2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-fourth Sitting

Thursday 4 October 2012 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

1. Point of order

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – On a point of order, Mr President. I understand that the Presidential Committee will meet tonight, and that the Bureau will meet tomorrow morning. I would be grateful if you raised with them two issues. I arrived back from Georgia late yesterday afternoon, just after the start of the debate on political prisoners, so I missed the opening remarks in that debate. I was surprised and a little disappointed to read in the official report that in response to Mr Marcenaro, the President said, quite correctly, that under Rule 19.2, he could not intervene in the debate. Unfortunately, he then went on to say – this is from the official report – that if he could have spoken in the debate, he too would have opposed the amendment. In other words, he did precisely what he just said he was not permitted to do, and intervened in the debate.

Under some circumstances, that might not be very important, but as it happens, the amendment was rejected, under the rules, as there was an equal vote. It is entirely probable that the President’s remark influenced at least one of those votes. I ask you, sir, to refer to the committee the impartiality of the Chair, on the basis that if the Chair is not to be challenged, that impartiality must be reinforced and understood.

My second point is this. As I have said, I have come back from Georgia, having observed the parliamentary elections there, in the company of a number of colleagues from the Assembly, who put in a lot of hard work at considerable expense on behalf of our national parliaments. That is an important issue, and the developing situation in Georgia is most serious. I appreciate that nothing can be done about it on this particular occasion, but I ask that the Presidential Committee and the Bureau consider whether there should be a facility, and not just under the urgent debate procedure, enabling a report back to the Assembly. The Council of Europe will not receive a report, official or unofficial, about the Georgian elections until January, which is far too late. In these circumstances, it really ought to be possible for the committee to show sufficient flexibility to enable it to take account of the need for a report. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT, taking Sir Roger’s second point first, said that there would be a discussion of the situation in Georgia in the Standing Committee in November.

On the first point, he noted that Sir Roger had not been present at the time: had he been he might not have raised the point of order. What had happened was that he had observed to Mr Marcenaro that words sometimes got lost in translation. This had been because Mr Marcenaro had asked, “Do you want to destroy the Council of Europe?” As President, to whom “you” might be taken to refer, he had said that he could not intervene in the debate, and although he might have been able to use Rule 33.4 of the Rules of Procedure, the amendment had been voted on in committee and it was therefore inconceivable that it could be ruled out of order; it would have been wrong for the President to go against what had been agreed in committee. But he had said that if he were able to vote he might have considered opposing the amendment, although he had not affirmed any position. He had further observed to Mr Marcenaro that all members of the Assembly were independent, that he could not influence their views and that he had no intention of doing so.

He added that he had not been in the Chair during the debate in question, having agreed to a request from the Vice-President that he should take the Chair instead.

He thanked Sir Roger for posing his question in a manner enabling him to answer at such length.

2. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Our first item of business is to consider the change proposed in the membership of committees. This is set out in document Commissions (2012) 07 Addendum 2.

Is the proposed change in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

It is agreed to.

3. Urgent debate: The European response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – As for Syria, events are changing every moment; we know what happened yesterday in Turkey. As we heard from the chair of the committee, matters are developing every day and every hour. The humanitarian crisis in Syria is changing every moment.

The next item of business this morning is the urgent debate on the report entitled “The European response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria”, Document 13045, presented by Mr Santini on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, followed by an opinion from Mr Marcenaro on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 13048. I remind members that speaking time is limited to three minutes.

In order to finish by 12 noon, we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.25 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the votes.

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

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that the debate was extremely topical and that members would have followed events on the border between Turkey and Syria. It was essential to consider the humanitarian aspects of the issue. In addition, the Turkish Government were due to meet to discuss their response to the Syrian attacks on Turkey.

He thanked the Chairman of the Political Affairs Committee for having opened the path to the debate earlier, when dealing with Resolution 1878. The current debate would lead to a second resolution concerning the humanitarian aspects and it was imperative to protect human rights as a priority task.

The crisis had had an extreme effect on living conditions and many people had been forced to leave. Their lives had been at risk both from bombings and from lack of food, and it was important to recall that some neighbouring countries were not much safer. He paid tribute to Turkey for being the first nation to open its borders and was sure that the 15 000 who had crossed the border last year would have been certain that the crisis would be over soon. They had endured a very hot summer, including periods of 45^oC heat, living in Red Crescent tents. A second winter was now approaching and he wondered whether they would have to endure a second summer as well. Several international organisations were feeding the refugees and providing shelter from President Assad’s bombs. The Council of Europe had to do its best to support the affected people: 2.5 million in total, of whom 294 000 had left the country. There were 700 000 displaced people altogether, of whom 75% were women, children, sick and elderly. Turkey was not the only country that had opened its borders: Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq had also allowed refugees to cross the border.

The United Nations should act. This was already becoming a European crisis and Europe had to decide what sort of response it wanted to give. So far it had only shown tremendous indifference and had presided over a long and embarrassing silence, rather than giving the proper support to Lakhdar Brahimi. What was really needed were safe corridors and buffer zones to provide space for aid columns to reach affected areas. If refugee camps could be moved away from borders, the inhabitants of the camps would be much safer. Neighbouring countries should set up a repatriation plan, but even such generosity would not be enough as the situation might well deteriorate. If the EU stepped away from the conflict it would in the end affect all of Europe and for that reason European countries needed to have the courage to act.

THE PRESIDENT said that the Assembly had some time in hand and could therefore extend the speaking limit to four minutes. He called Mr Marcenaro, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that Mr Santini’s very detailed report had gone beyond a simple analysis of the crisis to put forward proposals that could be acted upon. He hoped he would not come across as too pessimistic, as he feared it might be a case of making the situation “less bad” rather than “better”. The Assembly had adopted a resolution in April, when Kofi Annan had still been in post. The Annan plan had been a failure and that opportunity was no longer open. The situation had deteriorated from a conflict into open civil war, and violence was increasing day by day. Turkey had now been dragged into the conflict although Europe remained in a vacuum of paralysis. Why was the logic of the Cold War being applied in this case? Indifference had to end. Europe needed to appeal to opposition forces to seek a political solution as well as focusing their attention on the forces propping up the Assad regime. Such an approach was essential, given that any military solution would be an illusion.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Marcenaro. I call Ms Schuster to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms SCHUSTER (Germany) said that the previous speakers had mentioned the bad news which was coming out each day. The humanitarian situation was getting worse and worse and she had been saddened by the news yesterday of the incident in Turkey. The civil war in Syria had been continuing for 18 months but progress towards a resolution had been blocked by the inaction of the Security Council – blocked in fact by Russia and China. Although the Council of Europe did not have a seat on the Security Council, this should not prevent it from raising its voice and calling for a swift resolution. Neighbouring countries had welcomed refugees but those refugees now needed medication, food and humanitarian access, under the aegis of the International Committee of the Red Cross. This would be in addition to the political support given to Mr Brahimi, in order to avoid what had happened to Mr Annan. It was not yet known what would happen after the fall of the Assad regime but it was essential that there could be no impunity for anyone involved in war crimes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Schuster. As I have already said, we have offered the condolences of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Turkish authorities regarding what happened yesterday. I call Ms Woldseth to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – Thank you, Mr President. I, too, on behalf of the European Democrat Group and the Norwegian delegation, condemn the Syrian attack on Turkey last night. We send our deepest condolences for the losses. Turkey should know that both the EDG and Norway are standing by our close friends and allies in this situation.

On behalf of the EDG, I thank the rapporteurs for their report on Syria. As we read in the news, the conflict in Syria is constantly escalating. Only yesterday, more than 40 people were killed in one attack on civilians. More than 20 000 people have died in Syria, as many as 1.5 million have been internally displaced and more than 250 000 have fled to Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan. According to the United Nations, more than 2.5 million people in Syria are in need of humanitarian assistance, more than double the number reported in March 2012, and fewer than half the primary health care facilities and hospitals in Syria are now fully functional.

There is much talk about the situation facing the people in Syria being unacceptable, from the United Nations, the European Union and us, but still we are unable to improve the situation. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr Gutteres, has appealed for countries to relieve Turkey and take refugees from Syria. That might be one way of helping, alongside helping to finance camps, food, water and medication in Turkey.

The UN humanitarian response plan, which requires $180 million, was only half funded as of September. Let us call on our member states to support the funding of that plan. Norway has contributed with $30 million and I know that the UK is one of the largest donors, both inside and outside Syria. So, let all our members contribute.

