2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-first Sitting

Tuesday 2 October 2012 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – May I remind you that the votes are in progress to elect four judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The polls will close at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

May I also remind the tellers for the election, Mr Dombrava and Ms Bonet Perot, to go to the area behind the President’s chair at 5 p.m.

The results of the election will be announced before the end of this sitting.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now return to the debate on the report entitled “The honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation”, Document 13018 and addendum, presented by Mr Frunda and Mr Gross on behalf of the Monitoring Committee. I intend to interrupt the list of speakers at around 4.30 p.m. in order to start the next debate at 5.30 p.m.

May I remind the Assembly that at Monday’s sitting it was agreed that speaking time in all debates today will be limited to three minutes.

I call Mr Wach. You have three minutes.

Mr WACH (Poland) – This long-awaited report is ready and finally being debated in the Assembly. In my opinion, it is very good, balanced and objective. Some say that it is too soft and does not point out all the deficiencies of the young Russian democracy. Other critics say that it does not recognise the progress that has been made and the changes taking place in the Russian Federation. We must all understand, however, the dynamics of change in that big and complex country. It is not easy – and in fact impossible – to switch to fully democratic ways and laws at once in any country, and that is especially true in a country as big as Russia. We should rather ask whether there is the will and whether satisfactory efforts have been made to introduce the democratic and human rights-oriented changes undertaken as an obligation when Russia entered the Council of Europe community years ago. In my opinion, the report is positive in that respect. It presents the necessary measures that should and must be carried out as soon as possible. These are contained in paragraph 23, in particular, and it will be our role to see that further progress is made in future. The report’s conclusion that the Council of Europe should continue its monitoring procedure in Russia is well-substantiated and correct.

Finally, I want to address the controversial problem of the recommendation voted for by the Monitoring Committee, which will be included in this report. I completely disagree with Mr Hancock, the previous speaker, who strongly criticised and opposed the idea behind that recommendation. We are all aware by now that the Committee of Ministers does not consider our monitoring resolutions if no recommendation is addressed to the committee. We must go back to using the procedure of drawing up and voting on recommendations when preparing monitoring reports on any country. That is especially the case with the Russian Federation, because we have waited so long for this report and we do not know when the next one will be produced. I will vote for the recommendation, and I think that this point of view should be supported by many parliamentarians. We need two thirds of the vote for this recommendation. For any other country in future, we should do the same.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Wach. I remind you, dear colleagues, that we absolutely must finish the examination of this text, including the vote, by 5.30 p.m. I am responding to a question put to me earlier. The list of speakers will therefore be closed at 4.30 p.m. We will then have the reply from the rapporteurs of the committee and then immediately, around 4.45 p.m., proceed to the vote.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – “Умом Россию не понять”. “You cannot understand Russia with your mind.”

Those famous words, expressed a long time ago by Fyodor Tyutchev, are fortunately not necessarily true today. The report by Mr Frunda and Mr Gross proves that clearly. We have been provided with a comprehensive and balanced document – a sort of tour d’horizon of the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation since 2005. I congratulate the rapporteurs on taking in all the necessary elements in a holistic way. The reporting period was marked, inter alia, by two parliamentary elections to the Duma as well as two presidential ones.

The good thing is that the authors did not confine themselves to visiting Moscow and St Petersburg but also stayed in Murmansk, Kazan and Nizhny Novgorod. Perhaps they should also go to the Ural area, Siberia and the far east, because Russia, the largest country in the Council of Europe and indeed the world, comprises 83 federal subjects, covering a range of different realities.

One can state with satisfaction that several PACE and Venice Commission recommendations have recently been implemented – for instance, the new law on political parties, changes in electoral law, the introduction of direct elections of governors and a number of reforms in the field of the judiciary. On the other hand, significant legal decisions have raised serious concerns. I mention only the new law on the constitutional court and amendments to the laws on assemblies and on non-governmental organisations.

I have had opportunities in my life to visit Russia many times, from Kaliningrad to Kamchatka, from Yekaterinburg to Tuva, from Chechnya to Vladivostok. To my mind, in co-operation with the Duma, the Council of Federation and the authorities in the Kremlin, our Organisation has achieved a lot, although many things remain to be done. Undoubtedly we have learned about each other and have understood our positions better than before. Given the new challenges that we all face, we need each other more and more. Therefore – despite some recent misunderstandings, probably mutual ones – I sincerely believe that in the foreseeable future it will be possible to host in our Assembly Speaker Sergei Naryshkin and, later on, the President of the Russian Federation, too.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Iwiński. I call Ms Burykina.

Ms BURYKINA (Russian Federation) had heard many different views of the report: many interesting and constructive points had been made. She had been less pleased with the finger-pointing carried out by a few members and reminded the Assembly that Russia had done many of the things that had been asked of it. A number of the comments made earlier in the debate were wide of the mark and it was regrettable that over the last 20 years no changes had been made to either the substance or the procedure of monitoring missions. Russia had made a number of commitments when it joined the Council of Europe but it seemed as if a new demand was being made at each part-session. Of course discussion was needed, but the draft resolution did not help make progress in any way: this was unfortunate.

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

Mr FLANAGAN (Ireland) – First, I commend the co-rapporteurs for this excellent and detailed report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation. This report is fair, balanced and based on fact. Russia has come a long way over the past 20 years. There have been a lot of positive developments, which are contained in the report along with the negative ones. The changes to the electoral law, the reintroduction of direct elections for governors and the amendment to the law on political parties are some of the positive developments. However, there remain a lot of concerns regarding the functioning of democracy, human rights and the laws adopted by the Duma, particularly in recent months.

Like everyone here, I am very concerned that the President of the Duma has declined his opportunity to speak at this session of the Parliamentary Assembly. I respectfully suggest that Russia engages fully with this Assembly, as dialogue is the best way forward. The Council of Europe is a community of 47 countries working together with shared values. It is not the purpose of this Assembly to single out any country for special attention, but it is impossible not to be critical of the situation that Russia finds itself in. We in this Assembly are all prepared to work with Russia and the Russian delegation, but this setback sets Russia back, as there is an empty seat at the top table.

Having visited Russia earlier in the year to observe the Russian presidential election, I have to say that I am very impressed with the country, its history and its people. However, like other international observers, I am concerned by the shortcomings of the whole electoral process and the media bias that took place during the presidential election towards the incumbent and the United Russia Party. The roll-out of the installation of webcams to polling stations is to be welcomed, but the issue of electoral corruption and the fixing of results at polling stations is a serious source of concern.

Like my fellow members, I call for the release of the three members of the Pussy Riot group who have been sentenced to an excessive two-year prison sentence for a very minor offence. The introduction of new laws that heavily fine those who organise peaceful demonstrations is also anti-democratic and could send Russia back in time. In conclusion, I warmly welcome this report and I look forward to Russia honouring its obligations and commitments in the draft resolution.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Flanagan. I call Ms Ohlsson.

Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – First, I thank the rapporteurs, Mr Frunda and Mr Gross, for their excellent report.

Amnesty International reports that 14 000 women are murdered by their husband or another member of their family every year in Russia. Men’s violence against women is the cause of two thirds of all murders in Russia. We have a very important convention here in the Council of Europe in this field – the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. Russia has not ratified it yet – it has not even signed it. That convention is about human rights for women and their children.

Non-governmental organisations often work to support and help women and their children when they have been abused, and work to combat violence, but they cannot do it alone. Political will and a cross-cutting consensus on gender and domestic violence is necessary for success in the fight against violence. An active civil society that works with politics is a necessary factor. Civil society partners do not have to agree on all issues to work towards the same goal, but it does require civil society to be free, influential and innovative. It should be able to point out flaws in the system, its voice should carry, and it should be independent of politics, while being a reliable partner for the government.

As we can see in the report, decisions taken by the Duma this year about NGOs raise serious concerns. The so-called law on foreign agents is worrying; it illustrates how full of contradictions the political situation in the Russian Federation is. It is so important to work together, and for countries to co-operate with each other. I hope that the legislation will not stop that, but I think that it may make things harder for NGOs. Is that the will of politicians in Russia? Let us work together – politicians and NGOs – to combat violence more effectively. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Ohlsson. I call Ms Huovinen.

Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – I, too, should like to start by thanking our two rapporteurs for an excellent report, in which they have succeeded in analysing the achievements and positive steps taken, as well as presenting the remaining challenges in a constructive way. Russia is an important member of the Council of Europe, and it is important that democratic reforms are pursued in Russia in future.

As is stated in the report, Russia has reached a unique momentum with respect to democratic reforms. It now has the possibility of deciding in what direction the country and its society will develop in coming years. There are clear signs of the increased mobilisation of civil society. That is a trend that we should encourage, as it will bring democratic reforms and put human rights on the agenda for public debate.

Last week, the Finnish delegation organised a discussion on the report in the Finnish Parliament in Helsinki. We heard the comments of a Finnish expert and had a very good discussion. The expert commended the report, but noted that its scope was very broad. We explained to him that that was because seven years had passed since the previous report on Russia, so many issues needed to be dealt with in the report.

One of the concerns raised in the discussion was that, too often, human rights are discussed at a theoretical level. Instead, we should focus more on how to ensure the implementation of existing laws and regulations, on what should be done to develop administrative procedures and practices, on how to improve the training of officials, and on how to ensure the implementation of international conventions.

It is important to understand that all challenges and problems cannot be solved simultaneously. That applies to all our countries. It is therefore important to identify priorities that will guide us in future. These priorities should be accompanied by clear and concrete goals. I personally am confident that Russia is developing positively. However, this should mean open and constructive dialogue inside the Council of Europe, too. Democracy is a process and we all have to be ready to learn from each other. That is one of the strong features of our Organisation. We should develop our Organisation and working methods together, thereby showing our citizens that we can really get results. Thank you.

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

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain) congratulated the rapporteurs on their excellent work. It had not been an easy job to update the Monitoring Committee report after seven years. At the beginning of September he had attended the meeting of the Monitoring Committee at which the report had been adopted in a good and constructive atmosphere. Something had subsequently occurred outside the parliamentary framework to change attitudes. He urged the Russian Federation delegates who had adopted a critical attitude to embrace the report. It was not just 10 countries, but all member states of the Council of Europe, who were being monitored in accordance with the values that united them. One speaker had said that the Council of Europe was more demanding of the Russian Federation now than when it had initially joined the Organisation. However, more was being demanded of all members: the world was changing and all were subject to the same requirements. An in-depth dialogue was necessary on the basis of shared values. Rather than pointing to specific pieces of legislation, we should first consider whether we do indeed have common values. A senior figure from the Russian Federation had described the report as being infused with Western values. As the countries of the Council were united by the same values, there should be no confrontation.

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

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) said that he agreed both with Mr Xuclá and with the rapporteurs, which was not always the case. The report had been unanimously approved in the Monitoring Committee, which meant that all groups and countries had agreed to it. The process of monitoring had been established in the Council of Europe to help new member countries in improving democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Therefore, it was a positive thing for the Council and for the countries concerned when the monitoring process pointed out failings and gave rise to questions which could help achieve better democracy. It was founded on common values, not values that only belonged to the West, East, North or South, or to particular groups.

The Committee of Ministers should not be asked to duplicate the work of the Assembly. He himself had said on previous occasions that the Committee of Ministers often interfered in the work of the Assembly, and the two bodies had frequently clashed. As a parliamentarian he would defend the independence and sovereignty of parliament against the executive.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Agramunt. The next speaker is Ms Gerasimova.

Ms GERASIMOVA (Russian Federation) wanted to talk about the case of Pussy Riot. Public comment throughout Europe on this case had been met with disbelief in the Russian Federation. The sentence given to the group was in full accordance with the law for hooliganism, and was not the result of any political views. It was a misrepresentation to portray them as victims of restrictions on freedom of expression. What they had done had been disrespectful to the millions of Russians who had an attachment to traditional values. The group had been involved in a series of other incidents, for example at a church, the geological museum, supermarket thefts and the overturning of police vehicles. All of these incidents had been filmed and posted on the Internet. No political declarations had been associated with these acts, which were acts of hooliganism prosecuted under the appropriate law. The incident at Christ the Saviour Cathedral had been the straw which broke the camel’s back: it had represented a deliberate denigration of Christianity and involved the barbaric desecration of Christian crosses. It had had no political content. In a press interview, members of the group had expressed no regret, and said that they would be happy to do the same again.

On 19 August a similar incident had taken place in Cologne cathedral. The applicable sentence in Germany was in fact up to three years in prison, and in Spain it was up to six years. The representative of the church in Germany had said that the right of expression was not above the right that religions had to be respected. The sentence given to the members of Pussy Riot could have been lighter if the women had expressed regret for their actions, which indeed they still could. Russia respected all religions, as shown by the film about the Prophet Mohammad. A Moslem proverb said that each person chose for himself whether to serve the devil or a prophet.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Gerasimova. The next speaker is Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.

Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – Thank you, Mr President. I also wish to thank the two rapporteurs for the work they have done. I am sorry that I was not here this morning to hear their statements, but I was in Georgia and I came directly from the polling station to be here. I will therefore start by discussing Georgia. This Assembly passed not one, not two, but three resolutions after the war between Russia and Georgia, but Russia still has not fulfilled its part of those. Not only is that a shame, but it undermines the credibility of this Assembly.

One of the core values of the Council of Europe is human rights. If a member state cannot defend those who defend human rights, or if it instead does the opposite and threatens human rights defenders and their families, we can end up with forced disappearances and even murder. At that point, the situation has become serious, and that is what we can see happening today in the North Caucasus, a part of Russia. I was there this spring seeing and hearing about it for myself.

A lot of my colleagues have talked about the Magnitsky case, so I will not say much about it. However, I will say that the world has suddenly woken up and found out what happened in Russia. This was a serious crime and there was a big cover-up. It is time for Russia to wake up, too, and bring those responsible for Mr Magnitsky’s murder to justice.

Why is Mr Putin, Russia’s President, so afraid to have an opposition in Russia? Why has the Russian Government put so much effort into restricting freedom of speech and having laws that restrict freedom of assembly? My answer is: only weak governments who are without self-confidence and know that they do not have the people’s support behind them act like this. I have asked myself many times why Russia is a member of the Council of Europe, given that the Russian authorities have on so many occasions ignored our resolutions and not cared about what we are saying. It is good for Russia’s people for it to be a member of the Council of Europe, but why does Russia not fulfil its commitments after so many years?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Pourbaix-Lundin. The next speaker is Mr Plotnikov.

Mr PLOTNIKOV (Ukraine) agreed with the other speakers who had commended the rapporteurs for their work. Their report contained some positive evaluations of the situation in Russia, for example the series of laws passed since December 2011, the direct election of governors, the change in rules relating to the threshold for signatures for presidential elections, and others. At the same time, it was clear that the process of agreeing the report had given rise to different views.

