2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Twenty-ninth Sitting

Monday 1 October 2012 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

I must inform colleagues that in addition to the draft resolution relating to its report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Russia, document 13018, the Monitoring Committee has produced an addendum which contains a draft recommendation. The addendum has been discussed and the majority of the Monitoring Committee was in favour. In order to take account of this new text, the Bureau has established the following deadlines for the tabling of amendments and sub-amendments: amendments to the draft resolution in document 13018 by 4 p.m. this afternoon; amendments to the draft recommendation in document 13018, addendum, by 7 p.m. this evening; and written sub-amendments to amendments by 8 a.m. tomorrow.

1. Free debate

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now come to the free debate. I must inform members that notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 38 of our Rules of Procedure the Bureau has decided that the free debate will last for one and a half hours.

I remind members that this debate is for topics not already on the agenda agreed this morning. The time allowed for speeches will be three minutes and we will finish at 5 p.m. On a number of other occasions, we have had the opportunity to discuss how the debate will be organised. A number of parliamentarians wanted there to be a free debate, but as there is no one to respond, it will not really be a debate in the sense understood in the Assembly. We therefore have to think of how to arrange things in the future so that there can be a response.

I call first Mr Flego. You have three minutes, and please start by identifying the topic you wish to raise.

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – A week ago, the ninth Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Youth took place in St Petersburg. It was an important event, supposed to deal with crucial problems such as unemployment, accommodation facilities, poverty and the social problems of young people. It was very well received. We heard speeches containing several promises and assessments and we witnessed a lot of expectations and hopes, particularly during the substantial discussions and questions. However, the second day was a contrast to the first one. We did not have a chance to see the host, the Russian Minister of Education, and a declaration was not proclaimed because it was blocked by the unwillingness of some countries to acknowledge and specify human rights that were specified and acknowledged a few years ago. We have to bear in mind that there are ever more countries with 50% or more unemployed young people. People have started to talk and write about lost or futureless generations. There never were such numbers of well-educated people without jobs, deprived of a future and at the edge of despair.

Besides being our future, I remind you that young people are also the children of us, the adults. And what do we, their parents, do? We organise a conference about youth that fails. We seem to forget that as human beings, as empathetic persons and careful parents, we are obliged to offer our own kids optimal, or at least minimal, conditions of existence. We, the adults, particularly the representatives of the Council of Europe, speaking on behalf of 800 million people, are obliged at least to declare our willingness to improve the world that we created and to enable essentially more efficient societal integration for youth. Dear colleagues, Mr President, I hope that we will do so this week at the youth congress that will take place here, even if we were not able to do it in St Petersburg.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Flego. I would like personally to thank Mr Volontè and Mr Connarty for having participated in the ninth Conference of Ministers responsible for Youth held in St Petersburg. I was there myself and I think that the debates were interesting. It is true that the Ministers present were not able to agree on a final declaration, and in the Bureau this morning the Deputy Secretary General told us that there would be a debriefing this week with the Secretary General in order to draw appropriate conclusions from the holding of the ninth conference. I cannot say much more about this now, but I think that at the Bureau meeting on Friday morning the Secretary General will be able to comment on the thoughts that you have shared with us, Mr Flego. No doubt we will hear more about this in future.

The next speaker is Ms Schuster on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms SCHUSTER (Germany) wanted to put forward a practical proposal for something that all members of the Assembly could do to better protect those who protect human rights. Lawyers, journalists, representatives of women’s rights organisations, and minorities, including sexual minorities and indigenous peoples, were often subject to threats. This could also apply to opposition politicians who had only exercised their right to freedom of speech. Such spokespeople were at risk of arbitrary arrest, torture, and even murder. Her suggestion, therefore, was to follow the example of the German Bundestag, which had established a programme called “Parliamentarians Protecting Parliamentarians”. Members of the Bundestag adopted parliamentarians from other countries, and used personal contacts, interviews with the press or contact with ambassadors to draw attention to their situations. They did this only with the agreement of those defenders of human rights, because their aim was to help rather than endanger them. They could issue press releases, visit imprisoned parliamentarians, or call for fair trials. They also worked with organisations including the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and human rights organisations. This programme was an excellent example which could be taken up in other countries or by the Council of Europe itself. It was clear that human rights defenders were in substantial danger, and that parliamentarians could bring pressure to bear on their situation. Without people to defend them, the situation for human rights would be dire. She therefore appealed to Assembly members to investigate establishing similar programmes in their own countries and urged the Council of Europe to consider a programme of its own.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Schuster, for that excellent idea. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, of which you are a member, will want to give some in-depth thoughts to the proposal that you have put forward.

The next speaker is Mr Clappison on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Mr President, I congratulate you on the words that you chose to use at the recent European Conference of Presidents of Parliaments, where you rightly drew a connection between the economic crisis that is sweeping through Europe and the problem of representative democracy being sustained in the face of such a crisis. You are right to draw that connection because we are facing a very unhealthy situation regarding representative democracy. How can we talk about democracy and human rights when there is so much suffering, which is getting worse, throughout the European Union and indeed further afield? When it comes to the economic crisis, I am not suggesting for a minute that my country is without problems; it is not – it has its own serious problems. Nor am I suggesting that we are in a position to give other people lectures; we are not.

