AA12CR30

AS (2012) CR 30

 

Provisional edition

2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirtieth Sitting

Tuesday 2 October 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 verbatim report.

Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.10 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – This morning the agenda calls for the election of four judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation. The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Document 13027.

The election will be held in the area behind the President’s chair between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. and between 3.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. this afternoon. At 5 p.m. the polls will be closed. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers.

The results of the first round of voting will be announced before the end of the afternoon sitting. If a second round of voting is required it will take place on Wednesday morning and afternoon.

I shall now draw by lot the names of the two tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.

The names of Ms Bonet Perot and Mr Dombrava have been drawn.

They should go to the back of the President’s chair at 5 p.m.

I now declare the ballot open.

2. The honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report entitled “The honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation”, Document 13018 and Addendum, presented by Mr György Frunda and Mr Andreas Gross on behalf of the Monitoring Committee. I remind colleagues that speaking time in the debates today is limited to three minutes.

I will interrupt the debate, at noon, for the communication from Mr Edmond Panariti, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. We will resume the debate this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. We will need to have concluded the debate, including the vote, by 5.30 p.m.

(Continued in summary)

Given the importance of the debate, it had been requested that both rapporteurs should have 13 minutes to speak. He called Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – Monitoring democratic development in Russia is a mission impossible. Why? There are at least three reasons. First, size matters in democracy-building. Russia is the largest country in the world. To draw a picture to help you imagine the size, it stretches from here to Los Angeles and covers nine time zones. It has 150 million citizens, and it is important and interesting that it has only 13 cities with populations of more than 1 million. Some 75% of the people in Russia live in small towns and villages in the vast countryside.

Secondly, history also matters. History is the prologue to the future, and it is a burden when you look at democracy in Russia. It has a 1 000-year history without any reference to democracy, human rights or the rule of law. That means that Russia has made reference to those things for only 0.2% of its history, and half of the 20 years since it started doing so were lost, failed years because of our own wrongdoings and misunderstandings. Today, because of their experience of those first 10 years, too many Russians identify democracy as the totally one-sided freedom of a few people to steal public goods and become rich oligarchs while 99% of people lose all their savings and do not get pensions or salaries.

In 1999, Russia’s economic product was less than half what it had been 10 years before. That was a crisis for Russia’s belief that democracy-making was possible. It is easy to enter the Council of Europe and sign the obligation to build democracy, but it is difficult under such conditions and with such a heritage to be as effective as possible in the making of democracy and human rights, which is a democratic, collective learning process.

In our report we have an inventory of 550 points showing where those promises are. The main message of the report is that the inventory has to be read against the background of the past 12 months, where things have happened regarding democracy and human rights which none of us foresaw one or two years ago. There is not a poor people’s movement, but well-educated people fighting for their dignity have taken to the streets in a way that no one could have imagined. This is a positive element, a sign that something is moving that we did not foresee, which is encouraging. The message to the authorities from this report is that they should treat these movements as an opportunity to realise the reforms that most Russians have extreme need of. They must see this opportunity as a unique window to realise the reforms that most Russians need. That basic message is the perspective of the report, and I ask you to support it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Gross. You have eight minutes and 47 seconds – nine minutes, let us say – remaining to respond to the debate. The next speaker is Mr Frunda.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania) – To present a report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation is a difficult task to accomplish, not only because that country is bigger than several continents of the world but because it has plenty of contradictions. It is a country in which democracy and the rule of law have been built only in the past 20 years after long periods of tsarist and communist dictatorship.

The antagonistic features of the Russian Federation stem from the fact that at the political level, on the one hand, there are political parties and politicians eager to put Russia on the path to Europeanisation – here I want to mention and thank our colleagues Mr Slutsky and Mr Pushkov, with whom we have had a positive dialogue here in Strasbourg and in Moscow – and, on the other hand, there are nostalgic political parties and politicians that would like to revive the USSR. Russia is a country of contradictions in which some institutions, such as the ombudsman, act in compliance with democratic rules while others, such as the judiciary or the Central Election Commission, to a great extent obey political power.

I therefore believe that we should not relate the level of democracy, the rule of law and the human rights situation only to our standards but also to the moment that the Russian Federation acceded to the Council of Europe in 1996 and to the latest report on Russia adopted in 2005. We must not forget that the Council of Europe is the only European institution to which the Russian Federation belongs, and therefore we are the only ones who can directly influence the development of democracy in that country.

With regard to the functioning of democracy, we welcome the fulfilment of a number of commitments and a number of positive decisions. I put a special emphasis on the ratification of the European Social Charter, the moratorium on the death penalty decided on by the Constitutional Court of Russia on 19 November 2009, and the law on political parties adopted after the last parliamentary elections, which liberalised rules on the registration of political parties. It reduced the number of members needed for a political party to be registered from 40 000 to 500, and the number of signatures needed by a presidential candidate from 2 million to 100 000. The election of governors by direct vote was reintroduced. The electoral threshold for parliamentary elections was reduced from 7% to 5% for the forthcoming elections. The Russian authorities agreed for the first time to submit to the Venice Commission a package of five laws, and expressed their commitment to modifying those laws in line with the recommendations made.

With regard to the rule of law, we welcome the establishment of the investigative committee and its separation from the prosecutor’s office, the adoption of the Compensation Act, the reform of the prison system and the implementation of some of the Strasbourg Court’s decisions. Those are positive steps in building the rule of law in the Russian Federation.

However, we regret the strengthening of the executive’s power and the narrowing of pluralism, despite a number of legislative initiatives taken by President Medvedev between 2009 and 2010. We emphasise that the Russian Federation is the only member of the Council of Europe that has not ratified Protocol No. 6 on the death penalty. Since the adoption of the resolution in 2005, two parliamentary and two presidential elections have taken place. All had serious shortcomings that were identified by national and international observers.

Deficiencies in, and restrictive implementation of, a number of laws crucial for the functioning of democratic institutions – particularly the law on political parties and on freedom of assembly – have resulted in the deterioration of the conditions needed for real, genuine political pluralism. The outlawing of the Republican Party in 2007 and the refusal to register some political parties – I am thinking of PARNAS – the harassment of the opposition, the ongoing refusal to authorise peaceful opposition demonstrations, and the use of disproportionate force in dispersing them, have had a negative effect on the state of democracy in Russia.

The judiciary in Russia remains subject to political pressure. The criminal conviction of some defendants and the lack of convictions in cases of harassment, beating and assassination of human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and Jehovah Witnesses and members of other faiths has proved that the judiciary is not independent, and in some cases its decisions are politically motivated. An example is Mr Khodorkovsky, whom we met in prison in Moscow and who was sentenced in December 2010 to serve an additional six years. In my eyes, he is a typical political prisoner.

The murders of Ms Anna Politkovskaya and Ms Natalia Estemirova remain unpunished, and there are reports of torture and deaths in detention. There are also the cases of Mr Magnitsky and Ms Trifonova. The fact that the perpetrators have not yet been punished proves that the judiciary is neither objective nor independent. We firmly call on the Russian authorities to identify and bring to court those responsible for those crimes. The conviction of the members of Pussy Riot is also disproportionate. Even if a church is not a place for artistic performances or political manifestations, a sentence of two years in prison for three young ladies who have had no previous conflict with criminal law is unacceptable, and we therefore demand their immediate release.

Since the last parliamentary and presidential elections, a number of laws have been adopted. There is the protest law, the law on the criminalisation of defamation and a federal law on protecting children from information harmful to their health and development. Those laws do not meet the minimum standards with regard to the rule of law and human rights.

As we have shown, the Russian Federation has taken positive steps, but laws and legal decisions have been adopted that pose a serious threat to democratic principles. The Council of Europe must therefore continue monitoring the Russian Federation and help it by offering it its experience, so that it can meet the required standards set out in previous resolutions and in our present proposals. I am confident that without the Council of Europe’s assistance, the Russian Federation would not have reached today’s standards, and that it needs a continuous effort on our part in order to become a truly democratic country. On the other hand, the Council of Europe needs the Russian Federation’s membership; without it, the Council would not be complete.

The Assembly expects the Russian authorities to continue on the path of democratisation, to amend the above-mentioned undemocratic laws and to refrain from taking any measures that may hinder democratic progress. Against this background, the Assembly resolves to pursue its monitoring of the honouring of obligations by the Russian Federation until it receives evidence of substantial progress on the issues raised by this and previous resolutions. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Frunda. You have four minutes that you may use to respond to the debate.

The debate is open. I call Ms Brasseur to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that the report of the Monitoring Committee took a qualified view of the situation in Russia. She thanked the rapporteurs for carrying out this enormous and difficult task. If she was critical, it was not a criticism of the country or people of Russia, but of the Russian authorities who had not honoured the commitments they had entered into 16 years ago. She saluted the dedicated work of the Russian delegation, and it was true that in certain areas there had been progress. However, in other important areas such as the freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the freedom to demonstrate, there had been regression. She found it difficult to understand the words of the President of the Russian delegation.

“The resolution is not quite realistic. Of course, we do not welcome the Council of Europe’s desire to keep Russia under control and monitor it. It puts forward demands that Russia cannot fulfil, so it regards the resolution as a collection of wishes reflecting the West’s general position, but on which we will not find a common language.”

She stressed that these were Mr Pushkov’s own words, which had been picked up by the Russian news agency, Interfax, on 21 September.

Turning to her Russian colleagues, she emphasised that the proposals put forward in the report were not mere wishes, nor did they represent the position of western countries in respect of Russia, because there should be no East-West divide in the Council of Europe, which was concerned with defending universal values in all 47 member countries. Her concerns about Russia had been reinforced by the speaker of the Duma withdrawing from the part-session; she welcomed the fact that Mr Mignon had publicly regretted Mr Naryshkin’s absence. Two sides were needed for a dialogue to take place. She impressed on her Russian colleagues the need to follow up the recommendations which would be made later that day by the Assembly, and to remedy the many shortcomings which had been identified, in the interests of the rule of law in Russia.

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

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Mr President. First, I congratulate the rapporteurs on carrying out a difficult task. Seven years is too long for Russia and for us to wait for a report. However, let us remember that today’s event is a significant one. We are debating the monitoring report on our largest member state. Without Russia, Europe is not complete and this Organisation is meaningless. The Soviet Union is recent history; modern Russia is a young democracy. No country likes criticism, and monitoring is a critical analysis. For a large state, a world power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a nuclear state, and a G8 state, this is a very sensitive issue. I am not an apologist for Russia, but we must understand how important this report is to the Russian Government, to the members of the Duma and the Federation Council, and to the Russian people. The absence yesterday of Mr Naryshkin, Speaker of the Duma, was unfortunate and I was disappointed by it. I remind members that the theme of the international day of democracy on 15 September was “dialogue” and “inclusiveness”, and we must remember those two words.

Consideration of this report is a serious matter; it is not an opportunity to humiliate a super-power. The same rules apply to Russia as apply to the rest of us. None of us is perfect, but some are less perfect. That is why we have a monitoring procedure and a post-monitoring procedure. Because the same rules apply, it should not have been a surprise that the last-minute decision, taken formally only yesterday by the Monitoring Committee, to refer this matter to the Committee of Ministers would be misinterpreted.