There should be no double standards. Neither the Assembly nor the Monitoring Committee were considering how well other countries, even founder members of the Council, were fulfilling their obligations. The process of monitoring the Russian Federation had shown the need for dialogue with countries being monitored. The rapporteurs should not seek to teach lessons, which they had done in some parts of this report. He hoped the Russian Federation would comply with the obligations it had taken on when joining the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Plotnikov. The next speaker is Ms Reps.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – First, I wish to say that this very thick and informative report is very well balanced and I thank the rapporteurs for it. It contains 60 pages and includes a fair list of very good deeds – positive steps towards the fulfilment of Russia’s commitments – and we can applaud those. Unfortunately, in those 60 pages, we also see quite a few negative tendencies and problems. Then the question is whether the report is about teaching Russia something or whether it is a list of something new. Actually, the answer is no, because for years Russia has known its commitments and known very well what needs to be done, and it even admits many of them.

Why do we have the rule of law and conventions for establishing stronger democracies? Why is there such attention paid to human rights and freedoms? It is clearly because that is beneficial for a country. I shall list some problems that I picked out from the report. For example, if we look at problems with the rule of law, it is clearly beneficial to have a well functioning, independent judiciary in a country. Nobody in this Chamber, including those from the Russian delegation, would disagree that fighting corruption at all levels is important. It is also important to have a pluralistic democracy and a strong civil society. Human rights are also very important, but unfortunately one of the biggest problems in Russia is the execution of court judgments, not only the paying of fees, including sums for the victims and their families, but true execution of judgments.

One of the main problems is impunity. The Russian people need to know that the people who have violated their rights and freedoms do not have impunity. Another problem is abuse by law enforcement. The Magnitsky case was mentioned, but there are hundreds like it. Law enforcement agencies on various levels have impunity and that needs to be tackled seriously. There is also intolerance of minorities, ethnic, religious, sexual and so on.

Finally, I wish everyone luck, because the tone from Russia has changed many times. It has sometimes been co-operative, but ultimatums are now more likely. If we could get past that and have a dialogue again, it would be very beneficial for this Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Reps. The next speaker is Mr Fetisov.

Mr FETISOV (Russian Federation) said that it was a great honour to speak to the Assembly. Russia had taken great steps in ratifying most of the Council of Europe conventions and in modernising its judicial system. There had been substantial changes including further democratisation of the political system and criticisms of the country had not been objective.

He himself had been a successful hockey player and had appeared in two Olympic Games. In a long professional career in the United States he had won three Stanley Cups. He therefore had fans throughout the world including in Georgia, South Ossetia and the Baltic States. Although he had opposed the Soviet regime he had still been greeted with suspicion when he was living in the United States.

While he was Sports Minister in Russia he had overseen the opening of 4 000 sports centres and the development of children’s sport. Russia would soon be hosting the Winter Olympics and international tournaments in hockey and swimming.

Having lived in the West, he had noticed huge changes in Russia over the past 20 years. Any country undergoing such a transition would encounter problems. The job undertaken by the rapporteurs was extremely difficult because Russia was a large country and had changed greatly. It was essential for them to be objective in their assessment.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery had said that we were all on the same ship: he was a man of that ship.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Fetisov. The next speaker is Mr Leonid Kalashnikov.

Mr L. KALASHNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that he had heard statements in the Assembly that had reminded him of the passion between Romeo and Juliet. But there was also animosity between the Capulets and Montagues and he could not understand what separated the two sides. People had mentioned Peter I and Brezhnev as if Russia were still in the past.

People had asked why he opposed the resolution when he had voted in his own country against the measures criticised. His answer was that in his own country he was against double standards. However, double standards were also in evidence in the Hemicycle.

Some had been in favour of the 1993 attack on the Russian Parliament while many had supported Boris Yeltsin. Everybody now agreed that his election had been illegitimate. It was notable that a former Colonel of the KGB had once spoken in the Assembly. When he came to Strasbourg he could see a dual standard which reminded him of the 1990s.

He hoped that when the Assembly voted on the resolution, it would not end in the same manner as the story of Romeo and Juliet.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Kalashnikov. I call Mr Abbasov.

Mr ABBASOV (Azerbaijan) said that the report had been a substantial piece of work and had drawn a number of conclusions. But Russia had moved forward and had, for instance, adopted the Social Charter. An open and free media had also been created and the election of regional governors had been introduced.

However, it was necessary to appreciate the size of Russia. On 28 February 1996, when Russia joined the Council of Europe, the boundaries of the Council of Europe had been extended as far as Kamchatka and the Bering Sea. It was difficult to expect rapid reform from post-Soviet countries.

It was not possible to return to the 1990s and constructive work had taken place on universal rights. He looked forward to the ratification in the future of Protocol No. 6, outlawing the death penalty.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Abbasov. I call Mr von Sydow.

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – Dear colleagues, my Swedish colleague, Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin, asked the Russian delegates why they continue to be members, and I think that there are good answers. This report, which is available in English, French and, hopefully, Russian, and is on the Internet, really scrutinises present-day Russia. It gives anyone an understanding that Russia is heading in the right way but is still lacking. It contains a good bunch of ideas for anyone to go ahead with. The analysis, which is set out in more than 500 points, leads you to the conclusion that the system is really unpredictable. It is unpredictable for the individual Russian and his family every day of the week, and it is unpredictable for the bureaucracy itself. Corruption is there all the time and the power can suddenly strike from above. It is an unpredictable society that must be made more predictable by the Russians themselves, and the report outlines ways in which that can be done.

There has been a discussion on the so-called recommendation. It is a short form of the report indeed, but it really comes down to the 45 points in paragraph 23. It outlines detail by detail what can be achieved and offers a good analysis. What will happen if it is in the recommendation? It will not just be here in Strasbourg with our ambassadors; it will be sent back to our capitals, to the foreign ministers and the ministries, where officials will have the duty to prepare their ministers so that they understand today’s Russia and what the proper arguments are. Therefore, it will actually be an asset for the political authorities of the Russian Federation if this document is circulated and used by our foreign ministers, and even prime ministers, for a better understanding. Therefore, colleagues, I definitely recommend that you vote for the recommendation. It is a short form of an outstanding report that basically offers a good analysis that has come from the hands of the Russian people.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr von Sydow. I call Ms Guţu.

Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova) congratulated the rapporteurs. The report was very large and comprehensive, a result of the seven-year wait for its production. Russia was moving towards authoritarianism.

The draft resolution made no mention of several problems with Russia, including their blackmailing of Moldova through Gazprom. In forcing Moldova to sign contracts for Russian gas, Russia had forced Moldova to renounce the European Energy Treaty.

Moldova had made great steps towards integration. However, Russia, through its Eurasian project, was stirring up Russophone minorities in other countries. Such Soviet nostalgia was aimed at directing countries such as Moldova away from Europe. She called on her Russian colleagues to concentrate on themselves. Russia should withdraw its army from Moldova, and the supply of money to forces in Transnistria did Russia no credit.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Guţu. The next speaker is Mr Makhmutov.

Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation) said that it was very difficult to monitor such an enormous country as Russia and that errors might have occurred in the process. The report should stick to the facts: for instance, the Russian delegation was not able to accept its interpretation of the conflict between Russia and Georgia. Nor could they accept a resolution based on such an unobjective opinion which had not taken account of the aggression shown by Georgia in 2008.

Russia had attempted to initiate a discussion with Georgia about South Ossetia and Abkhazia and had agreed to sign a document on the non-use of force. The Russian side had sent a draft document to Tbilisi with 10 preliminary conditions, including the withdrawal of peace-keeping forces, but it was not clear what had happened next. President Saakashvili had travelled to Moscow but it seemed as if he had been thinking only in military terms. If there was any way to avoid further aggression, it should certainly be taken, especially since President Saakashvili had given an order to bomb civilian areas.

Against this background, it was clear that the Assembly should act more in accordance with its mandate.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Makhmutov. I call Mr Popescu.

Mr POPESCU (Ukraine) commended the rapporteurs on their very important report. It was unfortunate that the Speaker of the Duma, Mr Naryshkin, had cancelled his visit but it was to be hoped that members would have the opportunity to question him soon. He believed that what lay at the heart of Mr Naryshkin’s decision not to attend the session was the surprise inclusion of the draft recommendation which accompanied the report. Such unpredictability was becoming more common in the Assembly’s reports, but it should be remembered that members of the Assembly were not adversaries, but were present to carry out constructive dialogue. He hoped to see a time when monitoring was unnecessary and supported the resolution, but doubted whether the recommendation should be adopted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Popescu. The last speaker will be Ms Lundgren.

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I had hoped for change. I heard the voices on the streets in many Russian cities and, when we had the debate in this Chamber between two elections in January, I heard that the message had been received. I had hope of a new beginning for freedom in Russia.

All our states became members of the Council of Europe of their own free will and we must honour our obligations on human rights, democracy and the rule of law for our citizens – Russia, too. As members of this Assembly, we must follow up on what has been done in our countries and we must also give advice to our Committee of Ministers. We are an advisory body and, as has been said, the Committee of Ministers will not be doing the monitoring. Indeed, we are not asking it to do so but are merely suggesting that it takes the question into consideration when working with different programmes. We voted in favour of a recommendation in 2005; let us do it again.

The recommendation was decided in a committee meeting in Paris – it did not just come from above. The dialogue has continued ever since. If we vote against the recommendation, we will be turning a blind eye to our biggest member state, Russia, an example that could then be followed by others.

Except for the summary, this is a very good report. I congratulate the rapporteurs. This is a helpful change. It is a friendly, open hand, so please do not reject it.

The report emphasises the raising of civil society and remarks that this is a golden moment. I thought so, too. However, sorry to say, the good signs seem to be fading away as new laws have been put forward in Russia. We have heard that they are trying to shut down the voice of freedom by introducing heavy fines, making laws about foreign agencies, trying to restrict the internet and free media, making laws about LGBT people and now on blasphemy, and broad-based political oppression.

Colleagues, let us vote in favour of the report’s resolution and recommendation today to be helpful to the people of Russia, as well as to all our countries, by maintaining our common values. We have heard today the expression “your values” from our Russian colleagues, but they are, and should be, our common values. We should keep to that.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Lundgren. I must now interrupt the list of speakers. I remind those members who are present and on the list but were not able to speak that they may submit their speeches in manuscript to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report of this session. I also remind you that insofar as the election of judges is concerned, you may still vote. You have a further 20 minutes before the poll closes.

I call the co-rapporteurs to reply. Mr Frunda, you have roughly three minutes left.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania) (Translation) – Thank you, Mr President, for your largesse.

(The speaker continued in English)

We have heard about some problems concerning our recommendation. I have to say firmly to Mr Pushkov, the head of the Russian delegation, that if we had not had a recommendation, that would have meant a double standard. For all the countries that were monitored in 2009 we had recommendations, and I remind all of you that, whether you like it or not, the Assembly is an advisory body of the Committee of Ministers. I agree with you, Pedro Agramunt: I would like the Parliament to decide because you are elected while governments and Ministers are appointed. However, under the rules of our Assembly, the Assembly is an advisory body of the Committee of Ministers. Colleagues, if we do not like that, we can change it – not with the MPs, but with the governments in our countries.

Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin, I am sorry that you were not here this morning, because you would have heard why Russia has to be a member. Without us Russia would not be where it is today, and without us it could not follow its European path. That is why Russia has to be a member of the Council of Europe and has to be monitored in future until a road map is drawn up by us and the Russian authorities and they fulfil their commitments. Why must Russia be monitored? Because only this year, in the past four weeks, it has adopted four laws that go against the minimum standards of the Council of Europe. We cannot take on board only the commitments that have been made; we have to see how they are expressed day by day and how Russia meets the standards of the Council of Europe. The place to change views is here. Mr Pushkov, it is not correct to attack members, rapporteurs or the President of the Council of Europe on TV without discussing it here. This does not dignify the dialogue that we have had until now.

Mr Omtzigt asked what the next steps would be. We will continue the monitoring, and we have the agreement of the Monitoring Committee. In December and January, we will have to go to the Russian Federation. We will also have to go to Georgia, to South Ossetia and to Abkhazia and present an information report concerning the consequences of the war between Russia and Georgia. We have come a long way but a longer way is before us. The consequences depend on us. We must keep our principles. Whether we are speaking about Andorra or Russia, those principles have to be the same.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Frunda. Mr Gross, you have about six minutes left.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I thank some of my colleagues for their very nice comments. Mr Beneyto talked about engagement, not rejection. Mr Vareikis said that we had made both a diagnosis and a handbook. A handbook is a service to citizens, so perhaps that is the nicest summary of the report.

Mr Pushkov, we are not singling out Russia. We were told that if we did not make a recommendation, the Committee of Ministers would not consider our work. As Mr Frunda said, that would be a double standard. We said that in future we would always do this, because it is normal parliamentary logic that parliamentarians want the executive side –ambassadors, Ministers – to take note of our work and, as Mr von Sydow said, try also to learn from our mutual work.

Mr Agramunt and Mr Hancock, you should not say that the Polish ambassador wanted to suggest double monitoring. She did not want to suggest anything; she just wanted to respect us by telling us, “Draw a line, and then we will take note of you.” We have to be fair to the ambassadors when they come to discuss things with us so openly, otherwise they will not come to us any more.

It is necessary for this House to reflect on the laws and the monitoring process. Some Russian colleagues said that we do not focus only on the laws but have a wider perspective. That is true; the law is only an instrument to be applied, and the quality of the law has to be measured not only by the wording but also by how it is used and what effect it has. When you have signed 46 conventions, you have obligations that influence the daily life of your people. We look at people’s daily life and at the quality of the laws, and then we speak about both.

We should not do it the other way round either. One of the specific problems in Russia is that it makes laws that can be interpreted differently. We say that the laws introduced last June have not been applied yet but that they could be. However, we must not say that that is already reality. We have to look at how they will be used, but we should not suggest that they will certainly be used in the worst way and pretend that that has already happened. That is also a mistake.

Mr Zingeris also very nicely said that monitoring is a service of friendship, giving a handbook to the citizen. Mr von Sydow, we do not have a strange notion of friendship; it is an expression of friendship to be critical. Not saying what you think here and pretending to be a friend – that is not a friend. That is why I agree very much with what Mr Frunda said to Mr Pushkov: when you criticise us and say, as you said on Russian TV, that I am a totally incompetent parliamentarian, you have to say that here. You have to tell me why, and then I can learn something. Just saying it on Russian TV where no one knows me is not good; that is not friendship, and it is not a favour to us. That is not our style. I thank those Russian colleagues who have been critical because we need to listen to them as they, hopefully, are happy to listen to us. We can learn from each other only when we can say frankly and openly what we think, what we see and what perhaps we could do better.

