to bring overlapping institutions together, with the involvement of states such as Russia and Turkey, who both had important roles to play. The member states of the European Union had all stressed the need for belt tightening, but this was not being applied with respect to its new institutions, whose costs exceeded the savings demanded of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Kox.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Andreas Gross said that we should broaden the debate beyond the insane decision, announced by Catherine Ashton, that the European Union is to appoint a Special Representative for Human Rights. I think we agree that it is not a wise decision. I agree with Mr Chope that it would cost a lot of money, and I agree with Mr Franken that it would duplicate our work. It should not happen, but it will happen. If the European Union decides something, it is not going to listen to us and change its mind. I agree with Mr Chope and others that we should send out this message, however. I also agree with my colleague Tuur Elzinga that we should mention the matter in our contacts with the European Union and the European Parliament.

Even more problematic is the fact that the European Union is developing itself into something new, but no one knows what it is going to be. People are talking about a banking union, a monetary union, an economic union and a political union. Those are fine words, but there is no book to tell us where it will all lead. I understand that people in the United Kingdom are worried about this. They are always worried about Europe. Winston Churchill’s proposal after the Second World War for a Council of Europe was in fact for a Council of Europe without the participation of the United Kingdom.

No one knows the direction in which the European Union will develop. We cannot predict the future, and there is nothing wrong with having one or two adventures, but the fact is that the European Union member states are making these changes under pressure from outside. The financial markets have no telephone numbers, no addresses, no names and no faces, yet they have decided that we should take action. If we do not do so, government debt interest rates will increase, as they have done today in Spain, and countries and banks will go bust. We are expected to carry out reforms in order to please the financial markets, and that is a stupid idea. We do not know who the financial markets are. Their goal is to earn money, and they will do that in any circumstances.

Instead of setting out on this adventure towards a European political union or super-state under pressure from an outside power, we should first decide what we want. I agree with Andreas Gross on that. It is clear that we cannot leave all decisions to be taken at national level, but it is stupid to transfer that decision making to a level at which democracy does not exist. I totally agree with Andreas – although I do not agree with all his federalist ideas – that to do that without any consideration for democracy would go against all this Assembly’s principles.

We have just held an urgent debate on Egypt in which we said that that country should take care to ensure that its democracy is sustainable, yet the way in which the European Union is now developing itself suggests that democracy will not be a priority. As Tuur Elzinga said, its priority is making money, being big and being competitive with others. Those are all interesting ideas, but the main focus for the European Union should be to promote democracy and the rule of law and to protect human rights. In the debate that has been started by the European Union’s usurpation of our terrain, we should make it clear that if the leaders of the European Union states are not prepared to put democracy first, we will all eventually pay the price.

THE PRESIDENT said that the list of speakers for the debate was concluded, and it had been useful that he himself had chaired it. There was no vote to be held, but some time remained to offer the floor to those who had not yet spoken, because the Assembly was designed to be a two-way dialogue which facilitated discussions. He reflected that insufficient thought may have been given to other measures that could have been used to improve the debate, such as a speech from the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, in order to consider his views. In any case, there was a meeting the following week with the Committee of Ministers at which the views of the Assembly would be reflected, and he would call for such views to be repeated in discussions with representatives from the European Union. He noted that Mr von Sydow, Mr Pozzo di Borgo and Mr Gross wanted to speak.

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – I want to talk about the theme that Mr Gross and Mr Kox brought to our attention. There is an emerging discussion in Europe about co-decision involving the parliamentary spheres and what is going on in the European Council. The view has been expressed that there should be a space for something based on national parliaments, in the same way that we are. I think it is an idea that should be elaborated.

Today’s European Parliament is elected with declining turnouts in most European countries. However, most of the representatives elected – although not all of them – tend to think that the solution to almost any problem is to increase the federalistic elements of the European Union. Why do the electorates abstain from giving our colleagues in the European Parliament a true mandate? Those of us in this place – national parliamentarians – are elected with much higher turnouts. We interact closely with our electorates at home, but we need to interact with them and with our parliaments more on the issues raised in this debate, which could also be raised in the European Union.

The time has now come for us to tell the European people and the elites how an Assembly such as ours can operate. We have reformed ourselves, although we are still consultative. We must face up to the challenge: would it be possible for an Assembly such as ours also to be co-decisive? Would it be possible for us to sit in our parliaments at home and also attend this place, but in a way that would be even more demanding? I will leave the argument about our experience in this place to one side, but it is time for us in our parties – and perhaps some of our institutions – to start considering what an Assembly such as ours could contribute. Mr Gross and Mr Kox are right to set the issue that we are currently debating within the broader agenda of representative government in today’s Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Lord Tomlinson.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – I had originally put my name on the speakers’ list to speak, but then I withdrew it, because I was not sure that I would be able to attend, so I am glad to have this opportunity to speak.

I am both pro-Council of Europe and, equally strongly, pro-European Union. They are not alternatives; many of us agree with both of them and with their goals. That is the sense in which I differ from Mr Chope. It will be evident to members that I do not always agree with him. However, although I had a fundamental disagreement with him at the beginning of the week, I can largely agree with him today.