In my brief time here, I express solidarity with the citizens of those countries who are suffering the effects of this crisis – high rates of unemployment, economic insecurity and, particularly, higher levels of youth unemployment – as well as my concern at the measures being taken to solve the problems in those countries, which are being treated to a diet of repeated austerity with ever rising unemployment and worsening deficits but, because of that worsening unemployment, fewer people paying taxes, more people relying on the state and deficits getting worse all the time. That cannot be the way out of these crises. We must have some fresh economic thinking. It pains me to say this, but I do not think we have yet seen the solution to these problems in the present economic framework. We are trapped in a straitjacket and it is simply not working. We are not giving hope to our fellow citizens. We cannot expect democracy to thrive when people are suffering more and more economic catastrophes – that is what is happening in southern Europe – and cannot see a way out of their problems. There will be more people demonstrating on the streets, more problems and more tensions – all things that we do not want. This cannot be healthy for democracy, and we need some fresh thinking in Europe.

The United Kingdom is in no position to give lectures on the subject. I should like to express solidarity with the people who are going through this. We went through similar experiences in the great depression, when the right solutions were not immediately to hand. We need to find those solutions. We need some fresh thinking very soon at a European level.

THE PRESIDENT commented that Mr Clappison had issued an invitation addressed to all colleagues to read the report. He called Ms Kanelli, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Ms KANELLI (Greece) – I should like to draw your attention not to a phenomenon, but to the consequences of the economic policies implemented in countries such as Greece. There is desperation. There are 1.5 million jobless people in the country, which is facing breakdown vis-à-vis the market. As has been pointed out, this comes just a few years after a display of the great Olympic democratic ideals, and despite the beautiful words that everyone uses anytime they need to talk about Greece.

I am a victim personally. I probably should be ashamed of this, but I am proud of it: I stood up to the waking snake of the extreme right, and the paramilitary organisation, recently legalised by votes, that we face in Greece, and I was slapped in the face. The snake has been awakened, and it is eating young souls – desperate youths who feel insecure in their country. They are poor. We are accepting immigrants as a result of the so-called Arab Spring, which has turned out to be a deep winter, with war ready to break out in the Middle East. We face a bitter experience in Europe.

This is not a Greek problem; other European countries have experienced it, and it is augmenting quickly. It is the result of international, European and domestic politics. It is impoverishing people and blackmailing nations. People face no future and no hope, and that has brought about a system that is fighting against democracy in Europe. Our bitter experience is that we have seen democracies going down. We are talking about a deficit in democracy in this area, all over Europe. We are talking about a worldwide economic war. Look at what has happened in my country: there, one does not talk about democracy. We need solidarity. Colleagues should understand that we have to stand up and fight for democracy, because otherwise the snake will swallow everyone on this continent and in the world. That is the danger that we face, so please pay attention; this is happening in the oldest democracy in Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Kanelli. I call Mr Rochebloine, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) said that the sentence imposed by Ukraine on Yulia Tymoshenko had caused unanimous indignation in the international community. Now that her appeal had been rejected the sentence was definitive. However, the procedure used did not respect normal guarantees.

The case was now with the European Court of Human Rights and he awaited the outcome with interest. Should the European Court of Human Rights confirm the criticism already made of the case he hoped that Ukraine would bring to an end such practices.

There were too many examples since the Second World War of the desire to eliminate political rivals leading to their imprisonment. He had hoped that the fall of the “Wall of Shame” would have encouraged countries in eastern Europe to embrace co-operation and acceptance of normal standards. This was one of the strongest reasons for membership of the Council of Europe.

The treatment of Ms Tymoshenko was an alarmingly regressive case and was a symbol of the poor treatment of the entire opposition in Ukraine. However the opposition had not been silenced and Ms Tymoshenko had recently made an appeal from prison to opposition supporters ahead of forthcoming elections. There was a chance of honest elections taking place but political trials had to end if Ukraine was to rebuild its reputation.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Rochebloine. I now call Mr Toshev.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – In this free debate, I would like to return to the subject of our Resolution 1531 of 2007, and Recommendation 1779 of 2007, on the perils of using energy supply as an instrument of political pressure. My country, Bulgaria, is under very strong pressure from the Russian Federation in respect of the construction of a second nuclear power plant in Bulgaria in a region called Belene, an area with high seismic activity.

Our government decided to cease work on the project, which was not economically justified. That was not the first time that the government had taken such a decision. We have documents that show that back in 1984 then-Soviet experts insisted that the proposed platform for construction be abandoned and that we should search for a new platform in an area with better seismic conditions.

Last year, here in the Council of Europe, a hearing was held on nuclear safety, following the Fukushima disaster. The Russian representative of Rosatom at the time, Mr Vladimir Grachev, a former colleague in this Assembly, declared that his company would not build nuclear power plants in earthquake zones. I would like to ask whether that statement is still valid today.

In the Belene case, there was not even a formal agreement signed by the two states – just a memorandum. However, the previous socialist-dominated government of Bulgaria ordered Atomstroyexport to prepare parts for the nuclear power plant. Today, the Bulgarian authorities declare that they will buy all the parts for construction that have been ordered and would like to interrupt the project.

Atomstroyexport, which is an engineering company that is part of Rosatom, the Russian state company that constructs nuclear power facilities abroad, has decided to increase its claim for compensation from Bulgaria to €1 billion – around five times the reasonable costs spent.

This claim is directed against Bulgaria’s national electric company and the case has been put before the International Chamber of Commerce’s international court of arbitration for consideration. The Bulgarian authorities are not obliged to build nuclear facilities in an earthquake zone, especially bearing in mind the Fukushima disaster in Japan. There is no scope for pressure on Bulgaria in this matter; who should take responsibility for this and future generations in case of an accident? No one has a right to do this. This is not only a Bulgarian issue, but a European one. So I call on the Russian authorities to reconsider their behaviour and re-examine their responsibilities in respect of the Belene project. Last but not least, I call on European politicians to stay with Bulgaria in this struggle and to express their European solidarity.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Toshev. I call Mr Rustamyan.