We should all hope that the civil war – for that is what this is – will soon come to an end and that the people of Syria will soon return to their homeland. If the killings go on, I hope that international society will take action. How, I do not know, but I hope that there will be some action. We must avoid the Arab Spring becoming a red-stained winter.

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

Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur for the report and explanatory memorandum. The data in the memorandum show that since we last discussed the situation in Syria on 26 April, it has worsened. It seems highly likely that the whole of Syria will soon turn into ruins, leading to humanitarian disaster on the outskirts of Europe should events continue at their present pace. The draft resolution is correct to demand that the conflicting parties “arrive as rapidly as possible at a cease-fire, the necessary precondition for any political solution”. The Assembly should hear that call and bring about practical means for a cease-fire as soon as possible rather than making useless calls for foreign intervention to introduce regime change.

The second important point in the draft resolution is the appeal to the international community to make a generous and most urgent response to the calls to assist refugees. It should respond and should consider where the aid is going to establish whether it goes to the people or to the warlords. That should be done because the people of Syria are paying the price of a miscalculated US-backed proxy war to realign forces in the Middle East. Their plight stems not only from the Assad regime’s ruthlessness, but is an inevitable consequence of a revolt that was apparently encouraged by the United States in a miscalculated manner with no apparent political programme or reliable leadership, never mind any political calculation of a possible outcome.

The recommendation to establish an authorised zone is hardly compatible with the aforementioned measures, which could, I hope, point towards a possible solution and provide a step along the way to the restoration of stability. The declaration and protection of an authorised zone is a political and military action based on the use of military force that could be sustained only through sophisticated weapons systems and the co-operation of the land and air forces of several countries, which in turn implies the internationalisation of the conflict and poses the risk of turning the Syrian civil war into a regional and international conflict.

The recent exchange of gunfire across the Turkish-Syria border, which cost the lives of innocent civilians, only goes to show how volatile the situation could become if international intervention were encouraged. Measures to prevent the bombing of Syrian civilians, as the recommendation envisages, should thus be sought not through military means, but in the political, economic and diplomatic force of the member countries of the Council of Europe as we pursue a truce between the parties in the conflict.

On the other hand, paragraph 23 of the report, if we look through Ankara’s glasses, misses an opportunity to examine the functional model for the reunification of a secular, pluralistic, multi-ethnic and democratic Syria that is now emerging in western Kurdistan – or northern Syria, if you like. By repeating Ankara’s baseless charges that labelled as terrorists some Kurdish bodies in that region, the report reflects the total ignorance of the ongoing transformation in the multi-ethnic Syrian social landscape. The democratic autonomy that now embraces that former region of Syria, notwithstanding the rapporteur’s false claims that they are considered terrorist by the US although they are under the leadership of neither militarists nor politicos, poses a threat for the Turkish people and the region. Instead of stigmatising the sole peaceful and democratic side-effect of the ongoing Syrian crisis, the Assembly should recognise Rojavayê in western Kurdistan as a partner in a peaceful solution.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I now call Mr Beneyto on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain) extended the sincere condolences of that group and of the Spanish delegation to their Turkish friends for the events of the previous day.

A dramatic situation had turned into a civil war, and could yet become a regional conflict. Although the Council of Europe had no military role, it did have a moral and political obligation to send a strong message to the international community and to those countries that were blocking a solution. The report raised many important points, including the lack of humanitarian aid. The solution to the crisis could not be a military one – it had to be political and diplomatic in character. The Council of Europe ought to condemn human rights violations by the Syrian security forces. The international criminal court should address these violations, which had included summary executions, torture and sexual violence.

A common initiative was needed. Extremist elements in the opposition in Syria should be marginalised. The idea of a military solution was a chimera because it would be counter-productive. A political platform had to be formed to prepare for transition in the country. China and the Russian Federation should stop blocking resolutions of the UN security council. Humanitarian assistance was required. European countries should welcome and assist refugees, consider requests for asylum, and refrain from sending asylum seekers back to Syria. NGOs needed access to the camps where displaced persons were living. Both parties bore responsibility for finding a solution. This was a crucial moment: action had to be taken or we would run the risk of escalation and the conflict getting out of hand.

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

Ms HÄGG (Sweden) – I congratulate the rapporteur on his comprehensive report. Since we spoke about the crisis in Syria in our second part-session earlier this year, the number of refugees who have fled Syria has increased sevenfold. Neighbouring countries have shown their hospitality by receiving and supporting around 1.2 million refugees. Most of those are Syrian but there are also Palestinian and other third-country nationals who have lost their safe place in Syria since the war started. This Assembly has called several times now for more efforts to end that war and for the Syrian Government to stop oppressing its citizens and using such disproportionate violence. We especially urge our Russian colleagues to change their attitude towards the Syrian President, because Russian support allows Assad’s regime to continue its oppression.

The Council of Europe should assist Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon with financial means and by sending experts to support them in creating facilities. However, that is not enough. The situation in these countries, especially Lebanon, is also fragile; it could mean that a large influx of Syrian refugees could further destabilise the situation in Lebanon, and if that were the case the problem would deteriorate even further. I therefore call upon all member states of the Council of Europe to grant a fair number of these refugees asylum. We should urge Turkey to grant access to the camps to Assembly members, members of the Turkish Parliament, NGOs and UNHCR. We guess that there is nothing to hide, so why be so reluctant to let those organisations and politicians speak to the refugees and observe their living conditions?

Another concern is that the Syrian refugees cannot receive recognition as refugees, since Turkey still accepts only a restricted scope of the Refugee Convention. It recognises only refugees fleeing Europe, but we know that all of its refugees come from countries outside Europe. The Assembly has urged Turkey many times to lift its geographical limitation, and now that call has become even more important. The Syrian refugees were received and indeed perceived as guests, but we cannot say that any more after one and a half years. They deserve the protection and the rights that should be granted on the basis of the Refugee Convention and on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

We in the Socialist Group ask for a cease-fire and a political solution now. All partners, all countries that are involved, have to take due responsibility. We are scared by the reports that have been coming in since last night about the violence and people being killed on both sides of the border between Syria and Turkey. I welcome this debate and this report, which show that everyone can and has to take responsibility now.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Hägg.

The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does he wish to respond now? No. I call Mr Salles.

Mr SALLES (France) said that the situation in Syria was a tragedy. The civil war had already caused more than 50 000 deaths, and 2.5 million people were in precarious living conditions, lacking the basics such as food and sanitation. Many had chosen exile in order to flee the conflict. He was here to condemn those responsible, who were many. The current regime was not attempting to find a solution. Abuses had been perpetrated by both the regime and the insurgents. What should concern the Assembly was the situation of Syrians caught up in the conflict, and what our countries’ contribution could be. Everything in our power should be done to protect the population of Syria and extend solidarity to them. An action plan was needed to extend a helping hand and put in place temporary protection machinery, as had been done with Kosovo. He saluted the efforts of the European Commission which had released €50 million in appropriations. Lakhdar Brahimi needed support in his role as mediator, and it was to be hoped that a solution would be found sooner rather than later. Then attention must turn to the task of rebuilding Syria; Europe ought to actively prepare for this so that Syria could guarantee a better future and better living conditions for its citizens.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Salles. I call Ms Maury Pasquier.

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) said that the world was transfixed by the fighting in Syria and the flight of its citizens. The humanitarian situation was still being under-estimated, and the debate could help to throw a strong light on this. The United Nations had said that 2.5 million Syrians were in need of aid. There had been much talk about the civilian population; it was important to recognise that these were ordinary people, who were the first victims of the violence, and often seemed to have been deliberately targeted. Essential infrastructure in the country had been destroyed.

There were four urgent problems: first, around 1 million internally displaced persons were living in public buildings. This included many schools, which meant that children would not be able to receive an education.

Secondly, there was a lack of medicine and pharmaceuticals, which was particularly affecting people with conditions such as cancer and hepatitis. In general, access to health services was very difficult and in some cases impossible, and some women had had to give birth in lamentable conditions.

Thirdly, food insecurity was affecting the population. Around 3 million people were in need of food aid, and the army had attacked people who were simply queuing in the hope of obtaining a crust of bread.

Lastly, winter was coming. This season could be very harsh in that part of the world, and conditions would be exacerbated by the lack of food, water and fuel. The international community could do more. Up to now, only half of the finance that was required had been paid over. Everyone should do everything in their power to ensure that assistance was given to people in Syria and in the surrounding countries which had received refugees. Countries should open their borders, and do everything possible to achieve a cease-fire. There was no magic wand, but everyone could do something; it would be wrong to do nothing while our neighbours needed help.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Maury Pasquier. Mr Pozzo di Borgo is not here, so I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – First, I commend and congratulate the UK Government on the €50 million that it has already sent in humanitarian aid to the area. I urge other member states of the Council of Europe to support such measures, because that aid does an enormous amount of good.