Ms Brasseur has put the context of the debate perfectly – the Juncker report and the failure of the European Union institutions to observe what they had committed themselves to. Let us remind ourselves that it was not a great democratic decision to establish the Agency for Fundamental Rights in Vienna, but the shoddiest kind of political deal at the level of heads of state. When they needed a unanimous agreement but could not get it, the Agency for Fundamental Rights was used to buy the Austrian vote to get unanimity in the European Council. It was a crude bit of market economics of the sort that we tend to deplore.

We talk about double standards, but it is not the European Union that is applying double standards; rather, it is the member states of the European Union that are responsible for it. We have 27 member states – those in both the Council of Europe and the European Union – that, conveniently, have a unique disease of collective schizophrenia. They keep small change in their left pocket, making financial decisions based on the paucity of funds available for one institution, but keep a big cheque book in their right pocket. It is the same people doing both things. Therefore, not only do we have an institutional responsibility to shout at the European Union; we also have a responsibility to shout like hell at our national ministers, who have this schizophrenia.

All this requires us to be much more vigilant and tougher about the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. We all talk about it as though it is axiomatic. It is a good thing if everybody adopts their role, but I remember very well going to a debate on Eurocommunism some years ago, when François Mitterrand was trying to persuade the democratic socialist leaders of the time – Olof Palme, Harold Wilson – but they were not persuaded. At the end of it, Harold Wilson read them a little piece of old English poetry:

“There was a young lady of Riga,

Who rode with a smile on a tiger.

They returned from the ride

With the lady inside

And the smile on the face of the tiger.”

In the institutional debate that we are having about the accession of the European Union, let us make sure that we are not the lady of Riga, and let us make sure that there is not too big a smile on the EU tiger.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. We note that you and Mr Chope have today managed to unite the kingdom. I call Mr Pozzo di Borgo.

Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France) said that the President of the Assembly had the power to communicate the views expressed in the debate to the press and to each member of the European Council. The European Parliament had a budget of €1.2 billion, far in excess of those of national parliaments, and a budget of €100 million for fundamental rights. He would raise the matter in the French Senate when the French national budget was presented, as it was unacceptable. A press release and letters to member states of the European Council which stressed the need to separate competences and to take advantage of the available expertise in the most effective manner could also send a clear message.

THE PRESIDENT said that Mr Pozzo di Borgo had outlined the issues very clearly. The media was following the proceedings of the Assembly with keen interest and a press release would be sent out after the part session. He called Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) said that the Assembly was not quite the European senate because a senate, the inspiration for which emerged from the United States and built on an idea from the Sioux tribe, meant that, as in the United States, each chamber had 50% of the power. This could become the case in the future but was not so at present. Indeed, in the 19th century in European federal states, those elected to local parliaments chose their representatives to send to the second chamber of the federal parliament, which had the same powers as the directly elected house.

Mr Chope would attend the World Forum for Democracy in October and should be asked to tell the Assembly about it. Mr Peillon, the Education Minister in France had said that Europe must move to a new phase of its construction, but this new stage was happening without the involvement of the people, which was unacceptable, as Mr Kox had already noted. Mr Peillon should be invited to address the Assembly as well to discuss these ideas. It was necessary to think of those affected by European Union decisions, otherwise the process of delegitimisation, which had already contributed to a revival of nationalism, would be accelerated.

There were two contradictory interpretations of federalism which made discussion of it difficult. In the United States, federalism was a centralising force, but in other countries, such as Switzerland, it had a uniting and diversifying effect and genuinely devolved power. There were differing views on this matter but it was possible to move closer to a compromise. He called for the drafting of a report under the new procedure introduced by the President.

THE PRESIDENT said that drafting a report by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy was a feasible option. He called Mr Marcenaro.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that he was speaking in a personal capacity, not as Chair of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. He called for this issue to be brought up with Mr Jagland, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Many years of reform had been intended to enable the Council of Europe to concentrate on its core business. If satisfactory agreement with the European Union was not reached, this work would have been in vain. This was an urgent issue that needed to be prioritised.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Marcenaro. I imagine that the Deputy Secretary General will pass this on. You raise a perfectly legitimate question. Would anyone else like to take the floor? That is not the case. I call Ms Brasseur to reply.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that the debate had been helpful and had enabled genuine dialogue and an exchange of views, something that did not always occur when prepared responses were given to reports. It was desirable to have more such debates in the future. She thanked the President for his flexible approach in facilitating the debate and enabling her to take the floor.

She understood Mr Gross’s point that there should be a broader discussion of the role of the Council of Europe, but she had taken the creation of an EU special representative as a useful starting point for debate. The matter might usefully be considered in a report. Creating a senate was not a new idea but not one that she thought was necessary. However, it was important to consider how to mitigate the lack of democracy in EU institutions.

It was important for the voice of the Council of Europe to be heard defending the interests of the taxpayer at this time of crisis. Members had appointed Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, as representative in Vienna at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, which would ensure it had a voice in discussions.