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that the Assembly had recently given Partner for Democracy status to the Palestinian Legislative Assembly. This was important because it had been given to a state which had not yet been internationally recognised. It was important for all parties to the conflict to come together and it was good that both were represented in the Council of Europe, and that there was the chance for constructive dialogue.

This was an example of the role the Council of Europe could play in other conflicts such as that concerning Nagorno-Karabakh. It was also relevant to Kosovo. This Assembly had received a report at its meeting the previous October recommending that representatives of Kosovo should take part in committee meetings relevant to that area. At the same meeting it was suggested that representation from Northern Cyprus and Palestine could be a precedent and could have consequences for other dialogues, for instance concerning Transnistria and South Ossetia.

However it was self-evident in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh that the Council of Europe could help to resolve the conflict by giving similar status to representatives of that region. It would need political courage to do so.

THE PRESIDENT said that he intended to do his utmost to find solutions to frozen conflicts but in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh this could not be done without the help of Mr Rustamyan and other relevant parties.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – Thank you, Mr President. We European Christian democrats are sensitive to problems and issues associated with religion, faith and the Church. After the fall of communism in eastern Europe, the new democratically elected governments stated that they were committed to the restitution of goods, real estate, and schools and other institutions to the communities from which they were taken. During the spring, a new left-wing government came to power in Romania, and its attitude towards this kind of restitution and towards minorities has changed. It took domestic measures that alarmed Europe, and then, in early summer, the events at the Székely Mikó high school began. On 1 September, 30 000 people came out on to the streets of Sfântu-Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgörgy, a city in eastern Transylvania which is mostly inhabited by the Szekler-Hungarian minority. They demonstrated peacefully against a court decision meant to restore the state’s ownership of a distinguished, traditional school. This is one of the most important schools of the Szekler-Hungarian community which has been restored to the Reformed Church. Moreover, the three members of the restitution committee, including a former state secretary, were subject to a severe punishment without precedent – they were convicted and given three years’ imprisonment – yet the conviction of the only ethnic Romanian member was suspended.

Obviously, this decision was taken to discourage the process of restitution towards churches. However, in 1993, when Romania was accepted into the Council of Europe, its government committed itself to respecting its resolutions, including on the restitution of goods that once belonged to the Church. This case also raises the issue of legal security in respect of any private property in Romania, which is a European Union member state. Can we be sure of any decision taken by the Romanian Government? Is any restored property at all secure? In conclusion, I urge the leadership of the Council of Europe to persuade the Romanian Government to find a solution that conforms with European standards and practice. I also await an urgent answer from the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, given that you said this morning, Mr President, that you were in dialogue with the Romanian Government.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Kalmár. I call Ms Bílgehan.

Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) said that her father had worked as a journalist and that two weeks before she was born he had been sentenced to two years in prison. The jail in which he was imprisoned was now a museum. However a sad tradition of imprisoning journalists still continued in her country.

The European Court of Human Rights had ruled that freedom of speech was a fundamental right. Journalists had a strong interest in upholding this right as they needed to disseminate information. Any restriction on freedom of speech should be extremely narrow.

In Turkey, as in some other countries, journalists were confronted with aggressive attacks and even murder. Thirty journalists had been murdered in Turkey in recent years and only one in 10 of these deaths had resulted in a satisfactory court case. The authorities had not launched any effective inquiries that might lead to the arrest and trial of the murderers. In May 2012 the International Federation of Journalists said that not enough was being done to protect free speech. It was important that governments respected their obligations in this area.

Turkey imprisoned more journalists than any other country. This was largely due to constraints arising from the fight against terrorism, the aftermath of a coup attempt and the situation of the Kurdish population. However many people had been arrested on unsatisfactory grounds and there had been reports of the use of fake fingerprints in such cases.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Bílgehan. I am sure everybody present heard your message very clearly. I call Mr Mota Amaral.

Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – Our Assembly cannot ignore the social unrest, with natural political consequences, which is spreading in some of the member countries of the Council of Europe. Citizens are crowding the streets to protest against the austerity measures adopted by national governments to correct the budgetary imbalances derived from the global economic and financial crisis. Austerity is hurting the poor and even the middle class. Its recessive impact is the origin of the failure of many small and medium enterprises and has led to the rise of unemployment to frightening levels. Budgetary difficulties prevent national governments from providing relief for those in need and some have even imposed cuts in benefits that are considered part of the European social model.

To make things worse, the credibility of democratic institutions is at stake and political parties and their leaders are accused of doing, when they get into power, exactly the opposite of what they used to say in opposition and violating the programmes that they presented before the election.

The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe has issued a report about the decrease in protection, due to budgetary cuts, for children and the elderly in my country. The Portuguese Government will certainly do its best to correct what the Commissioner has pointed out. But I am afraid that similar reports could be made about the social situation of many other countries in our Organisation.

At the European level, due attention must be given to southern and peripheral countries. Increasing taxes is necessary, but this is an instrument with limits and sometimes results in a loss of public revenue. Even the IMF has recently stated that the financial adjustment of those countries should be less demanding. Interest rates, even in the framework of international financial assistance, seem to be too high. In a situation of recession and unemployment and without the prospect of economic recovery and growth, paying back debts sometimes becomes impossible. So it is also in the interest of our international creditors that this problem receives a full revision.