I should like to raise one of the unfortunate things about the report. Paragraph 9 refers to the Council of Europe’s disappointment in Turkey. I am delighted to say that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy unanimously rejected that paragraph, and asks for it to be deleted. Nobody in this Chamber can doubt the sincerity of the Turkish population and government, and their commitment to doing all that they can to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of the region. This is not an isolated example of Turkish generosity – it is just the latest one. I am disappointed that the report contains something so hostile. It is unfortunate that it singled out a country for those reasons.

I caution those who believe that it is a good idea to move displaced persons who become refugees in countries near a region of conflict further away, to other parts of Europe, or indeed the world. Surely we have learned lessons from other catastrophes, such as those in the Balkans. When people are moved a great distance away, there is a great reluctance on their part to return home, even when hostilities cease and the rebuilding of their country has started. Those very people would be the foundation of a new society – the creators of wealth – and would enormously benefit a rejuvenated and reinvigorated Syria. People will, I am sure, be reluctant to move back, so I urge caution.

What is really needed is properly resourced safe havens for these people. One way to provide those resources would be to levy 2.5% on the banks of Europe. That small percentage would generate about €3 billion a year. The report is about humanitarian aid, but one of our failures is in the lack of co-ordination and resilience in the humanitarian community in making resources available. It always has to go begging, and that causes enormous problems. People die because of the slowness of countries to part generously with their money. If we levied a tax on our countries’ banks, so that they played a full part in humanitarian aid and in rebuilding these countries, the money would not be much to them, but it would mean everything to humanitarian carers.

Many of our countries have a proud tradition of providing voluntary services. Charities and others work very hard – feverishly – sometimes putting their lives at risk to help. We should resource them better, and ensure that there is a store of the equipment needed, and training for the people who are needed in regions where there is conflict. That would be an enormous help. If the report does anything, it should awaken the caring side of all human beings. In Syria, evil is being perpetrated against the civilian population. It does not matter which side is responsible; innocent women and children are being attacked. We should do all we can, through our governments, to prevent that. We should ensure that humanitarian aid is properly funded and in the right place at the right time.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Hancock. Mr Farina is not here, so I call Mr Makhmutov.

Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation) said that Syria was in acute international crisis but only a year ago was still at peace. Everyone had hoped at that time that the events that have since occurred could have been avoided. The people of Syria had been relying on the international community to prevent the crisis but instead had ended up with the worst case scenario. There had been more than 10 000 deaths and more than 1.5 million refugees had been created.

The Council of Europe protected human rights, including the right to life, but it was not evident that policy in areas on Europe’s borders was in line with these ideas. There had been a prejudiced attitude in many countries, who were willing to listen only to one side of the argument. This had been a trend, also exemplified by events in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq had never been properly examined. It was based on a falsehood, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and had destabilised that country and led to thousands of deaths.

Where was the parliamentary control? Where was the balance of policy in EU institutions? If policy across Europe was not developed by parliamentarians, Europe would be held hostage to extremists. It was necessary to find a solution that learned the lessons of yesterday, and it was necessary to make sure that Syria’s path to democracy was not accompanied by any more violence.

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

Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, yesterday at about 4.30 p.m., the town of Akçakale, near Turkey’s border with Syria, was hit by artillery fire from Syrian regime forces. Five civilians were killed and nine were injured, with the dead said to include a woman and her three children. Turkish armed forces on the border responded immediately to this atrocious attack, doing so within the rules of engagement, and locations in Syria determined by radar were hit with artillery fire.

Following the incident, the Turkish Foreign Ministry immediately started to take diplomatic steps with international institutions. Foreign Minister Davutoğlu contacted UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the Foreign Ministers of some UN Security Council members and the NATO Secretary General. NATO convened an urgent meeting last night to discuss the situation and made a statement strongly condemning the shelling. It expressed the organisation’s readiness to stand by Turkey in this situation where there has been a flagrant breach of international law and where there is a clear and present danger to one of NATO’s members. While we are having this debate, the Turkish Parliament is also convening an urgent meeting in Ankara.

In fact, Akçakale has been fired on several times in the past few weeks. As members will all recall, at the time of our June part-session an unarmed Turkish military aircraft was shot down by Syrian forces. As was stated to the international community following the downing of the military aircraft, Turkey will never leave unanswered such provocations aimed at our national security, but we will act within the confines of the rules of engagement and international law.

While we are looking for ways to alleviate the suffering of Syrian internally displaced persons and refugees, the Syrian regime has, once again, extended its aggression beyond its borders, threatening regional and international peace and stability. Today, as we would expect, not a single Council of Europe member state is showing any sign that might be interpreted as implicit support for this regime’s atrocities. This is the third time that Turkey has been the target of Syrian aggression. If there is ever to be European solidarity and a stand taken against brutality, today is the day for it.

So we call on the Assembly’s President, Mr Mignon, to condemn this latest attack in the strongest way possible – he has already done this but if there are other ways of doing it, I ask him to use them. We also appeal to you, the representatives of the national parliaments, to act in full solidarity with Turkey and support all the suggestions that Mr Santini made in his speech. It is only with such an understanding that we can send a strong message to the Syrian regime and show that Europe is united against tyranny.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Dişli. The next speaker is Mr O’Reilly.

Mr O’REILLY (Ireland) – Thank you, Mr President. The Syrian atrocities represent the darkest period of our recent history. As my country’s Tánaiste, our Deputy Prime Minister, said when speaking to the UN Assembly, “they are an affront to humanity.” Some 20 000 people have already lost their lives, 300 000 people have fled to violence to neighbouring countries and more than 1.5 million people are internally displaced – that is not to mention those who have appalling injuries and those who face a lack of medical care.

Ireland fully backs the work of the joint UN-Arab League special representative, Mr Brahimi, and we have unilaterally contributed €2.5 million-worth of direct aid. As an EU member state, we fully support the efforts being deployed by the EU, which include diplomatic and political steps aimed at ending the appalling violence. With our support, the EU Commission has released €40 million in aid. We support an arms embargo on all participants in this and we support the punishment in the International Criminal Court of perpetrators of the atrocities.

The burden of refugees falls, in the first instance and most heavily, on the neighbouring countries. My delegation is conscious of the impact that that is having on a fellow member of the Council of Europe, Turkey. I wish to express solidarity with Turkey, especially in the light of yesterday’s atrocity – yesterday’s direct attack by Syria on Turkey. Our Assembly is, of course, linked to the Palestinian National Council through our Partnership for Democracy. As we work to lessen the impact of the Syrian violence, we should keep in mind the situation of the nearly half a million Palestinian refugees living in camps at a number of locations in Syria.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s immediate aim must be to bring an end to the violence and alleviate the suffering directly. I am talking about the suffering of refugees, of the injured and of the displaced. After achieving those more immediate objectives, we need to work on and support genuine democratic reforms and an all-embracing national dialogue within Syria. We have to hope that a tolerant, inclusive society can be built in Syria, building on its rich heritage, and that all strands and sects of Syrian society can be involved in an inclusive society. That process must include the long-established Christian communities. The most pressing matter on the Council of Europe’s agenda this week is, unquestionably, these atrocities unfolding before our eyes. Those who sent us here to represent them, and the world at large, will watch for our reaction. Our reaction can be only unequivocal: we should be practical in our aid, we should be strong in our moral condemnation and we should be proactive in achieving peace and long-term democracy and tolerance in Syria.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr O’Reilly. The next speaker is Mr Leigh. Colleagues, we are a little ahead of schedule and others might wish to speak in this debate, so I ask them to get ready because there will be opportunities at the end of this round of speakers.

      Mr LEIGH (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Mr President. A humanitarian disaster is unfolding in Syria. As many speakers have mentioned, as many as 20 000 innocent people have died and 1.5 million people have been displaced. We say that they are displaced, but what does that mean? It is a dry, technical term, but we mean that the lives of 1.5 million people are a misery. When faced with such a great disaster, it is perhaps impossible in a short speech of less than four minutes to give any general examples, so I hope that the Assembly will forgive me if I discuss just one community. I want to talk about particular examples because it is important that we use the opportunities we are given to put the spotlight on what is happening in particular communities. Once the spotlight is on them, it makes it more difficult for these horrendous human rights abuses to take place.