This debate had just begun and it needed to continue. She also hoped that the success of this debate would lead to more such discussions of substance in the Assembly at future sittings.

THE PRESIDENT said that he thanked Ms Brasseur for proposing the debate. His interpretation of procedural rules was indicative of his enormous respect for the parliamentarians in the room. It was desirable for the Assembly to be more flexible. A report on this issue could be put to a meeting of the Bureau. The debate had started a little early because the previous debate had finished ahead of schedule and many delegates had expressed an interest in speaking on this issue. The debate had cast the Assembly in a good light. The points made by Mr Pozzo di Borgo would be taken up. He hoped the Assembly would work together to make further progress.

4. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday morning.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 12.55 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Written declarations

2. Urgent debate – Crisis of transition to democracy in Egypt

Presentation of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy by Mr Gardetto in Doc. 12981

Speakers:

Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

Ms Lundgren (Sweden)

Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Oscarsson (Sweden)

Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)

Mr Fournier (France)

Ms Memecan (Turkey)

Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Muñoz Alonso (Spain)

Ms Hägg (Sweden)

Mr R. Farina (Italy)

Mr Schennach (Austria)

Mr O’Reilly (Ireland)

Ms Blondin (France)

Mr Sabella (Palestinian National Council)

Ms Mattila (Finland)

Mr Avital (Israel)

Ms El Ouafi (Morocco)

Replies:

Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

Mr Marcenaro (Italy)

Draft resolution adopted.

3. Current affairs debate – European institutions and human rights in Europe

Speakers:

Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg)

Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Mr Elzinga (Netherlands)

Mr Franken (Netherlands)

Mr Cilevičs (Latvia)

Mr Holovaty (Ukraine)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mr Pozzo di Borgo (France)

Mr Michel (France)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr von Sydow (Sweden)

Lord Tomlinson (United Kingdom)

Mr Pozzo di Borgo (France)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mr Marcenaro (Italy)

Reply:

Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg)

4. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

Appendix

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

Francis AGIUS*

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV/Leonid Kalashnikov

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*

José Antonio ALONSO*

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Khadija ARIB/Tuur Elzinga

Mörður ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Þuriður BACKMAN*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN*

Pelin Gündeş BAKIR*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO*

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

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/Aleksandrs Sakovskis

Boriss CILEVIČS

James CLAPPISON*

Deirdre CLUNE*

Georges COLOMBIER

Agustín CONDE*

Titus CORLĂŢEAN*

Igor CORMAN/Stella Jantuan

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/Bernadette Bourzai

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

József ÉKES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Gianni FARINA/Mario Barbi

Nikolay FEDOROV*

Relu FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Paul FLYNN

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON

Erich Georg FRITZ*

György FRUNDA*

Giorgi GABASHVILI*

Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ

Sir Roger GALE

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Sophia GIANNAKA*

Paolo GIARETTA*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM

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

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen

Norbert HAUPERT

Oliver HEALD*

Alfred HEER/ Maximilian Reimann

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Serhiy HOLOVATY

Jim HOOD/Jim Dobbin

Joachim HÖRSTER*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Susanna HUOVINEN/Jouko Skinnari

Ali HUSEYNLI*

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/Kerstin Lundgren

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Armand JUNG*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Ferenc KALMÁR*

Božidar KALMETA*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Michail KATRINIS/Georges Charalambopoulos

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Bogdan KLICH*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Tiny KOX

Marie KRARUP*

Borjana KRIŠTO

Václav KUBATA/Lenka Andrýsová

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/Maryvonne Blondin

Jean-Louis LORRAIN/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

George LOUKAIDES

Younal LOUTFI

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA/Serhii Kivalov

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*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ*

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin

Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ*

Akaki MINASHVILI*

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI*

Andrey MOLCHANOV/Vladimir Zhidkikh

Jerzy MONTAG*

Patrick MORIAU*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO

Lydia MUTSCH

Philippe NACHBAR

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Adrian NĂSTASE*

Gebhard NEGELE/Leander Schädler

Aleksandar NENKOV*

Pasquale NESSA*

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Sandra OSBORNE*

Nadia OTTAVIANI*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou

Eva PARERA*

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

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*

Radoslav PROCHÁZKA*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Valeriy PYSARENKO*

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ

Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA*

Mailis REPS

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

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/Alexey Knyshov

Robert SHLEGEL*

Ladislav SKOPAL/Dana Váhalová

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/Yevhen Marmazov

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ*

Dragan TODOROVIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI*

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Tomáš ÚLEHLA

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Giuseppe VALENTINO/ Renato Farina

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS*

Stefaan VERCAMER

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Luigi VITALI/ Fiamma Nirenstein

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

Gisela WURM*

Karl ZELLER/Paolo Corsini

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Birutė Vėsaitė

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Anvar Makhmutov

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Andreja CRNAK MEGLIC

Terence FLANAGAN

Observers:

Mr Doron AVITAL

Corneliu CHISU

Aldo GIORDANO

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Gilbert ROOS

Partners for democracy:

Najat ALASTAL

Abdelkebir BERKIA

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

Ahmet ETI

Other participants

Ben Said MEHDI

Nezha EL-OUAFI