The recommendation, Mr Sobko, is not pushing Russia out of Europe. Nearly everyone has told you that we know that we in Europe can be free and happy only when Russia also feels free and happy, because Russia is also a part of Europe. When they are set against each other, no one is happy, no one is really free and no one can produce the life that they want for their citizens.

We are not the United States, or its president; we do not want to push everybody towards values that we do not want. You choose to belong to the Council of Europe because you choose to make its values your own. Together, we are trying, as is everybody in colleagues’ home countries, to link daily life and politics to those values. As we said at the beginning, this is an eternal process. We may start the process, but we will never end it. Every country needs monitoring, accompaniment, and incentives. One compares text and reality, and sees what still has to be done in order to improve, knowing that one will never reach perfection. We tried to do things well with regard to Russia. I would like to hope that this work will be given to the Committee of Ministers for it to think about, because parliamentarians should not work without bringing that work to the notice of the Committee of Ministers; that was, and always will be, the case. We are not doing something special in the case of Russia. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Gross. I call Mr Herkel, the Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee. You have two minutes.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) speaking as Chair of the Monitoring Committee, thanked the rapporteurs and the secretariat for their hard work on the report. It was a surprise that a short, insignificant recommendation written by the rapporteurs had given rise to such a storm of protest. People should think carefully before talking of double standards. For seven years the Assembly had been unable to have this discussion because there had been no report - that was double standards. Another example of double standards was the fact that the Committee of Ministers did not monitor the Russian Federation, whereas it did monitor several other nations.

It had been said that this would become the norm in the future work of the Monitoring Committee. Work on the next report on Russia’s obligations should begin the next day so that the Assembly did not have to wait such a long time before having this discussion again.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Herkel. That brings our general debate to a close, but voting is not yet closed; colleagues have a few minutes left in which to vote for judges in the European Court of Human Rights, if they wish to do so. Please go to the area behind the President’s Chair to vote.

We now come to the amendments. The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution in Document 13018, to which 26 amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation in the addendum to Document 13018, to which no amendments have been tabled. The amendments will be considered in the order in which they apply to the text.

Four amendments have been agreed unanimously by the committee. I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose that Amendments 26, 23, 14 and 9, which were unanimously approved by the committee, be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. Is that so, Mr Herkel?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) (Translation) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone object? There are no objections. I therefore declare that Amendments 26, 23, 14 and 9 are agreed.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 26, tabled by the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 21, after the words “a number of shortcomings” to insert the following words: “, as well as to its forthcoming opinion on the amendments to the Law on the Freedom of Assembly adopted on 9 June 2012”.

Amendment 23, tabled by the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 22, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly is very concerned by the Duma’s recent decision to deprive Mr Gennady Gudkov, member of the ‘Just Russia’ party, of his parliamentary mandate on the basis of Article 4, 1-B of the Law on the Status of the Deputies of the Duma, in conjunction with Article 6, paragraph 2-B, which prohibits a member of the Duma from engaging in any business activity. This decision, taken by a simple majority vote on the basis of the evidence provided by the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Investigation Committee without any court proceedings, establishes a dangerous precedent which may undermine the very essence of representative democracy. The Assembly calls on the Duma to retract its decision and establish a proper procedure for the implementation of legal provisions regarding incompatibilities which would comply with democratic standards.”

Amendment 14, tabled by Mr Biedroń, Mr Gunnarsson, Ms Hägg, Ms Ohlsson, Ms Bilgehan, Ms Huovinen, Mr Szabó, Ms Strik, Mr de Vries, Lord Tomlinson, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Dobbin, Mr Debono Grech, Ms Rupprecht, Mr Pflug, Ms Cramon-Taubadel, Mr Montag, Mr Borowski, Ms Maury Pasquier, Mr Saar, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Flego, Ms Mulić, Ms Tireli, Mr Gardetto, Mr Villumsen and Mr M. Jensen, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 23.31, to insert the following paragraph: “ensure that laws restricting freedom of expression and assembly in relation to homosexuality are repealed and that the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons to freedom of assembly is guaranteed;”.

Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Mr Kalmár, Ms Kyriakides, Mr Vareikis, Ms Palihovici, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Panţiru and Ms Guţu, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 23.34 with the following paragraph: “continue efforts to settle rapidly outstanding issues on the return of cultural and other property by direct negotiation with the countries concerned, in accordance with the commitments assumed by the Russian Federation through Opinion 193 (1996), paragraphs 10.xii, 10.xiii and 10.xiv.”

Explanatory note: the progress made by Russia concerning the returning of cultural goods and other properties belonging to some member states is minimal. Solving all the requests in a reasonable time represents more than a moral duty that should be called to mind.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Mr Kalmár, Ms Kyriakides, Mr Vareikis, Ms Palihovici, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Panţiru and Ms Guţu, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 2, to insert the following paragraph:

“However, the Russian Federation has not fulfilled, to date, all obligations and commitments provided for by the Assembly’s Opinion 193 (1996), especially those regarding the restitution of all property and goods claimed by Council of Europe member states, as well as the cultural and religious property mentioned in paragraphs 10., 10.xii, 10.xiii and xiv or the said Opinion.”

Explanatory note: the amendment underlines that not all commitments provided for by Opinion 193 (1996) are implemented and some of them, because of their sensitivity, need a more careful consideration by the Assembly until their full implementation. In 1996 all these commitments were accepted by the Russian delegation.

I call Mr Badea to support Amendment 8.

Mr BADEA (Romania) said that the obligations provided for by the Assembly’s Opinion 193 needed greater attention and more rigour to be realised. This amendment would not represent an innovation; an Assembly document of 1996 had contained a similar clause which had been agreed to by countries including the Russian Federation.

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

I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) — The Romanian delegation has tabled the same amendment about cultural and religious property four times. We accepted Amendment 9, but at this point in the text, it is too early to make such an amendment; it would break up the logic of the beginning of the report, which does not come on to the subject of culture immediately, but instead begins with the more important issues.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 8 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 15, tabled by Mrs Brasseur, Ms Broekers-Knol, Mr Bardina Pau, Mr Leyden, Ms Fiala, Ms Reps and Mr Xuclà, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, to delete the word “very”.

I call Ms Brasseur to support Amendment 15.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that it was going too far to talk of “very positive initiatives”, and therefore she proposed the deletion of the word “very”.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 16, tabled by Mrs Brasseur, Ms Broekers-Knol, Mr Bardina Pau, Mr Leyden, Ms Fiala, Ms Reps and Mr Xuclà, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, to delete the following words: “and illustrate a will to liberalise the system and make it more inclusive”.

I call Mrs Brasseur to support Amendment 16.

Ms BRASSEUR asked for support for Amendment 16 because she did not have the impression that there was a genuine will to improve.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Frunda.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania) – The position of the Russian authorities is to decrease the threshold from 7% to 5%, liberalise the rules for the registration of political parties and reduce the number of members needed, and reduce the number of signatures needed for a presidential candidate from 2 million to 100 000. Those things illustrate the will to liberalise the system and make it more inclusive. That is the crux of the matter, which is why we do not agree with the amendment.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 16 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Slutsky, Mr Knyshov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Aguzarov, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Seyidov, Ms Gafarova, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Liddell-Grainger and Baroness Eaton, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, to delete the words: “and the Assembly calls for their immediate release”.

Explanatory note: paragraph 23.28 is worded more correctly from the point of view of the rule of law.

I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 1.

Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – We propose our amendment as paragraph 23.28 of the draft resolution contains a much more legally correct definition. It is more correct from the point of view of the rule of law, so these words are unnecessary.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Frunda.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania) – As we said this morning, the decision to sentence the members of Pussy Riot to two years’ imprisonment is much too much. The sentence is disproportionate, even if we do not agree with their act, and this is why we asked the Russian authorities for the immediate release of the three ladies.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Slutsky, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Knyshov, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Harutyunyan, Mr Seyidov, Ms Gafarova, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Liddell-Grainger, Baroness Eccles and Baroness Eaton, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, to delete the words: “instead of increasing its authoritarianism.”

Explanatory note: nothing is said in the explanatory memorandum about any manifestations of authoritarianism.

I call Mr Pushkov to support amendment 2.

Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – Our amendment would give a precise definition of what is going on in Russia, whereas the report says that Russia is in a decisive moment when it will be clear where it moves. We feel that this is a subjective reading of the processes going on in Russia.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Slutsky, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Knyshov, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Harutyunyan, Mr Seyidov, Ms Gafarova, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Vaksdal, Mr Binley, Mr Liddell-Grainger, Baroness Eccles and Baroness Eaton, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, to delete the following words: “and the use of disproportionate force to disperse them”.

Explanatory note: the police of the United Kingdom, Greece, Belgium, the USA and some other countries have recently used tougher methods to disperse peaceful demonstrations. The word “disproportionate” seems to be rhetorical rather than notional in this context.

I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 3.

Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – We think that the words we wish to delete are a subjective estimate of what is going on, and when we see how demonstrations are dispersed in several countries that are members of the Council of Europe, that could also be described as disproportionate force. If the report is adopted unchanged, it would single out Russia on the basis of a double standard.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – We saw the use of disproportionate force in Moscow. If it happens in Zurich, Berlin, Athens or Spain, it is not a reason why it should happen in Moscow. That is why we have to say it here.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) –The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 22, tabled by Mr Umakhanov, Mr Fetisov, Mr Kryvitsky, Mr Seyidov, Ms Gafarova, Mr Huseynov and Mr Çavuşoğlu, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 15 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly is especially concerned about the situation in the North Caucasus. The end of military actions, as well as the measures undertaken by the federal authorities aimed at restoring and modernising the infrastructure and rebuilding the towns, have considerably improved the living conditions of the population. At the same time, the continuing terrorist acts, killings of military personnel, civilians and clergy, the continuing human rights violations and an atmosphere of impunity, lead to an increase of violence and to a volatile situation in the region. Expressing its condemnation of the terrorist acts and solidarity with their victims, the Assembly at the same time notes the excessive use of force and abuses by law enforcement agents.”

If this amendment is adopted, Amendments 1 and 17 will be withdrawn

I call Mr Umakhanov to support Amendment 22.

Mr UMAKHANOV (Russian Federation) said that it would be reductive to consider the situation as only a question of law enforcement abuses.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – We take the clear message of Dick Marty’s report about the Northern Caucasus which the Russian Federation agreed to. The 150 cases that you do not like sum up all court cases until two years ago. We do not want to say just Northern Caucasus because the situation is worse today in Dagestan. That is why we ask you not to replace this wording.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 22 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 17, tabled by Mrs Brasseur, Ms Broekers-Knol, Mr Bardina Pau, Mr Leyden, Ms Fiala, Ms Reps and Mr Xuclà, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15, to replace the words “and in particular in Ingushetia and Dagestan” with the following words: “in particular in Ingushetia, Chechnya and Dagestan”.

I call Mrs Brasseur to support Amendment 17.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that it was important not to forget Chechnya, so it should be mentioned as well as Dagestan

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – In the Northern Caucasus, the main three republics are the three mentioned, but if we say “in particular Dagestan”, and then we add Chechnya, the word “particular” loses sense and that is why we do not want a change.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 17 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Slutsky, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Knyshov, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Seyidov, Ms Gafarova, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Liddell-Grainger, Baroness Eccles and Baroness Eaton, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15, to delete the last sentence.

I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 4.

Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – We think that this sentence is an interference in the action of the legal system in Russia.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Omtzigt.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – We conclude that there are killings, abductions and torture in an area and it would be highly unusual for our Organisation to say that there should be impunity. Please do not say that the Russian authorities should not bring the perpetrators to justice, because that is what would be said if the last sentence were deleted. Please vote against this amendment.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 24, tabled by Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 18, to add the following sentence:

“The opening of polling stations in Abkhazia (Georgia), South Ossetia (Georgia) and Transdniestria (Republic of Moldova) without the explicit consent of the de jure authorities in Tbilisi and Chisinau, as well as the prior ‘passportisation’ of populations in these territories, violated the territorial integrity of these states, as recognised by the international community, including the Parliamentary Assembly.”

I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment 24.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – This amendment is about what happened during the Russian elections in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria. Polling stations were opened without the consent of the de jure authorities in Chisinau and Tbilisi. It is also about forced passportisation.

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

The committee is in favour.

The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Mr Biedroń, Mr Gunnarsson, Ms Hägg, Ms Ohlsson, Ms Bilgehan, Ms Shuovinen, Mr Szabó, Ms Strik, Mr de Vries, Lord Tomlinson, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Dobbin, Mr Debono Grech, Ms Rupprecht, Mr Pflug, Ms Cramon-Taubadel, Mr Montag, Mr Borowski, Ms Maury Pasquier, Mr Saar, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Flego, Ms Mulić, Ms Tireli, Mr Gardetto, Mr Villumsen and Mr M. Jensen, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 18, to insert the following paragraph:

“Continuing attacks on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons remain a serious concern, with the introduction of laws restricting freedom of expression and assembly in relation to homosexuality in nine constituent entities of the Russian Federation and a proposal for similar legislation in the Federal Duma, and with the widespread refusal to allow peaceful assemblies despite the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Alekseyev v. Russia.”

I call Mr Biedroń to support Amendment 13.

Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – The amendment speaks for itself.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 18, tabled by Mrs Brasseur, Ms Broekers-Knol, Mr Bardina Pau, Mr Leyden, Ms Fiala, Ms Reps and Mr Xuclà, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 23.1.6, to insert the following paragraph:

“the possibility for different political parties to constitute electoral blocs.”

I call Mrs Brasseur to support Amendment 18.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that when the Assembly had been discussing representation for political parties it had noted the importance of forming blocs.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have been informed that the co-rapporteurs wish to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, which is, in Amendment 18, to delete the word “blocs” and insert the word “alliances”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I call the rapporteur to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – Mrs Brasseur used two terms in her amendment and we prefer “alliances” to “blocs”. The former is more liberal.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) agreed with the opinion expressed by Mr Gross but noted that she had taken the word “bloc” from the original report. She supported the oral sub-amendment.

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

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 18, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

We come now to Amendment 19, tabled by Mrs Brasseur, Ms Broekers-Knol, Mr Bardina Pau, Mr Leyden, Ms Fiala, Ms Reps and Mr Uclà, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 23.3 with the following paragraph:

“establish a meaningful political dialogue with the opposition not represented in the State Duma;”.

I call Mrs Brasseur to support Amendment 19.

Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that political dialogue had not worked. She had spoken to those who had been invited to take part in the dialogue between December 2011 and March 2012 and they had told her that no dialogue had happened.

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

I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I think that it is very important that when something positive happens – those who were there told me that it was very positive – you say it and do not have to hide it. It is also much better pedagogy to make an example of those who you want to continue this example and not just downgrade it. It was a good example and that is why we can take it as an example for the future.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 19 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Slutsky, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Knyshov, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Harutyunyan, Mr Seyidov, Ms Gafarova, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Vaksdal, Mr Binley, Mr Liddell-Grainger, Baroness Eccles and Baroness Eaton, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 23.30.