I want to talk about a few Christian communities which have been terrorised in Syria. Here we have one of the oldest Christian communities in the world. Many Christians fled from Iraq to Syria, and now the lives of many of them are being made a misery as they are caught in a civil war between Sunni, Alawite and many other groups. There is fear in the village of Rabreh, where there have been kidnappings. Those follow the recent kidnapping of 150 people in the area. Villagers were crammed into a school in the village of Goussei. In the village of Said Naya, there were further kidnappings of Christians and some people were found dead. According to a local priest, this is not a persecution but a manoeuvre to spread suspicion and distrust, and invite sectarian war.

The local committee of the Musalaha, which is a Christian organisation, is looking for dialogue and a peaceful solution. They say that the point is that we are talking about unidentified armed gangs which are out of control. They act independently and are not necessarily connected to the free Syrian army. This makes negotiations much more difficult. According to Fides sources in Syria, there are about 2 000 armed gangs that are not connected to the FSA, and they have their own agenda.

As Mr Santini said when he opened the debate, we should use this occasion to say that we are all Syrians and we stand in solidarity with them. And as Mr Marcenaro said at the beginning of the debate, we should accept that military action is an illusion. I would take issue with one of the early speeches from Ms Schuster who spoke for her group. I do not believe that we can solve the problems of the Christian Syrian community by encouraging mass emigration to Europe. All that will do is ensure that Christianity vanishes from the Middle East, the place where it began. It has already largely vanished from Iraq, it is vanishing from Palestine, and is it now to vanish from Syria as well? I do not think that that is the solution.

We have to realise the complexity of these problems and not try and demonise one group or another, or impose our solutions. In a thoughtful speech from our Russian colleague, Mr Makhmutov, he made the point – which I echo – that we should not demonise the Russians or the Chinese for what they are doing. We should recognise that this is a civil war. There is not necessarily right or wrong on either side. It may be that more of the wrong rests with Assad, but we have to accept a solution that may indeed leave Assad, or his people, in position. Let us be proactive, take a deep interest in the situation and express our humanitarian concern, but let us not try to impose our own views and solutions on a complex society.

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

Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – As many colleagues have already mentioned, this report paints a grim picture of what is happening in Syria. Some 1.2 million people have been forced to leave their homes and more than 300 000 have been forced to leave the country. As the report notes, this has placed a heavy burden on neighbouring countries, most notably Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and others. I welcome the fact that the rapporteurs have proposed that this Assembly thanks those countries for taking responsibility for those refugees.

However, we should also discuss the causes of this influx of refugees in neighbouring countries. We all know that the terrible events in Syria have caused this outflow of Syrians. I remind the Parliamentary Assembly that the report we discussed in April said that Kofi Annan’s peace plan should be given every chance of success in order to avoid a fully fledged civil war. Where do we stand today? There is a fully fledged civil war in Syria, and Kofi Annan has resigned. The reasons he gave for his resignation include non-co-operation from President Assad in the implementation of the peace plan and the very bitter divisions in the UN Security Council, including the opposition of China and, most notably, Russia to stricter measures and greater pressure from the international community on President Assad to comply with the peace plan. That cannot be ignored. Now there has been an exchange of fire on the Syrian-Turkish border which will further aggravate the situation.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Čigāne. I now call Ms El Ouafi, Partner for Democracy from Morocco.

Ms EL OUAFI (Morocco) said that the situation was being exacerbated day by day, with more women and children being wounded and killed. The United Nations had announced on 26 September that 400 people were being killed in Syria every day. Anyone who knew the multicultural capital of Damascus would have been familiar with the peaceful co-existence there of Muslims, Jews and Christians.

This crisis was a pan-European issue and European countries should take every available measure to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. One way in which this could be achieved would be by strengthening the role of non-governmental organisations in order to protect the hundreds of thousands of women, children and the elderly who were currently at risk. By working with the Arab League, Syria could take small steps on the road to democracy.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms El Ouafi. I call Ms Memecan.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur and members of the Assembly for this debate; it is encouraging to hear members’ willingness to take more responsibility in relation to humanitarian assistance for Syrians. Turkey has been among those most directly affected by the consequences of the ongoing civil war in Syria.

Turkey maintains an open border policy for Syrians fleeing the violence in their country – we have just heard some colleagues criticising Turkey for not lifting the geographical restriction on the relevant refugee convention. I remind members that Turkey accepts all people fleeing the Syrian regime, regardless of their status or whether they fall under the refugee convention. Therefore, I urge colleagues to support Amendment 6, which would delete paragraph 9 of the report.

Since the beginning of the events in Syria in March 2011, more than 133 000 Syrians have fled to Turkey and around 40 000 have returned of their own free will. As of 1 October 2012, 93 000 Syrians are being accommodated in 13 shelters in Turkey, where they are provided with three meals a day, schooling, health and sports services, and psychological assistance. Children have their own playgrounds and students are given the opportunity to attend university.

Those who have visited the camps so far – among them the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, UN special envoy Angelina Jolie and a four-member delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, headed by Christopher Chope – have praised the efforts of the Turkish authorities, the conditions in the camps and the services provided. Angelina Jolie said that the children were the happiest of those in the camps she had visited so far. In addition, about 30 000 Syrians are living outside the shelters but are also under temporary protection. Turkey has so far spent more than $350 million on the temporary protection of Syrians.

I must say that I was annoyed and disappointed to hear our Swedish colleague, Ms Hägg, refer on Monday to the conditions in the camps as “unacceptable”. I have contacted our authorities and, contrary to her claim, found no record of her accessing the camps, and we have been informed of no official complaints transmitted by her, or by anyone else, to the local authorities in the region about any incidents of rape, sexual abuse or forced marriages. We would take immediate action if there were any such complaints. I repeat the call I made during the meeting of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which was that those who wish to visit the camps would be welcome to do so, with the rules and regulations and the privacy of the Syrians being respected. The situation means that it is becoming more difficult for neighbouring countries to meet the growing challenge. It is now time to focus on steps to be taken with Syria without undermining international humanitarian law.

I will make one last remark about the security vacuum in northern Syria, which is being abused by the terrorist organisation the PKK and its affiliate, the so-called Kurdish Democratic Party. In recent months, Syrian-sponsored terrorist elements have murdered hundreds of innocent civilians in Turkey, including women and children. We therefore expect the support of the international community in helping Turkey combat PKK terrorism.

Let us hope that Assad’s violence against his people will end soon. I hope that the international community will take more responsibility in sharing the burden through financial means and by hosting refugees. Until then, Turkey will not hesitate to continue with humanitarian assistance to Syrians.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Memecan. I call Mr Michel.

Mr MICHEL (France) said that significant damage was being done to property and heritage; he was particularly concerned about the citadel in Aleppo, which could not be replaced. The Council of Europe should take whatever steps were available to it, but particular scrutiny was needed of the recipients of foreign aid. It was important to ensure that aid money did not find its way to extremists or terrorists. A political solution was certainly possible and, as Mrs El Ouafi had said, there were people of all faiths in Damascus. He reminded his Russian colleagues of the visit to the Assembly 10 years ago from the then Russian foreign minister, who had defended the war in Chechnya on the grounds that if radical Islamism were not opposed, it would spread to Europe. Why therefore was the Russian Government supporting the Assad regime, which only encouraged radical Islamism? Instead all should work for a lasting solution.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Michel. Does anyone else wish to speak before I call the rapporteur and the chairperson of the committee to reply? I call Lord Tomlinson.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – I think that Ms Memecan’s appeal to support Amendment 6, which would delete paragraph 9 of the report, should come not only from a Turk, but from us all. The report praises what Turkey has done in one paragraph but regrets something that is totally unrelated to the circumstances we face today in another paragraph. Most of the reports we produce on humanitarian crises are littered with appeals for solidarity and burden-sharing. If we are going to regret anything, it would be that the rest of us have not engaged with solidarity with Turkey to the degree that we could have done, and we have certainly not engaged in burden-sharing to the degree that we should have done. If Turkey had taken no action in relation to the Syrian refugees, we in the rest of Europe would have had a major blot on our conscience as we saw streams of homeless people not being cared for. I very much thank Turkey and regret the fact that the word “regret” has been introduced in relation to it. I hope that we will support the deletion of that paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Lord Tomlinson. Does anyone else wish to speak? I call Mr Ameur.