In a broader sense, the general economic rules being now imposed in Europe should also be put under scrutiny. Unemployment, especially among the younger generation, is becoming a nightmare. Many economic activities are being destroyed by international competition that jeopardises social and environmental criteria. Hitting salaries is certainly not the only option, but it looks as though that is the case from some fundamentalist speeches.

Our societies are becoming less balanced, the distribution of wealth looks unfair – favouring the rich – and the social gap is widening. We need to be realistic and provide strong democratic leadership to change those dramatic situations. Otherwise, problems will become worse and submerge our societies in tragic convulsions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Mota Amaral. I call Mr Plotnikov.

Mr PLOTNIKOV (Ukraine) – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to draw your attention to the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Ukraine that will take place on 28 October 2012. These are regular parliamentary elections to be held due to the end of the mandate of the current parliament, but we have the new electoral law approved by both the majority party and the opposition.

I wish to express my astonishment at the actions of forces both in Ukraine and outside that have tried to put the election results into doubt already, a month before they take place. I fully understand the desire of the opposition to be heard and seen in the forthcoming elections, but would it be correct to acknowledge or not to acknowledge the election results in connection with the percentage that the opposition expects to gain?

As a representative of the ruling party, I stress that we are absolutely interested to ensure that the parliamentary elections are run honestly and openly and are just and democratic. For the first time in Ukrainian history, web cameras will be installed in all polling stations with direct transmission of the voting process via the Internet. Here again, the arguments of the critics of online transmission are not sustainable – why is this transmission so frightening to some people? Is it that the installation of the cameras at polling stations disturbs someone’s plans for the falsification of the voting process?

We are fully open about the preparatory process, as well as the conduct of the elections, during which we will have the maximum number of international observers of the whole electoral history of independent Ukraine.

This afternoon is a good opportunity for me to greet colleagues from the Assembly’s electoral mission, headed by Mr Gross, which visited Ukraine just a week ago. I wish to express my confidence that our colleagues, as well as observers representing other international organisations, will be able to reassure themselves of high standards in the conduct of the elections. I am also confident that the activity of international observers during the parliamentary elections in Ukraine will permit them to be held to those high standards.

THE PRESIDENT thanked all members who had acted as election observers, particularly in Georgia and Ukraine, and called Mr Ghiletchi.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I wish to raise an issue that was already underlined this morning, which is tackling the frozen conflicts, with a special view to the Transnistrian conflict. The Republic of Moldova declared its independence 21 years ago. Not long after this historic event, armed conflict broke out in the south-east of Moldova. The good part was that military hostilities ended relatively soon after the conflict started and Moldova has embarked on the road of peaceful settlement of the conflict since then. But the sad part is that the conflict has been frozen for more than 20 years now. It is obvious that the perpetuation of this status undermines the national security and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova. That is why it is very important to find a viable solution to this frozen conflict as soon as possible.

Last week, during the United Nations General Assembly, the President of the Republic of Moldova, Nicolae Timofti, highlighted the need to resolve these issues, saying, “Twenty years are enough to overcome the mistrust of the past and it is the time to start building a shared future.” Moldova highly appreciates the support of international partners. At the same time, we deeply regret that Russian troops are still present on our territory without legal consent and in violation of international commitments. We firmly believe that all necessary conditions are in place for the withdrawal to be finalised. We are also confident that the Russian Federation has all necessary means and would enjoy wide international support if the withdrawal process was brought to a successful end.

In that regard, we are concerned about some recent steps to modernise the military forces present on Moldovan soil. Without demilitarisation of the region, the Transnistrian frozen conflict risks becoming everlasting.

When we hear official statements that the military presence in the region is Russia’s exclusive right and that the withdrawal of troops is unacceptable to Russia, I just cannot see how we can make any progress towards solving the conflict. It is commendable that the President of our Assembly, from the very beginning of his mandate, emphasised the need for a new impulse in resolving frozen conflicts. I believe that a strong political will is also needed if that initiative is to be fruitful.

I might sound naïve, but I dare to ask our Russian colleagues in the Assembly to persuade their government to take seriously the international commitment it assumed. An eventual success story in solving the Transnistrian conflict will be a great encouragement and a hope for other conflicts in former Soviet territories. Let us commit ourselves to bringing to an end all frozen conflicts and to building everlasting peace in the member states of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Ghiletchi for reminding members of his recent visit to Moldova. He had very recently had a meeting in Strasbourg and hoped to return to Moldova in the near future to check on progress. He called Mr Huseynov.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Now, as we start a new part-session, our continent and our world are living in anxious days. The recent insults towards Islam have generated tension, discontent and confrontations in various countries around the world. The extent of the negative consequences of these confrontations is not obvious, but one may suppose that they can lead to tragedies. Not one debate on this matter has been put on the agenda of this part-session. Nevertheless, we insist on leading debates on an incident that is one of hundreds of sorrowful outcomes of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Meanwhile, we are trying to do so without touching upon the indicated conflict. That is to say, we are trying to speak of the consequences without saying a word about the reason.

In the incident that took place between the officer of the Azerbaijani Army and the officer of the Armenian Army, both of those two youngsters are victims; they are victims of the merciless war, dirty policy and a conflict between two countries that is organised and controlled by external forces and a resolution of which is prevented by those forces. During the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, which lasted over 20 years, hundreds of such guys have perished. Unless the conflict is brought to an end and Armenia withdraws from the 20% of Azerbaijani territory it occupies, and unless nearly 1 million people stop living the life of refugees and internally displaced persons and Armenia gives up its policy of ruling through terrorism, new tragedies are still probable.