Unfortunately, the damage has been done. The Monitoring Committee is right to change its policy back to a position where reports are referred to the Committee of Ministers. However, this should not be seen as being about Russia. I shall vote for the resolution this afternoon, but, in the interests of fair play and equal treatment, I ask the Assembly to vote against the recommendation, because of the damage, however misplaced, it will do to the relationship between our largest member state and the Assembly and the Council of Europe as a whole.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I now call Mr Kox, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I will use my three minutes to clarify the position of the Group of the Unified European Left on three issues: why we support, in general terms, the report and the resolution presented by the rapporteurs; why we advise the Assembly not to adopt, at this stage, the recommendation; and why we think that this debate provides extra arguments for revising the monitoring procedure and including more member states in it.

I congratulate the co-rapporteurs on the report and the resolution. We think that those things show the meaning of monitoring, which is to help member states to comply with the obligations that they took upon themselves when becoming members of the Council of Europe. Most of these obligations relate to improving democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and monitoring. Few consider the Russian Federation in 2012 to be a fully fledged democracy where human rights are fully respected and the rule of law is superior to any other mechanism. The report and the resolution show that many people in the Russian Federation agree with the co-rapporteurs that many of the obligations in this respect are not yet met, and therefore should get more emphasis in the near future.

On behalf of this Assembly, I have led the last two election observations, so I am fully aware that the Russian Federation still has a very long way to go to become a modern democracy where human rights are respected and normal, and where the rule of law really rules. Our Assembly cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the situation, as the co-rapporteurs state excellently. Therefore, the Group of the Unified European Left endorses, in general, their resolution. However, we advise the Assembly not to endorse, at this stage, their recommendation. My group does not question the intention of the co-rapporteurs, which is to get the Committee of Ministers more involved in following up this Assembly’s monitoring work. However, as this intention is as yet not well understood, especially in the Russian Federation and by its delegation to this Assembly, we consider it wise not to endorse the recommendation at this stage. It is better first to have a general debate on improving the involvement of the Committee of Ministers in following up any monitoring report and resolution, rather than just deciding on a specific case.

My group believes that it is more important that the Russian delegation accepts, in general, the contents of this resolution than to give them an argument – rightly or wrongly – to oppose the recommendation and thus to oppose the resolution. Sometimes the better appears to be the enemy of the good. My group feels that that is the case here. In conclusion, we think that this excellent report and resolution show how important the monitoring process is, so we would like to have a debate in order to broaden the monitoring process to the so-called “old democracies”. We would also like to invite the Assembly to think about whether all members are equal, but some are less equal at the moment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I call Mr Sasi.

Mr SASI (Finland) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on a report that provides a fair and extensive description of the situation in Russia, as was stated in Paris by all members of the Monitoring Committee. I also congratulate them on a fair and co-operative resolution which provides a good road map for implementing the commitments that the Russian Federation has made to this Assembly. The rapporteurs gave a good recommendation to the Committee of Ministers, because the Parliamentary Assembly must co-operate with that Committee. I must say to Mr Walter that there is no change of policy here, because approving the recommendation has always been the main route to approving the monitoring reports. As has been stated in the Monitoring Committee, all monitoring reports will involve the approval of a recommendation. That is the only right way of proceeding, and I think we shall continue to follow that policy today.

If we examine Russian history, we find that there have been two ways of proceeding. The first was the way of Peter the Great, who sought to learn from the best advice and innovations in the world, and that was a success. The other way, which was taken not so long ago, was that of Leonid Brezhnev, which involved isolation and that led to poverty. Russia wants to be a successful country, it wants to integrate with the rest of Europe and use the best innovations. In the field of human rights, this Assembly is the most innovative, and we can indeed learn something here. Membership of it means dialogue and co-operation with all member states. It is also good that in the case of Russia we use the Venice Commission approach, too. However, membership means that a country has voluntarily undertaken some commitments, and today we are judging those undertaken by Russia. Unfortunately, Russia still has much to do.

I shall mention three areas, the first of which is the rule of law. The independence of the judiciary is not perfect in Russia, and we see problems. The report mentions the Khodorkovsky and the Magnitsky cases, and it is the opinion of the EPP Group that there should be a special report on the Magnitsky case, explaining what happened, as we want to get the money back for the Russian taxpayers. The Council of Europe can help in that respect. If we seek improvements in Russia, the judiciary must be independent.

On freedom of speech there is a very good Internet community but more criticism is needed in the electronic media and greater protection for journalists. Fortunately, there have been no more journalists killed, but the cases we have seen must be very thoroughly investigated.

Democracy means radical development, but also stability. That is what the Russian people need. I hope that the Russian people and all politicians read this report very carefully and learn from it, and that it forms the basis for co-operation for the next few years. In that way, it will make this Europe, and Russia, better.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Sasi. The next speaker is Mr Marcenaro, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that this was a very important and a balanced report. There had been almost unanimous support for it in the committee. The Socialist Group would give its full backing to the draft resolution.

His Russian friends should appreciate the report because Russia was very important for the Assembly, for Europe, and for the world. It would be a matter of great concern if Russia were considered unimportant.

Monitoring was a friendly act, not a hostile one. It was an act of co-operation, an act of friendship. If Russia continued to perceive monitoring as an act of hostility, no progress would be made. President Mignon had earlier said that dialogue was necessary in order to move forward. Mr Pushkov should understand that the purpose of the process was not simply dialogue with the Council of Europe but was to engage in dialogue with a large part of Russian society. By doing this they could improve things together: Mr Pushkov knew that.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Marcenaro. The co-rapporteurs may respond at this stage. I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I am grateful for the introduction by the group leaders, apart from one aspect which was a misapprehension about why the Speaker of the Duma did not come here. He said that he did not come because there would be an anti-Russian mood in Strasbourg, but that is not correct, as was proved by the speeches we have heard. Nobody made any allusion to an anti-Russian mood: on the contrary, we showed that we know that Europe needs Russia and we think that Russia also needs a Council of Europe to help in its learning process towards a less imperfect democracy – remembering that all our democracies are less than perfect.

A famous woman writer in Russia reminded us recently that it is only 100 years since the slavery of the people in the countryside was abolished, ending 1 000 years of autocratic history. To change to the idea that we can govern together, instead of handing our destiny to a strong man, needs a change of mentality, and that needs time and a process to manage it. That is why to say that there has been a regression in basic liberties, when so many people are using their liberty in ways that we would not have expected two years ago, shows that we are not seeing the wood for the trees. We have had huge changes already, and we have to see those changes as an opportunity to go further. We should not say that there has been a regression because that would deny the efforts of the people.

This woman writer also made the point that Mr Marcenaro just made – we are not fighting for democracy because we think that it would hurt Russia. She said that we need democracy to keep Russia together, because democracy means sharing power. By participating, we integrate, and this is the most stable way of integration. That is one of the most important messages that we can send from here.

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

Mr FRUNDA (Romania) – I wish to address Mr Walter. It seems to me to be unusual to recommend that we do not vote for the recommendation. As we said in Moscow, we are the lawyers of Europe. We understand that the Russian people are proud to be Europeans – they do not like the United States or Asia. They want to be Europeans. But to come here and oppose the recommendations that would build a new bridge to Russia is wrong.

I ask the Assembly to vote for the recommendation, because without it our resolution will not be complete.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Frunda. I call Mr Phelan.

Mr PHELAN (Ireland) – I am grateful for the opportunity to address this Assembly on the topic of the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation and I join previous speakers in commending the rapporteurs on the work that has gone into putting this report together. I also acknowledge the positive changes in Russia in the last few years which are mentioned in the report, including a reduction in the percentage of vote that has to be obtained for opposition members to be elected to the Duma and a reduction in the number of signatures that must be obtained for candidates to run in presidential elections. I also acknowledge that direct elections for governors are about to be reintroduced.

However, I would also like to acknowledge the negative points set out in the report. That is in no way intended to be negative, but it is important to be realistic. It is a core and fundamental basis of any democracy that those people who oppose the government have the freedom to assemble and protest. The recent laws that have been introduced to increase significantly the fines imposed on those who seek to protest are regrettable. It is highly regrettable that the judiciary in the Russian Federation, and certainly its independence, is questioned.

The imprisonment of those people who oppose members of the government is deeply regrettable. The Khodorkovsky and Magnitsky cases have been mentioned, and I know that Mr Lebedev, who is a publisher, is shortly to face charges for hooliganism. It seems to me that, under the current system in the Russian Federation, people who are wealthy but express political opinions that conflict with the existing government can find themselves facing charges and imprisonment.

Freedom of expression is a crucial part of any democracy, and reference has already been made to the recent imprisonment of the members of the group Pussy Riot. Freedom of the media in Russia is certainly questionable to say the least. I agree with the previous speakers that it is important that Russia continues to be a valued member of this Council. It is a nation that has a proud European history, but the basis of our Assembly and of the Council of Europe must be one of universal values. We should expect no more from our Russian colleagues, but we should certainly settle for no less.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Phelan. I call Ms von Cramon-Taubadel.

Ms VON CRAMON-TAUBADEL (Germany) said that the report showed the state of Russia seven years down the road. Its 65 pages demonstrated that the Council of Europe took Russia seriously. It was important to achieve common standards. The report had taken into account developments in the great country of Russia. However, other points were not so positive. The report was balanced and no one could say that it was not.

The report highlighted recent problems, for instance on the questions of freedom of assembly, NGOs, foreign agents, slander, and treatment of the opposition. It was important to analyse such developments as they were important for the development of Russia. If genuine democracy were to develop in Russia those things could not be allowed to happen.

The Russian members of the Assembly should not see the report as an attack. They were a bridge between the Assembly and Russia. The Council of Europe wanted to be constructive. All countries needed to go in the right direction: if Russia did not, how could others? It was particularly to be regretted that Mr Naryshkin, Speaker of the Duma, had chosen not to address the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms von Cramon-Taubadel. I call Mr Pushkov.

Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – Thank you, Mr President. The rapporteurs have done important work. In the spirit of good will and competence, we brought our full assistance to their efforts in Russia. However, the Russian delegation’s position is that we cannot agree with a number of elements in the draft resolution, and this will prevent us from voting for it. What we deplore most of all is the rapporteurs’ decision not to withdraw the draft recommendation, even though that was suggested to them by a number of members of the Monitoring Committee.

We think that the recommendation will seriously complicate the relationship between Russia and the Council of Europe. It was a last-minute proposal. It singles out Russia as the only state under the monitoring process that will be brought to the attention of the Committee of Ministers. We consider the recommendation to be discriminatory towards Russia and a clear display of double standards. We communicated our worries on that score to the Parliamentary Assembly before Mr Naryshkin’s proposed visit, but unfortunately we were not understood.

The draft recommendation was the primary reason why Mr Naryshkin declined to come to this plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly. I am quite surprised to hear that some members of the Parliamentary Assembly do not understand why he has not come. If a motion appears at the last minute and is not discussed with the Russian delegation, even though it puts the Russian delegation in a discriminatory position, I think that is reason enough for the Speaker of the Russian Parliament to decline to come to the Parliamentary Assembly.