Mr AMEUR (Partner for Democracy from Morocco) said that Morocco offered its unconditional support to Turkey at this difficult time. Morocco had been one of the first countries to offer support during the Libyan crisis and was now very concerned by the situation in Syria. He too hoped for a political solution.

The attention of the Assembly, in particular that of colleagues from the Russian Federation, as well as the attention of the Republic of China, should be drawn to the fact that the Assad regime would not be able to provide for the interests of those powers, nor for a minimum of stability for Syria’s population. The voice of reason was needed now more than ever. The conflict had become much more complex, and everyone should do everything in their power to bring it to an end.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Santini to reply. You have five minutes.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that he would not be able to reply to all the points made during the debate. The geopolitical situation was an important dimension; many countries were hesitating on the brink of action while waiting for others to move. This was resulting in paralysis. Ms Schuster had drawn attention to the need to look after the interests of refugees. It was not true that the Council of Europe did not have a voice, however it did need to speak more loudly. Contributions were already being made by many countries, for example the €50 million contributed by the European Commission. Nearly all speakers in the debate had argued that the only solution could be a political one. Ms Hägg had explained that many Syrians were refugees twice over, first being internally displaced and then fleeing the country. Armed gangs were spreading terror, and violence was being directed against the Christian minority.

He regretted that the intention of paragraph 9 of the draft resolution had been widely misunderstood; indeed it did begin in an apparently negative tone. Turkey’s attempts to assist were laudable indeed. However, Turkey had not signed up to the terms of the 1951 Geneva Convention which would require the granting of refugee status to all those fleeing war. The second part of paragraph 9 called on Turkey to reconsider its geographical reservation to this obligation, which restricted its obligations only to people uprooted by events in Europe. The paragraph had not been intended negatively. The committee had voted that morning not to delete paragraph 9, and was simply calling on Turkey to fall in line with other countries. Perhaps as part of the process of Turkey’s accession to the European Union it might sign up to that provision of the Geneva Convention.

He thanked members for the other amendments, which would improve the report, and for the tenor of the debate. Members were all singing from the same hymn sheet. It was important to talk about the rights of the Syrian people to have a secure future and of Syrian refugees to return home. This report should not be the end of the Assembly’s involvement with Syria; at the next Bureau meeting he intended to make the case for continued involvement and a close watch of the situation, for example in refugee camps. It was not true to say that the Assembly was just a talking shop. It was moved by the heart and could achieve practical things.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – With your talent, Mr Santini, I am sure you will be able to defend those points on Friday morning in the Bureau meeting. I must now ask about the opinion of the committee, which you chair. Does a representative of the committee wish to speak to explain its position or shall I conclude that your statement was also a statement on behalf of the committee? The latter is the case.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution, to which 10 amendments have been tabled.

I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

Is that so, Mr Santini?

Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – Yes.

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

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to the draft resolution have been agreed.

The following amendments were adopted.

Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, to replace the words “the acts” with the following words: “all acts”.

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

“The Assembly is convinced that the problems raised by the dramatic situation of refugees and displaced persons in Syria and in neighbouring countries can only be solved if there are prospects of peace. This will only be possible through a political solution to the conflict. For this purpose, it is indispensable that:

– a common initiative of the international community emerges;

– more voices among the ranks of the supporters of the regime seriously consider the prospect of a political transition;

– extremist and fundamentalist forces among the ranks of the opposition are marginalised, and the opposition realises that a military solution is a mere delusion;

– more efforts are made to convince the Syrian democratic opposition to unify around a common political platform and leadership to be ready for the political transition.”

Amendment 8, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, after the words “Security Council”, to place the rest of the sentence in a sub-paragraph and add the following sub-paragraph:

“– agree on a common initiative which will set the conditions for a political solution to the conflict and generate the prospects of peace.”

Amendment 9, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 13.8, to insert the following paragraph:

“– recognise the urgent need to provide vital supplies, including food, clothing, medical aid and temporary shelter, both to displaced persons in Syria and to Syrian refugees in bordering countries before the onset of winter.”

Amendment 10, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly reiterates that the possibility of eliminating violence and embracing the change for which so many lives have been sacrificed can be opened up to Syria only through a political solution.”

We shall discuss the amendments in the order in which they apply to the document. I remind colleagues that they have 30 seconds either to defend the amendments or to speak out against them.

We come now to Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, to replace the words “the persistence of this crisis” with the following words: “the dramatic deterioration of the conflict, which has escalated into a fully fledged civil war,”.

I call Mr Marcenaro to support Amendment 2.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that the amendment was simply describing the deterioration of the conflict which had escalated into a fully fledged civil war.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

We come now to Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 4, to add the following text: “It particularly condemns the continuing, widespread, systematic and gross human rights violations amounting to crimes against humanity committed by the Syrian military and security forces, such as summary executions, torture and sexual violence, including of and against children. The Assembly reiterates that all allegations of violations and crimes must be properly investigated and their perpetrators, whoever they may be, must be brought to justice, including, as appropriate, before the International Criminal Court.”

I call Mr Marcenaro to support Amendment 4 on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee. You have 30 seconds.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that the oral sub-amendment could be accepted. The main amendment condemned the continued gross widespread violations of human rights. Those responsible, whoever they were, must be properly investigated and brought to justice.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have been informed that the Committee on Population, Migration, and Displaced Persons wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment as follows:

In Amendment 4 to delete the words “by the Syrian military and security forces” and to insert the words “in Syria”.

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

I therefore call Mr Santini from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that the oral sub-amendment had been supported by the Migration Committee, not unanimously, but by an overwhelming majority.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the oral sub-amendment?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) – I am in favour.

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

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 4, as amended? That is not the case.

We know the view of the committee.

The vote is open.

We come now to Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, at the end of the first sentence, to insert the words: “, as it is in certain areas of Syria itself”.

I call Mr Marcenaro to support Amendment 5.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that the intention of the amendment was simply to be more specific regarding the situation in certain areas of Syria.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

We come now to Amendment 6, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 9.

I call Mr Marcenaro to support Amendment 6.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that the substance of this amendment had already been discussed extensively in the debate by Mr Hancock and others, and the amendment had been approved unanimously by the Political Affairs Committee.

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

I call Mr Santini.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that the explanation for this paragraph in the draft resolution had been provided earlier, and it was possible that the amendment had arisen from a misunderstanding. The Migration Committee had rejected this paragraph in a clear-cut vote following discussions with their Turkish colleagues, but it seemed that the amendment did not truly understand the aim of the paragraph, which the committee had meant in a positive way.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. You were expressing the view of the committee, so the vote is open.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Memecan, Mr Kayatürk, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr A. Türkeş and Ms Bakir, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 13.5.

I call Ms Memecan to support Amendment 1.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – This amendment calls for the removal or the relocation of the camps. As I stated in my speech, we have spent so much on creating these camps that it would be very costly to remove them, but we would be willing to do so with international assistance. Security measures have been taken for the existing camps. We would like this paragraph to be removed.

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

I call Mr Santini.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that this amendment had been rejected by the Migration Committee that morning. The paragraph of the draft resolution reflected the formal request made by many refugees in camps to move the camps as they considered their position close to the border to be too dangerous.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The committee is clearly against.

The vote is open.

We come to an oral amendment, tabled by Ms Bakir, which is, in paragraph 14, after “The Assembly also recommends”, to insert “to the member states of the Council of Europe”.

In my view, this amendment is an exception, given events in Turkey; I therefore consider it admissible, unless 10 members or alternates disagree. That is not the case.

I call Ms Bakir to support the oral amendment.

Ms BAKIR (Turkey) – The situation in Syria is critical now. The majority of speakers in the debate have expressed a will to share Turkey’s burden by accepting a number of refugees. I would like that situation to be reflected in the resolution. If we could represent that will in the Parliamentary Assembly, it would be very useful.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13045, as amended.

The vote is open.

Congratulations to the rapporteurs. Mr Santini, on Monday morning in the Bureau, I depend on you to defend the position that you were explaining just now.

4. Address by Mr Bujar Nishani, President of Albania

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now come to the address by Mr Nishani, President of Albania. After his speech, Mr Nishani will reply to questions from members of the Assembly.

Mr President, welcome to Strasbourg!

We are pleased to welcome you to the home of democracy. It was my pleasure to discuss with you at length in my office this morning several issues of interest to both of us. I also welcome the ambassador.

Your visit to us is doubly symbolic: firstly, your country, Albania, currently occupies the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Secondly, our Assembly has always supported Albania on the path of Euro-Atlantic integration and we are very pleased that you have chosen to come to Strasbourg at the beginning of your term to discuss concrete measures and further reinforce our co-operation. I was in Albania when you were elected as President. Congratulations, both from me and from the Assembly. We wish you all the best.

As you know, the Parliamentary Assembly fully supports the authorities of your country in the reforms under way: reforms that are necessary to put into practice the post-adhesion commitments that remain to be honoured, as well as the reforms needed for the status of candidate for membership of the European Union – two significant areas of work, about which we spoke this morning. I understand that you are determined to follow them through to a conclusion.

In this context, we fully share the priorities you set at the beginning of your term, including reform of the justice system and the putting into practice of electoral reform, both recently adopted in parliament by the governing majority and the opposition, as well as the ongoing development of political dialogue between all parties. We spoke this morning about the role of the Assembly in supporting that dialogue. You know how strongly the members of the Assembly support the dialogue and are proud of the contribution they have made and continue to make to the solution of the earlier, unsustainable situation.

Finally, Mr President, let me also mention an event which marks the beginning of your term. It is the centenary of the independence of your country, which you celebrate this year. Unfortunately, I am not able to be there for the celebrations, but I would like to congratulate you on this important event, both personally and in the name of all members of the Assembly.

I have spoken for too long, but friends always want to speak for too long.

Mr President, you have the floor.

Mr NISHANI (President of Albania) – Distinguished President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Jean Claude Mignon; distinguished Secretary General, Thorbjǿrn Jagland; distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly; dear guests, ladies and gentlemen; I wholeheartedly thank you for the invitation extended to me to address this session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is an Organisation based on the universal values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The Council of Europe has played an important role in strengthening unity in the European arena based on those values, and in facilitating the process of integration into the European Union.

It is a distinct privilege and pleasure for me to be here today, in the Palais de l’Europe, representing the first Albanian presidency of the Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe.

I should like to seize this opportunity to thank President Mignon wholeheartedly for the very warm and friendly welcome shown to me and the Albanian delegation during our stay in Strasbourg.

Permit me to express my special regard and esteem for Secretary General Jagland, in view of the excellent contribution that he and his team have made to the reformation of the Council of Europe, aimed at the transformation of this Organisation into a powerful political actor and the growth of its visibility beyond the borders of the European arena.

Mr President, during the initial part of its transitional period, Albania, having survived the harshest dictatorship on the continent and total isolation, faced an urgent need for real democratic institutions and a European legal framework that would support the foundations of a new state based on the rule of law and a free market economy. For this reason, in the early 1990s, the first contacts were set up with European political institutions, such as the Council of Europe, the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, as well as with a number of financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

In that context, communication with the Council of Europe and its institutions was the most intensive and most needed process for Albania’s fragile democracy, which was taking its very first steps. We considered Albania’s membership of the Council of Europe not as an objective per se, but as a necessary instrument to consolidate the democratic institutions of the rule of law, serving our citizens and our European aspiration. In 1995, Albania became a fully fledged member of the Council of Europe, which marked an encouraging moment for the new Albanian democracy and a very important step in the consolidation of relations between Albania and the Council of Europe.

The six-month period between 23 May and 9 November 2012 marks another culminating event in the 20-year history of our co-operation, as, for the first time, Albania chairs the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Throughout the two decades, Albania and Albanian society underwent the deepest, widest and most intensive transformation in the 1 000-year-old history of the ancient Albanian nation. The country that held records in violating human rights is now at the helm of the Committee of Ministers – it is at the helm of this European temple of human rights. Albania, once notorious for its blind, fanatical hostility towards the Western world, is now a member of NATO and is contributing peacekeeping troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Once a consumer of security, Albania has been transformed into a contributor to the security of countries in the region and of democratic countries worldwide. Once a completely isolated country, Albania now looks forward with confidence to gaining, based on its merits, the status of a candidate country for accession to the European Union, while Albanian citizens now travel freely without visas in Europe.

Once a country with a deeply autocratic economy, Albania has turned into a completely dynamic free-market economy. My country is successfully handing the impact of the global economic and financial crisis, demonstrating positive economic and financial growth, as a result of prudent, well-structured macroeconomic reforms, trade liberalisation, the encouragement of an entrepreneurial atmosphere and a range of other bold reforms undertaken in this sector. Between 2007 and 2012 our average economic GDP growth reached 5%. The World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness report 2011-2012 ranks Albania 78th out of 142 countries and economies. The World Bank’s “Doing Business 2012” report ranks Albania 82nd out of 183 economies on the ease of doing business, 24th on getting credit and 16th on protecting investors – that places Albania among the countries with the best results.

We are aware of what is expected from the Albanian authorities – we are expected to increase standards. We are fully committed to improving them continuously, in order to be able to integrate into the European family with dignity. These concrete steps are turning into reality the eternal European dream of the Albanians – an aspiration that caused crowds of students and citizens to fill the streets and squares chanting “We want Albania to be like the rest of Europe!” That was the motto that inspired Albanians in their final battle against the last dictatorship of Europe. Albania is celebrating the 100th anniversary of its independence. The efforts of the Albanian nation to maintain its territorial integrity against possible partitions, ethnic cleansing and various occupations have been countless. Now we celebrate the 100th anniversary of Albania’s independence as a free nation, which knew how to make use of the values of freedom and bring about real achievements.

Dear members of the Parliamentary Assembly, ever since the first moment of Albania’s membership of the Council of Europe this Organisation and its institutions have made a valuable contribution to the process of consolidating our democratic reforms. In particular, Albania has benefited from the expertise of, and co-operation with, the Council of Europe in the following areas: constitutional reform, which has come about through co-operation with the Venice Commission; holding free and democratic elections, according to European standards; establishing and consolidating an efficient and independent justice system; fighting corruption, organised crime and illicit trafficking; and growing our democratic culture and putting in place other reforms.

Albania is now a potential candidate for European Union accession. In that regard, the Council of Europe plays an important role as a vector of European policy on protecting and promoting human rights, and strengthening democracy and the rule of law. Albania’s success is also undoubtedly closely linked to the fruitful co-operation it has enjoyed with the Council of Europe. The Albanian Presidency in Office of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe provides us with a great opportunity to contribute in those areas – we have the chance to advance on the achievements of previous chairmanships and to contribute with the best values of my country. Through its cautious and moderate policies, Albania plays a stabilising role in the region. Although a small nation, Albania can deliver a great message. Tolerance and religious harmony, a unique feature of the Albanians, present a model of co-existence in diversity. The sacrifices made by Albanians, often beyond their capacities and means, to shelter and protect the Jews who faced the danger of being exterminated, are a clear example of how a small nation with a great heart can make the difference.

We all understand that diversity is the destiny of Europe, given that ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic diversity has always characterised European societies. The founders of the European Union viewed it as a strength and advantage of our continent. The Albanian Presidency in Office is convinced that the Council of Europe, with all its knowledge and experience, is an appropriate international organisation for the promotion of democratic societies that respect and uphold diversity and peaceful and free co-existence. In order to serve this aim, the Albanian Presidency in Office will organise in Tirana a high-level conference under the theme “Diversity in Europe: A powerful tool for the future.” Some of the topics under discussion will cover the dialogue with our Mediterranean neighbours, in order to allow us to share the best experiences of creating stable democratic and open societies.

Let me take this opportunity to draw attention to another aspect relating to Europe’s cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is an integral part of the system of European values. Respect for and protection of cultural heritage is vital to the development of European identity, but nothing should be taken for granted. Our cultural heritage has a priceless value, but it could easily be vulnerable. Its preservation requires action and joint investment from all the stakeholders involved – civil society; the heritage sector; public authorities at all levels, both national and European; and everyone interested in cultural heritage.

The Balkan region takes part in the current political-institutional structure of Europe and it is currently progressing towards integration into European structures. Its countries have put their past behind them and have set their sights towards the future.

Western Balkans is entirely oriented at present towards European integration and, in particular, regional co-operation constitutes a very important instrument of multifaceted development of this region in order to accelerate the accomplishment of our countries’ common goal of European integration.

The foreign policy of the Republic of Albania is oriented towards maximum engagement in strengthening good neighbourly relations and regional integration. Albania does not have any outstanding issues with any of the regional countries. Albania’s national interests are best served in a peaceful, stable, democratic and economically developed regional environment. The establishment of such an environment requires a spirit of co-operation and understanding from all parties in the region, both on bilateral and multilateral levels.

The common future of the region is stabilisation within the European and Euro-Atlantic integration processes. This is the only way that will lead to the resolution of the problems inherited from history. We encourage dialogue and institutional struggle as the only mechanisms of communication to address and resolve the internal problems and the outstanding issues among neighbours in the region.