The conduct of debates on the Safarov case in the Council of Europe and other organisations is centrally organised and directed. The producers behind the curtain are keen on neither the murder of Armenian officers nor the pardoning of Azerbaijani officers; they are interested in the conflict continuing and deepening, because they earn billions from it. In the occupied Azerbaijani territories, which are subject to no international control, the occupying forces have acquired appropriate space for the cultivation and transit of drugs. So as not to lose the source of such profit, the Armenian lobby and its mates in solidarity easily and without hesitation make thousands of Azerbaijani and Armenian officers victims.

Ramil Safarov committed a sin, received his punishment and was finally released according to international and Azerbaijani law, accompanied by no violation. That is a page of history that has already been left behind. Nonetheless, the Armenian aggression towards Azerbaijan continues and the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh is not over. Nearly 1 million Azerbaijanis remain refugees and internally displaced persons. On the other side, the living standards of the Armenian population, who are suffering from the hard economic come-down, worsen day by day. Every year hundreds of thousands of people abandon Armenia due to the unbearable living conditions. A country with historical traditions is being brought to the edge of break-up by those who govern it. These are the subjects that deserve to be put on the agenda and debated today and every day.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I call Mr Sasi.

Mr SASI (Finland) – I have three points to make, on Belarus, Ukraine and the Safarov case. First, in Belarus there have recently been elections, and I must say that we are very disappointed. There is no opposition mandate in the new parliament, there is no freedom of expression in the country and candidates who took part in the last presidential elections are still in jail. It is a shame that there is still a country in Europe that is a dictatorship. I think that it is the duty of this Assembly to do our utmost to see change in that country. Therefore, we must have very close contact with the opposition and educate young politicians on how democracy functions and how to respect human rights. That must be one of this Assembly’s core tasks.

Secondly, the elections in Ukraine are approaching. Unfortunately, the opposition leader, Mrs Yulia Tymoshenko, is in jail. Putting opposition candidates in jail so that they cannot stand for election and there is no freedom of speech is not the way to conduct a democracy. There are sometimes links, but that is still not fair democracy. It is very important that at this stage we monitor elections not only on election day but during the whole period so we can see what freedom of expression is like in the country. On election day, one must be very cautious and careful to see that there is no widespread, broad or massive falsification of results, because that would not be fair in a Council of Europe member state. The question is in what direction democracy in Ukraine will go. I think that the test will be the next elections.

Finally, on the Safarov case, we have excellent conditions and conventions in the Council of Europe, but they can sometimes be misused. In this case, unfortunately, if you murder a person with an axe in one country, you will be extradited to another country and then pardoned immediately, and then that country’s political leaders will in fact cherish the murderer. Something is really wrong in that behaviour. That is something we really must discuss, and I am happy that we will debate that on Thursday, which I think is totally necessary. We have to condemn those involved in the case, because that is something that might not happen. I think that the Hungarians must try to explain the rumours of using oil money in that case and show what the facts are, because that is of great interest.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Sasi. I call Ms Durrieu.

Ms DURRIEU (France) had in front of her a proposal for a resolution on gene manipulation and eugenics. The title sounded innocent but it appeared to her to be a wholesale denunciation of abortion. She had a profound respect for the right to life but noted that in this text pre-natal diagnosis was equated with eugenics. No one advocated the creation of perfect children or a pure race and there was a question as to whether a foetus had the status of a human life. It was widely accepted that such a foetus was not a human life if it was not viable, and the point of viability was set at a certain stage of pregnancy. Therapeutic abortion was widely accepted in Europe but it seemed that the authors of the report were attacking abortion in any case. She recalled that the Assembly had previously expressed strong views on this matter.

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

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – In 2001, we became a fully fledged member of the Council of Europe. During our accession, we undertook certain obligations to this Organisation. Since 2001, every year and in every session, we have discussed the process of implementing those obligations and the extent to which they have been achieved. It should be taken into account that among those obligations, we undertook one specific obligation: the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh question. That must be undertaken not just by Azerbaijan, but by Armenia. Why, since 2001, have we never discussed that obligation? We have discussed all the others, including alternative services, freedom of expression, the courts, human rights and so on, but not once have we discussed Nagorno-Karabakh. At times, Azerbaijan has suggested that the Council of Europe, as a body for democracy – a house of democracy – brings together the Azerbaijanis and Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh in a meeting. The answer was no. A committee was organised to consider Nagorno-Karabakh, but it has been wound up. We suggested a discussion of the issues, but the answer was no.

Why has that obligation been disregarded? Why are we keeping ourselves to ourselves when asked how to deal with this problematic issue? We are the broadest Organisation in Europe and we have a responsibility that is not about votes, but about what is reported in the papers. That is why I think we need a special discussion on Nagorno-Karabakh as soon as possible. It should not just be about the consequences of the question of Nagorno-Karabakh, but about its importance as a problem between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Only then will we understand what is really going on. Only by doing that will we bring together the Armenians and Azerbaijanis to find a solution to this painful conflict. The Council of Europe has a special responsibility in that regard. Maintaining the silence promotes new violence, new bloodshed and new problems, so I ask the Council of Europe, its member states and the Parliamentary Assembly to discuss the question.

THE PRESIDENT said that the ad hoc committee to which Mr Seyidov had referred had never met and therefore could not have generated results. He invited Mr Seyidov, along with Mr Harutyunyan, to come to his office at 6 p.m. that evening to begin discussions. This would be a concrete step, and he was confident that within an hour some way could be found to move forward.

He called Mr Sobolev.

Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – This week, the Council of Europe will consider two very important questions in two days. The first is political prisoners and the second is democratic elections. For Ukraine, those two questions are the same, because if we do not solve the problem of political prisoners we will be unable to have democratic elections – that will be impossible while our opposition leaders, Tymoshenko and Lukashenko, are still in prison.