Explanatory note: the explanatory memorandum does not give any grounds to claim that the law on alternative military service is not in line with European practice, which, in fact, does not exist.

I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 5.

Mr PUSHKOV said that the practice on alternative military service was already appropriate and there was no need to suggest otherwise.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have been informed that the co-rapporteurs wish to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, as follows:

In Amendment 5 at the end to insert the words “and insert the words ‘while supporting the Russian authorities in the practice of the alternative military service, review the law on alternative military service and bring these changes into the law as soon as possible’.”

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case.

I call Mr Frunda to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania) – Continuing the logic of what Mr Gross said, we want to emphasise the positive steps that the Russian authorities have taken. That is why we welcome the measures taken over the years but, at the same time, are asking the Russian authorities to review the law on alternative military service, which they committed to do a long time ago.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

Mr Pushkov is obviously in favour.

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 5, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 20, tabled by Mrs Brasseur, Ms Broekers-Knol, Mr Bardina Pau, Mr Leyden, Ms Fiala, Ms Reps and Mr Xuclà, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 23.31, to add the following words: “, as well as against those involved in non-violent activities, including critical assessments of political, public or religious organisations”.

I call Mrs Brasseur to support Amendment 20.

Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that it was important to avoid extremism not just against religious communities but against others.

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

I call Mr Frunda.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania) – We are against the amendment because we believe that what Mrs Brasseur wants to achieve is already set out in paragraph 23.9. We have information directly from Russia and in Strasbourg that the law on extremism was used several times against Jehovah’s Witnesses and members of other confessions. That is why we need this express article and support it as it is.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 20 is rejected.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – On a point of order, Mr President. In the Monitoring Committee I moved an oral sub-amendment proposing that the words “against all religious communities, especially Jehovah’s Witnesses.” should be included. How can we vote on an amendment that the rapporteur said he wanted to accept as on the order paper when the committee actually accepted the amendment I proposed in the committee?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have received an oral amendment from Mr Hancock which reads as follows:

To delete the words “religious communities such as” and insert the words “all religious communities especially”.

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.6 which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

I call Mr Hancock to support the oral amendment.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – My amendment amends something that has already been voted on by the Parliamentary Assembly, so surely it should have been decided on first. I think that it makes sense and improves the report.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

We come now to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Slutsky, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Knyshov, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Seyidov, Ms Gafarova, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Liddell-Grainger, Baroness Eccles and Baroness Eaton, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 23.32, to replace the word “implement” with the following words: “consider the implementation, where possible, of”.

I call Mr Slutsky to support Amendment 6.

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that this amendment was an attempt to defuse confrontations over the resolution.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I think that we should stick with the word “implementation”. When one implements something, one must consider it but when one considers something, one does not have to implement it.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 6 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 25, tabled by the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 23.33, to insert the following paragraph:

“denounce as wrong the concept of two different categories of foreign country, whereby some are treated as a zone of special influence called ‘the near abroad’ and refrain from promoting the geographical doctrine of zones of ‘privileged interests’;”.

I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment 25.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The amendment was tabled by the committee and denounces the concepts of zones of special influence and zones of privileged interests. It is a quote from the paper signed by the Russian Federation before it became a member of our Organisation.

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

We know the opinion of the committee.

The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Mr Kalmár, Ms Kyriakides, Mr Vareikis, Ms Palihovici, Mr Ghiletch, Mr Panţiru and Ms Guţu, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 23.34, to insert the following paragraph:

“The restitution of the Treasure of Romania, temporarily evacuated to Moscow during World War I, based on bilateral agreements between the Romanian authorities and the Russian authorities, when the two countries were allied, whereby the Government of Russia guaranteed the safety of transport, the safety of deposit, and the safety of return to Romania of the said Treasure. The restitution could begin with the metallic gold stock of the National Bank of Romania, consisting of 93.4 tons in coins and bars, for which Romania has transmitted once again to the Russian Federation, in 2004, precise inventories and documentation.”

Explanatory note: the bilateral negotiations on the Romanian Treasure, stored in Moscow, have been blocked by the Russian side for the last six years. Accordingly, we consider it necessary to make a special reference to this issue, which might help to unblock the dialogue and solve an issue which has been contentious for almost 100 years.

I call Mr Badea to support Amendment 10.

Mr BADEA (Romania) said that it was fundamentally unsatisfactory that treasure stolen from Romania had not been returned and that Russia was refusing to engage in talks on the matter.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – This is a very nice amendment, because it concerns gold that has been melted, and has afterwards been put together with Russian gold, because Romania gained Bessarabia. If Romania still thinks that Russia did not behave correctly, that is a matter for bilateral negotiation and does not have a place in our resolution.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) –The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 10 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 21, tabled by Ms Guţu, Mr Bardina Pau, Mr Marquet, Mr Xuclà, Ms Grosskost, Mr Zingeris, Mr Halicki, Mr Agramunt, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Preda, Mr Badea and Mr Panţiru, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 23.34, to insert the following paragraph:

“to put a stop to the political and economic pressure exerted by the company Gazprom by means of the price charged for natural gas sold to the countries of central and eastern Europe.”

Explanatory note: the Russian Federation uses its natural resources to blackmail the countries of central and eastern Europe, for example the Republic of Moldova, in an attempt to convince them to accede to the so-called Euro-Asian Union of which Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan are members.

I call Ms Guţu to support Amendment 21.

Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova) said that it was not right that the Russian Federation should use political pressure to achieve its objectives in energy policy.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Frunda.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania) said that the Committee did not wish to make a distinction between economic and political aspects and so was against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The committee is against the amendment.

The vote is open.

Amendment 21 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Mr Kalmár, Ms Kyriakides, Mr Vareikis, Ms Palihovici, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Panţiru and Ms Guţu, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 24, to insert the following words: “, and will return as soon as possible all property and cultural goods claimed by other member states of the Council of Europe.”

Explanatory note: this aims to insert into future priorities the issue of solving the claims of other states regarding the return of properties and cultural goods to their true owners, as the process is confronted with major difficulties.

I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 11.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The amendment refers to the cultural goods of other member states of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – We have already made such a provision by accepting Amendment 9 and we should not do it twice.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 11 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Mr Kalmár, Ms Kyriakides, Mr Vareikis, Ms Palihovici, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Panţiru and Ms Guţu, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 25, to replace the words “substantial progress with regard to the issues raised in this and the above mentioned resolutions” with the following words: “their complete fulfilment, as provided by Opinion 193 (1996) of the Assembly and subsequent resolutions, recommendations and reports”.

Explanatory note: this amendment underlines that all Russia’s commitments, reflected in Opinion 193 (1996) of the Assembly and in its subsequent resolutions, have an equal status and should be monitored by the Assembly until their full implementation.

I call Mr Badea to support the amendment.

Mr BADEA (Romania) said that given previous decisions of the Assembly, he saw no reason for the amendment not to be agreed to.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have been informed that the rapporteur wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, as follows:

In Amendment 12 to delete the words “their complete” and insert the words “and their”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I call Mr Herkel to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – We accepted Mr Badea’s original idea and merely wish to delete the word “complete”.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr BADEA (Romania) – I support it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 12, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13018, as amended.

The vote is open.

With regard to the draft recommendation, I remind the Assembly that a two-thirds majority is required.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13018, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 13018, as amended, is rejected, with 121 votes for, 74 against and 11 abstentions.

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

3. Joint debate: (a) for more democratic elections; (b) political parties and women’s representation

THE PRESIDENT – We now come to a joint debate on the report “For more democratic elections” from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 13021, followed by opinions from the Committee on Legal Affairs, the Committee on Migration, the Committee on Culture and the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, and the report entitled “Political parties and women’s political representation” from the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination Document 13022.

I remind the Assembly that at Monday’s sitting it was agreed that speaking time in all debates today be limited to three minutes.

In order to allow time for the replies, we may need to interrupt the list of speakers at about 8.15 p.m. The consideration of amendments and votes will take place tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. I ask everyone who is not interested in this debate to leave the Chamber and allow those who are interested in it to participate.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that at a time when citizens were losing faith in democratic institutions it was essential that the Assembly continued its work in observing European elections. Now that over 150 elections had been observed, a considerable degree of understanding of the nature of elections had been gained. The core principles of universal suffrage and genuinely free and fair democratic elections were well established, as was the stability of the electoral code. The Council of Europe had published several documents including a code of good conduct for elections, and he noted the work of the Venice Commission in this area. The Council of Europe’s standards were a challenge for many countries and it was unfortunate that corruption had not been completely eliminated.

In most cases the root cause was not to be found in national legislation but in a lack of political will at the highest level to apply that legislation to ensure free and fair elections. Frauds, such as the falsification of ballots or ballot-stuffing, tended to be more common in countries with short democratic traditions. Other problems, however, such as lack of media impartiality and irregularities in funding for political parties, could also occur in countries with long traditions of democracy. The majority of problems occurred at election time, as was demonstrated by sources such as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The report proposed strengthening the democratic nature of elections and the extent of participation, in order to restore voters’ confidence, which itself was necessary for greater participation. There ought to be greater synergy between the election observation processes of the Council of Europe and other organisations.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gardetto. You have eight minutes left.

I call Mr McNamara, rapporteur for the opinion for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have three minutes.

Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights congratulates the rapporteur, Mr Gardetto, on a comprehensive and well-balanced report, as do I. The report points to some deficiencies in member states’ activities with regard to elections, and proposes concrete measures to address those deficiencies. The amendments that our committee has proposed aim to strengthen the draft resolution by emphasisng certain legal and human rights issues, as well as the role of election observers, both international and domestic; that builds on previous reports from this Assembly.

The amendments aim to pinpoint the issue of the arbitrary detention of opposition candidates in certain member states as a blatant example of election-related malpractice. They also aim to emphasise the need to ensure coherence of election standards with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

The amendments stress the principle that states should be free to choose their own electoral system. They stress the role of both international and domestic election observers, and highlight recent activities to develop norms and codes of practice in this area. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr McNamara. I call Mr Santini, the Rapporteur for the opinion for the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. You have three minutes.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that he agreed broadly with the conclusions and recommendations of Mr Gardetto’s report. Elections were fundamental in ensuring that legislatures and governments were formed in accordance with the will of the people. Genuine democracy required the participation of the maximum number of people qualified to do so. Immigration was increasing all over Europe: 13% of the population of OECD countries was now made up of immigrants. It was necessary to provide them with opportunities to participate in political life, to obtain citizenship, the right to vote and other forms of democratic participation. Progress could be made by, for example, implementing Resolution 1618 of the Council of Europe, adopted in 2008. This resolution had made suggestions including on how to improve access to citizenship, such as introducing long-term residence permits and electoral rights for those who had been established in a country for five years or more. What little data there was clearly showed that immigrants wanted to participate. They had duties, but also rights. Steps should be taken to avoid a democratic deficit; depriving immigrants of the right to vote would not render a service to democracy.

He would speak in more detail later to an amendment to the report which sought to draw on tools such as the European Convention on Nationality and the European Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Santini. I call Ms Postanjyan, Rapporteur for the opinion for the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. You, too, have three minutes.

Ms POSTANJYAN (Armenia) – The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media welcomes the report prepared by Mr Gardetto for the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. It is very timely, given the persistent problems underlined in past election observation reports and the tendency to political radicalisation in some member states in the wake of economic crises. Self-criticism and innovation are necessary approaches for Europe with respect to democratic elections.

We are facing up to current violations, which are mainly due to a lack of political commitment at the highest level, generally on the part of the ruling political forces. The most serious violations tend to occur in the pre-electoral period. Misuse of administrative resources; lack of equal access to the media and lack of media impartiality; violence and intimidation carried out against candidates or voters; multiple voting; vote buying; lack of a right to vote for citizens living abroad; and the inaccuracy of electoral registers are the main issues when it comes to conducting democratic elections. All those and many other violations persist in a number of states and are likely to lead to electoral fraud. Unfortunately, all the above-mentioned violations still persist for Armenian citizens. The Committee aligns itself with the draft resolution adopted by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, so our several amendments were adopted unanimously in support of the objectives of Mr Gardetto’s excellent report.

I now wish to present our Committee’s opinion. During nearly 50 years, the European Court of Human Rights has established jurisprudence on the right to free elections under article 3 of the First protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. That norm is the yardstick for free democratic elections throughout Europe, so it is important to recall expressly article 3 in the draft resolution, whose aim is more democratic elections in Europe. Paragraph 8.1.8 addresses important issues associated with election campaigns and media freedom. Freedom of expression and information through the media is a necessary condition for informed elections in a democracy. All the Assembly’s recent election observation reports noted serious problems in respect of the freedom of political debate in the media. Election observations benefit largely from the work of non-governmental organisations. Education on democratic citizenship and, in particular, modules on political participation and elections must be part of a member state’s formal education system. This must also be promoted through non-formal education and civil society initiatives.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, rapporteur, for the opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. Welcome back, Marietta. You have three minutes.

Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – Thank you, Mr President. I also wish to thank our rapporteur, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, for his thorough, comprehensive report. I am sorry that I could not attend yesterday’s committee meeting, but I had to be in Georgia, where it was lovely to see that most of the commissioners in the polling stations were women. That is the case not only in Georgia; we find almost the same thing in Russia and Ukraine. I almost wonder whether the men will ask for a quota so that they can be there too! The chairs of the commissions were mostly also women, and that is very good.

Most of the issues that fall under the remit of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination were “mainstreamed” in Mr Gardetto’s report – such issues include women’s representation and the political participation of minorities – so there is not much for me to do. In addition, we are going to discuss the report of my Romanian colleague, Ms Maria Stavrositu, which deals with political parties and women’s political participation, so much of what I wish to say has been covered. That is why my Committee has not tabled so many amendments. We did table one to rewrite paragraph 8.1.5, but I will not go through that now as I will do so tomorrow. The important amendment is the one about the legal framework for having more representation for women and what the parties can do. We have to separate these things, because we cannot have a law telling parties what to do. The parties should have awareness and put women higher up on the lists – they should be first on the lists. The parties should put a lot of women on lists. That is the responsibility of the parties, but we cannot legislate on that. That is why I wanted to separate the two things: the things we can have laws on and the things we cannot. We can still encourage the parties to promote women. That is what I will talk about tomorrow, when we will vote on it.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Pourbaix-Lundin. I call Ms Stavrositu, rapporteur, to present the second report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the reports and reply to the debate.

Ms STAVROSITU (Romania) – Mr President, distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly, I first wish to thank everyone who helped me in gathering relevant data and information from their countries. I especially want to thank the delegations who encouraged the political parties to send us the important information about these issues in their countries. A big part of this report is about collecting accurate information directly from all the countries. My report focuses on the best practices for promoting gender equality in political parties. Political parties are key players in pluralist democracies. Women’s participation and representation in the political realm and the overall topic of gender equality are vital components in the consolidation of a democracy.