In Albania’s view, regional co-operation goes beyond just expressing the political will of good neighbouring. This is because we believe that, if we engage together, we can build a common regional modern infrastructure. We are removing all non-physical barriers to the movement of people, goods and capital, and encouraging exchanges among our countries. At the same time, getting to better know the culture, history and customs of our neighbours, we can improve the image of our region, by making it an attractive and competitive market, and we can align its European integration perspective. In this spirit, we play a moderating role to preserve and strengthen peace and lasting stability in the Balkans.

We view the presence of the Albanian factor in almost all the countries of the region as an instrument of our policy of moderation. We have always considered the Albanian factor as a connecting bridge between our countries and we encourage the Albanians in the region to be co-operative promoters and workers for the common European Union integration processes of the countries where they live.

Permit me to emphasise the importance of the involvement of the Council of Europe in Kosovo. We appreciate the commitment of the Council of Europe in our country and the Balkan region, in the implementation of specific and thematic projects. We underline, in particular, the significant importance of the commitment of the Council of Europe in Kosovo, to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law and to provide a closer European perspective for all the citizens who live there.

Kosovo should be a safe haven for all its citizens, where the standards of the Council of Europe are steadily strengthened, and where key European instruments are fully applied, along with their control mechanisms.

Our position is very clear. The Republic of Kosovo is a reality and a factor of stability in the region, which has removed any scepticism. The issue of its status and territorial integrity are already closed chapters. We support Kosovo’s membership in the Council of Europe, because only in this way will Kosovo’s citizens benefit maximally from the Council of Europe standards and enjoy access to the European Court of Human Rights. Meanwhile, under the present conditions of a neutral status for Kosovo by the European Council, as recommended by Resolution 1739 (2010) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, regardless of positions on the status issue, all Council of Europe member states should support a greater involvement of this institution in Kosovo and the strengthening of direct contacts between Kosovo’s authorities and the staff of the Council of Europe, at all levels. Kosovo’s citizens are European citizens as well and they fully deserve European standards that are best embodied in the Council of Europe.

Kosovo, through the support of friendly countries who stand beside it, has made concrete strides and entered on the path of consolidation of state-foundation. This fact was proven also by the latest decision taken by the International Steering Group to end its supervision. That decision turned a new page in the history of Kosovo: that of its functioning as a fully independent and sovereign state.

Kosovo is consistently demonstrating a serious commitment to the consolidation of its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. It has set up comprehensive and fully functional multi-ethnic and democratic institutions across the country, demonstrating to us all its accountability and vision to move beyond the bitter past and to enable all citizens in its territory to build the future of their children and families. And this goal of looking to the future is also aided by the quick resumption of talks between Kosovo and Serbia, which will affect the further normalisation of relations between these two countries.

The mandate of the Council of Europe is focused on Europe, but many of the key issues today are influenced by developments in neighbouring countries: the Mediterranean region, the Middle East, central Asia, etc. that surround Europe. As a result, many of the activities of the Council of Europe, including some of the important conventions, seek to expand co-operation beyond the boundaries of Europe. Thus, the measures taken against terrorism, human trafficking, money laundering, cyberspace crime and so on, can be effective only if we include and involve our neighbours and closely work with other international organisations.

I express my firm conviction that the Council of Europe has all the necessary mechanisms to provide a contribution in building sustainable democratic societies in neighbouring regions and relations with these regions should be based on mutual respect and proper sensitivity regarding their cultural and religious context.

In particular, we appreciate the role of the Venice Commission in providing assistance and advice on constitutional law issues in Morocco and Tunisia, as well as in terms of necessary reforms to align the national legislation of these countries to the international human rights standards.

Albania remains a country that strongly believes in the dialogue between civilisations and will continue to be actively engaged to erase differences about issues related to the human rights agenda. It is exactly for this reason that the Albanian Presidency in Office of the Council of Europe has chosen as its motto: “United in diversity”.

Dialogue between different cultures and civilisations should be viewed as an ongoing process that requires commitment, good will and care. Harmonising cultural diversity is not always an easy task, and it can even be challenging at times for all of us.

We are all saddened by the serious consequences caused by a worthless video, which showed a lack of respect towards Islam and towards what Muslims consider sacred. Albanian citizens of all religious persuasions, our state and religious institutions ignored that video by maintaining their silence. It is unfortunate that in some parts of the world, this event was not accompanied by a similar reaction. On the contrary, it was used to fuel the blind violence of angry hopeless crowds – which led to fatal consequences.

We must make it clear that acts of terrorism or extremist action by isolated groups with bad intentions should never be confused with the positions of entire societies and governments. No anger can justify illegal acts of violence, which all political and religious institutions and all societies should strongly oppose. Rather, we must commit ourselves to building preventative social, educational and legal mechanisms to halt such phenomena.

We condemn with indignation the terrorist actions against the United States embassy in Libya and demand punishment for the perpetrators. We also condemn any action expressed through the violent protests against western countries’ embassies, whose mission is to promote understanding and co-operation among countries and nations.

Dear friends, peace and security in different parts of the world continue to be challenged by tyranny and oppression. We strongly condemn the violence against the freedom-loving people of Syria from a regime that has irrevocably lost its legitimacy to lead and represent the Syrian people. Nobody should stand idly by while observing the terrible events that have been taking place in Syria every day for a year and a half now, which have resulted in thousands of lost lives and deliberate and widespread destruction that has set the country back decades.

We all live in a world that is becoming increasingly globalised day-in, day-out, and that has overcome serious human tragedies throughout its history. Hence, in the interest of our common future, we must all learn the right lessons about the price that must have been paid because of human bloodshed.

Dear colleagues, in conclusion, I would like especially to praise the distinct role and contribution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the preservation and promotion of the Organisation’s fundamental values in its member countries and elsewhere. I would also like to express my special gratitude for the assistance and support the Assembly has given to my country in satisfying and meeting all the necessary engagements and proper obligations. I wish you good luck and success in your work during this session. Thank you very much for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Nishani, for your very interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you now. The first question is from Mr Toshev, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – In 2009 our Assembly adopted Resolution 1681 and Recommendation 1881 on honour crimes. At the time, the Kanun and Besa practices in Albania allowed a kind of vendetta. Today we are witnessing honour crimes being committed in other regions, such as the Caucuses. Will you share with us Albania’s achievements in combating honour crimes?

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

Mr NISHANI – Today Albania has some very isolated cases of so-called honour crime. In fact, we have made some changes to our penal code to strengthen the criminal policy against such cases. In that field we have engaged with and involved different actors in society. It is not just about investigations and impunities based on criminal terms; it is also about increasing the education and cultural awareness in the very remote areas where such crimes happen. I remind you that they are very isolated cases and that, with regard to criminality statistics, Albania today ranks just below the European average. I of course share your concern, but I guarantee that we are focused on all kinds of crime in Albania, which has decreased greatly in recent decades.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Haugli on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr HAUGLI (Norway) – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I want to thank you for being here and for pointing out at the outset of your speech that human rights are universal values. At a time when some member states are taking away fundamental human rights from lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans people, such as their freedom of speech, I want to compliment Albania for its efforts. Your country should really serve as an example to others. Although you have come a long way, many challenges remain, so I want to ask you how you see the path forward for the LGBT minority in Albania.

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

Mr NISHANI – We fully respect the rights of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or their organisations. Albania has approved a special law in parliament to protect sexual minorities and we have a special commissioner who protects the rights of these groups. They also have their own organisations, which face no obstacles to speaking, representing themselves or engaging in activities.

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

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain) shared Mr Nishani’s dream of Europe and asked what progress had been made in Albania on the rule of law insofar as it applied to the protection of personal property.

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

Mr NISHANI – The rule of law is a very basic part of a democratic society. Albania, through the process of European integration, is very much focused on some priorities, particularly the rule of law. Let me tell you about the most recent development in our parliament, which I, as president of the republic, appreciated very much. Both the opposition and majority parties reached a consensus and voted for some changes to our constitution to lift the immunities from members of parliament and some high-level employees of public administrations. That is a very good message about the implementation of the rule of law, particularly in relation to the fight against corruption. At the same time, Albania has full legislation to European standards, which our institutions now apply. Our prosecutor’s office is completely independent and applies criminal policies against everyone who might be involved in criminal activities. Our judicial system is also completely independent and is becoming ever stronger in this regard.

As for your concern about engagement in such important fields, Albania is working on the basis of the 12 priorities of the European Commission that directly address the rule of law and property issues. We have agreed an action plan with the European Commission and are working in that way. A special department has been created in our Ministry of Justice to address property issues, and that is a crucial project financed by the World Bank and implemented by companies supported by the World Bank through the digital registration of properties. The problem of the restitution of property in a country that suffered for five decades from terrible isolation, when everything was confiscated, will not be solved through a short process. However, things are going in a positive direction.

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

THE EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – Mr President, on the question of Council of Europe assistance to local democracy in all our states, which of the Chaves recommendations are still to be carried out? Will they be implemented by the end of the Andorran chairmanship?

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

Mr NISHANI – Local democracy is one of the main issues for Albanians, so for several years we have been engaged in addressing the question of real power in local government administration, starting by transferring public property from central to local government. We have made it possible for local government to create its own budgets through our system of taxes collected by the local government administration. At the same time, we are focused on our local government and local democracy strategy. The support and engagement of the Council of Europe in this process, working with Albania, are very much welcomed.

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

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) said that, as the co-rapporteur for the Assembly on Albania, he had followed events in that country closely, and shared its successes and failures. In 2013 there would be parliamentary elections in Albania. Criticisms had been made of the work of the Central Election Commission, and it had been the subject of formal complaints by the opposition. Was it possible to choose a chair of the Election Commission in whom everyone could have confidence? What steps were being taken in Albania to combat corruption, which remained a major problem, and to implement court decisions?

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

Mr NISHANI – The election process has been observed by high-level international organisations, such as the OSCE, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. It has been assessed and reported on and the recommendations have been addressed. Let me inform you of the latest development in our parliament, which is very encouraging. A majority in the opposition agreed and voted by consensus on a new electoral law for the upcoming elections. That was good, because the amendments in the new law reflected the recommendations of the OSCE, ODIHR and the Council of Europe. I was encouraged by and welcomed the requests of the opposition parties, which were approved and voted on by all parties in parliament.

Our parliament has started the procedures to elect a new Central Electoral Commission. The previous CEC was elected by consensus in parliament and we hope that the new one will be too. As for your question about the decisions of the Court and their implementation, the situation has improved as for a year and a half we have focused on the privatisation of the bailiff service. That has helped in implementing and resolving all the decisions of the Court. I emphasise that the procedures will address all the concerns of our citizens.

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

Mr FOURNIER (France) said that for many months, Albania had been undergoing a political crisis which had been disastrous not only for everyday political life, but for the long-term future of the country and the prospect of its accession to the European Union. This crisis had severely affected the image of Albania abroad. Could the President of Albania give an assurance that the country would return to democratic normality, with a regular exchange between the government and the opposition? How could the Council of Europe help Albania?

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

Mr NISHANI – The co-operation and partnership of the Council of Europe is always welcome. Parliamentary life has gone well for several years in Albania; the opposition has been back in parliament for three years now and we are working together. Of course, political life is political life and there is political debate in parliament and between the political parties. As president of the republic, I will support and encourage dialogue and co-operation among political parties. I have mentioned the two most recent cases where political parties contributed to the country and the system: the new electoral law and the changes to the system that have lifted immunity from prosecution. An ad hoc committee is working in Albania to improve and make changes to the rules of procedure for parliamentary life and I have high expectations that both the majority and the minority parties will vote in favour of those changes. We have political debates, as one would anywhere, but the attitude of the political class in Albania has absolutely improved.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I do not see Ms Quintanilla, so the next question is from Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – This summer, I personally experienced the developments in Albania and Kosovo. Albania and Hungary have a common fate since our nations must live as a result of unjust treaties in not one, but different states. How will Albania cope with this challenge? Europe, according to the rule of law, may not deprive traditional national communities from self-determination, either internally or externally. What do you think about self-determination and the intranational and territorial autonomy that could be an outstanding tool in avoiding bloody conflict?

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

Mr NISHANI – As I said in my speech, Albania has contributed and will contribute to peace, stability and good neighbourliness. Albania does not support any changes of boundaries or borders in our region. We have to focus on our common future. There have been difficulties in our region in the past. We have not forgotten the past but we have to reorientate so that we look to the future, because it is a common one.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I cannot see Mr Nikoloski. I call Ms Vasić.

Ms VASIĆ (Serbia) – Mr President, on behalf of the Serbian delegation I would like to ask you what concrete measures the Albanian authorities are planning to undertake in order to facilitate a smoother investigation regarding the findings in Dick Marty’s report on “Inhuman treatment of people and illicit trafficking in human organs in Kosovo”.

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

Mr NISHANI – The Albanian nation is much more interested than any other nation in the region, or anywhere else, in seeing a full investigation into this report. There are two pillars to the question: on the one side there are rumours and on the other we have to investigate. Albania fully supports the involvement of EULEX, and we deeply believe in its competence and professionalism in conducting a full investigation into the report and the questions that it raises. To facilitate the investigation, the Albanian Parliament has approved a special law opening up or creating the facilities for the EULEX investigative team to come to Albania and investigate all of the things that they will ask to do. We are more interested than anyone else in investigating and presenting the truth about this question.

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

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) noted that Albania was currently chairing the Committee of Ministers. Mr Nishani had spoken about the possibility of Kosovo joining the Council of Europe. However, some members of the body did not accept the self-declared independence of Kosovo, so such a development would be in breach of international treaties. He asked for more detail of Mr Nishani’s views.

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

Mr NISHANI – What I would like to see, and what I deeply believe that people all around the world would like to see, is the achievement of European standards for the whole of humankind, because European standards are the world’s finest achievement. Kosovar citizens of all ethnicities – Albanians, Serbs, Romanians and everyone else – are European citizens and deserve to have their own institutions based on, and functioning according to, European standards, and to be offered European-standard services. In that context I would like to see the staff, the bodies and indeed the experience of the Council of Europe working with the people and authorities there to promote the values that the Council promotes, sharing those values and working with the Kosovar institutions so that they could achieve European standards and share the standards that the Council of Europe promotes, in order that citizens of that country could profit and have services based on those standards. That is my view.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I do not see Mr Ivanovski, so I call Mr Türkeş. This will be the last question.

Mr A. TÜRKEŞ (Turkey) – Albania is a prominent player in the Balkans and its ethnic population is scattered across six countries in the region. Its European trajectory is key to the overall stability of the Balkans. It is therefore important that it upholds the values of Europe. A revised electoral code recently came into force in Albania. What are the implications of that new code for the upcoming elections in 2013? Will it lead to more transparency?

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

Mr NISHANI – Absolutely; I deeply believe that. The aim of the political parties in parliament was to create much more transparency and better standards for the upcoming elections, so they worked together, agreed and voted on this new electoral code. There is now much more trust among the parties.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) –Mr President, I, too, thank you most warmly for your statement and for answering all the questions that were put to you. I also thank my colleagues for the quality of their questions. I suppose that you and I will see each other very soon, since we are about to meet for a reception in your name.

5. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

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

The sitting is closed.

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

CONTENTS

1        Point of order

2.       Changes in the membership of committees

3.       Urgent debate: The European Response to the Humanitarian Crisis in Syria

Presentation by Mr Santini of report, Document 13045, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons

Speakers:

Mr Marcenaro (Italy)

Ms Schuster (Germany)

Ms Woldseth (Norway)

Mr Kürkçü (Turkey)

Mr Beneyto (Spain)

Ms Hägg (Sweden)

Mr Salles (France)

Ms Maury-Pasquier (Switzerland)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Makhumutov (Russian Federation)

Mr Dişli (Turkey)

Mr O’Reilly (Ireland)

Mr Leigh (United Kingdom)

Ms Čigāne (Latvia)

Ms El Ouafi (Partner for Democracy from Morocco)

Ms Memecan (Turkey)

Mr Michel (France)

Lord Tomlinson (United Kingdom)

Mr Ameur (Partner for Democracy from Morocco)

Amendments 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 2 adopted.

Amendment 4, as amended, adopted.

Amendments 5, 6 and 1 adopted.

Oral amendment adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 13045, as amended, adopted.

4.       Address by Mr Bujar Nishani, President of Albania

Questions:

Mr Toshev (Bulgaria)

Mr Haugli (Norway)

Mr Xuclà (Spain)

Earl of Dundee (United Kingdom)

Mr Petrenco (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Fournier (France)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Ms Vasić (Serbia)

Mr Agramunt (Spain)

Mr A. Türkeş (Turkey)

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