I remind you that Tymoshenko has been in prison for eight months without a decision of a court and for five months without a decision from the High Court or the Criminal Court. Lukashenko has now been in prison for more than one and a half years. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has decided that the Lukashenko case was a violation of all laws and we are now waiting for a decision on the Tymoshenko case.

We still have a democratic process in which we are engaged with the Council of Europe. Hour after hour of discussions about political prisoners and democratic elections will lead us to understand that the Council of Europe is not the only organisation to be tasked with dealing with those problems – that task belongs to the whole democratic world. We have a resolution of the Council of Europe, as well as resolutions from the European Parliament and the Congress of the United States of America. Most countries in the Council of Europe and the European Union have made such resolutions. Even the Government and President of the Russian Federation have stressed that all contracts signed by two companies, Naftogaz of Ukraine and OAO Gazprom, are the same contracts as OAO Gazprom signed with all the countries of the European Union. Lukashenko and Tymoshenko are still both in prison, so for us it will be a real quest for democracy. While the members of our government and their resident family members still have their accounts in so-called offshore zones, it will be a test for the whole European Union. One Ukrainian budget is still in an offshore zone in the European Union, but we have the lowest salaries and the lowest pensions. If we do not solve those problems, it will be impossible to discuss the democratic process in Ukraine. I thank the Assembly for discussing these important questions this week.

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

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain) said that he had initially intended to speak about the political situation in Syria. However, following recent comments, he had decided to address another topic. The ad hoc committee on Nagorno-Karabakh which he had chaired had met twice during its mandate. It had not been able to make progress, because of differences in approach; one of the two parties had believed its scope should have been set by the Minsk Conference and OSCE rules. The Council of Europe and the Assembly should set a clear scope for the discussions. At its most recent meeting, the Council of Europe had extended the mandate of the ad hoc committee. He hoped that the meeting which was to take place at 6 p.m. that evening would be effective and lead to a sea change in the situation surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. The last year had been one of frustration, but perhaps now the ad hoc committee would be able to take the issue forward.

Turning to the subject of the response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, which would be the subject of a debate on the coming Thursday, he noted that the previous day a French newspaper had reminded its readers that 100 000 people had been killed during three years of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina before the duty to protect had been applied. New ideas had been brought to the debate about Syria by Germany joining the UN Security Council. Ideas which could be brought forward included implementing a no fly zone over Syria. There was a need for decisive intervention: there had already been many deaths, and there was a risk of conflict flaring up in the region more widely. Western Europe should not repeat the negligence and sins of omission of which it had been guilty in the Balkans.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Xuclà. Let me just correct one point that you made: the Bureau has not taken a decision about the renewal of the ad hoc committee on Nagorno-Karabakh. However, since you were the chair of that ad hoc committee, if you are free at 6 p.m., do come and join us in my office together with the leaders of the two national delegations, who I have invited to the same event.

The next speaker is Mr Harangozó.

Mr HARANGOZÓ (Hungary) – We often refer to our Organisation not only as a community of 47 member states but as a community of values. As Secretary General Jagland declared in his mission statement, the role of the Council of Europe is to set standards and monitor their implementation in the field of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The standard-setting activity of the Council of Europe is based on the establishment of concrete legal frameworks, while its various kinds of monitoring activities focus mainly on member states’ fulfilment of these legal norms.

However, we are witnessing more and more cases of abuse of those written norms. There is also an increasing number of cases where the letter of the legally or politically binding Council of Europe tests is distorted and put in contrast with its spirit. We can find plenty of examples of governmental measures that challenge European values in the fields of media freedom and the independence of the judiciary, even if they are not necessarily in manifest contradiction to the European Convention on Human Rights.

A recent example of a measure of this nature was the Safarov case, where two less democratic leaders made an unclear deal in a way that you, Mr President, qualified as an abusive use of a Council of Europe legal instrument. The EU has also recognised the importance of this matter. On 12 September in the European Parliament, the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, emphasised in his state of the union speech the need to better address within the EU issues where the legal and democratic fabric is threatened in some EU member states. He also announced the Commission’s intention to establish the European public prosecutor’s office to that end. I am convinced that the Parliamentary Assembly should be fully supportive of that EU initiative by offering its experience in issues relating to the core values of democracy and the rule of law. By doing so, we could provide real added value by boosting co-operation between two organisations. Dear colleagues, we must find a way to end the misuse of legal frameworks to legalise the hurting of our core values.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Harangozó. The next speaker is Mr Petrenco.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – I wish to draw your attention again to what is going on in the Republic of Moldova. Six months have already passed since the day when the pseudo-democratic and repressive regime ruling in Moldova closed down one of the most popular TV channels, and the only opposition channel, NIT. Six months have passed since Mr Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, along with representatives of other international organisations, expressed his concern about this. Six months have passed of mere talks about this shocking fact at various forums and meetings. No results – “plenty of smoke but no cider”. One million viewers of the NIT TV channel are now deprived of access to information and of the right to express and hear an alternative point of view, unembellished and uncorrected by propagandists and censors on behalf of the ruling coalition. For six months the Moldovan judiciary has been postponing and delaying consideration of the NIT TV channel case. For more than six months we have not seen the Assembly’s monitoring co-rapporteurs for Moldova, nor have we heard their position on this issue. That is six months of serious violations of human rights and freedoms.