There is no single formula on how to enhance women’s representation in politics. Each country has followed its own path, strongly influenced by the following; different political traditions; political and electoral systems; the different degree of awareness of the importance of gender equality; the different forms of political decision-making; and many other considerations. Therefore, I believe that the under-representation of women affects the representativeness of democratic institutions, and so far the debate on how to enhance women’s representation in Parliament has focused mainly on safeguards to be introduced in electoral legislation, in particular having a certain minimum percentage of women candidates to be placed on each party’s electoral list – that is the legislated quota. Such quotas are in operation in 13 member states of the Council of Europe. In our member states, women represent approximately 51% of the population, yet only 23.4% of the members of national Parliaments are women.

From the wide range of practices for promoting women’s political participation and representation, I wish to highlight the following: statutory commitments to gender equality; encouragements to recruit women party members; the fact that the existence of women-only structures in political parties is instrumental in giving an impetus to discussions on the selection of women candidates, on their participation in decision-making bodies and on their access to financial resources; other structures to promote women’s political representation – although rare, some parties have specific gender-mixed structures to promote women’s political participation – gender quotas in executive boards; and voluntary gender quotas in electoral lists. In about 30 Council of Europe member states, one or more of the political parties have adopted voluntary quotas to guarantee that a minimum proportion of candidates are women.

Another good practice relates to the ranking order in an electoral list. The order in which candidates appear on such lists can influence their chances of being elected. That is why a number of political parties have voluntarily introduced the zipper principle, which involves alternating between female and male candidates. Good practice also includes mentorship and leadership programmes for women in politics, access to financial resources and measures for the reconciliation of family and political life.

There is also media access and training – the setting up of training programmes is important to strengthen women’s media skills and to ensure that women members are given a fair chance to speak on behalf of the party on a broad range of issues – and state funding and women’s representation. To increase interest in the issue of women’s representation, the Parliamentary Assembly decided to set up the gender equality prize, “to reward actions, schemes or initiatives that have been or are in the process of being carried out by political parties and have brought about a significant improvement in women's participation in elected assemblies, political parties and their respective executives.” In the present report, I have highlighted that there is no one single way to improve women’s representation. Different countries may decide to opt for different approaches, according to their history, political culture and the place occupied by gender equality therein. Among the tools at states’ disposal are electoral legislation – including legislative quotas requiring the presence of a minimum proportion of women in electoral lists – and financial or other inducements.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Stavrositu. The next speaker is Ms Gafarova, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – First, I thank Ms Stavrositu for a conceptual and balanced report, which is full of information. There are two important issues in the report which combine well together. They are the issues of political parties and of women in political parties. The issue of political parties is very important because, as we know, today’s democratic systems rely on political parties as one of the main ways of channelling different views and securing a variety of interests in the political decision-making process. Political parties play a crucial role in establishing public authorities, and in formulating policies and implementing them.

The effectiveness and credibility of parties have a fundamental impact on the nature and success of democracy. They are of the utmost importance for the legitimacy of the whole political system and constitute a necessary precondition for the effectiveness of the democratic process. That is why many international structures and organisations give attention to this issue.

The issue of women in political parties is also important. Speaking about women’s political representation without any pretence of being exhaustive, Ms Stavrositu provides examples drawn from the experience of different regions and member states. She also gives a table showing the proportion of women in national parliaments.

There is no single formula for enhancing women’s representation in politics. Each country has followed its own path, strongly influenced by different political traditions, political and electoral systems, the different degree of awareness of the importance of gender equality in political decision making, and many other considerations.

My group appreciates this report very much and strongly believes that on the basis of the positive experience of women’s representatives in political parties, the Parliamentary Assembly should recommend good practices for increasing women’s representation in parliament to political parties in the Council of Europe member and observer states, as well as partners for democracy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Gafarova. The next speaker is Mr Hunko, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr HUNKO (Germany) thanked Mr Gardetto for his report, which listed several measures to make elections more democratic. Democracy was never totally perfect and had to be won on a daily basis. The title of the report illustrated this: it asked for more democratic elections.Mr Gardetto had referred to an increasing number of people turning away from the electoral process. This was also exemplified by the rise of organisations such as the True Democrats in Spain. In Germany, the last local elections had had only a 33% turnout. A divide was being dug and people were sceptical of politicians.

Financial markets were also important and the role of financial magnates was increasingly influential. In recent elections in Ukraine the power of the oligarchs had weighed upon the vote. This was also apparent in Germany where people spoke of “democracy in conformity with the market”. Such ideas were almost a perversion of democracy. In democracy the majority should win and not be held in check by a need to agree with the markets.

He also agreed with the report on the participation of women in politics.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Hunko. The next speaker is Ms Kyriakides, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.

Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – Best practices for promoting gender equality in political parties have been the focus of discussion for a number of years, but although progress has been made in many areas, much remains to be done. If we truly believe that in order to achieve real democracy we need equal representation of women in political leadership and decision-making processes, we need to do a great deal more.

My country, Cyprus, is mentioned in the report as one of many Council of Europe member states where women’s representation in parliament is under 20%. It is documented in the report that in only four of the Assembly’s 47 member states do women have more than 40% representation in national parliaments. Of course, we could follow in the footsteps of Lysistrata, the Athenian woman in Aristophanes’s famous play, who asked her fellow Greek women to withhold sexual privileges from their menfolk to end the Peloponnesian war as a way of applying political pressure to advocate for change, but I would hope that we can solve this issue using less drastic measures.

The report documents the vast inequalities in political participation and the resulting lack of real democracy in many of our countries. How can we believe that the decisions reached are truly democratic when the voice of 51% of the population has not been heard?

There is no “one size fits all” approach to solving this problem. In some countries, and some political parties, the introduction of legislative quotas, media campaigns and an emphasis on gender mainstreaming have brought about change. In others, the shift has been minimal. It is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed at many levels, but it must be viewed as not just a women’s issue. The commitment to change can be achieved only if the voices are those of men and women together, putting trafficking and violence against women on common agendas.

There needs to be a basic shift in the stereotypes that our children are brought up with. Those stereotypes are formed early in life through the media and our political and civil society. There need to be clear, targeted policies that facilitate the reconciliation of family and political life for women. Women need to be empowered from within, but empowerment must also come from outside. What we need is a change in culture through strategic measures so that we have culture conducive to gender equality in politics and in society in general.

I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report. We need to advocate through our national parliaments and carry the voice of the Assembly’s resolutions if we are to prove to Aristophanes that Lysistrata’s methods are not the only way forward.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Kyriakides, for reminding us about the Peloponnesian war and other such interesting matters.

I call Ms Christoffersen to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, the Socialist Group strongly supports both reports, which are more closely interlinked than they might first appear. We know the notions of human rights, democracy and the rule of law by heart and in our sleep. However, Mr Gardetto’s report shows a huge gap between theory and practice in some member countries. I take it for granted that no one really believes that opacity in funding, misuse of administrative resources, media control, vote buying, ballot box stuffing, threats, intimidation and violence are ingredients in the recipe for free and fair elections.

In election observations we report on countries one by one, but in this report we see the situation in full. Progress is made, but the list of bad countries is discouraging, many of them having been members of the Council of Europe for more than 10 years. It is high time we got past talking; action is needed. The measures are listed in the report. Use them, because your people deserve that.

I started by saying that the two reports are closely interlinked. Ms Stavrositu’s report reveals a deplorably low average of 23% for female parliamentary representation in our member countries, and in some it is even less than 10%. Many of the same countries are listed in Mr Gardetto’s report, which is hardly a coincidence. Our group fully supports her request to all political parties to introduce a gender quota. In the Norwegian Labour Party, we have a quota of 50:50 at all levels of government and within the party organisation, and it can be followed by sanctions if necessary. The aim of that rule is explicitly stated to be both a question of women’s rights and a means of improving the quality of political decisions by taking advantage in politics of female life experiences.

In addition, if we take the lists of countries with bad habits in both reports and add to them a column showing the World Economic Forum’s gender gap index for 2011, we find a very interesting pattern. The widest gender gaps appear in countries with a bad score on free elections and female representation. If we add a ranking for welfare and living conditions, would anyone be surprised to find another close correlation? The Socialist Group would not. We are convinced – history has proven this – that the only way to welfare and prosperity is through democracy and equal terms for men and women. The opposite will sooner or later prove a dead end.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Christoffersen. The next speaker is Ms Anttila, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms ANTTILA (Finland) – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, on behalf of the Liberal group I would like to thank the two rapporteurs on their excellent reports and congratulate them. Democratic elections are decisive for ensuring that the will of the people is respected in shaping legislation at all levels. The main principles are free and fair elections. Democracy as a whole requires both men and women as decision makers. The share of women parliamentarians is very low and varies a great deal across member states of the Council of Europe. Our main target should be half and half.

Political parties have a decisive role to play in enhancing women’s political representation. First, we need more women candidates in the elections, because a higher share will directly ensure that more women are elected. According to the equality acts in the Nordic countries, all projects for legislation and all budgetary and project-management programmes must be evaluated with regard to their possible impact on gender. Men and women must be treated on an equal basis.

One of the strengths of Nordic democracy is that women’s organisations work in close co-operation despite party differences. All political women’s organisations in Finland are members of the Coalition of Finnish Women’s Organisations. The coalition is a central player when it comes to giving statements in the preparatory phase of government proposals. In addition, the Finnish Parliament has a women’s network to which all female parliamentarians belong. In the Nordic countries, the representatives of women’s organisations have ensured their role in political decision-making. Evidence shows that our practice has produced great results. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Anttila.

Do the rapporteurs wish to reply now or at the end of the debate?

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) – At the end, Mr President.

Ms STAVROSITU (Romania) – Later, Mr President.

THE PRESIDENT – In that case, I call Mr Lorrain.

Mr LORRAIN (France) congratulated Mr Gardetto on the report. Observation of elections was very useful but it was important not to restrict one’s thinking about elections just to the voting day.

It was essential that legislators acted in the general interest without bringing their personal interests into play. What was needed was a democracy open to people’s needs. It should adapt to the way people voted and to social and economic challenges. Representation was becoming invisible because legislators too often engaged in emotional or religious discourse. This had stopped necessary steps being taken: personal convictions had held them back. It was important to rediscover the coexistence of politicians and the people: representatives of the people should engage with their electors.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Lorrain. Ms Bourzai is not here, so I call Mr Zourabian.

Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – Mr President, distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly, I would like first to congratulate the people of Georgia on the outcome of the parliamentary elections held on 1 October. We have now had the first democratic transfer of power in the South Caucasus since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Most importantly, what happened dismissed the widespread speculation that the undemocratic nature of the South Caucasus states is grounded in the mentality of their respective societies or in a bad international environment.

Unfortunately, Armenia, which I represent, was unable to achieve the same in our recent parliamentary elections. Our ruling party is the only one in Europe to have survived elections despite the dire consequences of the international economic crisis. Although many European governments were unable even to reach their scheduled election time and fell in pre-term elections caused by that same crisis, the Armenian ruling party improved its electoral party list standing from 33% in pre-crisis 2007 to 44% in 2012 despite the biggest decrease in GDP in Europe, a sharp decline in living standards and scandalous revelations about the misappropriation of budgetary funds and allegations of endemic corruption, kleptocracy and oligarchic arbitrariness.

That is not the biggest paradox in the Armenian reality. Although in the past 20 years all basic demographic indicators have declined steadily, the number of voters on the register and official participation in parliamentary and presidential elections reported by the Armenian Central Electoral Commission has steadily gone up. Both paradoxes have a simple explanation, which is that the basic demographic indicators are incompatible with the officially recorded participation numbers. In order to make them compatible, we would have to assume that 500 000 to 700 000 votes were falsified in favour of the ruling party. You can understand what that will mean for a country where the official figure for participation in the May 2012 parliamentary election was 1.6 million voters. Through multiple voting, intimidation and the bribing of voters, Armenia’s ruling regime has created a state-organised machine of falsification on such a scale that it prevents any possibility of power change in Armenia. In 2008, the falsification of the presidential elections resulted in huge protest rallies, the brutal dispersal of peaceful protesters by government security forces on 1 March, the death of 10 people, the wounding of hundreds and the rule of a president who no one believes was elected by the Armenian people.

It is the task of the Armenian people and political forces to create a legitimate and elected government in Armenia. For five years, a popular democratic movement has struggled for the right of the Armenian people to choose their own government. What we need from you is merely solidarity among the international democratic community. That solidarity should not be limited to shy criticism of the flaws in the electoral process reflected in the resolution and in reports by the Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE, but should openly state what everybody in Armenia knows, which is that we do not have a legitimately elected government. But we will, and the mere acknowledgement of the reality will provide enormous help to the democratic movement in Armenia in achieving that.

THE PRESIDENT– Thank you, Mr Zourabian. I ask all speakers to stick to three minutes, because we have a long speakers list and if everyone steals half a minute we will lose too much time at the end. I call Ms Blondin.

Ms BLONDIN (France) said that the issue of the participation of women in politics was not a new one and the fact that the Assembly was debating it now indicated that slow progress had been made. She welcomed the report and drew members’ attention to the binding measures introduced in France by the 1999 Review of the Constitution, specifically Articles 3 and 4. The law of 6 June 2000 had made significant improvements and the use of proportional representation offered advantages over the first past the post system. Political power was still concentrated in the hands of men and it was too often the case that women were left to deal with social affairs while men dealt with town planning and finance. Proper consideration should be given to a work-life balance which would allow women to participate fully in political life. This would include her male colleagues taking a greater share in household responsibilities. The role of women in politics was a subject that the Assembly could usefully continue to consider.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Blondin. The next speaker is Ms Virolainen.

Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – The former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, once said that there is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women. We do not need to worry about that; the report contains concrete suggestions for actions to improve women’s participation. I compliment Ms Stavrositu for her excellent and important contribution to the advancement of women’s rights in Europe.

The examples of good practice in the report are almost identical to our system in Finland. Finland was the first country in the world to introduce equal suffrage. In our last general election, our 200-seat parliament received 85 women MPs and we formed a women’s network, as Ms Anttila has already mentioned. That is the result of years of hard work building a society based on gender equality and a long tradition within the political parties of enrolling more female candidates.

Female participation is essential to female representation and equal opportunities should be enshrined in the values of all political parties. I would like to think that we all vote for the person who best represents our values and beliefs, regardless of whether that person is a man or a woman, but what is the secret behind our long tradition of inclusiveness? There are no easy answers, but I think the Nordic welfare model offers solid proof that inclusive societies do it better. One particularly successful example of equality in Finland is the right to affordable day care for everybody, which allows women, regardless of income and marital status, to participate in working life as the municipalities have a legal obligation to organise day care for all children.

Our situation cannot be taken for granted, however. We still have some distance to travel before we achieve a completely equal society. It is therefore important to continue to support women’s organisations within and outside political parties. In Finland, at least 10% of party subsidies must be directed towards activities for women. My party also has a specific programme to encourage women at the beginning of their political careers to take an active part in decision-making and building a healthy society. I hope that our discussion in this Assembly will lead to concrete action in all member states so that our societies are made better for women and for men.

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

THE PRESIDENT – I have to interrupt the debate to announce the results of the first ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Number voting: 199

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 15

Votes cast: 184

Absolute majority: 93

The votes cast were as follows:

Ms Jasminka Džumhur: 48

Mr Faris Vehabovic: 107

Mr Dragomir Vukoje: 29

Accordingly. Mr Vehabovic, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting not later than three months from 2 October 2012.

Croatia

Number voting: 199

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 12

Votes cast: 187

Absolute majority: 94

The votes cast were as follows:

Ms Vesna Alaburić: 33

Ms Vesna Crnić-Grotić: 21

Ms Ksenija Turkovic: 133

Accordingly, Ms Turkovic, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting not later than three months from 1 November 2012.

Republic of Moldova

Number voting: 199

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 11

Votes cast: 188

Absolute majority: 95

The votes cast were as follows:

Mr Mihail Buruiană: 48

Mr Valeriu Griţco: 112

Mr Vladimir Grosu: 28.

Accordingly, Mr Griţco, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting not later than three months from 2 October 2012.

Russian Federation

Number voting: 199

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 17

Votes cast: 182

Absolute majority: 92

The votes cast were as follows:

Mr Andrei Yurievitch Bushev: 24

Mr Dmitry Dedov, 120

Ms Olga Vedemikova: 38

Accordingly, Mr Dedov, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting not later than three months from 1 November 2012.

I congratulate all those elected.

5. Joint debate: (a) for more democratic elections; (b) political parties and women’s representation

THE PRESIDENT – We now continue our debate. I call Ms Blanco.

Ms BLANCO (Spain) congratulated the three male judges and one female judge who had just been elected to the European Court of Human Rights. She thanked the rapporteurs and committees for their contributions to the report and noted the good progress that had been made during 20th century, in particular since the Second World War. She doubted, however, that the 21st century would be known as a century of women. Only 13 countries operated a list system of elections, and in 2015 it would be 20 years since the Beijing Conference, with fewer than 50% of its objectives having been achieved. Progress was not being made for women wishing to participate in political life and this was unfortunate since when a few women took part in politics, it was politics that changed them but that when many women participated in politics it was they who changed politics. The last four years had seen capitalism reach a crisis during a time when Europe had looked forward to greater prosperity. Women could not afford to be absent from politics at such a time.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Ms Blanco and called Mrs Zimmermann.

Mrs ZIMMERMANN (France) said that she would focus her intervention on the parity not currently enjoyed by women in politics. There was a marked difference between the creation of laws and their implementation, and the French “Zip” system had applied financial penalties for not meeting targets in respect of female representation. Only 20% of politicians were women and it was essential that female candidates were offered winnable seats. She believed that such financial penalties were the only method by which parties could be persuaded to fulfil their duties in this area. It would require real political will and courage to stop regarding female politicians as adjustments to be made to a male-dominated system and to start considering them in their own right. The role of women varied hugely between those countries where women were visible in politics and those where they were not, and greater political representation was therefore an important goal.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Zimmermann and called Mrs Brasseur.

Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that the Assembly’s work allowed it to observe electoral systems and their shortcomings. Speaking in a purely personal capacity and not on behalf of the ALDE group, she supported the draft resolution put forward by Mr Gardetto but was less certain about the report on women in politics.

It was true that more women were needed in politics, as in all walks of life. Women should be encouraged to get involved, equality between the sexes should be promoted and work should be done to reconcile work-life balance with political duties. However, quotas were not the way to achieve this and could even work against those standing in elections. The choice of candidates should be determined by other criteria, such as experience and track record. The under-represented sex should only be preferred if of equal calibre. In the 2005 city of Luxembourg elections, eight of the ten people elected had been women, and since 2011 there had been gender equality on the city council. There was equal representation in the ALDE group as well. She would be ill at ease if she were to obtain office because of a quota, instead of because the voters had put their trust in her. The European Central Bank had initially decided to appoint Yves Mersch of Luxembourg to its board, but had now decided to give a hearing to a woman instead. It was not acceptable for a man to be the victim of a quota system, nor indeed for a woman to be a victim of such a system. She therefore would not vote for the resolution because of her personal view about quotas.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mrs Brasseur. I call Mrs Durrieu.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, and the European Commission for Democracy through Law—known as the Venice Commission—of which she was a member, had worked a great deal on the subject addressed in the report “For more democratic elections”. Mr Gardetto had also worked closely with these groups. The main principle underlying this work was that of universal suffrage. In this context double voting was an important issue. More and different solutions to the problem of encouraging minorities to vote were also needed. The principle of one man, one vote had to be upheld. Systems could be changed, for example setting aside seats, but such changes should not interfere with that principle. Certain measures could be taken to try to tackle this sensitive issue, but in the long term, representation would be best provided in the context of the conventional system. Greater participation of minorities in elections could promote peace and stability between groups in society.

Resolution 49 of 2005 covered the right to vote for expatriates. Different conditions could apply, such as having polling stations in consulates and embassies or postal voting.

In France the idea had been put forward of having pairs of candidates in a constituency, one man and one woman. This suggestion should be considered by others. All could agree on the principles of democracy and one man, one vote.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mrs Durrieu. I call Mr Mendes Bota.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – We take it for granted that we live in a country where voters have a free choice, and where everyone considers there to be free and fair elections. We take it for granted that we live in a country without opacity and the falsification of electoral protocols, and where candidates and voters do not face pressure, violence or intimidation during electoral campaigns. Imagine such a democratic paradise, where there is equal access to impartial, independent and neutral media, secrecy at the ballot box, transparency and political accountability, and where everybody is assured the right to vote, including people with disabilities and those who are illiterate. Imagine that that was the situation in every one of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe. Even if it was – unfortunately, hardly anywhere is like that – could we say that we lived in a full democracy? Perhaps we could describe it as a half democracy, as the absence of women from political representation is far from fair and balanced.

Parliaments are mirrors of a country’s political scene. What do we see in these mirrors? We see that in 35 of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, women account for less than 30% of parliamentary seats. Surely we recognise that there is not a single equation or a simple solution – there are different paths and speeds – but we believe, as Ms Stavrositu emphasises in her excellent report, that the bottleneck or glass ceiling is at the heart of most political parties in Europe.

Quotas might be decisive, but we have to say that some countries without imposed quotas score the highest women’s participation rates, and some countries with quotas have not achieved the objective of greater gender equality in politics. Quotas might not be indispensible, or even sufficient, in view of other complementary measures. There are voluntary quotas put in place by political parties, and quotas imposed by law. There are weak sanctions such as fines, and radical sanctions such as exclusion from the electoral process. There are weak incentives, such as additional subsidies. However, I must express my conviction that the strongest incentive of all could be additional broadcasting time during electoral campaigns for the parties that achieve the best gender balance in their list of candidates.

I believe that talent and intelligence have no gender, but equality of opportunity is far from having been achieved by political parties. Imagine how different it could be. Maybe one day, sooner rather than later, that dream might come true, and half democracy could become full democracy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Mendes Bota. I call Ms Memecan.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – Thank you, Mr President. I wish to congratulate all the rapporteurs and to thank Ms Stavrositu for a well-researched report on women’s participation in political parties in member states. Women need to be represented more in decision-making structures but, even more importantly, they need to be heard and included when they make it into such structures. A woman’s perspective is vital when taking decisions regarding the whole of society, the future of the next generations and sustainable development. I strongly agree with Ms Brasseur on the issue of quotas, as there are and should be ways of achieving what we want.

I wish to discuss women’s political participation in leadership positions and at the grassroots level in Turkey. The level of women’s participation as parliamentarians has been increasing in Turkey, from 4% in 2002, to 14% in 2011. That positive trend has been complemented by increased female participation in the country’s business, cultural and social life. My Justice and Development party’s women’s branch is a good example of a grassroots democratisation agent. Some 2.5 million women members are registered, which makes it the biggest women’s political organisation in the world. Through its institutionalised organisational structure, women in every province, village and neighbourhood in Turkey are able to take part and reach out. Millions of traditional rural women and urban women work together to come up with policies to make Turkey a better place for their children. A mutual support system exists between the women.

Women in more senior positions are crucial in supporting women working at the grassroots level, who can be more vulnerable to the constraints of the patriarchal system and lack opportunities for professional growth. Women at the grassroots level who possess knowledge and experience of local dynamics are instrumental in supporting female parliamentarians’ engagement in such places. I have benefited from this mutual working structure in my constituency. This solidarity is crucial in promoting the empowerment of women of different backgrounds and resources. Through their engagement, millions of women are exposed to political issues, form opinions, express their views on policy decisions and initiate collective action. They get a say in the governance of their society, they participate and they contribute, building a sustainable democratic process.

One important consequence of all this is the mental shift caused in men, who see women engaged in active political work and contributing to progress in the country. Many men have learned to support their wives through sharing housework and child-rearing duties. They have learned to be proud of the work that the women are doing. This is a true example of grassroots empowerment and democratisation, which can be an inspiration, especially for new democracies emerging in the Middle East. That is because women may face additional obstacles in conservative society.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Memecan. I call Mr Rouquet.

Mr ROUQUET (France) congratulated the rapporteurs on their work on subjects which lay at the heart of the values of this institution. The report on elections drew attention to lacunae which undermined the legitimacy of democracies. The participation of migrants was key, and had been the focus of discussion in the Committee on Migration, Refuges and Displaced Persons. The European Union had blazed a trail by introducing the right for all residents to vote and to stand in elections. Residence-based citizenship allowed people to play their part in democracy, as did residents associations, which enjoyed consultative status in many member nations. Ensuring a right to vote for migrants would be a sign of confidence, and a sign of recognition of the right for everyone to have their say, and of the shared interest of residents of the same town. Some countries had taken this step without detriment to their democracy—in fact, it had had the opposite effect—and their experiences should be drawn upon. Excluding migrants would lead to a democratic deficit. Migrants already participated through work, paying tax, and taking part in civil society. The move towards neighbourhood democracy would make no sense if only some residents of the neighbourhood could participate. He supported Mr Gardetto’s view that, by naturalisation or through consultative bodies, migrants should be able to participate in democracy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Rouquet. I now call Mr Loukaides.

Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – I start by congratulating our Monégasque colleague on this well-written report, which provides a detailed account of the quality of electoral processes across Europe from both a technical and political viewpoint. I wish to discuss the report’s recommendations on the participation of minority groups and of disadvantaged or vulnerable segments of the population, such as women and the younger generation. The growing democratic deficit in Europe, coupled with the difficult economic and financial environment, has disillusioned voters and widened public mistrust of democratic institutions, including electoral practices. Affirmative action mechanisms that favour minority representation are one approach that could instil stability in the social fabric of our society. Similarly, encouraging the participation of the younger generation and promoting gender equality in the electoral process through a more substantive gender-sensitive civic education system will favour inclusion, pluralism and accountability.

While we are on minority representation, I wish to discuss the issue of the representation of the Turkish Cypriot community, even though our Turkish Cypriot compatriots are, according to our constitution, not defined as a minority. In line with European Court of Human Rights decisions, the report points out that in some cases it may be desirable to resort to affirmative action as a direct means of increasing the participation and visibility of a particular minority group. In the negotiations, the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr Christofias, has submitted key proposals to facilitate the effective participation of the Turkish Cypriot community in national elections by means of a rotating presidency under a cross-voting system, which is a form of weighted voting. Taking into account the divisive elements of our constitution that provide for separate processes for the election of the leaders of each community, these proposals would contribute to safeguarding peace and security and would enhance political cohesion and inter-community unity in the context of a comprehensive solution. Unfortunately, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mr Derviş Eroğlu, has rejected the proposals, even though his predecessor had previously accepted Mr Christofias’s suggestion.

Another thing that I wish to raise relates to certain issues which, if implemented, could have a negative effect on multi-party democracy and the autonomy of internal party functioning. Generalised horizontal voting will in effect erode the party political system in favour of individualism in an era in which the disaffection of citizens with the political system is already widespread. Furthermore, imposing thresholds, or electoral legislation that may be deficient, may actually worsen democratic procedures as regards internal party democracy and also the electoral system. For example, we must not recommend 5% or even 3% thresholds in countries in which simple proportional systems without any thresholds have been implemented for decades. Similarly, in certain cases, internal party democracy may also be more advanced than the electoral legislative framework in place, thus we should avoid suggesting measures that could actually work in the opposite way from the desired direction of deepening democracy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Loukaides. The next speaker is Ms Bateman, Observer from Canada.

Ms BATEMAN (Observer from Canada) – It gives me great pleasure to participate in today’s debate on the role of women in the political process. Although women play many important leadership roles in community and informal organisations, our representation in public office remains considerably lower than that of men, both internationally and in Canada. The Inter-Parliamentary Union and the UN have established 30% as the minimum level for political participation of women and this benchmark is now widely recognised as a goal.

Currently, the worldwide average for women’s representation is almost 20%. I am proud to share that in Canada, the federal elections on 2 May 2011 saw women win 76 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, putting them at 25% representation in the lower house. I am pleased to note that the proportion of women in the House of Commons has been rising steadily from 2006 onwards from the previous level, established for decades, of 20%. Canada now ranks in the top 40 countries internationally in the representation of women in the lower house of our national parliament. The representation of women in Canada’s Senate, our upper house, is considerably higher than in the House of Commons. Thirty-seven of the 105 appointed seats are held by women, more than 35% of the Senate.

Our experience in Canada is that if more women candidates run for office, more women are elected to office. I am proud to govern with a party that sees women as equally capable as men in both winning nominations and winning elections. We are achieving positive results. Since 2006, the percentage of women nominated as candidates for Canada’s four major political parties has risen from 25% to 31%.

Throughout my previous career as a chartered accountant, and now as a parliamentarian, I am happy to say that I have always seen genuine and spontaneous mentorship occurring in the workplace. This matters, this is wonderful and this continues to make a real difference, as my colleague from Finland said earlier. We can see the results in Canada’s current Parliament, and I believe that matters will continue to improve in the future for women parliamentarians.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Bateman. The next speaker is Ms Erkal Kara.

Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey) paid tribute to the work carried out by Mr Gardetto. Turkey had experienced a number of different political situations before the year 2000, since when democracy had been largely established. However, events had threatened to derail Turkey from its path towards democracy. It was important to prevent Turkey from becoming a victim of an anti-democratic conspiracy.

Steps had recently been put in place to allow voters living outside the country to take part in the next elections. Turkey had a particularly large expatriate population so this would be a major step in increasing participation.