Personally, as Mr Mignon knows perfectly well, I was very much in favour of the visit, and in that I think there was a full understanding between us and the leadership of the Parliamentary Assembly. We prepared the visit very seriously and with good will, and we deplore the fact that it did not happen. The reason for this is not to be found in Moscow; the reason is the recommendation, which may have a very negative impact on the relationship between Russia and the Council of Europe. The impression in Moscow is that the more we move forward and the more we try to do with regard to this Assembly’s recommendations, the more pressure we are under, and I do not think that the Russian Federation can agree with that.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Pushkov. I call Mr Zingeris.

Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – Let me start by remembering the years for which I have been a member of the Council of Europe. I came here in 1993 when Madame Fischer was President. After that, Lord Russell-Johnston became President and the Russian delegation, of which Sergey Kovalev was a member, joined the Parliamentary Assembly. The delegation with us from 1996 to 2000 was very diverse and democratic as regards human rights. After 16 years of observing developments in Russia, I cannot understand why two groups in our Assembly are refusing to vote in favour of the recommendation, which will pass on the monitoring procedure to the Committee of Ministers. Croatia is subject to the monitoring procedure. Monitoring should be accepted as the act not of an enemy but of a friend of Russia. This is not a meeting of people with Russophobe ideas, as has been suggested in the discussions about Mr Naryshkin, but of people who are trying to ensure that we all have the same standards. We should not create a special case for Russia as regards human rights, but should hold it to the standards that are expressed in all our declarations in this Assembly.

Russia is a European country and should remain as such, looking to its legal commitments. In the Duma, Russia seems to be going back – not only has the law mentioned by our friends Mr Frunda and Mr Gross been enacted, but a law was passed on First Reading that has nothing to do with human rights and opens up the possibility of their being approached in discriminatory fashion. The relationship between Moscow and the so-called independent states and the official statement made about events in Belarus and democratic elections cannot be accepted by us as a positive thing. Russia cannot create a space in which it can oppose our democratic norms and we should vote in favour of the recommendation.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Zingeris. I now call Ms Schuster.

Ms SCHUSTER (Germany) thanked the rapporteurs for having completed their difficult task. Russia was a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights: the standards under discussion applied to all member states of the Council of Europe. The report contained positive statements, but also important negative observations, including the ways in which politically active citizens were coming under pressure from the Russian Government and non-governmental organisations were often reportedly treated as foreign agents. Of particular concern was the apparent blacklisting of certain Internet sites considered detrimental to Russian youth. She questioned the proportionality of the sentence handed down to the members of Pussy Riot, which had been the subject of a letter sent by 120 members of the Bundestag. There were many other cases of serious human rights concern, and she drew attention to the report written by Dick Marty, and the selective implementation of rulings made by the European Court of Human Rights. She challenged the members of the Russian delegation to say which path they wanted Russia to take. The resolution and recommendation needed the support of the Assembly to ensure its continuing credibility.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Schuster. The next speaker is Ms Durrieu.

Ms DURRIEU (France) assured Mr Pushkov that Russia had only friends within the Assembly. Russia was a great country, both geographically and historically, but Russia could become still greater and was not yet a true partner of the Council of Europe. It was undoubtedly true that laws were being passed in Russia which undermined freedom. She drew attention to the case of the Russian parliamentarian who had been deprived of his seat for demonstrating against the government. It was unfortunate that the Speaker of the Duma had not come to the part-session to answer the Assembly’s questions, including on the role of Russia in Syria and the Middle East. Russia was clearly opposed to having Islamists in power in Chechnya or Syria, and the weapons being used by Syrian forces were of Russian origin. This made Russia a protagonist in this crisis, in addition to its interference in Georgia and Moldova. She was pleased that Russia had joined the World Trade Organisation and restated her message of hope and trust.

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

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – I want to speak a little about happiness. We must always think about happiness and we are here to make people happy through the instruments of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We use the monitoring procedure to see how happy countries are and I do not think that Russia is a very happy country. We need only to consider the number of cases in the European Court of Human Rights to understand that there is a lot to do for these people.

Mr Gross said that Russia is an exceptional country, because of its size, its history and many other factors. It is exceptional, but when was Russia a happy country? Was it when it was a principality of Moscow, when it was the tsarist empire or when it was the Soviet Union? Russia should take its 0.2% of historical democracy and use it to make itself stronger and more happy. Russia should not rely on its strength, size or nuclear capacity. Russia has to rely on democracy and human rights. We must have equal countries with no exceptions, because human rights and democracy are universal. If they are not universal, we have nothing to do here.

Of course, Europe needs Russia. With Russia we are bigger in our intellectual and cultural capacities, we have more people, we have more opportunities and we are more diverse – we truly are Europe. The report that we are discussing is a critical analysis, as Mr Walter said; it is a diagnosis of Russian problems as well as a handbook named “How to make Russia democratic”. We often speak about proposals and whether their wording is better or worse, and that may be important for us because we are vital here, but the most important thing is not how the words sound today but how they will be implemented tomorrow. We will vote now on how we will implement the proposals, and I hope that in two years the next report is more optimistic. Russia needs to be a regular country, not with great problems but with great opportunities. I hope that Russia will read the report and implement it.

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

Ms BLONDIN (France) said that the judgment in the case of Pussy Riot was most unjust, and was a signal of a creep towards authoritarianism in Russia. It had been announced yesterday that the appeal was being delayed until 10 October, which was a further cause for concern. She wanted to talk briefly about the way in which the Pussy Riot trial had been conducted. Room 7, as it was known, would be recognised by many colleagues as the room in which Mikhail Khodorkovsky had been tried in a caged area. The bars of this cage had since been replaced by glass, which gave the impression of an improvement but in fact was quite difficult for those on trial. Defendants had to twist and turn to speak to their lawyers, and there was no fresh air. It was indeed a strange form of democracy that President Putin presided over. She noted that there were still two unresolved political assassinations in Russia, one of which was that of Anna Politkovskaya. There were further restrictions being placed on the lives of LGBT people in Russia and it was high time that steps were taken to respond to this unfortunate drift away from respect for human rights. She concluded by drawing attention to the closing down of the Liberty radio station in Russia which had been set up in 1953 when Stalin was in power. She implored colleagues to vote in favour of both the resolution and the recommendation.

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

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) welcomed the opportunity to speak on Russia, but it seemed to him that the debate under way was not so much about Russia itself but more about the role of the Council of Europe. If the Assembly was indeed a friend of Russia then it was a very strange friendship marked by confrontation. This was all the more surprising given that the report in question was overwhelmingly positive, with many positive remarks about freedom of assembly and the direct election of governors. It appeared that as soon as Russia had begun to take serious steps in the direction of human rights reform the recommendation had been cobbled together in a hurry. This was good neither for Russia nor for the Assembly itself.

Russia covered one sixth of the surface of the planet and comprised a wide number of different ethnic backgrounds. Russia’s record was therefore quite positive. Since the majority of the report was positive, members should vote against both the recommendation and the resolution.

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

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – First, I join other speakers in congratulating the two rapporteurs on writing an excellent and, let me add, exhaustive report on the human rights situation in Russia. I am pretty sure that it has taken up more of their time than they wished. Secondly, this report on Russia has obviously taken too long. Too many things are going on, and this Assembly should take note and should at least make sure that such a delay never happens again when a country needs a progress report. Ms Schuster and Mr Sasi have given a long list in the report of the human rights issues that are at stake, but some such issues are not in the report and I would like to refer to them.

I ask the Russian members, in particular Mr Slutsky and Mr Umakhanov, who are next on the list, what their priorities will be in solving these issues. What are the first two things on the list that the Russians are going to tackle? Where do you want to be within two years, which is when the next report will appear? What issues will be solved and what issues will be difficult to solve? Let us not spend the rest of this debate discussing whether or not to have particular recommendations. Let us start solving the real issues that cause people real problems. You do not put people in prison for three years for protesting. Russia is prosecuting Mr Magnitsky, who died in pre-trial detention and did not even have the opportunity to prove his innocence. I ask the Russian Federation this: will you finally solve the case of who killed Mr Magnitsky, or will you try someone who is already dead? That is something that we as Catholics did with the Pope in the Middle Ages, but we have not really done that since. Let us ban that kind of practice in Europe.

I call on colleagues to make a serious report on a number of these cases, including, first and foremost, that of Mr Magnistky, because that would start to address the issues, and that is what we are here to do. I would like to ask the rapporteurs what their priorities would be once the resolution is adopted. What should Russia do first and foremost? Will you try to speak to the Speaker of the Duma? If he does not come here, will you go to Russia and speak to him personally? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Omtzigt. The next speaker is Mr Leyden.

Mr LEYDEN (Ireland)As a member of the Monitoring Committee, I fully endorse this resolution on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation. However, I have reservations about the addendum, which I think damages the report. I heard the words of the leader of the Russian Federation’s delegation to the Council of Europe. We have to take into account the views he expressed; we should not detract from the content of the report by bringing in controversy at this point in time, particularly as the addendum was introduced after a meeting on 4 September, at which there was a representative of the Committee of Ministers, who seemingly wished for that to be put into the report. I will vote against the addendum and for the report, and I urge people not to cause controversy at this point, in light of the report’s excellent content.

The representatives of Russia have not questioned the content of the report in any way. They have accepted generally what the report is about. I commend Mr Frunda and Mr Gross on their work. A lot has been done, but there is more to do. This is a road map for the government, the Duma and the 150 million people of the Russian Federation.

In the documents, we all call for the immediate release of the members of Pussy Riot. The appeal is under way and has been postponed until 10 October. Everyone is calling for their release, and I hope that that is the view of the Assembly. I certainly welcome the view of the Russian Orthodox Church; it has called for clemency, and it is about time that it did, because it and the state overreacted. There are so many other issues – so many other people in prison in Russia. This is a celebrity case that has received more attention than it deserves. The Russian Federation would do itself a service if it immediately released the three young women in Moscow.

This is my appeal to colleagues and indeed to the Russian Federation: we should listen to what the representatives from the Russian Federation here today have to say, work with them, and co-operate with them in every way. The report is excellent, and the situation will be continuously monitored. The Committee of Ministers will view the document, and I am convinced that it will be agreed to today. I urge colleagues not to vote for the addendum; I will be voting against it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Leyden. I now call Mr Slutsky.

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that the discussion this morning was reminiscent of discussions at the beginning of the year 2000, when there had been serious confrontation over the situation in Chechnya. He and the Assembly’s rapporteurs had risked their lives in visiting Chechnya dozens of times. The rapporteurs’ involvement had been instrumental in the formulation of a road map which had been implemented by the Russian authorities to normalise the situation in Chechnya. The Assembly had helped the achievement of a successful, prosperous Chechnya, in which human rights were upheld. Through this process, the Russian Federation had ceased to be afraid of the Assembly, and had opened up some difficult areas to the Venice Commission with the aim of improving its laws. Collaboration was at the heart of the monitoring process. The rapporteurs should be thanked for opening up so many sensitive issues, such as the Magnitsky case, and it was encouraging that a shared position had been reached on many of these. Although there were many points on which they disagreed, generally he upheld the content of the Monitoring Committee’s report. However the Monitoring Committee’s recommendation had been adopted without the Russian delegation having been informed. Had they been involved, this situation would not have arisen. Russia needed support. The Assembly should be thanked for its past co-operation with the Russian Federation in this, the most important pan-European Organisation.

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

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – Russia became a member of the Council of Europe in 1996, and we should take into account that a lot of effort was needed to meet Council of Europe standards. Today, seven years after the last report, we should once again look at the progress made, and the issues that remain to be addressed.

We have heard from the previous Russian delegation about monitoring fatigue; that is a sign that it wrongly took our monitoring procedure more as pressure than as dialogue. We can see in the report by Mr Frunda and Mr Gross that some progress has been made. There are also a number of areas where the Russian Federation is committed to taking measures and taking further steps to approximate to our standards. However, there are areas where it declines to honour our recommendations and resolutions. I am referring to several frozen conflicts in which Russia is involved – the conflict with Georgia, the problematic situation in Transnistria in respect of the Republic of Moldova, and so on.

On 25 May 2012, the US Ambassador in Moscow, Michael McFaul, addressed students at Moscow’s high school of economics. In his speech, he shared the information that Russian authorities attempted to bribe Kyrgyzstani leaders with a view to asking them to abandon the US military base there. He also stated that Russia had suggested the withdrawal of its opposition to sanctions against Iran, but instead insisted on an increase of influence in Georgia. In response, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that the statement was highly unprofessional and that it exceeded the boundaries of diplomatic etiquette, and was in fact a provocation aimed at distracting from Russian-American dialogue.

That exchange of statements was not a minor issue, particularly for the countries concerned. In Georgia, for example, the reaction was highly emotional. Russia should address, without delay, all frozen conflicts in which it is involved and should actively and sincerely work towards their resolution.

The current situation reminds me of an old discussion that took place in the Russian empire in the 19th century. I am talking about the dispute between the pro-Europeans and the non-Europeans or anti-Europeans on Russians future development. This debate involved pro-Europeans such as Chaadaev, Professor Granovsky, the so-called “zapadnyaki” – those who are pro-western in their orientation – early socialists such as Dobrolyubov and Pisarev, and anti-European thinkers such as Khomyakov, Aksakov, Pogodin, Danilevsky and Leontiev. Even Dostoevsky was involved, writing in 1877 that “we are not able to be Europeans at all.” The names may be different today, but the dispute remains the same, and I think that these decisions should be taken solely by the Russian people.

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

Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – I congratulate Mr Frunda and Mr Gross on the hard work they did in undertaking a difficult task and producing an excellent and important report. In recent months, nine regions of the Russian Federation have passed laws prohibiting so-called “propaganda for homosexuality to minors”. A proposal for a similar law is now before the Duma and is scheduled for debate in December. Such laws constitute a serious violation of the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. At its meeting on 6 June, the Committee of Ministers expressed concerns about those laws and invited the Russian authorities to clarify how they could be compatible with the European Court of Human Rights’ conclusions in the case of Alekseyev v. Russia, which addressed the banning of pride marches in Moscow.

It must be stressed that these laws vilify a minority who already face widespread discrimination and social exclusion, and are liable to increase their vulnerability to violence and discrimination. These laws are impermissibly vague, they are unnecessary and they lack proportionality. They discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and, in some cases, gender identity. Such discrimination is prohibited under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Russia is important for the Council of Europe. We cannot build the future of our continent without Russia. So I call on member states of the Council of Europe, especially my colleagues from the Russian delegation, to take all possible steps to ensure that any law adopted by the Duma in this respect complies with the Russian Federation’s obligations under international human rights law – adoption of the recommendations might just be a first step.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Biedroń. I call Mr Umakhanov.

Mr UMAKHANOV (Russian Federation) said that the Assembly faced a difficult choice that day: to preserve itself as a universal platform for balanced decision or to return to an unbalanced situation and the exchange of insults. He did not agree with the tone of the Monitoring Committee’s report, but he thanked the rapporteurs for their scrupulous work. However, instead of confining itself to its task of monitoring Russia’s legal obligations, the committee had adopted a broader perspective and expressed all sorts of personal opinions. Among its many recommendations, there were points that not only the Russian delegation had voted against. No distinction was made in the report between binding documents and recommendations; it was possible to respect the opinions of others without accepting them unquestioningly. It was clear that there were problems in the Russian Federation, a country where there had been bombs in airports and children had been killed. However, many authoritative voices had spoken up in favour of ratification of Protocol No 6. He looked to the Assembly for support for the Russian Federation, and its delegation’s amendments. There was a danger that the text would be seen in the North Caucasus as an over-simplification, and was too black and white. Some of the statistics used were out of date. A proverb from the North Caucasus said that if you want to move quickly, set off alone, but if you want to travel far, go together. The journey on this difficult road should be started together.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Umakhanov. I call Ms Zimmermann.

Ms ZIMMERMANN (France) said that relationships between countries should not only consist of economic agreements: values should be at their heart. The Russian Federation was represented in the Assembly because it had made a choice to respect human rights and the rule of law. In the Assembly there had to be a shared will to speak frankly. A 1995 initiative had made it possible for French and Russian politicians to discuss together areas of both agreement and disagreement. There should not be any taboo subjects, and friendship should not prevent a frank exchange of views. There had been some positive steps, such as the implementation of the separation of powers as stated in the 1995 constitution. President Medvedev had said correctly that many things depended on the proper functioning of the judiciary. It was vital that civil society should be able to trust the judiciary, so judges needed to have a special status. Separation of powers between the legislative and executive functions was also necessary. To this end, it was good that President Medvedev had introduced the direct election of governors, and ensured that opposition members were given official positions in the Duma. However, it was indefensible that an MP’s mandate could be stripped from them. Twenty years after the end of the cold war opponents should be seen not as dissidents, but as colleagues who were free to speak in opposition.

Russia had chosen freedom. The march of millions and many blogs and websites calling for democracy showed this. Members must listen to the messages of the people calling for democracy.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Zimmermann. The next speaker is Mr Mogens Jensen.

Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – Like others, I start by thanking the rapporteurs for their very thorough report on developments in Russia in the last seven years. It is a comprehensive and balanced report that stresses both progress and backward steps in democratic development in Russia. But I must have missed remarks and suggestions in the draft resolution about the situation for LBGT people. In nine entities of the Russian Federation, laws prohibiting information on sexual minorities have been introduced and a draft law on this issue has also been tabled in the state Duma. These laws are evident violations of the right to freedom of expression, involving discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. As we all know, the right to freedom of expression and the right not to be discriminated against for sexual and other reasons are cornerstones of the European Convention on Human Rights, which all member countries have signed and which we have all committed ourselves to implement in our national legislation. That includes Russia.

Another element of great concern is the widespread refusal of Russian local authorities to permit freedom of assembly to LGBT people. Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. In October 2010, the Court of Human Rights found that the banning of gay pride marches in Moscow in 2006, 2007 and 2008 violated the right of freedom of assembly. Nevertheless, Russian local authorities have continued to deny the right to freedom of assembly by banning several demonstrations and marches organised by LGBT NGOs. I am happy that the Committee of Ministers clearly condemned that situation last week.

The need for Russia to change direction and comply with the conventions they have signed is also clear because Russia recently refused to sign the declaration issued at the ninth Council of Europe conference of ministers responsible for youth in St Petersburg because it contained “an item referring to the requirement to combat discrimination and violation of rights of LGBT youth.” For the first time since 1985 a declaration was not adopted. This is a clear scandal.

All colleagues will understand that there are therefore good reasons to address the serious assault on human rights by amendments to the proposed resolution, and I understand that the rapporteurs agree. I therefore strongly encourage you to vote for Amendments 13 and 14 to the draft resolution proposed by Mr Robert Biedroń.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Mogens Jensen. The next speaker is Mr Melnikov.

Mr MELNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that there were several points in the report and draft resolution that were a clear reflection of the situation in Russia. There were thus some positive aspects.

In Russia the left often raised the same issues that had been noted in the report. It might therefore seem surprising that so many in the Russian opposition, including those who voted against laws which had been criticised, were so negative about the report’s recommendations.

People were partisan about Russia in a way they were not about other countries. This was part of a global political ploy. The resolution was a means to oppose Russia’s goals more generally. It should be seen in a context of the global situation, including the crisis in Syria, and attempts to impose a form of democracy in the American tradition. The international community had no right to dictate to free countries: values could not be imposed from outside. There was a double standard in the European approach; some countries had made up their minds and had a double-sided relationship with Russia. That was why members of the Russian delegation had exhibited such unanimity in reaction to the report and the resolution despite having differing political views.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Melnikov. The next speaker is Mr Ghiletchi.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – First, I also congratulate the rapporteurs on an objective and balanced report. Secondly, we should indeed recognise and welcome the progress towards democracy which Russia has made recently. We hope that the Russian Federation will continue along the path to a truly free and prosperous society. Thirdly, I wish to mention that the relevance of this report extends not only to Russia, but to other members of the Council of Europe, in particular to my country, the Republic of Moldova. That is why I wish to draw your attention once again to Russia’s commitments on withdrawing its troops from Moldova.

Let me reiterate the main arguments at the core of my country’s position. First, the withdrawal must be finalised, because it is a clear international commitment officially assumed and never denied by the Russian Federation. The documents adopted in the framework of the OSCE Istanbul summit in 1999 are relevant in this regard. Secondly, the presence of foreign military forces is in contradiction of the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, namely Article 11 on neutrality. The foreign military presence does not enjoy the consent of the host nation – the Republic of Moldova – which is an internationally recognised principle stipulated in many important political and legal documents, in particular the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe.

On the peacekeeping operation, the Moldovan authorities appreciate the role that it played at the appropriate time in stabilising the situation at the end of the 1992 military conflict. However, the stability that has been consolidated over the years on both banks of the Nistru River implies new standards and tasks for the peacekeeping mechanism. Today, we must build a lasting peace together with all our partners in the 5+2 format. To this end, we need a civilian mission that meets modern requirements.

In conclusion, I ask the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to encourage member states to intervene bilaterally or multilaterally to speed up the process of unconditional withdrawal of Russian military forces in the eastern region of Moldova and the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict. I invite our colleagues from the Russian Federation to persuade their government to exercise fully and impartially its role as a guarantor of the Transnistrian conflict.

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

Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation) thanked those who had expressed support for the Russian legal system. There had been many years of improvement and Russia now had a system of defence rights. This improvement must be continued and taken forward. A firm legislative base was necessary for this.

There was now no need to prove that the Russian court system was open. It used to be the case that it was difficult to find out information on proceedings in courts and so Russian citizens often ended up taking their cases to the European Court of Human Rights. Courts were now more open as a result of the recent law on access to court information which underpinned Russian citizens’ right to information. However, there were still problems of logistics and funding. A working group had been established to improve the court system. There was now a law on status of judges and on their period of appointment. There was, however, an outstanding issue concerning magistrates.

Russia needed an independent and unbiased court system with no separate stream of justice catering to those who were above the law. Every endeavour had been made to achieve this. The leadership of the country had made realistic efforts to fight against corruption. There had been improvements to the court system for civil cases and next year these would be extended to criminal proceedings.

The Russian legal system needed stability. This meant no delay in giving judgments and speedy payment of compensation where it had been awarded.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Aguzarov. I call Mr Saar.

Mr SAAR (Estonia) – Mr President, dear guests and colleagues, having lived in the Soviet Union for almost half of my young life, and having enjoyed being a neighbour of Russia for more than 20 years, I agree totally with the rapporteur, Mr Gross, who described the monitoring of democracy in Russia as a mission impossible. But we all know that a mission impossible can sometimes be successful, and that gives us hope.

I congratulate the rapporteurs on producing so comprehensive and well-balanced a report in such a complicated situation. The problem we face is well summarised in the report. The rapporteurs state in the conclusions that “the declared openness of the authorities for change is too often contradicted by acts.” Therefore, in order to have less contradiction we need much more dialogue, as has been said many times before and by everyone who has spoken today.

I have observed the relationship between Estonia and Russia for some years and strongly believe that dialogue is the only way to benefit it. I believe that Estonia can do much better and am convinced that Russia, as the bigger partner, can do even better. I do not believe in making statements without listening to each other, or shouting at each other, or even blackmailing, as one of our colleagues described Mr Pushkov’s statement yesterday. If the chairman of the Russian delegation comes to Strasbourg and states that the position has already been made in Moscow, I do not think that leaves much space for dialogue.

I strongly believe that we need a broader and better dialogue, and that is what the report and the recommendation state. I know that we will have a long, long day, but I call on you all please to be here to support the recommendation, which we all hope will lead to that broader and better dialogue, because it needs a two-thirds majority.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Saar. I call Mr Beneyto.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain) congratulated the co-rapporteurs on their report. It was a balanced report dealing with the positive aspect of Russia but was critical when necessary. This was exactly what the committee should be doing as a way to facilitate democratisation. He supported the report and wanted to emphasise the need for engagement rather than simple opposition.

Russia needed tangible reforms and the Assembly should keep an eye on the situation. There were outstanding concerns over human rights, the independence of the judiciary and the occupation of certain territories. But it was essential that Russia moved towards democracy and in order to facilitate this the Council of Europe should support pro-western forces in Russia. Given the prospect of the Eurasian Union becoming an alternative to the Council of Europe, it was particularly important for the Council of Europe to demonstrate its support for Russia and highlight the positives where appropriate.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The last speaker this morning will be Mr Hancock. We will then cut short the list of speakers in order to hear an address from Mr Edmond Panariti, who is Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. We will resume the debate on Russia and its obligations this afternoon. I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – No reasonable explanation has been given to the Assembly of why for seven years no monitoring report has been received by the Council of Europe. That question needs to be answered, as it made the task of the two rapporteurs worse and more difficult to perceive. There is also the strange situation that arose in Paris in the Monitoring Committee. After four hours of debate agreement had been reached on the report, but suddenly the Polish Ambassador told us that unless a specific recommendation went to the Committee of Ministers it was highly unlikely that the report would be handled and that it was likely to be sidetracked. That is the first time since I have been a member of the Parliamentary Assembly – since 1997 – that I have heard that the Committee of Ministers considers only reports sent to it with a specific recommendation that it should do something. That was divisive, because up until that point the report was balanced and headed in the right direction for both the Council of Europe and Russia. It is disappointing that we are now in confrontation and Bob Walter and Tiny Kox were right to express their concerns about how the question is being handled. It is not helpful and it will do long-term damage to the relationship between the Council of Europe and the Russian Federation. None of us would want that.

When people were talking today a three-letter word in English was missing – that word was “but”. Everyone said what a big country Russia is, but it brings problems. Russia is a great country with a fine culture, but it has issues to solve. We like the Russian Government because it is moving in the right direction, but – we could consistently use the word “but”. Despite Mr Gross’s reassurances, I think that Russophobia is beginning to make itself felt in this Assembly and that is detrimental to our work, particularly that of the rapporteurs. We are constantly battling this big giant among us, who is only trying to make mischief, but it is not – it is trying to be creative.

I come from the United Kingdom, which supposedly has 1 000 years of democratic history, yet we modify our democracy regularly and we have to move with the times. Russia has come a long way in 20 years, but now we are trying to force not only the monitoring procedures of the Parliamentary Assembly but government monitoring through the Committee of Ministers on it. Goodness me, I do not know whether the Committee of Ministers understands what it is up against and what it will take on if the resolution is passed. We must think very carefully about how we are treating this issue and I hope that members will understand that there are better ways to go about it. This recommendation is not the way to do it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you.

3. Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Mr Edmond Panariti, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania, and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now come to the communication from Mr Edmond Panariti, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. After his speech, Mr Panariti will reply to questions from Members of the Assembly, Document 13032.

(Continued in summary)

He welcomed Mr Panariti, the Foreign Minister of Albania. He congratulated him and his country on the successful chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. He also welcomed the Albanian Ambassador. The priorities of the Albanian presidency were closely linked to the longer-term objectives of the Assembly, in particular the promotion through diversity of lasting democratic societies, intercultural dialogue and education, as well as strengthening local and regional democracy and the rule of law in Europe. He was glad that the President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities had joined them and paid tribute to their commitment to meeting the challenges of the day.

They also shared the desire to reform the Council of Europe to better adapt it to the challenges of the age and to guarantee the efficiency of the European Court of Human Rights.

He underlined the personal engagement of Albania’s leaders at the highest level in making the Albanian presidency as effective as possible, and he would also be welcoming the President of Albania later in the week, after already in June having welcomed the Prime Minister, an “old boy” of the Assembly.

Albania showed that no distinction could be drawn between small and large countries in the level of commitment given to human rights. The Albanian presidency had already made improvements to the work of the Assembly including more contact between committees and rapporteurs. He looked forward to his joint visit with Mr Panariti to Tunisia to promote democracy and stability in a country that had been at the forefront of the Arab Spring. He thanked Mr Panariti for agreeing to answer questions, and gave him the floor.

Mr PANARITI (Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers) – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour for me to address your Assembly, as Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers. I would like to report to you briefly on what the Committee has been doing since my predecessor spoke to you last June.

I will not go over all the information contained in the written activity report, copies of which you will have already received. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to address certain developments that have occurred over the past three months in connection with these activities and with the priorities set by our chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers.

As you are aware, promoting sustainable democratic societies is our first priority. We were very pleased, therefore, to host the 2012 Council of Europe exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue, which was held in Durres on 3 and 4 September. I cannot but welcome the success of this event, the relevance of which was further enhanced by the active participation of a large number of young people. In the current context of rising intolerance and in some cases even calls for violence revolving around issues of religion, the usefulness of these gatherings seems to me fairly self-evident. In Durres, the participants concluded that, in today’s globalised, interconnected world, improving mutual understanding has become vital. When used to further education and knowledge, the Internet is a fantastic means of communication. It is also, however, an easy way for unscrupulous individuals to spread hatred and violence. Like the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, I condemned, in a statement made on 19 September, the acts of terrorism and calls for violence that followed the showing of the film “Innocence of Muslims”. At the same time, I also condemned any incitement to hatred, in particular on religious grounds, and called for respect for everyone’s beliefs.

The conclusions of the 2012 exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue will be presented at the high-level conference entitled “Diversity in Europe, a strength for the future” that we are holding in Tirana on 8 and 9 November. This conference, in which we are placing a great deal of hope, will mark the end of our six-month chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, a chairmanship that is summed up in our motto “unity in diversity”. I hope that many of you from the Parliamentary Assembly will be able to attend this conference. Religious and interethnic tensions, exacerbated by the severe economic problems facing most of our member states, pose a threat to the peace and stability that are core to the European project. While, in a climate of fear, the temptation to turn in on oneself is great, the fact is that the best chance for Europeans to meet the challenges of the 21st century is to stay united and support one another. The Tirana conference, during which we will hand over the chairmanship to the Principality of Andorra, will seek to reinforce and spread as widely as possible this message of peace and openness to each other’s cultures and beliefs. In my view, this should be one of the main focal points of the Council’s activities in the years ahead and we should look at ways of working together in this area.

In the same vein, allow me to tell you about two other initiatives of the Albanian chairmanship. The first is the conference on remembrance of the Holocaust and prevention of crimes against humanity which was held at the beginning of September. This conference provided an opportunity to pay tribute to the people who saved the honour of humanity during the Second World War. It also allowed us to step up our activities in the field of human rights education, a subject that, I am happy to say, will be high on the agenda of the new Andorran chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. The second event that I would like to mention is the regional peace camp for young people. Youngsters from south-east Europe, a part of the world that has seen bloody interethnic conflict, gathered in Albania last month to engage in dialogue and introduce activities to overcome conflict situations, based on human rights education and intercultural learning. This is another area where the Council should continue or even step up its efforts.

As you know, guaranteeing the long-term effectiveness of the European Convention on Human Rights is another of our priorities. In September, the Committee of Ministers replied one point at a time to the recommendations you had made to it on this subject. In its reply, the Committee emphasised the importance of the role to be played by both national parliaments and the Parliamentary Assembly in the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights. I welcome in this respect the move by your Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to look at the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights by States Parties to the Convention.

As observed by Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights, speaking at the European Conference of Presidents of Parliaments two weeks ago, it is clear that, if there are no effective domestic remedies, applicants will continue to have recourse to Strasbourg for what they cannot find at home.

The implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights at national level is therefore more essential than ever for the long-term viability of the supervisory mechanism established under the Convention. This issue, indeed, will be at the centre of debate at the conference that is to be held in Tirana in a few days, and which will bring together government officials and representatives of the highest courts in Europe. It will also, I am sure, be addressed in the exchange of views that Ministers’ Deputies are to have with the President of the Court on 24 October.

In the legal sphere, one recent event of note was the 31st Council of Europe Conference of Ministers of Justice which looked at justice systems’ responses to urban violence. Alongside this event, an additional protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, adopted by the Committee of Ministers last June, was opened for signature. No fewer than 12 member states, including Albania, signed it on that occasion. On a more general level, at the instigation of the Secretary General, the Committee of Ministers has set about not only promoting the Council of Europe’s conventions but also managing them in a more effective manner. We hope that the work done in this area will swiftly lead to decisions so as to ensure the widest possible application of these conventions. In this spirit, the Albanian chairmanship, which attaches great importance to children’s rights, has urged the Committee of Ministers to encourage any states that have not yet done so to consider signing and ratifying several conventions designed to better protect children and women, in particular against violence and sexual exploitation. I am pleased to note that in these few months about one quarter of the Council of Europe member states have signed and ratified those conventions.

The latest session of the Ministers’ Deputies, last week, was entirely devoted to supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, a task that falls to our Committee under the terms of the Convention itself. At the session, the Ministers’ Deputies once again examined the follow-up to the Court’s judgment in the case of Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina. They noted with regret that, despite their commitment, the Bosnian authorities and political leaders had, once again, failed to reach a consensus and to present draft constitutional amendments to the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Execution of the Sejdic and Finci judgment is vital if the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina is to be brought into line with the European Convention on Human Rights.

This autumn has seen or will see important elections in several member states. These elections must be conducted in a way that respects the relevant Council of Europe standards. Over the years, the Council, particularly through the Venice Commission, has made considerable efforts to establish and promote the principles of a European electoral heritage. This heritage belongs to us all and Albania is pleased to have hosted, last July, the events marking the 10th anniversary of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters. The joint debate that you are to hold tomorrow entitled “For more democratic elections” is one that we will be following closely.

On the same subject, the conduct of the parliamentary elections that took place on 23 September in Belarus once again proved very disappointing, as noted by the OSCE observers. The situation in Belarus remains, generally speaking, very worrying. In a reply adopted in September to an Assembly recommendation, the Committee of Ministers noted that its strategic objective remained the integration of Belarus into the Council of Europe, while at the same time reiterating that any such integration would be done only on the basis of the Organisation’s values and principles. In Belarus, as in other countries, it stands to reason that the Council of Europe can take useful action on the international stage only if it remains in close contact with the other European institutions that share our values. To this end, it is important to listen to our partners in order to exchange information about our respective activities and projects and, as far as possible, act in synergy.

Last July, the Rapporteur Group on External Relations of the Ministers’ Deputies accordingly held an important exchange of views with representatives of the European Parliament to discuss various aspects of co-operation with the European Union, particularly with regard to the policy towards neighbouring countries. Co-operation with other international organisations and regional initiatives is essential to our common endeavours. I have just returned from the General Assembly meeting of the UN in New York, where I had the opportunity to talk about priorities and sensitive issues within the Council of Europe. On behalf of the Albanian presidency, I confirmed our commitment to substantially contribute to the further strengthening of the credibility, role and work of the Organisation in Europe and beyond. More recently, the Committee of Ministers itself held an exchange of views with Knut Vollebaeck, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, during which we assessed together not only the rewards but also the challenges of co-operation. In a few days I will address in Tirana the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. As Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, I will point out that the continuation of the enduring partnership between the Council of Europe and the OSCE is instrumental to the fullfilment of a Euro-Atlantic security community, based on the universally recognised values of democracy and the rule of law.

The Albanian chairmanship is very keen to improve intra-institutional co-operation. In that regard, I would particularly like to thank our President, Jean-Claude Mignon, for coming to report to the Deputies in early July on the outcome of your previous session. I am pleased that it has been decided that a similar report will be presented on the outcome of this session when the Ministers’ Deputies meet on 10 October. Quite apart from institutionalised contacts, exchanges of this type between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers are useful for discussing, in close co-operation, the focus of our respective activities. I would like to thank you, Mr President, for your commitment and your readiness to help in this area.

In particular, I would like to focus on two issues where co-operation could have tangible success and impact. The first is the joint assistance that Strasbourg could offer our Arab neighbours and partners to address the immediate and long-term challenges posed by their transition to democracy. A common visit with President Mignon to Tunisia that is envisaged to take place by the end of this month will serve as a positive message about our joint endeavors. Secondly, we remain committed to deepening regional integration in the western Balkans and further advancing its EU perspective. As suggested in the pragmatic Recommendation 1739 of 2010 of this Parliamentary Assembly, this Organisation should promote direct and significant contacts between Council of Europe staff and Kosovo authorities at all levels. I warmly congratulate the Secretary General, Mr Jagland, on his constructive exchanges with the Serbian authorities, aimed at enabling the continuation of important EU-Council of Europe joint programmes on Kosovo. We are looking forward to the implementation of these programmes.

Allow me to express my conviction that by strengthening direct contacts with Kosovo, through an implementation of standards of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the Council of Europe will make its own priceless contribution to a truly multi-ethnic society, where all citizens, regardless of ethnic background, benefit from equal rights and opportunities.

As I come to the end of my speech, I would like to say once again how proud I am to be chairing the Committee of Ministers, if only for a short period. This pride is shared by my fellow Albanians, who see in the Council of Europe an Organisation that is crucial for democratic stability in Europe. The presence of our President, Bujar Nishani, in the Chamber this Thursday will be further testimony to Albania’s deep commitment to the Council of Europe. On 9 November, our chairmanship will draw to a close, and I would like, here and now, to express my delegation’s full support for the Principality of Andorra, which is to succeed us. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Panariti, for your address.

Two members of the Assembly have tabled written questions, which are available, with their answers, in Document 13032. Other members of the Assembly have questions to put to you now. I remind colleagues that they should ask questions, rather than make declarations. Questions must be limited to 30 seconds. I remind colleagues that the vote concerning the election of judges is still open; it will close at 1 o’clock, and many members have not yet voted.

I do not see Mr Zingeris, so I call Lord Anderson on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – On behalf of the Socialist Group, may I again refer to Kosovo? You spoke of direct links with Kosovo; in your presidency, are there any specific proposals to bring Kosovo closer, step by step, to the Council of Europe?

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

Mr PANARITI – Thank you for the question. I think that the inhabitants of Kosovo should benefit from the same rights and standards as European citizens. To that end, the Council of Europe is undertaking many activities to promote democracy and human rights in Kosovo, which are implemented in a status-neutral way, in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244. A large number of Council of Europe activities in Kosovo are co-financed by the European Union, and some are organised in co-operation with the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, including activities relating to the fight against economic crime. That is what we are doing to get Kosovo nearer to the Council of Europe.

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

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Thank you. I would like to stick to the European Convention on Human Rights and the accession of the EU to that Convention. We in this Assembly have been longing for that for a long time. You mentioned your expectations for this Assembly, and for national assemblies, but could you please tell us a little bit more about your views, and about the Committee of Ministers’ work to ensure a smooth accession?

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

Mr PANARITI – Thank you for that question. EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights is essential to complete the construction of a coherent area of protection of individual rights in wider Europe. Negotiations on the draft accesssion agreement were put on hold at the end of 2011 to allow the EU to clarify certain internal issues, but have been resumed following completion of those internal discussions. In June 2012, the Committee of Ministers instructed the Steering Committee for Human Rights to pursue negotiations with the European Union in an ad hoc group of 47 plus one, with a view to finalising without delay the legal instrument setting out the modalities of the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights. The ad hoc group in charge of that has now been established and met in September. It is expected and hoped that negotiations will be completed soon, so that accession can take place rapidly. The chairmanship will spare no efforts to achieve this major goal.

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

The Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – Minister, does the Albanian chairmanship support two of the prescriptions stressed by the recent United Kingdom chairmanship: first, that European democracy always counts most at local level, and secondly, that in its actions to assist local democracy, the Council of Europe must itself adopt a far more co-ordinated approach? If so, which particular measures of co-ordination and their corresponding timetables does the Albanian chairmanship now advocate?

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

Mr PANARITI – The promotion of local and regional democracy is an important activity of the Council of Europe; it is one of our priorities. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, this Assembly and the Committee of Ministers all play a role in improving good governance at the local level in Europe. It is important to ensure the co-ordination of activities in this field, and I am confident that flexible ways will be found to enhance co-ordination between the various bodies. Therefore, the visibility and impact of the work of our Organisation will be much more evident.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Petrenco on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – I recently received an answer from the Committee of Ministers in response to my question about the annual gathering of Waffen SS Nazi veterans in Estonia and the support they get from the Estonian authorities. What I was sent was not an answer; the Committee of Ministers just informed me that it could not answer my question because there is no consensus on this matter. Do you not think that such answers from the Committee of Ministers to written questions from members of this Assembly are simply unacceptable, particularly when the question is about Nazi gatherings in Europe?

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

Mr PANARITI – The adoption of a response to a written question from a member of the Parliamentary Assembly requires unanimity, but such a consensus has not been reached in this case. On that basis, I cannot comment further on this matter and so what has been written in reply to your question stands.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I do not see Mr Michel. The next question is from Mr Huseynov.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – The holy books and prophets of the global religions are symbols associated with the self-esteem of nations, and callous and insulting behaviour towards these symbols can generate terrible misfortune. Therefore, the efforts in the media in some European countries, including France, to make fun of Islam and its prophet Mohammed, who is worshipped by hundreds of millions of people, are intolerable. Against the background of our attempts to deepen inter-religious and intercultural dialogue, these unacceptable actions are drawing society towards social explosions that can occur at any moment and cannot be stopped once started. What urgent measures to prevent these types of cases does the Committee of Ministers consider to be necessary?

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

Mr PANARITI – I think that your question was about intercultural dialogue, including its religious dimension. The Council of Europe’s position is that promoting mutual understanding is essential in an increasingly globalised world where people with different backgrounds are called to live together. Intercultural dialogue, including in respect of its religious dimension, is particularly important. We are aware of the importance of this matter and we want to play an active part. Towards that end, the Committee of Ministers has organised an annual Council of Europe exchange on the religious dimensions of intercultural dialogues since 2008. The last such exchange took place on 3 and 4 September in the Albanian city of Durres – this was in response to an invitation from the Albanian authorities as part of the framework of our chairmanship. The exchange addressed the theme, “Taking responsibility for tomorrow’s Europe: the role of young people in the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue”. The exchange was characterised by strong and active youth participation. The Committee of Ministers welcomes the active involvement of the Parliamentary Assembly in the efforts to promote intercultural dialogue, in particular through its participation in such exchanges.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I do not see Mr Omtzigt. The next question is from Mr Xuclà.

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain) congratulated the Minister on his chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. His question concerned progress in implementing the standards of the Council of Europe in Mr Panariti’s own country, Albania. He was particularly interested in the standards of legal certainty, for example, with respect to sales, purchases and the property register. Was there any information on implementing these standards in Albania?

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

Mr PANARITI – As you know, Albania is on the way towards being integrated in the EU. In that regard, very important reforms are being adopted and are on the way to being adopted. Owing to the good political climate that exists between the opposition and the majority, we have been able to pass some very important laws. In June, we had a major breakthrough when we passed our electoral law reform, which made a provision requiring two-thirds of the vote. That was followed up by another major breakthrough, when we adopted the law on lifting the immunity for high authorities and judges. That paves the way for our justice system to do a better job. We expect some important developments to occur this week, as we expect that the law on parliamentary procedures, and other important laws, will be adopted by the parliament. By doing that, we hope that we will reach the critical mass required by the EU Commission for the completion of its 12 priorities. We hope that all the progress that we have made so far will be positively reflected in the progress report which is expected to appear by 10 October and which will constitute the basis for the final evaluation of whether we get EU candidate status. We are very grateful to your Assembly and to the Council of Europe for all the precious assistance that has been provided, and is continuing to be provided, in our consolidation of democracy in Albania.

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

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – My question is a continuation of Mr Huseynov’s question. Albania is another European state with an Islamic tradition, so perhaps you can use that position to be a moderator between Islam and Christianity and between the two cultures. There is a lot of misunderstanding, so may I make a suggestion and ask you to become more active in the dialogue?

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

Mr PANARITI – We can be proud of the good climate that exists between the four main different religions in Albania. They are harmonious and we can take pride in that. Ours is a good example that can be followed, as it indicates that different religions and different cultural approaches can peacefully co-exist. We will try to foster this model, which could be embraced by other societies that have similar conditions.

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

Ms HÄGG (Sweden) – The Turkish Government has received harsh criticism from human rights organisations and from female organisations, as the Geneva Convention is not being followed. Human rights organisations, bodies that promote equality and Turkish parliamentarians have been denied access to the camp that I saw, which was more like a military camp. It is impossible to determine what this camp is. Is it a refugee camp, a military or training camp or another sort of camp? The UN has been criticised for taking into account political considerations, and it has no access to the camp. Does the Minister think that the Council of Europe can press Turkey to open up and allow more access to the Syrian refugee camps?

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

Mr PANARITI – Thank you for your question. We have not yet discussed that issue, but I will note your question, which deserves a detailed technical answer that I am not in a position to give now. I will provide you shortly with a written answer.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Panariti. The next question is from Mr Aligrudić.

Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – First, I wish to congratulate you, Minister, because you have taken a very important post on behalf of your country. Do you intend to intensify the efforts of the Council of Europe with regard to the findings presented in Dick Marty’s report on inhuman treatment of people and illicit trafficking in human organs in Kosovo?

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

Mr PANARITI – We have discussed the Marty report on Kosovo. The report prepared by Mr Marty and adopted by the Assembly in January last year contains very serious allegations, which must be either confirmed or refuted through criminal investigations. As for the position of the Council of Europe on this issue, it is not involved in the conduct of the investigation, which is taking place under the auspices of EULEX. As Chairman of the Committee of Ministers I therefore do not have any specific comments to make. However, speaking in my capacity as the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Albania, I wish to state that the Albanian Government has expressed from the very beginning its willingness to co-operate in the full investigation of all the allegations in Mr Marty’s report. We want to bring this issue to an end once and for all. I should also mention that our parliament passed a law last May that gives EULEX full powers to investigate the allegations in the report.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Panariti. The next question is from Mr Toshev.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – We have a monitoring procedure in our Assembly that extends to all member states. We also know that the Committee of Ministers has a monitoring procedure and we learned recently that the procedure will not be extended to one member state – the Russian Federation. How do you explain this incomprehensible exception?

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

Mr PANARITI – As you know, by joining the Council of Europe all member states have expressed their political will to adhere to the values of respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. They have freely undertaken a number of commitments to this end and they have to respect them. It is only normal that the Assembly should review the way member states fulfil their commitments. This is not the first time that you have held a debate on this matter and, in the past, you have adopted numerous texts, resolutions and recommendations on member states’ commitments. I can assure you that your debate on the honouring of commitments by the Russian Federation will be followed with attention by the Committee of Ministers. However, you will understand that at this stage I do not want to prejudge the outcome of our discussions or the reaction of the Committee to the report.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Panariti. The next question is from Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – The situation and rights of traditional national minorities in Europe should be improved. We have an excellent basis for such action as a result of Resolution 1334 from 2003, based on the wonderful report by Mr Gross. This report asks the Committee of Ministers to prepare a framework convention about the autonomous regions in Europe that are able to avoid bloody conflicts in the regions where national minorities live. What are your ideas about that task?

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

Mr PANARITI – Regarding the protection of the rights of minorities, it has been a matter of particular attention for the Council of Europe since the first summit on the issue in Vienna in 1993, which initiated the preparation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The Council of Europe’s action on the protection of national minorities focuses on the rights of individuals, not on the rights of minorities as a collective group. It is therefore an integral part of the protection of human dignity and contributes to confidence-building measures.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Panariti. The next question is from Mr Kayatürk.

Mr KAYATÜRK (Turkey) – Freedom of expression is one of the key issues guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Religiously motivated, intolerant and discriminatory discourse and hatred are threats to harmony in our societies. In light of the recent circulation of an Islamophobic film which affected many people in the world, what is the Council of Europe’s response to Islamophobia?

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

Mr PANARITI – I would like to concentrate on the most recent events that have fuelled Islamophobia. Like many others, I am very concerned about the dramatic events that followed the release of the film “Innocence of Muslims”. I firmly associate myself with the joint statement by the current and former Presidents of the Assembly and reiterate that all religions can live together without hatred. I have already indicated a model that can be followed – the Albanian model, in which religions coexist in a peaceful and normal way.

On 19 September I firmly condemned the acts of terrorism and calls for violence that followed the showing of the film. I also condemned any incitement to hatred, particularly on religious grounds, and called for respect of everyone’s beliefs. I recalled the fundamental importance of freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights while underlining the fact that freedom also carries duties and responsibilities, particularly with regard to respecting the rights of others. In line with the values of tolerance and mutual understanding that the Council of Europe promotes, I called for dialogue and for everyone to show a sense of restraint and responsibility by refraining from any act or declaration that might stir up hatred and confrontation.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Fournier.

Mr FOURNIER (France) said that among the priorities of the Albanian presidency were the promotion of the religious question and the strengthening of dialogue with North Africa. These were clearly related. He asked whether the Committee of Ministers had dealt with religion at all in its dialogue with other Mediterranean countries.

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

Mr PANARITI – We are coming back to the basic question of freedom of religion. Let me reiterate that freedom of thought, conscience and religion constitute the necessary pre-conditions for living together in a democratic society based on mutual understanding and tolerance. They are also guaranteed under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In its declaration on religious freedom of 20 January 2011, the Committee of Ministers reiterated its condemnation of all forms of incitement to religious hatred and violence. The Albanian chairmanship has made combining diversity and freedom one of its priorities. As a country that takes pride in its centuries-long tradition of religious harmony, promoting freedom of religion and religious tolerance is an important component. In this regard, the chairmanship hosted the 2012 Council of Europe exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue in the city of Durres in Albania on 3 and 4 September. Several important elements of the eminent persons’ report “Living Together” will be the themes of the high-level conference, organised by Albania, that will take place in Tirana in November with the basic model that was launched by our presidency, “United in Diversity”. The first session of the conference will be devoted to that dialogue.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) noted that Andorra would take over the chairmanship in November. He asked Mr Panariti what plans he would have liked to have accomplished but had not been able to during the Albanian presidency and what his own overall assessment of the presidency was.

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

Mr PANARITI – As you know, we have set many objectives during our mandate and our challenge is to try to complete them, and I am pretty optimistic that we will do so by the end of our mandate. With regard to wishes, we would have preferred to have done much more but had only six months, not one or two years, so we will leave the rest of the challenge to the next country, Andorra.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Mr Beneyto is not here. The next question is from Mr Michel.

Mr MICHEL (France) apologised for not having been in his place in order to ask his question earlier. He asked Mr Panariti how it would be possible to give a second wind to the reform of the Court given that the Brighton conference had resulted in the lowest common denominator.

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

Mr PANARITI – Reform of the European Court of Human Rights is an important priority of our mandate. Maintaining the long-term effectiveness of the supervisory mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights is one of the priorities of the Committee of Ministers and the Albanian chairmanship. Following the declaration adopted by the Brighton conference in April, which was subsequently endorsed by the Committee of Ministers in May, draft amendments to the Convention are now being prepared by the Steering Committee for Human Rights. The work is progressing well, in my view, and the draft amendments will be forwarded to the Parliamentary Assembly for an opinion in due course. The implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights at national level is more essential than ever for the long-term viability of the supervisory mechanism established under the Convention, and that issue will be at the centre of the debate at the conference to be held in a few days’ time in Tirana, which will bring together government officials and representatives of the highest courts in Europe. I am sure it will also be addressed in the exchange of views that the Ministers’ Deputies are to have with the President of the Court, which is planned for 24 October.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – That brings to an end the questions to Mr Panariti. I thank you most warmly on behalf of the Assembly for your communication and for answering the questions so competently.

4. Election reminder and date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I remind members once more that voting is in progress to elect four judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The polls will close at 1 p.m. and will then be open between 3.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. this afternoon.

The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda which was approved this morning. I wish everyone a good lunch.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1 p.m.)

CONTENTS

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

2.       The honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation

Presentation by Mr Gross and Mr Frunda of report (Document 13018 and Addendum) on behalf of the Monitoring Committee

Speakers:

Mrs Brasseur (Luxembourg)

Mr Walter (United Kingdom)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Mr Marcerano (Italy)

Mr Phelan (Ireland)

Ms von Cramon-Traubadel (Germany)

Mr Pushkov (Russian Federation)

Mr Zingeris (Lithuania)

Ms Schuster (Germany)

Mrs Durrieu (France)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Ms Blondin (France)

Mr Seyidov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Omtzigt (Netherlands)

Mr Leyden (Ireland)

Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)

Mr Toshev (Bulgaria)

Mr Biedroń (Poland)

Ms Zimmermann (France)

Mr Mogens Jensen (Denmark)

Mr Melnikov (Russian Federation)

Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Aguzarov (Russian Federation)

Mr Beneyto (Spain)

      Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

3.       Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Mr Edmond Panariti, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania, and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

Questions:

Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)

Ms Lundgren (Sweden)

Earl of Dundee (United Kingdom)

Mr Petrenco (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Xuclà (Spain)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Ms Hägg (Sweden)

Mr Aligrudić (Serbia)

Mr Toshev (Bulgaria)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Mr Kayatürk (Turkey)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Michel (France)

4.       Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting

APPENDIX I

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/Alexander Ter-Avanesov
Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ
José Antonio ALONSO/Delia Blanco
Karin ANDERSEN
Donald ANDERSON
Florin Serghei ANGHEL*
Khadija ARIB/Tuur Elzinga
Mörður ÁRNASON*
Francisco ASSIS*
Danielle AUROI/Jacques Legendre
Þuriður BACKMAN
Daniel BACQUELAINE*
Viorel Riceard BADEA
Pelin Gündeş BAKIR*
Theodora BAKOYANNIS
Gérard BAPT/Bernard Fournier
Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot
Doris BARNETT*
José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado
Deniz BAYKAL
Marieluise BECK*
José María BENEYTO
Deborah BERGAMINI
Robert BIEDROŃ
Grzegorz BIERECKI/Marek Borowski
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Oksana BILOZIR
Brian BINLEY
Ľuboš BLAHA*
Jean-Marie BOCKEL
Eric BOCQUET/Bernadette Bourzai
Olena BONDARENKO
Olga BORZOVA
Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz
António BRAGA
Anne BRASSEUR
Márton BRAUN
Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi
Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL
Piet DE BRUYN/Ludo Sannen
Patrizia BUGNANO/Paolo Corsini
André BUGNON/Maximilian Reimann
Natalia BURYKINA
Sylvia CANEL*
Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU
Mikael CEDERBRATT
Otto CHALOUPKA
Vannino CHITI*
Christopher CHOPE/Edward Leigh
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN
Desislav CHUKOLOV*
Lolita ČIGĀNE/Jānis Dombrava
Boriss CILEVIČS/Andris Bērzinš
James CLAPPISON
Deirdre CLUNE/John Paul Phelan
Agustín CONDE
Igor CORMAN
Telmo CORREIA*
Carlos COSTA NEVES*
Joseph DEBONO GRECH
Giovanna DEBONO*
Armand De DECKER*
Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA
Peter van DIJK
Klaas DIJKHOFF/Pieter Omtzigt
Şaban DİŞLİ
Karl DONABAUER
Ioannis DRAGASAKIS
Daphné DUMERY*
Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE
Josette DURRIEU
Mikuláš DZURINDA
Diana ECCLES
József ÉKES/László Koszorús
Tülin ERKAL KARA*
Gianni FARINA
Relu FENECHIU*
Vyacheslav FETISOV
Doris FIALA*
Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Dana Váhalová
Axel E. FISCHER
Jana FISCHEROVÁ
Gvozden Srećko FLEGO
Paul FLYNN/Michael Connarty
Hans FRANKEN
Jean-Claude FRÉCON
Erich Georg FRITZ*
György FRUNDA
Giorgi GABASHVILI*
Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ
Roger GALE*
Jean-Charles GARDETTO
Tamás GAUDI NAGY
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Paolo GIARETTA*
Jean GLAVANY/Christian Bataille
Michael GLOS/Johannes Röring
Pavol GOGA
Obrad GOJKOVIĆ*
Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI
Svetlana GORYACHEVA/Petar Petrov
Martin GRAF
Sylvi GRAHAM*
Andreas GROSS
Arlette GROSSKOST
Dzhema GROZDANOVA
Attila GRUBER*
Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*
Ana GUŢU
Carina HÄGG
Sabir HAJIYEV
Andrzej HALICKI
Mike HANCOCK
Margus HANSON/Indrek Saar
Davit HARUTYUNYAN
Håkon HAUGLI*
Norbert HAUPERT
Oliver HEALD/Margaret Eaton
Alfred HEER/ Luc Recordon
Olha HERASYM'YUK*
Andres HERKEL
Adam HOFMAN
Serhiy HOLOVATY
Jim HOOD/Joe Benton
Joachim HÖRSTER
Arpine HOVHANNISYAN/Zaruhi Postanjyan
Anette HÜBINGER
Andrej HUNKO
Susanna HUOVINEN
Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova
Rafael HUSEYNOV
Stanisław HUSKOWSKI
Shpëtim IDRIZI
Igor IVANOVSKI
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI
Denis JACQUAT/Rudy Salles
Roman JAKIČ
Ramón JÁUREGUI
Michael Aastrup JENSEN*
Mogens JENSEN
Mats JOHANSSON
Birkir Jón JÓNSSON
Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Vesna Marjanović
Antti KAIKKONEN/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila
Ferenc KALMÁR*
Božidar KALMETA*
Mariusz KAMIŃSKI
Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel
Burhan KAYATÜRK
Bogdan KLICH/Zbigniew Girzyński
Haluk KOÇ
Igor KOLMAN
Alev KORUN/Sonja Ablinger
Tiny KOX
Marie KRARUP*
Borjana KRIŠTO*
Dmitry KRYVITSKY
Václav KUBATA/Pavel Lebeda
Dalia KUODYTĖ
Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ
Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides
Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT
Igor LEBEDEV/Sergey Kalashnikov
Harald LEIBRECHT/Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE/Aleksandrs Sakovskis
Lone LOKLINDT*
François LONCLE/Maryvonne Blondin
Jean-Louis LORRAIN
George LOUKAIDES
Younal LOUTFI*
Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*
Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*
Philippe MAHOUX
Gennaro MALGIERI*
Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET*
Pietro MARCENARO
Thierry MARIANI
Konstantinos MARKOPOULOS
Milica MARKOVIĆ
Meritxell MATEU PI/ Josep Anton Bardina Pau
Pirkko MATTILA
Frano MATUŠIĆ*
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA
Sir Alan MEALE
Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*
Ivan MELNIKOV
Nursuna MEMECAN
José MENDES BOTA
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Marie-Jo Zimmermann
Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ/ Egidijus Vareikis
Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ*
Akaki MINASHVILI*
Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI
Andrey MOLCHANOV/Svetlana Zhurova
Jerzy MONTAG
Patrick MORIAU*
João Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK
Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO
Lydia MUTSCH*
Philippe NACHBAR
Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ
Adrian NĂSTASE
Gebhard NEGELE
Aleksandar NENKOV/Irena Sokolova
Pasquale NESSA
Fritz NEUGEBAUER
Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*
Elena NIKOLAEVA
Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI
Carina OHLSSON
Joseph O'REILLY*
Sandra OSBORNE
Nadia OTTAVIANI*
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS
Eva PARERA
Ganira PASHAYEVA/Sevinj Fataliyeva
Lajla PERNASKA
Johannes PFLUG
Foteini PIPILI
Alexander POCHINOK/Yury Solonin
Ivan POPESCU
Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/Nikolaj Villumsen
Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN/Kerstin Lundgren
Cezar Florin PREDA
Lord John PRESCOTT/Jim Dobbin
Jakob PRESEČNIK*
Radoslav PROCHÁZKA/Darina Gabániová
Gabino PUCHE/Jordi Xuclà
Alexey PUSHKOV*
Valeriy PYSARENKO*
Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ*
Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA/Adam Rogacki
Mailis REPS*
Andrea RIGONI*
François ROCHEBLOINE
Maria de Belém ROSEIRA/Ana Catarina Mendonça
René ROUQUET
Marlene RUPPRECHT
Ilir RUSMALI/ Kastriot Islami
Volodymyr RYBAK/Oleksiy Plotnikov
Rovshan RZAYEV/Aydin Abbasov
Džavid ŠABOVIĆ*
Giacomo SANTINI
Giuseppe SARO*
Kimmo SASI
Stefan SCHENNACH*
Marina SCHUSTER
Urs SCHWALLER/Raphaël Comte
Senad ŠEPIĆ*
Samad SEYIDOV*
Jim SHERIDAN*
Mykola SHERSHUN*
Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV/Nadezda Gerasimova
Robert SHLEGEL/Tamerlan Aguzarov
Ladislav SKOPAL
Leonid SLUTSKY
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Maria STAVROSITU
Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ
Yanaki STOILOV
Fiorenzo STOLFI
Christoph STRÄSSER
Karin STRENZ*
Giacomo STUCCHI
Valeriy SUDARENKOV
Björn von SYDOW
Petro SYMONENKO
Vilmos SZABÓ*
Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/ Gábor Tamás Nagy
Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*
Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ*
Romana TOMC/Andreja Črnak Meglič
Lord John E. TOMLINSON
Latchezar TOSHEV
Petré TSISKARISHVILI*
Mihai TUDOSE*
Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ
Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*
Theodora TZAKRI
Tomáš ÚLEHLA
Ilyas UMAKHANOV
Giuseppe VALENTINO*
Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS
Ljubica VASIĆ
Stefaan VERCAMER*
Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN
Luigi VITALI*
Luca VOLONTÈ*
Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco
Varujan VOSGANIAN*
Tanja VRBAT/ Melita Mulić
Klaas de VRIES
Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*
Piotr WACH
Johann WADEPHUL
Robert WALTER
Katrin WERNER
Renate WOHLWEND/Doris Frommelt
Karin S. WOLDSETH/Øyvind Vaksdal
Gisela WURM
Karl ZELLER*
Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*
Emanuelis ZINGERIS*
Guennady ZIUGANOV/Sergey Sobko
Naira ZOHRABYAN/Hermine Naghdalyan
Levon ZOURABIAN
Vacant Seat, Cyprus*
Vacant Seat, Spain/Carmen Quintanilla
Vacant Seat, Romania*
Vacant Seat, Serbia*
Vacant Seat, Serbia*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Karin HAKL
Johannes HÜBNER
Eleni RAPTI
Martina SCHENK
Spyridon TALIADOUROS
Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Observers:

Carlos Fernando ÁNGULO PARRA
Joyce BATEMAN
Joan FRASER
Diva Hadamira GASTÉLUM BAJO
Hervé Pierre GUILLOT
Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA
Scott SIMMS
David TILSON
David TKACHUK

Partners for democracy:

Ms Najat ALASTAL
Mr Bernard SABELLA

APPENDIX II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of the judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation

Francis AGIUS
Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV/Alexander Ter-Avanesov
Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ
Karin ANDERSEN
Donald ANDERSON
Khadija ARIB/Tuur Elzinga
Danielle AUROI/Jacques Legendre
Þuriður BACKMAN
Viorel Riceard BADEA
Theodora BAKOYANNIS
Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot
José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado
Deniz BAYKAL
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Jean-Marie BOCKEL
Eric BOCQUET/Bernadette Bourzai
Olga BORZOVA
Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz
Márton BRAUN
Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL
Piet DE BRUYN/Ludo Sannen
André BUGNON/Maximilian Reimann
Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU
Mikael CEDERBRATT
Otto CHALOUPKA
Christopher CHOPE/Edward Leigh
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN
Igor CORMAN
Joseph DEBONO GRECH
Klaas DIJKHOFF/Pieter Omtzigt
Şaban DİŞLİ
Karl DONABAUER
Ioannis DRAGASAKIS
Mikuláš DZURINDA
Diana ECCLES
József ÉKES/László Koszorús
Gianni FARINA
Vyacheslav FETISOV
Doris FIALA*
Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Dana Váhalová
Axel E. FISCHER
Jana FISCHEROVÁ
Gvozden Srećko FLEGO
Paul FLYNN/Michael Connarty
Hans FRANKEN
Jean-Claude FRÉCON
György FRUNDA
Jean-Charles GARDETTO
Tamás GAUDI NAGY
Jean GLAVANY/Christian Bataille
Michael GLOS/Johannes Röring
Pavol GOGA
Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI
Sylvi GRAHAM*
Arlette GROSSKOST/ André Schneider
Dzhema GROZDANOVA
Carina HÄGG
Sabir HAJIYEV
Andrzej HALICKI
Mike HANCOCK
Norbert HAUPERT
Serhiy HOLOVATY
Joachim HÖRSTER
Anette HÜBINGER
Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova
Rafael HUSEYNOV
Stanisław HUSKOWSKI
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI
Denis JACQUAT/Rudy Salles
Ramón JÁUREGUI
Mogens JENSEN
Mats JOHANSSON
Birkir Jón JÓNSSON
Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Vesna Marjanović
Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel
Burhan KAYATÜRK
Haluk KOÇ
Igor KOLMAN
Tiny KOX
Dalia KUODYTĖ
Igor LEBEDEV/Sergey Kalashnikov
Terry LEYDEN
François LONCLE/Maryvonne Blondin
Jean-Louis LORRAIN
Philippe MAHOUX
Pietro MARCENARO
Konstantinos MARKOPOULOS
Milica MARKOVIĆ
Meritxell MATEU PI/ Josep Anton Bardina Pau
Ivan MELNIKOV
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Marie-Jo Zimmermann
Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ/ Egidijus Vareikis
Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Stefana Miladinović
João Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ
Gebhard NEGELE
Aleksandar NENKOV/Irena Sokolova
Pasquale NESSA
Fritz NEUGEBAUER
Elena NIKOLAEVA
Carina OHLSSON
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS
Eva PARERA
Ganira PASHAYEVA/Sevinj Fataliyeva
Lajla PERNASKA
Foteini PIPILI
Ivan POPESCU
Cezar Florin PREDA
Radoslav PROCHÁZKA/Darina Gabániová
Gabino PUCHE/Jordi Xuclà
François ROCHEBLOINE
René ROUQUET
Volodymyr RYBAK/Oleksiy Plotnikov
Rovshan RZAYEV/Aydin Abbasov
Kimmo SASI
Marina SCHUSTER
Urs SCHWALLER/Raphaël Comte
Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV/Nadezda Gerasimova
Robert SHLEGEL/Tamerlan Aguzarov
Ladislav SKOPAL
Maria STAVROSITU
Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ
Yanaki STOILOV
Fiorenzo STOLFI
Giacomo STUCCHI
Valeriy SUDARENKOV
Björn von SYDOW
Petro SYMONENKO/ Yevhen Marmazov
Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/ Gábor Tamás Nagy
Romana TOMC/Andreja Črnak Meglič
Lord John E. TOMLINSON
Latchezar TOSHEV
Theodora TZAKRI
Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS
Tanja VRBAT/ Melita Mulić
Klaas de VRIES
Piotr WACH
Johann WADEPHUL
Renate WOHLWEND/Doris Frommelt
Gisela WURM