Is that not enough for us to take action? Are we as the Parliamentary Assembly really going to remain bit players and passive onlookers? Inactivity and a lack of even the slightest positive result of the monitoring of Moldova, including respect for human rights and freedoms, discredit the Council of Europe, the monitoring procedure as such and the Council’s capability to effectively influence antidemocratic developments occurring in Council of Europe member states. The lack of due reaction from Council of Europe institutions inevitably leads to further, more impudent and monstrous violations of democratic freedoms. This has already occurred in Moldova. From now on, since 1 October, the use of the sickle and hammer is banned in Moldova and the propagation of communist ideology is forbidden, and this is occurring in a situation where the Communist Party is the largest political force and the only parliamentary opposition party in Moldova. People may like or dislike the communists but, if we go on in this way and allow the banning of party symbols in Council of Europe member states, the limiting of opposition political activities or the imposition of fines for political views, then today we can all disperse and close the door on this institution for its uselessness and ineffectiveness.

In this regard, I would like to address the President of our Assembly, Mr Mignon. Mr President, the situation regarding the functioning of democratic institutions and the observance of human rights and freedoms in Moldova needs immediate intervention by the Assembly. The ruling regime in Moldova has gone beyond all permitted limits, and has nothing to do with the values of the Council of Europe. The timely reaction of the Assembly and of its co-rapporteurs for Moldova can stop the arbitrariness in Moldova and help the restoration of democracy. Let us prove that the Council of Europe is not a place for double standards and that it is capable of performing its duties and tasks. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Petrenco. The next speaker is Mr Tkachuk, Observer from Canada.

Mr TKACHUK (Canada) – I am an Observer from the Parliament of Canada. Canada is home to the third largest deposit of crude oil in the world, the oil sands of western Canada. The majority of this resource is in Alberta but a significant amount is in Saskatchewan, my home province. Saskatchewan is also a large supplier of heavy oil and a refiner of it as well. Since 1990, industry and Canada’s provincial and federal governments have worked very hard to reduce our carbon footprint. We have regulations governing reclamation and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and on overseeing, regulating and recycling water use from the Athabasca River. That is of particular importance given the intensive use of water in the extraction process.

Oil sands production is easily criticised by environmental groups because extraction requires the disturbance of land and forest, and can be portrayed as a degradation of a once pristine environment. I point out that we have strong reclamation laws that require the land to be put back to its original state. The area concerned is, in the scheme of things, rather insignificant.

Oil sands production makes the world less dependent on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. That is not a bad thing. More oil in the world keeps prices stable, and that is good for economic development in North America and across the world. In Canada, oil sands development provides families with jobs in extraction, transportation, science, manufacturing and production. Demonising the people and the families dependent on it is something that Canadians take very seriously. The EU’s preoccupation with the fuel quality directive makes us uneasy to say the least. We need your help to end this attempt to demonise this enterprise.

The life cycle of the greenhouse gas emissions of crude oil from oil sands is similar to, or actually less harmful than, that of the heavy oil imported into Europe from the Middle East; it is even less harmful than that of light oil from Africa or Russia, which use extensive flaring. Canadian oil is ethical oil from an ethical source, and it is from a country that is always working on improving human rights, not only at home but throughout the world. The same cannot be said of many nations that supply oil to Europe, such as Nigeria and Angola.

The fuel quality directive that the European Commission is attempting to get politicians to approve unfairly stigmatises Canadian oil from oil sands by giving preferential treatment to heavy crude that has a greenhouse gas intensity that is identical to, or worse than, that of crude from oil sands. It ignores the greenhouse-gas-intensive heavy crude that the EU imports, but targets crude from Canada. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Tkachuk. The next speaker is Mr Rzayev.

Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan) expressed his gratitude to the Assembly for the attention it had paid to Nagorno-Karabakh. He himself came from Nagorno-Karabakh. The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh was not a conflict between two states: it was an act of aggression. Nagorno-Karabakh was an occupied country.

It would be possible, as had been suggested by previous speakers, to have representatives present at meetings of the Assembly, but the Assembly should always bear in mind that 75 000 refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh could not return to their homeland.

He would welcome the Council of Europe’s assistance in resolving the conflict through dialogue. Azerbaijan had attempted to initiate dialogue but had encountered much resistance from Armenia, which had not, for example, attended the meeting organised in Berlin in 2007.

It was important to re-establish confidence so that the two communities could live together. If representatives of Azerbaijan and Armenia were to come together in this chamber he hoped that representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh could also take part. The progress needed for the two communities to live together would be greatly assisted by the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Rzayev. You will have taken note of what is going to happen in my office at 6 p.m. I call Mr Popescu.

Mr POPESCU (Ukraine) said that improvements had been made in Ukraine in respect of its international commitments, which had previously been blocked.

The Ukrainian Parliament had adopted a resolution on this issue and had recently passed a number of laws in conformity with the precepts of the Council of Europe. This process had begun in April and had continued until August. Other laws would be passed the next year. Some of these improvements required amendment of the Ukrainian constitution and this was in hand. Examples of these changes were laws with regard to the appointment of judges and parliamentary control of the budget. He hoped that progress could be made by the new parliament after the elections on 28 October and added that those elections would be carried out in full conformity with international standards.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Popescu, and congratulations on your French; I did not know that you spoke it so well. It was a pleasure to hear it. I hope you speak French more frequently. The next speaker is Ms Hägg.

Ms HÄGG (Sweden) – Later this week, we will discuss the situation in Syria and the humanitarian crisis and the refugees there. The situation there has polarised the domestic political situation in Turkey. A full 60% of those who voted for AKP, the ruling party, were critical of the government’s policy on refugees and on Syria. The opposition in Turkey has criticised the government for opening the way for a war, not just against the Alawites in Damascus, but between Shiites and Sunnis, through logistical support and support for military equipment. Some go so far as to say that there is an informal war between Syria and Turkey today.