Turkey had been criticised for its 10% electoral threshold: she herself thought a lower threshold would be preferable.

A new constitution was currently being drawn up in order to develop democracy and all parties were involved in this process. She was very confident that Turkey could carry out any necessary changes. The freedom of the media was very important, as was the position of all Council of Europe members. Turkey, a founding member of the Council of Europe, had made significant progress in this area. All political parties were able to access free airtime on television and could now purchase additional airtime.

Some politicians had been accused of criminal activity, most notably of involvement in terrorism or preparation for a coup d’état. Some people had suggested these accusations were politically motivated.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Erkal Kara. The next speaker is Ms Bonet Perot.

Ms BONET PEROT (Andorra) congratulated the rapporteurs. Andorra had the best gender balance in Europe with women having 50% of seats in parliament and offices in parliamentary committees. Parity was seen as a natural phenomenon without the need for quotas although some parties might embrace quotas in their candidate lists.

Andorra had many committed women who were recognised internationally. There were also many women who had been in charge of businesses who were able to transfer those skills to politics.

It was important to achieve balanced proportions of men and women at the highest level and vital to mainstream women’s issues in all policies and to encourage political parties to allow women to serve in an elected capacity.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Bonet Perot. I call Mr Sobolev.

Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, I think that the six reports and the draft resolution demonstrate clearly how important this theme is, not only for Europe, but for the whole world. But I think that the example of Ukraine is best. We have had a very important definition of what is meant by democratic and transparent elections and on the so-called equal position of women in the electoral process. A good example is the Tymoshenko case, in which the only leader of a registered opposition party for that election is still in jail after one year and two months, even though she spent the eight previous months without a court decision. That is a good example of how we can change our electoral system in future and how we can discuss the situation in Ukraine in one month’s time after all these elections.

What we now have in Ukraine are the best results of non-transparent and non-democratic elections. If we compare the most recent campaign with previous ones, we first see administrative pressure, with lots of examples in schools and hospitals of open candidates being prohibited from running election campaigns but a green light for representatives of the Yanukovych regime. Now there is corruption. Even as we are discussing this report, in Ukraine there are many examples today of candidates from the majority party, that of Yanukovych, corrupting our constituencies with money and by other means.

Furthermore, prosecutors and the courts are being used in the struggle against the opposition. We now have an example of one person who registered as a candidate two months ago, but 11 criminal cases were then opened on one day in order to stop him being an opposition candidate. Tens of opposition candidates had to go abroad so as not to be arrested. All those criminal cases were started by the prosecutor only months ago in order to stop the activities of opposition candidates. We have now heard that it is only possible for opposition and majority candidates to be represented on TV according to a ratio of 1:9. The independent rapporteurs have given concrete explanations of the electoral situation in Ukraine, so we now have a just definition of what is meant by democratic and transparent elections, and that is very important not only for Ukraine, but for the whole world.

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

Ms CLUNE (Ireland) – The question of women’s participation in the political process has received a lot of attention in Ireland, as only this year the government introduced new laws that will require all political parties to ensure that a minimum of 30% of the candidates they offer to the electorate for election to the national parliament are from each sex. The sanctions for failure to do so will result in a reduction in state funding given to the political parties after the election, which I believe will be very effective.

We do not anticipate having parliamentary elections until 2016 – although one never knows – but we do have local and regional elections planned for June 2014, in conjunction with the European elections. Although there is no requirement at that stage to ensure that a minimum of 30% of the candidates featuring in those elections are male or female, the political parties will undoubtedly focus on ensuring that women are encouraged to participate in the political process. I know from the report that Ireland is currently in the 20% to 30% bracket. Although we have undoubtedly had some progress in ensuring the increase in women’s participation in our parliament, much more needs to be done to encourage and support women and ensure that they are elected to our parliament.

We have had much documentation and many studies on the subject. Indeed, a committee on equality in the previous parliament produced a very comprehensive report and identified four Cs that are the obstacles to women’s participation in politics: cash, confidence, culture and child care. All those issues were covered in Ms Stavrositu’s report. Cash and child care are clear and we have had much discussion on them, but the confidence issue and, more particularly, the culture are harder to tackle. I believe that mentoring is certainly a very valuable tool, and it is available to all parties and should be used. All of us in this Assembly are politicians and know that there is no book available on how to become a politician, but those of us who have been in the process for some time have a lot of knowledge, experience and know-how that can be invaluable for transferring confidence to individuals in an otherwise alien culture. I also believe that the political parties hold a key to ensuring that women are encouraged to step forward and put their names on the ballot paper. We need to ensure – I include my own party in this – that the executive decisions reflect a female voice across all sectors. I entirely support the suggestion in the report that parties should introduce a minimum quota of 40% in the under-represented sex in their executive positions. Making such changes at all levels throughout the party will ensure a change in attitude towards addressing the lack of female participation in national parliaments.

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

Mr SZABÓ (Hungary) congratulated Mr Gardetto. It was crucial to take stock of core values and to ensure that there were safeguards for free elections so that citizens could exercise their fundamental rights.

Member states of the Council of Europe had made progress but there were still problems including fraud, media bias, lack of media access, problems with party financing, and a lack of independent electoral authorities.

It was interesting to note that violations on election day tended to happen more often in countries where democracy was newer. In countries with an older tradition of democracy violations tended to take place earlier in the campaign.

Between 1990 and 2010 Hungary had managed to hold six free and fair elections. However since 2010 there had been more negative developments. Parliament was now looking at new regulations on electoral procedure which would restrict participation in elections. It was important that voter registrations were handled in such a way that the greatest number of people could take part in elections

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Szabó. I now call Ms Myller, and I am sorry that I did not call you at the appropriate point in the speakers list.

Ms MYLLER (Finland) – For the sake of justice and equality, it is important that both men and women are equally involved in decision-making. Only a small minority of Council of Europe member states reach the aim of having 40% female MPs. In fact, in many member states female policy makers have only 10% of the share.

We must ask ourselves how we can improve women’s participation. The first steps should be taken in families, where girls must be encouraged to make independent decisions, to take part and to take responsibility. Household tasks must be divided in such a way that they allow full participation in working life and public involvement for both mothers and fathers. In order fully to provide equal opportunities for women to participate, we must provide safe and affordable services for women and families, such as childcare.

Political parties have a great responsibility to bear in championing equality when enlisting candidates for elections. There are many ways to do that. For example, Finland has no binding national quota for female candidates, but a Gender Equality Act which came into force in the 1980s defines that at a municipal level at least 40% of both sexes must be represented in decision-making. At first, there were objections and many people doubted that enough women were interested in public matters, but today women are the majority in many municipal councils. Men have also realised that the act, which was initially enacted to ensure that women had the right to participate, protects their rights as well.

The question of equal participation must constantly be addressed. For example, many important decisions about the future are made in cabinets where men have the majority, but we cannot accept that. We need equal representation for men and women.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Myller. The next speaker is Ms Mulić.

Ms MULIĆ (Croatia) – I want to refer to the report on political parties and women’s political representation and I shall strongly advocate quotas as a social democrat from south-eastern Europe, which has a very traditional and patriarchal society.

The report is excellent, but nevertheless I would argue with some of its conclusions. Let me emphasise that although political parties are important as key protagonists in pluralist democracies, the state should be more important, especially when it comes to setting up the framework and introducing legal quotas to work in compliance with voluntary party quotas to strengthen equality between women and men in all human activity, particularly in arenas where decisions are taken.

Let me give a Croatian example to support that argument. Twenty years ago, the representation of women in the national parliament was below 5%. After four election cycles and a decade of women’s representation being below 10%, we succeeded in reaching 23%, but unfortunately we did not go much further. We have had the same results for the past four election cycles and have not managed to exceed 25% for more than a decade.

When women’s political representation in the national parliament jumped from 7% to 23%, that was a result of the election victory of the party with voluntary quotas. We did not have legislated quotas at the time. Although political parties have an important role in enhancing women’s political representation, we cannot break the glass ceiling with only voluntary quotas, so we need a legislative framework to introduce legal quotas, a strong sanctions system and provisions to fix the ranking order on electoral lists – that is, a zipper system.

Political parties have a great deal of autonomy in regulating their structure and internal functions. Normally, the law does not interfere with the internal regulation of political parties, but it would be necessary to set up a legislative system that provided special financial allocations for political parties that took positive action to promote women’s participation, proclaimed as invalid electoral lists that had less than 40% of either gender represented, and safeguarded adequate placement on the lists. We must set up a system that is both political and legal, with state financial allocations being increased for political parties that surpass their quotas while those that do not respect the quotas lose state funding. That would be a strong recommendation and the best way of promoting gender equality not only as a precondition for democracy but as an indispensable precondition for sustainable development.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Mulić. The next speakers are Mr von Sydow and Ms Bilozir but they are not here, so I call Ms Wurm.

Ms WURM (Austria) said that a lot had been said about democracy but the key issue was how representative a democracy actually was. It could not possibly be true that 51% of the population could be adequately represented by 20% of politicians. In most countries, therefore, there was by her estimation only a half or one third of a real democracy, and this was a problem that deserved greater consideration.

The Finnish system did not include a quota, only a law requiring parity of representation. She was however in favour of quotas and noted that female party membership varied between 40% and 10%. She did not want to be a woman elected solely by virtue of her sex but wished that there could be both more women and more democracy as a result. The Norwegian model was a good starting point for further action.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker would be Ms Bondarenko, but she is not with us. The same goes for Ms Palihovici, so I call Ms Konečná.

Ms KONEČNÁ (Czech Republic) – I would like to say a few words about the draft resolution on the problem of the political representation of women. Notice that I am speaking as a member of parliament from the country which, according to the statistics provided in this report, is in 27th place, with only 20.25% of women in our national parliament. We have been told that 51% of the population of the member states are women, yet only 23.4% of members of national parliaments are women. This is considered a major problem, and I ask why. Why are we wasting time and money on this particular problem when there are much greater challenges to tackle, such as youth unemployment among people under 30, the torture of prisoners in Georgia and undemocratic elections in some of our countries? Should this really be a priority for us these days?

I simply do not believe that the low proportion of women affects representativeness in parliaments, nor do I believe that any quota or system of sanctions against political parties will be effective. We have a system of preferential voting to assure representativeness. The draft report itself says that national systems for the enhancement of women’s representation work better without any intervention, and that modern democratic states are solving this problem successfully alone. As we see, the highest representation of women in national parliaments is in Nordic countries, where no quotas have been introduced. It is interesting that only three out of the 10 countries with the highest female representation in their parliaments have legislative quotas. I know that the introduction of quotas for women is very popular and is considered a big victory for the feminist movement. However, do not forget that at least 10 countries of the EU, including Germany, rejected the European Commission’s proposal for women’s quotas for boards of directors of joint stock companies. In my opinion, the main problem with every quota is that it is unjustifiably binding.

Let us talk about the system of sanctions against political parties. This system has been brought in, for example, in France, where it has proved ineffective; parties would rather pay compensation than keep the quota. In Ireland, the rapporteur says, this draconian system is effective, yet Ireland is only in 22nd place. That result is very similar to the result of my own country, which has no sanction system or legislative quotas whatever. Instead of setting quotas, we should concentrate on organising campaigns and activities to attract women to politics; set up women-only structures and allocate them adequate funding; ensure that there are mentoring and training programmes to enhance the capacity of talented women; and provide measures to enable members to reconcile political engagement and family commitments.

Let us find inspiration in the mother of parliamentary democracy, the United Kingdom, which has no such measures. I do not believe that the greatest women of the past four decades of political history, such as Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi or Angela Merkel, would vote for them.

Last but not least, let us talk about real problems. I do not think that solving the problem of women’s representation in the national parliaments of countries like Georgia, the Russian Federation or Ukraine is the real issue here because they have not yet adhered even to fundamental human rights, and we have to focus on those above all.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I give the floor to Mr Simms, Observer from Canada.

Mr SIMMS (Observer from Canada) – I thank the Assembly for allowing me to speak here today, for several reasons. I congratulate the rapporteurs on their report; it is very thorough and the points made in it are very tangible. To us as Canadians, I would say that the report is ideal. Throughout the history of our relatively young country, we have developed to the point where I think we have a pretty good electoral system that is based on administrative transparency.

I would like to touch on two points. First, I want to talk about the administration of our elections through a body that we call Elections Canada. It is at arm’s length. The second point is financing, which is also a major issue when it comes to political parties as well as political elections.

On the first point, I was struck by the following in the report: “The Assembly is in particular concerned that the following election-related violations still persist…lack of independence and neutrality of the electoral administration”, which it says is key. That is a very good point. Being arm’s-length has to be practised and has to be enshrined within legislation, and that is what we have. All the major parties in our legislature, including the governing party, have at some point in the past few years faced disciplinary action. We exercised our right to defend ourselves, but at the same time that disciplinary action was accepted by the parties. That proves that Elections Canada has the independence and resources to do this. That has to be enshrined in every nation in order to achieve the goals set out in this particular resolution, which I congratulate you on.

The second point is financing. It is interesting to note what is happening now in the United States of America. I saw a report a few days ago based on the horse race between two candidates, Romney and Obama. It was not about opinion polls; rather, they were gauging success by how much money the candidates were able to raise. They were therefore describing it not as a contest between two candidates but as a contest between two corporations, answerable to their shareholders. When did we get to that point? In Canada, we have strict limits on what you can donate – nothing from corporations or from trade unions, and we have an $1 100 limit on donations from individuals. That is key because it is a good way of providing transparency. It also provides limitations that make our elections fair.

I have one point about representation. We are at 25%, and the UN goal is 50%. I humbly submit to this Assembly that, despite all of that, the goal for all of us here is 50%, with no exceptions.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Corman.

Mr CORMAN (Republic of Moldova) thanked Mr Gardetto for his excellent report which was a highly topical piece of work. The conduct of elections demonstrated both the strengths and weaknesses of any democracy. Moldova had gone through three elections in the last five years and it was important that voter fatigue was avoided, particularly in a climate of diminishing confidence in representative democracy. A bill had been introduced in the Moldovan Parliament to amend the electoral system, which would hopefully lead to a much greater openness in its domestic politics

What the report said about the organisation by the Republic of Moldova of elections abroad was not a fair representation of reality. Moldovan citizens living abroad up to 2010 had had the right to vote in elections; voting was possible at 33 diplomatic missions, and polling stations had also been established in places where there was a certain density of Moldovan citizens. There were no grounds for criticism of these arrangements on political criteria. It was obvious that an informed citizenry was more difficult to manipulate. Moldova was doing all it could to move in that direction.

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

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – I thank the rapporteurs for their important work. I should like to concentrate on the gender question, and the fact that equal representation between men and women will not be reached if we do not do a lot more than we do today, even in countries such as Norway, which has not reached the goal of 50% yet; in fact, it has been at a standstill for 10 or 15 years.

As my colleague Ms Christoffersen said, if you compare the lists of bad habits regarding democracy, there is a very strong link between female representation and success on welfare and economic questions. I am surprised that more countries do not see that, and take interest in what is happening. I sometimes say that I am very glad that Norway found democracy before we found oil; that is very good for us. However, I underline that it is not the oil that has made Norway successful; it is the participation of women in politics, the labour market and decision-making. Equal opportunities and the contribution made by women to economic life are the most important differences that make us successful.

The role of politicians has to be debated, because to fill the role of a traditional political leader, you have to have a wife, and few of us women have a wife at home. The leader of my party has been on parental leave, and has been heavily criticised for that, but he says that the role has to change; political leaders have the right to be fathers and politicians, just as women have the right to be politicians and mothers. We have to change the way we work to make that possible. We tend to adopt the traditional male way of doing politics, leadership and everything else, but if we do that, we will not reach our goals; it is important to keep that in mind. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Andersen. I call Ms Mogherini Rebesani.

Ms MOGHERINI REBESANI (Italy) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on the report and I welcome the decision to have a joint debate, because ensuring the fair representation of women in parliaments and in politics is an issue affecting the quality of our democracies. For sure, there is the matter of quotas and what kind of an electoral system a country has, but there is also the issue of the role that political parties play in three respects. First, we can introduce quotas in our own parties. My party, the Democratic Party in Italy, has introduced a quota of 50%, and that is in a country that, at an instutional level, does not have very successful measures regarding the representation of women in politics. There is also the question of how political parties use quotas, whether constitutional or internal. I could give you many examples of political parties in Italy that have not used quotas in a proper way, and I think that the solution to that is to have a participatory and transparent decision-making process when selecting candidates.

The third issue is the message. Womens’s presence in institutions cannot be viewed as being additional to the economic presence of women, or the presence of women in diplomacy, in universities and so on. This is not a women problem; it is an opportunity for the whole of society, and unless we see it that way, we will never solve the problem.

A last word on coherence: there is a risk that, here, we will make beautiful speeches, introduce extremely good recommendations and suggestions, and write very good reports, but then, back in our national parliaments, behave in a completely different way. I am talking about the representation of women in politics, to be sure, but I am also talking about what Mr Santini said earlier about involving migrants more in the political scene, giving them the right to vote or facilitating their access to citizenship. As Mr Santini knows very well, some political parties in Italy do not support that stance. I would very much like him to support this stance back home as well.

That is a problem that we all have here. It is a question of ensuring that what we affirm here in the Council of Europe is consistent with our position back home. That is about the quality of democracy and increasing the respect that citizens have for political parties, politicians and, in the end, institutions. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Mogherini Rebesani. As Mr Ivanovski, Mr Abbasov, and Mr Yatin are not here, I call Mr Ameur from Morocco, our Partner for Democracy.

Mr AMEUR (Partner for Democracy from Morocco) wished to take up one aspect of the rapporteurs’ excellent work, namely the voting rights of migrants, especially in local and regional elections. This had been the subject of interesting exchanges in the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. Migrants who lived and worked in a country could nevertheless be excluded from democracy and political life there. There were several reasons to extend voting rights to migrants. Firstly, it would recognise their right to take part in decisions that affected them; it was unjustifiable that some people paid tax without having any say over how the proceeds were spent. It would recognise the diversity of political identity and citizenship. It would also aid integration and facilitate cohesion. If they were kept away from political debate, migrants could involve themselves in nationalist or religious concerns instead. Granting them the vote was a good way to move beyond destructive controversies and to combat the xenophobia of extremists. A strong democracy could make this choice and thereby tackle racism and extremism. A new provision in Morocco allowed migrants to participate in local elections, and additionally recognised the rights of expatriate Moroccans to vote in Moroccan elections.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Ameur. The next speaker is Mr Sabella, from the Palestinian National Council, a Partner for Democracy.

Mr SABELLA (Partner for Democracy from the Palestinian National Council) – Mr Gardetto’s report did not just offer suggestions as to how Council of Europe member states can improve the democratic nature of elections. It can also serve as guidelines to help Partners for Democracy and other southern neighbours on the same road to ensuring truly democratic elections. Elections are the door to exercising democracy, so violations and attitudes that can prevent the undertaking of free and democratic elections need to be noted and rectified. People in Palestine find inspiration, once again, in the experience of Europe, as reflected in Mr Gardetto’s report. It is a lesson to be used to provide input and enrich our relatively recent experience of holding democratic elections. It is by subscribing to impeccable standards and practices in respect of democratic elections that we can ensure that we subscribe to the values that will lead us all to a better future for our states and peoples.

Ms Stavrositu produced a closely related report on political parties and women’s political representation. Its recommendations speak to the challenges facing us in Palestine, as well as to those facing neighbouring partner states and potential partners. Our political parties have all adopted the quota system, which ensured the election of 17 women legislators out of the total of 132 in the 2006 elections. But this is not enough, and we would be well advised to note the good practices and recommendations in Ms Stavrositu’s report in order further to increase women’s representation. If we do not have more women in representative electoral institutions, the whole concept of democracy is called into question. So I thank Mr Gardetto and Ms Stavrositu for their excellent, timely and relevant reports.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Ms El Bayed is not here, so the next speaker is Ms El Ouafi from Morocco, a Partner for Democracy.

Ms EL OUAFI (Partner for Democracy from Morocco) congratulated the rapporteurs on their fascinating work, particularly regarding the involvement of migrants in voting as a means of integrating them into society.

She emphasised her support for the involvement of women in politics. Morocco was delighted by its status as a Partner for Democracy, as it allowed the country to share with the Council of Europe its opinion about the involvement of women in politics. 2011 had been the year of the Arab Spring, and women had been in the forefront, calling for democracy and openness. Women and young people were at the heart of movements for transformation; they remained vulnerable, but it was vital that they continued to be involved, certainly in the Maghreb region. Women had been involved on a level playing field and had occupied leadership positions, which they used to emphasise the social equality and equal dignity of women. The Arab Spring had resulted in significant reforms in favour of women, such as the statement of equal gender rights in the constitution. In Morocco there had been recognition of women’s right to sit in parliament, on the basis of a 15% quota. Morocco needed to work together with other countries. The Arab Spring had offered women a great deal.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms El Ouafi. Your disciplined attitude means that we can now come to our last speaker and complete the whole list. I call Ms Alastal from the Palestinian National Council, a Partner for Democracy.

Ms ALASTAL (Partner for Democracy from the Palestinian National Council) – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the rapporteurs on their important reports. Women’s participation and sharing in politics have increased steadily over the past decades. That is thanks to all the efforts made by women and organisations and to the evolution of mentalities that help women to achieve women’s rights. Those are essential to the good functioning of a democracy and of general equality. In order to increase and promote women’s representation in political life and active sharing, we must concentrate on two issues: how we can, together, increase women’s representation in political parties; and how we can, together, increase their representation in national Parliaments and other elected bodies. In Palestine, we were successful in increasing the proportion of women elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council from 5% in the first election in 1996 to 13% in the second election in 2006. This increase in the ratio was achieved by changing election law and imposing gender quotas on electoral lists of at least 20% by special proportion on these lists.

Women are looking forward to an increase in gender quotas in Palestine to at least 30% and we propose changes to some articles of election law. Political parties must make an effort to increase the participation of women in their structures, especially in decision-making bodies.

Women must also have access to financial resources. They must have their own budget to be used for enhancing women’s capacity and training them to take up leadership positions, through contributions from their parties. They also need to encourage membership of political parties by organising activities that attract women to become members. Women’s organisations can raise funds for female candidates in election campaigns, for media training on how to use media as a good tool for good practice. Financial incentives could also be given by governments to political parties that adopt voluntary quotas to guarantee that more women are elected and to promote participation.

Finally, political parties have the main responsibility for promoting female representation in political bodies and promoting women’s rights and strengthening good practices of democracy, values and standards.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Alastal. Thanks to the disciplined approach of colleagues, we have finished the list of speakers, and I compliment everyone on that.

We come now to the response from the rapporteurs. Mr Gardetto, you have eight minutes to reply.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) thanked colleagues who had stayed until such a late hour to take part in the debate. It was an important debate as the two reports under discussion were interlinked. Women’s involvement in politics was very important in improving participation in democracy more generally.

It was important to enhance measures to improve women’s representation on bodies, and for political parties to bring in rules to increase women’s involvement.

On the question of the participation of voters in elections, it was necessary to work on registration of voters and to encourage automatic enrolment: this would improve turnout. Polling stations needed to be made more accessible and remote voting should be made easier. Independent groups and bodies should run elections and there should be strict rules on party funding. The sources of party funding needed to be transparent and ceilings on donations should be applied.

Greater supervision of elections was also highly important along with effective redress through the courts: in this context, there should be a simplified, cheap process for redress, as well as steep sanctions against electoral fraud.

He thanked most warmly those who had contributed in various ways to writing the report, especially Despina and the election observation division, two of whom had had the very difficult task of observing elections and had done an excellent task throughout the year.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gardetto. Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wish to speak? Mr Marcenaro, you have two minutes.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) thanked the rapporteurs who had brought long experience of observation to bear on the report, which had been discussed at length in the committee. He also thanked the other committees for their contributions.

He commended the high quality of debate that had taken place: anyone interested in politics would have seen that the debate had not been either repetitive or clichéd. Genuine passion had been exhibited in the desire to tackle these problems. Ideas brought members of the Assembly together across the political spectrum and this agreement was a resource to be drawn upon to move forward.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Marcenaro. Ms Stavrositu, you have seven and a half minutes.

Ms STAVROSITU (Romania) – I thank all those colleagues who are still here at this hour. I am glad to note that the report has aroused such interest. We had 49 speakers, of whom 35 were women, which is more than 51%. So we have succeeded in our aims at least once in this Chamber.

I want to note a very good observation made by Ms Christoffersen: the connection between good practice in democracy and women’s representation in parliaments and other decision-making bodies. A country with poor democracy will have very poor representation of women. I want to thank all delegates who have spoken for their appreciation and for their very good contributions. I want to offer a special thanks to the Secretariat, particularly Sonia and Giorgio, and to Mr Mendes Bota, who played an important role and helped me to produce the report. I encourage delegates to vote for the report. I also want to note that there are no amendments to the report, which shows that together we all did good work. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you for your response, Ms Stavrositu. We have two minutes remaining. Does the chairperson of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination wish to speak?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – Of course I do, Mr President. I thank both rapporteurs for these excellent reports, which are so important. As Mr Gardetto pointed out, both reports are really about democracy. I would also like to note that, as Ms Stavrositu pointed out, the list of speakers was gender balanced and, tying into what Mr Marcenaro said, we have had such a high-quality debate. That just speaks for itself: when we have a gender balance, the quality will get better.

As chairperson of the committee, I would like to say that the report gives a very good overview of the state of our member states when it comes to gender equality and the political atmosphere. It also presents and promotes very good practice for us all to bring back home. As one of my good colleagues rightly pointed out, the report is not worth the paper it is written on unless each and every one of us goes back home, does those things and ensures that we get a gender balance in our national parliaments. That is the only way it will happen, because otherwise nothing will happen. If we do not constantly keep up this work, we will slowly go back again. Even in a country with as well-established and gender-balanced a parliament as Sweden, if we do not keep working we will fall back. That is just the state of things. Again, please take both reports home and do good work.

Let me also point out that it is not only about percentages; we also need to check the power of balance. When we are counting head for head, we must also ensure that the power is split equally. It is no use if a woman’s name is only ever the second one on the list, because we should be at the top as well. Only when we have both men and women at the top of the list will we have a balance. Finally, I cannot help saying that, although we are talking about national parliaments, we should really be looking at this place as well. When we talk about gender equality and political presence of women, we must acknowledge that this place is not the best example that we want to show the rest of the world.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Acketoft. The debate is now closed. Consideration of amendments will take place tomorrow at 10.00 a.m.

6. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting.

THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. with the agenda that was approved yesterday.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 8.25 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

Speakers:

Mr Wach (Poland)

Mr Iwiński (Poland)

Ms Burykina (Russian Federation)

Mr Flanagan (Ireland)

Ms Ohlsson (Sweden)

Ms Huovinen (Finland)

Mr Xuclà (Spain)

Mr Agramunt (Spain)

Ms Gerasimova (Russian Federation)

Ms Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden)

Mr Plotnikov (Ukraine)

Ms Reps (Estonia)

Mr Fetisov (Russian Federation)

Mr Kalashnikov (Russian Federation)

Mr Abbasov (Azerbaijan)

Mr von Sydow (Sweden)

Ms Gutu (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Makhmutov (Russian Federation)

Mr Popescu (Ukraine)

Ms Lundgren (Sweden)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Amendments 26, 23, 14 and 9 adopted.

Amendments 15, 2, 24 and 13 adopted.

Amendments 18 and 5, as amended, adopted.

Oral amendment adopted.

Amendment 25 adopted.

Amendment 12, as amended, adopted.

Draft resolution contained in document 13018, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation contained in document 13018 rejected.

3.       Joint debate: (a) for more democratic elections; (b) political parties and women’s representation

Presentation by Mr Gardetto of report, Document 13021, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy; and by Ms Stavrositu of report, Document 13022, on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination

Speakers:

Mr McNamara (Ireland)

Mr Santini (Italy)

Ms Postanjyan (Armenia)

Ms Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden)

Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan)

Mr Hunko (Germany)

Ms Kyriakides (Cyprus)

Ms Christoffersen (Norway)

Ms Anttila (Finland)

Mr Lorrain (France)

Mr Zourabian (Armenia)

Ms Blondin (France)

Ms Virolainen (Finland)

Ms Blanco (Spain)

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

5.       Joint debate: (a) for more democratic elections; (b) political parties and women’s representation

Speakers:

Mrs Zimmermann (France)

Mrs Brasseur (Luxembourg)

Mrs Durrieu (France)

Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal)

Ms Memecan (Turkey)

Mr Rouquet (France)

Mr Loukaides (Cyprus)

Ms Bateman (Observer from Canada)

Ms Erkal Kara (Turkey)

Ms Bonet Perot (Andorra)

Mr Sobolev (Ukraine)

Ms Clune (Ireland)

Mr Szabó (Hungary)

Ms Myller (Finland)

Ms Mulić (Croatia)

Ms Wurm (Austria)

Ms Konečná (Czech Republic)

Mr Corman (Republic of Moldova)

Ms Andersen (Norway)

Ms Mogherini Rebesani (Italy)

Mr Ameur (Partrner for Democracy from Morocco)

Mr Sabella (Partner for Democracy from the Palestinian National Council)

Ms El Ouafi (Partner for Democracy from Morocco)

Ms Alastal (Partner for Democracy from the Palestinian National Council)

Ms Acketoft (Sweden)

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