I urge the parties to exercise self-control and support the UN’s resolution work. But what about our responsibility? What are we doing? Those parties can expect support from us, but we expect things from them too. The refugee camp is nearly totally closed. Neither European parliamentarians, nor the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, nor human rights organisations can come into the refugee camp. It looks more like a military camp. It is not acceptable.

When I went to the refugee camp, I raised the issue of sexual abuse with female and male refugees there. Of course, there are a lot of taboos there; it is such a painful issue that they cannot openly talk about it. My question is: who is writing down their stories? Who will get them help? Who will help the young girls who have been forced to marry men because they have no family protecting them and no resources? Women’s organisations told me that they could not help young women there or protect them from forced marriages that make them a second or third wife. That is not acceptable, but we in Europe do not even talk about it. We let the situation be and we hear the stories – perhaps for political reasons. We must ask for access to these camps and take responsibility, as the situation is not acceptable and is not in line with our own conventions, rules and reports. We have written about sexual violence, we have passed Resolutions 1325 and 1820, and we also support the Geneva Convention. So we have to ask for these refugee camps to be opened up and we have to help in the process. The conditions there are not acceptable, as I have seen for myself.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Hägg. I call Mr Nikoloski.

Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – As everyone will be aware, we had a discussion about the progress of the Assembly and its monitoring procedures in our June part-session. We discussed countries that are subject to monitoring and some that are not, and countries that are not ratifying the conventions that the Council of Europe is adopting. That is why we have recently been thinking about proposing a draft resolution to open a monitoring procedure in respect of Greece, which is not recognising and respecting the rights of minorities.

Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the individual and collective rights of minorities, is considered one of the fundamental European ways. The Council of Europe’s conventions and standards in this area are among the most important instruments for strengthening the rights of minorities. As everyone is well aware, Greece does not recognise adequately the minority rights of the Turkish, Macedonian, Roma, Albanian and Vlach communities, or those of other smaller ethnic communities living in the country. The Turkish minority is not recognised as a national minority; it is recognised only as a religious minority. Greece quotes the provisions of the Versailles minority rights protection system that dates from the beginning of the 20th century, but it does not take into account the developments and progress made in the past century, especially by the Council of Europe.

The citizens of Greece who would like to promote their Macedonian identity are prevented from realising that right. The discriminatory decision 106841 from 1982, under which Greek citizens who are not “Greek by genus” are denied repatriation, and law 1540 from 1985, which contains the discriminatory clause preventing Macedonians from realising their right to have their property in Greece back, are still in force. These people are also not allowed to receive education in their mother tongue or to exercise their cultural traditions and customs in different forms of organisations. The rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in favour of organisations and members of the Macedonian national minority are also not respected by this country – the same applies for the Roma, Albanian and Vlach populations.

That is why at this meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe we should open a monitoring procedure in respect of Greece, in order to monitor the situation until the minorities are freely recognised and their rights are fully respected, in accordance with the founding principles of the Council of Europe. That is why I am asking you all to sign this draft resolution and for us to be able to discuss it in the upcoming sessions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Nikoloski. Unfortunately, I will have to bring the free debate to an end soon. I will close it by giving the floor to a representative of Morocco, which is a Partner for Democracy. I call Mr Yatim.

Mr YATIM (Partner for Democracy from Morocco) said that his region was going through a difficult period. It was everybody’s duty to encourage co-operation. However, the economic and monetary crisis presented risks for social cohesion and stability. In this context, there was even greater need for groups to listen to each other in order to allow minorities to find their place.

Since the Arab Spring, many countries in his region had been in transition but there was some resistance to change, in part stemming from the effects of the economic problems in countries to the north. It was widely agreed that the Arab Spring had struck a blow against extremism and the jihad that had arisen after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Calls from western countries for democracy in North Africa and the Middle East had encouraged democrats in those countries. But economic fallout risked encouraging extremists. This was exemplified by recent events in response to a derogatory film about the Prophet Mohammed. There was a risk that extremists on both sides would hold each other hostage and it was important to avoid loose talk of clashes of civilisations. In this context, while of course one should defend freedom of speech, it was important to respect the sensitivities of those being spoken about. Countries in Europe reflected this concept in laws banning racist and anti-Semitic speech.

Dialogue was important. The countries south of the Mediterranean were undergoing change but those north of the Mediterranean were also changing and becoming more sensitive to Muslims. This should be the basis of the future relationship between these countries.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Yatim.

I must now interrupt the list of speakers. Members on the speakers’ list who have been present during the debate but have not been able speak may submit their speeches in typescript to the Table Office in Room 1083 within 24 hours of the end of the debate for publication in the official report.

The debate is closed.

2. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

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

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 5.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Free debate

Speakers:

Mr Flego (Croatia)

Ms Schuster (Germany)

Mr Clappison (United Kingdom)

Ms Kanelli (Greece)

Mr Rochebloine (France)

Mr Toshev (Bulgaria)

Mr Rustamyan (Armenia)

Mr Kalmár (Hungary)

Ms Bílgehan (Turkey)

Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal)

Mr Plotnikov (Ukraine)

Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Mrs Durrieu (France)

Mr Seyidov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Sobolev (Ukraine)

Mr Xuclà (Spain)

Mr Harangozó (Hungary)

Mr Petrenco (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Tkachuk (Observer from Canada)

Ms Hägg (Sweden)

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

Mr Yatim (Partner for Democracy from Morocco)

2. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting