AS (2013) CR 03

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Third sitting

Tuesday 22 January 2013 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.

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 10.05 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open. I remind members that speeches this morning are limited to three minutes.

1. Challenge to credentials

THE PRESIDENT* – I shall now read out the opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs on the credentials submitted yesterday. It met yesterday, and this is its opinion.

      On 21 January 2013, the still unratified credentials of Ms Zaroulia and Mr Gaudi Nagy were challenged on procedural grounds in accordance with Rule 7 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure on the ground that they both belong to political parties that do not respect the values of the Council of Europe and have made statements that are inconsistent with those values.

      The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs has examined the objections raised and determined that Ms Zaroulia and Mr Gaudi Nagy were appointed to the Parliamentary Assembly in accordance with Article 25 of the Statute of the Council of Europe and Rule 6 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure. The committee consequently concludes that the credentials of Ms Zaroulia and Mr Gaudi Nagy are in order.

      The committee wishes to point out that the procedure to challenge the credentials of individual members is governed by strict criteria laid down by the Rules of Procedure. Rule 7.1 does not make it possible to challenge the credentials of individual members in an effective manner, so as to sanction the actions or words where these seriously and persistently violate the principles and values defended by the Council of Europe. It is not for the committee, within the strict limits of its competence, to rule on the existence of substantial violations of the Statute of the Council of Europe, whose obligations are binding on member States, a matter which comes under separate procedure not implemented by the authors of the challenge upon the opening of the session.

      The committee wishes to state in the strongest terms that this decision must not be interpreted as an expression of support or recognition, albeit indirect, of activities, beliefs, actions or political positions that the Parliamentary Assembly has consistently denounced throughout its 63 years of existence. The committee recalls the Parliamentary Assembly’s unwavering commitment to the promotion and defence of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, in particular in combating racism, xenophobia, intolerance and anti-Semitism.

      The committee considers that the current wording of Rule 7.1.c does not make it possible to challenge the credentials of individual members in an effective manner, particularly so as to sanction the actions or words of a member where these seriously and persistently violate the principles and values defended by the Council of Europe. It therefore invites the Bureau of the Assembly to ask it to re-examine this question in order to take into due consideration the concerns that emerged among the members of the Assembly.

Mr Gaudi Nagy seeks the floor under Rule 34.6 to make a personal statement responding to the points made by Ms Nirenstein yesterday. No debate may arise on a personal statement.

Mr Gaudi Nagy, you have the floor for two minutes.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I am glad that the committee has refused the challenge of our credentials. The challenge was an abuse of the fundamental principles of the Council of Europe. The legal grounds proposed by Ms Nirenstein and her colleagues were clearly badly cited. They are therefore unable to remove us from involvement in the work of the Council of Europe. As a human rights lawyer, I was deeply surprised by their initiative. I very much hope that all of us working together here to raise the fundamental rights of European people do not support such actions. This challenge was an attack against the values of the Council of Europe. I and the Jobbik party I represent are ready to work for democracy and for people who are oppressed in any part of Europe, and that is what we will do.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you for that personal statement, which does not give rise to a debate.

2. Changes in the membership of committees

The PRESIDENT* – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in the document Commissions (2013) Addendum 4. Are there any objections to these proposed changes?

The changes are agreed.

3. The situation in Kosovo¹ and the role of the Council of Europe

The PRESIDENT* – We will now debate the report “The situation in Kosovo and the role of the Council of Europe” by Mr Björn von Sydow, from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

I remind colleagues that the Assembly decided at its Monday meeting to limit speaking times this morning to three minutes.

Mr von Sydow, you have the floor.

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – The situation in Kosovo is dire. GDP per capita is among the lowest in Europe. About 30% of the population are more than poor, and this applies to all of Kosovo. Security and safety are not good or predictable. Yesterday we received information about vast attacks on Serbian cemeteries in Kosovo. Explosives are being used. The Kosovar authorities immediately condemned this as unacceptable and called on the police to take proper action. At the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy this morning, we heard that the same thing occurred in parallel in the Preševo valley in Serbia.

There is a general lack of rule of law in Kosovo. There is corruption all over the country and at various levels. It relates to the judiciary, to the prosecution authorities and to politics, although the police in Kosovo are not regarded as corrupt and are held to be more than effective.

On education, minority languages in schools must be supported. The situation has to be improved. Perhaps more alarming, children are educated according to different syllabuses. That tends to prolong the difference of views about the past, which will afflict the future. I refer to the important contribution of the chairman of the committee, Mr Marcenaro, to reconciliation in the Balkans and his call for historians to strive to make history properly understood by every young person and student.

We are more and more aware that trafficking in Kosovo applies not just to unhappy women brought from other parts of Europe or Asia through Kosovo but to Kosovar females. There is in that country a broad, silent use of violence against women. Yes, the situation is dire in all parts of Kosovo.

This is my second report since the declaration of independence. I have found it reasonable to emphasise these issues. The rule of law must be improved so that it is predictable for everyone in Kosovo—every woman, every man, every business and every official.

That said, improvements are to be noticed in other respects. I believe that the constitutional court is doing a good job. It has received respect from the various segments of the Kosovar community. The political and electoral systems are getting better, although the issue of real freedom of the media should be dealt with more firmly.

My point of departure has again been the words “standards before status”. I have again stuck with the status-neutral positions, as do all other international organisations operating in Kosovo. In the summary of the report, I point out that all people living in Kosovo should enjoy good governance, democracy and the rule of law. They should enjoy the same legal and human rights as other people in Europe. The main challenge faced by Kosovo lies in the implementation of existing human rights and rule of law standards, in particular the fight against corruption and organised crime.

One positive development, which I know that you are all aware of, as it is in the media all over Europe, is the European Union-mediated dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade at prime ministerial level. This creates a window of opportunity for solving fundamental political problems along with technical matters. If I am correctly informed, many of the commitments have now been implemented. That is crucial.

The report also deals with the role of the Council of Europe. It calls on us to enhance action on the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law by expanding our co-operation programmes and allowing the competent authorities in Kosovo to be directly involved in the implementation of the Council of Europe’s activities and programmes. We know that our budget is limited, but the European Commission and the European Union have for some time proposed that the Council of Europe should make more progress and be funded in this respect by the European Commission. Following the Secretary General’s statement just before Christmas, we are now allowing our authorities to be in direct contact with the Kosovar authorities and international authorities. That facilitates a new step in the Council of Europe’s presence, with programmes that are, we hope, as relevant to the neighbouring countries.

      Finally, as the draft resolution states, I hope that we can intensify our dialogue with representatives of the political forces elected to the Assembly of Kosovo. In the draft resolution, we invite the Bureau of this Assembly to define the procedures for that, while respecting the policy of status neutrality that, as I have outlined, is performed by all international organisations in their operations in Kosovo, whether in the field or as advisers. With those words, I recommend you to pay attention to the report, and I look forward to the discussion.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr von Sydow. You have just over four and a half minutes left to respond to the debate. I call Mr Michel who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr MICHEL (France)* – I thank Mr von Sydow for his report. He began in dark tones, but became lighter towards the end.

I have visited Kosovo and other countries in the region, and the situation is much better than it was two or three years ago, particularly thanks to the dialogue, which was then at a standstill, between Pristina and Belgrade under the auspices of the European Union. Of course, it is in Serbia’s interest to improve its relations with Kosovo if it wants to become a member of the European Union, because that is the main obstacle that it has to overcome.

Having said that, we must look at the reality on the ground. Kosovo is trying to become a modern State – it is trying to consolidate its democratic system and become a member of the European Union – but its main challenge is to achieve peaceful co-existence between the two communities that have experienced many years of civil war and hate each other. The violence has ceased, although it is sporadically resumed, and such violence is condemned by the central government. It is up to the central government to get through this stage and achieve true peaceful co-existence. For example, a young inhabitant of Mitrovica, who was working for a pro-European association, refused to travel on a Kosovar passport and wanted to have a Serbian passport, which points to the state of mind in Kosovo today.

One goal is that the decentralisation that the authorities want to promote should be implemented and that that should lead to credible adjustments to diminish the unofficial structures that, as everyone knows, are now being financed by Serbia. A second goal is the encouragement of bilingualism, because the two communities do not understand each other – they do not speak the same language. That is a major challenge in the northern part of the country, a territory which more resembles the south of Serbia than the north of Kosovo.

I do not advocate partition or the establishment of a Kosovar Serb republic, as was done in Bosnia – we can see the results of that – because such a division would have a considerable impact on the future of the region and undoubtedly inaugurate a new period of instability not only in Kosovo, but in Serbia, in Macedonia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which none of those countries needs. There are many precedents, particularly the Gruber-De Gasperi agreement on South Tyrol in 1947, so there are means to enable all the parties in the conflict to work together.

I hope that one day we can have a debate on the four States that separated from Serbia. Today, they are not true democratic States: they have had a lot of trouble in becoming democracies, for different but similar reasons. It is clear that we need separate reports on all four of those countries, which would shed more light on the subject for the Parliamentary Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Michel. I call Mr Hancock who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteur on a fine and balanced report. My one criticism would be that the balance in the report is slightly overpowered by its optimism. The reality, which many of us have experienced over the past decade or more, is that it is over-optimistic to think that the situation can be resolved very quickly.

We must recognise some of the key issues in the report, such as paragraph 8 of the draft resolution, which relates to the ongoing problem of tackling widespread and systematic corruption. It is no good painting over that as if it did not exist. Anybody with any knowledge of corruption in Kosovo or of the effects of its spreading to other parts of Europe knows that it is of a magnitude that cannot and should not be seen as a reasonable improvement; that is simply not the case, and there is still an awful lot to be done.

The report refers to normalisation. Is it really possible to normalise the situation in northern Kosovo, which Mr Michel mentioned? Will it ever be possible to bring the communities there into the resemblance of what we would consider normal? I suspect, sadly and regrettably, that that is an ambition too far. I simply do not believe that that is an achievable goal.

At the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy this morning, representatives from Kosovo made very interesting comments, including about the role of the Kosovo Stabilisation Force. The expensive defence of human rights and protection of individuals in Kosovo by KFOR is an ongoing problem. Nobody who spoke at that meeting believes that KFOR can leave in the short term; that simply will not be the case. They also talked about KFOR troops protecting churches and about how the religious activities of Serbs and other minorities are only practicable if they are protected by the military or the police. That cannot be right: it is not normal to have churches protected by the police. There must therefore still be an inbuilt reaction by Albanian Kosovars – the Muslim majority – in resenting the fact that people follow other religions. The Christian faith is not being given true recognition by the Kosovar authorities.

I am all in favour of a return to normality, but, sadly, you have to be a super-optimist to believe that the situation will not continue to be a drain, both financially and in relation to the commitment of the rest of Europe, for many years.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I call Mr Leigh who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr LEIGH (United Kingdom) – My group thanks Mr von Sydow for his excellent report. It is vital for us to monitor the dire situation in Kosovo. In my view, Kosovo is not what a former British Prime Minister, talking about another country in another era, called “a far-away country of which we know little”; we should all be concerned about what is happening there now.

Only last week, in Kamenica a group of Serb primary school children were attacked by Albanian secondary school students at a bus stop. That is not an isolated incident: it was the fifth time that school children had been attacked in that town since the beginning of the school year. Boban Jevtić, the mayor of Kamenica, said: “The security situation is such that parents are reconsidering whether they should be sending their children to school. Incidents such as this remind us where we are, who we are, and that we will have no peace here”. Those were his words, not mine. Even the dead are not safe; we have already heard about the vandalisation of tombstones.

Those incidents are disturbing in themselves, but we should also examine our relationship to the conflict and the part we have played in it. The 1999 intervention by NATO may have served only to exacerbate already increasing tensions. Perhaps it would have been more worthwhile to support and encourage those opposition groups that eventually were successful in forcing the end of the Milošević regime. Instead, NATO’s actions drove the opposition to the Milošević camp, forming a government of national unity while the country was under external attack.

I agree that NATO acted with the best of intentions, but it played into Milošević’s hands, fanning the flames of violence and increasing Serb attacks on Albanian civilians in Kosovo. The intervention achieved the very opposite of its stated intention. It has merely exchanged one group of victims for another. The entire conflict has been an immense human tragedy, damaged Europe’s standing in the world, and resulted in a great exodus of Serbs from Kosovo.

European countries are deemed hypocritical by many. If attacks on Serbs continue, people will start to argue that if we accept the principle of self-determination for Kosovo in leaving Serbia, we must also accept that principle for Serbs in Kosovo, particularly in Serb-dominated northern Kosovo, in splitting from the province and returning to Serbia. I reject that, and I reject Cyprus-style solutions, but surely the Kosovar authorities have a responsibility to make all citizens welcome.

It has been right to maintain a policy of neutrality on the status of Kosovo. We agree that matters can improve only through bilateral dialogue, but a heavy responsibility still lies on the Kosovar authorities to make Serbs welcome in their own country.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Leigh. I call Mr Papadimoulis to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece)* – I thank Mr von Sydow for his work, which has produced a balanced report, as shown by the fact that the Serb side is also satisfied with it.

The report is more optimistic than the reality on the ground suggests, but such optimism can become a driving force to improve the situation. Based on UN Resolution 1244, Kosovo is a case apart. Many Council of Europe member States have recognised Kosovo, but others have not, so the Council of Europe and the rapporteur should maintain a balanced and careful approach and focus on what can be improved for all those involved: respect for human rights; strengthening dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade; finding out what has happened to people who have disappeared; and combating corruption and organised crime, which is widespread in the region. We need to strengthen the autonomy and security of the Serbian community as well as of the local authorities. We want to invest in future generations through programmes, to which all stakeholders can contribute, to promote dialogue and co-operation. Cultural diversity is a source of wealth.

The Group of the Unified European Left thinks that the report is very good, but it is important to move from words to deeds, and much work remains.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Papadimoulis. I call Mr Vareikis to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I congratulate the rapporteur. The group discussed and decided to support the report, but we see it not as the final story, but as a long list of things that the Kosovar Government must do. I have not seen the Council of Europe make such a long list of requirements of a government as it does in paragraph 11 of the draft resolution for a long time, so the report is a very serious one.

There are now two countries in Europe that are not members of the Council of Europe: Belarus, for the reasons you know; and Kosovo, which is an unfinished story. We created Kosovo some years ago as a solution, but now we see it as a problem. Our choice is simple: reject the project, improve the project, or continue it as it is. The report shows us how to improve the project. The weakness of the Kosovo project is that it is based not on agreement but on the victory of one side, and, therefore, many things are left undone. We can ask countries to recognise Kosovo, and listen to their reasons for not doing so, but how they see the project is up to them. Our main goal in the Council of Europe is for people to live together in friendship. Victory is nice, but justice is serious and must be listened to.

The Serbian side has made many concessions and has taken a serious step, and it is now up to the Kosovar side also to make a serious step. We must avoid making Kosovo a bargaining chip in relation to joining the European Union or selling services; this is not a market but an opportunity to learn how to live together. One side likes the word “demography”, and another side likes the word “heritage”; it is up to us to harmonise these things. My wish is that people take the report very seriously and implement it.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Vareikis. The rapporteur does not wish to respond now, so I call Mr Fournier.

Mr FOURNIER (France)* – The year that has passed represented a new phase for Kosovo, which at last, on the 15th anniversary of the founding of the Contact Group, appears to be finding its place on the regional and international scene, despite the uncertainties that still surround its status.

I salute the clear-sightedness of the Serbian authorities who, for two years, despite a change of government, have pursued negotiations with their Kosovar counterparts, under the aegis of the European Union, to resolve a number of technical and political problems. Without that, the report of the Political Affairs Committee and the communication of the European Commission which was published last October would no doubt be less positive with regard to the development of democratic institutions in Kosovo. Difficulties persist in Kosovo, but we should not forget that the country faces three challenges: reconstruction after years of civil war; democracy, when the Kosovar people have never known such a regime; and release from international control. That last point is not without consequences for another fundamental aim for Kosovo – economic development.

The Council of Europe has a role to play in facing those challenges. Our Organisation has adopted a neutral position on Kosovo’s status. I regret, as is indicated in the draft recommendation, that this Organisation has not been in a position to set up other monitoring mechanisms, especially to combat corruption. The Council of Europe must release itself from diplomatic logic with regard to Kosovo and seek to obtain respect for the values that bring us together here. Strengthening the rule of law in Pristina cannot be seen as an implicit recognition of independence, but should be a priority in any territory. Whatever its status, Kosovo belongs geographically to the Council of Europe.

The European Union is launching a feasibility study on a stabilisation and association agreement with Kosovo, although five member States still refuse to recognise its independence. We must not, once again, get lost in fruitless debate and political inaction, and allow other organisations to assume our missions. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy rightly wants to see an improvement in our co-operation with other international actors to avoid the duplication of our efforts. The risk of duplication, however, presupposes the full involvement of our Organisation. I therefore call upon the Committee of Ministers to incur such a risk.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Fournier. I call Ms Mulić.

      Ms MULIĆ (Croatia) – I congratulate Mr von Sydow on his excellent report and on his exhaustive work on “The situation in Kosovo² and the role of the Council of Europe”.

      Despite the concerns and criticisms of the representatives of the political groups, I strongly support the optimistic tone of the report. As it says, the progress achieved by Kosovo is welcome, but more efforts need to be invested in judicial reform, the rule of law and human rights. The compact agreement signed by representatives of the Kosovar Government, the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo and the European Union Special Representative in Kosovo is a step forward in that regard. Stronger institutional links between Kosovo and the European Union are of paramount importance to the country’s progress.

As Mr von Sydow said, Kosovo is one of the poorest countries in Europe, so fostering further socio-economic development will surely help to anchor European values there. Kosovo’s entry into European Bank for Reconstruction and Development membership is therefore a valuable part of its European integration agenda.

Croatia’s position is that Kosovo’s voice must be heard in regional initiatives and international organisations. Its active participation surely adds value in the region. The success of the ongoing dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo under the auspices of the European Union will contribute to regional stability in south-eastern Europe. That dialogue should also facilitate inter-ethnic co-operation and communication between Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo.

The protection and promotion of minority rights remains a major challenge if we are to ensure the full integration of minority communities in Kosovo. Regardless of all the efforts of Kosovo’s institutions to promote minority and other human rights, we should keep it in mind that Kosovo is not in a position to ratify the relevant international human rights instruments because it is a member neither of the United Nations nor of the Council of Europe. No European should be excluded from the benefits provided by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Kosovo’s voice must be heard in international institutions. To begin with, as is stated in the report, we should strongly support the possibility of members of the Assembly of Kosovo joining the Parliamentary Assembly’s parliamentary network, Women Free from Violence. That may help Kosovo to raise its legal and policy standards in the area of violence against women. We should fully support the recent proposal by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to include the possibility of direct interaction between Council of Europe officials and the relevant and competent authorities in Kosovo.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Mulić. I call Mr Kalmár.

      Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – I congratulate Mr von Sydow on his second report on Kosovo. It is a huge piece of work and it has been well done. Mr von Sydow has thus become a well-known European expert on Kosovo.

      The Parliamentary Assembly’s last debate on Kosovo was almost three years ago and many important developments have taken place since then. We agree with the assessment and the language of the draft resolution, which makes it clear that a large number of outstanding issues require action, not solely by the Kosovo authorities, but in co-operation with Serbia and the international community, including the international organisations that are involved in the region.

      Hungary has been a strong supporter of Kosovo’s European perspective and plays an active role in international development co-operation in Kosovo. We are focusing on support for its social and economic development. Through technical assistance projects, we are sharing our experience of good governance, rural development and fulfilling the requirements of European Union accession. There is also intensive co-operation between the two countries on the instrument for pre-accession assistance projects. Hungary is currently involved in three twinning projects in Kosovo.

      Following the request of the North Atlantic Council, the Hungarian company HungaroControl will assure the control of the Kosovo high airspace, which is closed for civil aviation. During the implementation of the project, the company will hold discussions with all neighbouring countries.

      The migration of Serbs from Kosovo to other regions of Serbia is a major challenge. It induces new tensions because of the changes in the ethnic composition of those regions. That happened in Vojvodina.

      Mr von Sydow mentioned education. History teachers have a fundamental role in reconciliation. We should not have the same interpretation of the past, but must at last draw a line. History teachers should prepare the young generation for a common European future. Without that, there is no future for any of the nations in the region.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Kalmár. I call Mr Vilmos Szabó.

      Mr V. SZABÓ (Hungary) – I congratulate Mr von Sydow and welcome his report. I agree with the draft resolution.

      Despite the obvious financial difficulties and the need for further progress, recent months have seen the creation of a state-owned yet independent Serbian public broadcaster and arrangements to guarantee own-sourced revenue, which allows for the economic viability of Serb-majority local municipalities. In September 2012, additional protections were guaranteed by the modification of the constitution with the so-called laws of vital interests, which include provisions on decentralisation and religious and cultural heritage.

      The unsupervised independence of Kosovo, which was granted on 9 September 2012, means that the European Union and, in partnership with the European Union, the Council of Europe, should now play a central role in steering Kosovo towards its European destiny. I welcome the strengthening of the Council of Europe office in Pristina and the opening of a regional centre in Peć. It is an institutional underpinning that should enable direct interaction between the Council of Europe and the Kosovar authorities. Pragmatic and constructive interaction with the Kosovar authorities is needed in order to implement other Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms while enabling the Council of Europe to play a forward-looking role in promoting the political, social and cultural inclusion of all minority communities.

      In particular, the Council of Europe has a positive role to play in safeguarding Kosovo’s cultural and religious heritage and monitoring the implementation of the relevant legislation. As foreseen during the preparation to end Kosovo’s supervised independence, the European Union family consolidated its presence and enlarged its policy footprint in Kosovo in 2012. We in Hungary believe that the results achieved so far in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue are promising but fragile. We must give all the assistance necessary to continue the dialogue. We welcome the positive outcomes of the recent meetings between Prime Minister Dačić and Prime Minister Thaçi in Brussels. Momentum should also be maintained in the dialogue about the implementation of the agreement so far.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Beck.

      Ms BECK (Germany) – Mr von Sydow, thank you very much for your report. Before I comment on it, I would like to make a few points. First, to refer to what Mr Hancock was saying, hardly anyone from the French and German delegations is here today because a major celebration is occurring in Berlin at the moment: the 50th anniversary of the Franco-German agreement. We should emphasise that fact, especially given that such a pessimistic vision is being portrayed. At one time, Germany and France were sworn enemies, but for decades, things have been completely different, and that is being celebrated today in Berlin. It shows that despite the fact that there might be deep-rooted hatred between countries, things can improve.

      I return to what was said about NATO intervention. If NATO had not intervened in Kosovo, there would have been another Srebrenica. We must be clear that the human rights dilemma was just as great. The Serbian military was on the march, and given the increasing threat of a second Srebrenica, what should have been done? Waiting for Milošević’s regime to collapse would have taken some time. What happened was very difficult. As we hear, state building is proving far more difficult and complicated than we imagined 10 or 15 years ago, and issues relating to the State of Kosovo have not been clarified, but as far as the Council of Europe is concerned, those should not be matters of decisive importance. Our main bedrock for action is the universality of human rights.

Modern States should not cling to the old illusion of ethnic homogeneity. That is a catastrophic vision if we want to ensure that all people can live on an equal footing in all States, particularly in the Balkans region, which is so ethnically diverse. We would have to make States there even smaller than they are if we wanted ethnic homogeneity. That would be the case for North Kosovo, then for areas in the Vojvodina and in several other regions. We should make the multi-ethnicity of the region a leitmotif in the Council of Europe. If we do that, we will have something that we can work on. That is the task that we should pursue with regard to Kosovo.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Beck. I call Mr Pushkov.

      Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation)* – Thank you, Mr President. We find the report well-balanced.

      (The speaker continued in English)

      Irrespective of the status of Kosovo, the people living there should enjoy good governance, democracy, the rule of law and the same legal and human rights as other people in Europe. We fully support that approach. However, we should note that as we all know, a number of countries recognised Kosovo mostly for political reasons. It was first recognised by NATO and European Union countries, and that support from important and influential States allowed Kosovo to enjoy its present level of recognition. Mr Vareikis was right to say that we created Kosovo. Kosovo is a creation. As a creation, it now enjoys a certain amount of international support that other territories and populations that have since appeared in Europe do not.

The resolution calls for the definition of modalities for a possible dialogue with representatives of the political forces in Kosovo. I think that such modalities should be explored, but it gives rise to a question: what will the approach be to other populations and territories in Europe whose status is equally in question? I fully support Ms Beck’s statement that status should not be the main point of interest for the Council of Europe. We should consider territories and populations through different lenses – the lenses of democracy and human rights.

Do the people living in other new territories not have the same right to enjoy good governance, democracy, the rule of law and human rights as the people of Kosovo and others in Europe? Shall this Assembly pay attention only to the rights of the people of Kosovo, which was recognised by a number of influential countries thanks to support from NATO and the European Union, or will it also decide to consider the modalities of context for other new territories and populations in Europe and pay attention to their aspiration and human rights, without any special concern for their present status?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Pushkov. I call Ms Djurović.

      Ms DJUROVIĆ (Serbia)*– The Serbian delegation fully agrees with the wish of the Council of Europe as a key institution in promoting fundamental democratic standards in Europe, but what is most important to us is to keep a status-neutral position and preserve the security of the people living in Kosovo and Metohija. We emphasise the role that the Council of Europe has played in preserving status neutrality. It is far more important not to impede the progress being made in the European Union-mediated negotiations by putting pressure on one side. Any decision that might imply a change in status neutrality could undermine the negotiations.

      On one hand, Serbia has a strong interest in supporting the Council of Europe’s efforts in Kosovo. On the other, the negotiations in Brussels must maintain a constructive and reasonable pace. I therefore urge you to bear it in mind that the current stage of negotiations is very sensitive. Any attempt to undermine one side’s efforts could prove dangerous, because sooner or later, the talks will enter the stage when the negotiators will have to resolve fundamental political issues.

      Over the past several months, the new Serbian Government and the national parliament have made substantial concessions, first in order to begin negotiations and then in order to keep them going despite frequent obstacles, often created by those who profit from the current situation. We are not asking for applause or praise, but for an unbiased assessment of the situation as it really is on the ground, and for a break in the wall of silence on the issues in Kosovo as they are represented in reports by Europol or the European Court of Auditors, for instance, as well as in the report before us.

      I thank you for your attention and for the efforts made on Kosovo by the Council of Europe. I also thank Mr von Sydow, the rapporteur, for his role and his work especially because it has been a difficult task and a major challenge for him.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Djurović. The next speaker is Mr Sasi.

Mr SASI (Finland) – I thank Mr von Sydow for an excellent report. Thirty-four members of the Council of Europe, my own country among them, have recognised the State of Kosovo. The Council of Europe is the human rights organisation for all Europe, and it would be natural for Kosovo to be a member, but, as we know, that is not the case. However, we should respect human rights in all the countries of Europe, including Kosovo, regardless of whether they are members of the Council of Europe. It is good that the Government of Kosovo is co-operating with us and is in discussions with us. It is our duty to help it to achieve the Council of Europe’s human rights standards, so it is important that we have continuous dialogue.

      Mr von Sydow’s report is like a monitoring report for Kosovo, but it has been drafted by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. Perhaps the next step could be that the Monitoring Committee sets up a process to monitor whether Kosovo has achieved those human rights standards or what it should do to achieve them, as well as to fulfil all the duties that membership would bring.

      We have had to help Kosovo, and this excellent report outlines what more should be done. There are huge problems concerning corruption, the independence of the judiciary and so on. To take a historical perspective, sometimes one has to build up borders to achieve progress. However, I assume that eventually both Kosovo and Serbia will join the European Union, which will lower the borders again to allow a free flow of people. We should not therefore be afraid of the fact that there are borders at the moment. As Mr von Sydow said, under the guidance of the European Union, we can help to find a solution for Kosovo.

We should consider especially the rights of the Serbian minority in Kosovo. They need strong rights that can be fulfilled and a large degree of autonomy. They would then trust that an independent State, held jointly with the Kosovars, would be a good thing for them. However, there are other minorities, and they must have rights, too. It is very important that the human rights of the Serbians are fully respected because, at the end of the day, we know that there will be no annexation of Kosovo to Serbia, so their independence is the only solution.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Sasi. I cannot see Ms Marković, so I call Mr Mota Amaral.

Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – I congratulate most warmly our eminent colleague, Mr von Sydow, on his report and on his outstanding effort to promote dialogue between the different entities involved in the problem of Kosovo. He has performed his duty as the Parliamentary Assembly’s Rapporteur for Kosovo to the best of his many skills and abilities, and with large measures of patience and human understanding, which honour him as the senior statesman he is.

      The unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo did not respect the rules of the international community but was supported by many member States of the Council of Europe on the ground that the situation was exceptional. It is my strong belief that all peoples have the right to self-determination, granted by the United Nations Charter, but independence is not the only way to enforce that right and respect the identity and interests of a particular community.

      Our Parliamentary Assembly has been, and should remain, concerned with the question of Kosovo and willing to give full support to the efforts to respect democracy and human rights in the area, as Mr von Sydow correctly emphasises in his report. Dialogue between the Serbian and Kosovar authorities needs to continue, with the aim of solving the problems affecting citizens across ethnic and administrative borders. I am not an enthusiast for the continued enlargement of the European Union in this period of serious financial, economic, social and political difficulties that its member States are going through. But the support of the European Union for the process of building and consolidating democratic institutions and promoting economic growth in the Balkans is of paramount importance.

      I wish that stability in the Balkans was a sound reality, with advantages to all, and an end to the presence in the area of international military forces, to which Portugal, my country, has given significant co-operation. However, I still hold the same opinion on the question whether ending the oppression of Kosovo was unwise and has set a precedent that will be invoked in similar cases in future. Those cases occur in countries as different as the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium or Italy. When times become harder, as they are now, extreme solutions tend to be seen as salvation from ongoing suffering. I am afraid that if dialogue and goodwill do not prevail, what seems like an adventurous future will be quite the opposite for the peoples involved.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Mota Amaral. The next speaker is Mr Schennach.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I say to Mr von Sydow that this is a very impressive report, and to Ms Beck that I share the hopes that she expressed. There are very good examples of similar situations arising between France and Germany. If President Nikolić is trying to hold the Serbian Orthodox Christmas in Kosovo, there are problems arising from travel restrictions and the Albanians are starting to damage cemeteries, you can see what is bubbling under the surface.

      A monitoring system has been developed that is very difficult for NATO. Our soldiers have been integrated into communities and can see what the situation is. This matter concerns the Council of Europe because we are talking about democracy and about developing all the right values. The European Union has had issues with EULEX and KFOR, and there have been problems concerning crime and corruption. I am very pleased that on 18 January, in Vienna, under the chairmanship of Lady Ashton, a small degree of normality was restored, at least with regard to customs and tariffs for the Mitrovica Serbian communities. That has led to a small degree of autonomy. Although the Minister of the Interior said that there can never be autonomy, we need to be aware that to a large extent – almost 90% – Kosovo’s budget comes from the European Union. Even in that context, we need to point the way forward from the viewpoint of the Council of Europe. We need to offer as much support as we can, but Europeans cannot do everything.

      On a minor point, I agree with Ms Beck that we have to be very careful about the Ahtisaari plan. The Serbian minority is not the only minority in Kosovo; there are also the Ottoman Turks. On a final point, the report says that the Roma should not be returned, and I think we should all be very aware of that.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Nikoloski.

Mr NIKOLOSKI (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – I welcome the report and congratulate the rapporteur. As a direct neighbour of Kosovo, we are always interested in developing a stable and democratic country in our neighbourhood. Bearing it in mind that we were together in the former Yugoslavia and that we are close neighbours now, we look forward to continuing the co-operation with this country.

I remind members that Macedonia is one of the countries that has recognised the independence of Kosovo and we fully respect the right of the people of Kosovo to have their independent country, of course, meeting all criteria that are necessary for a European State and which it should meet. Also, we are interested in continuing co-operation with this country, especially in respect of European integration, and we are here to share all our positive experiences from the past in resolving the same or similar conflicts.

In this regard, during the Kosovo crisis in 1999, Macedonia received a huge number of refugees. Around 300 000 people came to Macedonia in that period – 15% of our population. It is good, and I am happy, that most of those refugees, after the end of the crisis, went back to their homes and live freely now in Kosovo. But there is still a small number, especially from the Roma and Turkish communities, who cannot go back to their homes. I want to thank the rapporteur specially for the inclusion of paragraphs 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 in the draft recommendation, which speak about financial assistance to the existing action plans aimed at a sustainable solution for the refugees and internally displaced people, and for the Roma of Kosovo who should go back to that country. I ask the Kosovo State, the Kosovo Parliament and the Kosovar authorities to work hard on this issue, as they know best what it is to be a displaced person; they have suffered and seen how it is, and now they should be sympathetic to the rest of the refugees who still cannot go back home, as they are afraid for their security.

We want to have good co-operation with our neighbour Serbia, and we are doing that. A common dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina is the only solution for this problem. The rights of the Albanians and the Serbs should both be respected, as should the rights of the other minorities who live in Kosovo, especially the Macedonian minority with Muslim religion who live there. We call for a common dialogue to resolve the open issues in this field.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Nikoloski. I call Mr Jakič.

Mr JAKIČ (Slovenia) – I share the rapporteur’s view of the progress that has been made in the past four years, after Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008. Instead of the word “some”, I prefer to use the word, “significant”.

After the parliamentary and presidential elections in Serbia in May 2012, four important developments, also mentioned in the report, have taken place. The facts that the issue of Kosovo was a marginal concern during the election campaign in Serbia, and that that was followed by the meeting between the Prime Ministers of Serbia and Kosovo, are much more important moments than they might seem at first glance. And yes, there is still a lot to be done.

I also fully agree that the main challenge faced by Kosovo lies in the implementation of existing human rights and rule of law standards. That is why I support the main recommendation that the Council of Europe should contribute to developing a stable, viable, peaceful, democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo, with an emphasis on the democratic building of human rights and the rule of law, which is a guarantee of peace in the western Balkans and also in Europe.

First and foremost, Kosovo should enable efficient implementation of the existing legislation for minority protection and enforce a political dialogue, which is one of the prerequisites for joining the European Union. The diversity of opinions on the status of Kosovo should not constitute an obstacle to the unity of enlargement. The present policy of status neutrality should not prevent the Council of Europe from expanding direct working relations with the Kosovar authorities, thus allowing them to be directly involved in the implementation of the Council of Europe activities and programmes. Providing our colleagues from Kosovo with the opportunity to participate in relevant meetings of Assembly working bodies in 2010 was the first, very important, step to achieving the aim. Now it is time for the Assembly Bureau to define the modalities of this co-operation, and expand and intensify its dialogue with the representative of the Kosovo authorities, regardless of the status of Kosovo.

Sooner or later, the Council of Europe will discuss Kosovo’s application for membership. The sooner Kosovo is prepared to meet the standards of the Council of Europe, the better it will be for the people of Kosovo and the people of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I do not see Mr Shlegel or Mr Agramunt, so I call Ms Kanelli.

Ms KANELLI (Greece) – Looking for the essence of human rights in this report, I would say, yes, it is a nice perfume. But it cannot hide the causes of why we are talking here, today, about Kosovo.

What is Kosovo, practically? Is it a State? Is it an area? Or is it just the result of the dirtiest anti-human war in Europe, financed and promoted by European and American forces? Nowadays, we talk about the collateral damage brought about by any war in any area of the world. We will not use this report, which is nice and good and speaks about human rights of people in Kosovo but, honestly, does not speak about the atrocities that happened and continue to happen in Kosovo. We are talking about religion and cemeteries. This is not the truth.

Nobody gives any attention to this. We are hypocritical. It is Mitrovica and the wealth. We continue hypocritically talking only about human rights and not the causes that create that situation, such as the trafficking of women and the drugs trafficking. Everything is the result of the war. Whorehouses follow the troops. It is not the troops that go and follow the whorehouses. What is happening in Kosovo is a European, western civilised crime. It is an imperialistic crime. And if we continue hypocritically in this way, we will end up hitting not the causes, but only the results, and we will end up talking about human rights as the collateral damage of legalised wars.

If that continues, in a few years the Assembly will have North Kosovo and South Kosovo, like we speak about North Sudan and South Sudan. Similarly, the French, the British and the Germans are currently concerned about human rights in Mali, but we will end up with rich North Mali and the poor South Mali. Where we create human catastrophe, the only thing we can do to pursue peace is hit the economic and monopoly interests of the world.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Chisu.

      Mr CHISU (Observer from Canada) – The rapporteur, Mr von Sydow, has done an admirable job of assessing the recent developments in Kosovo regarding the situation of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and the attempts to identify a way to advance relations between Kosovo and the Council of Europe.

      I should state at the outset that Canada is among the 98 countries that recognise the independence of Kosovo. Between 1992 and 2010, Canada provided $135 million in development assistance to Kosovo. Canada is also a participant in the NATO-led Kosovo force and from 2008 to 2011 participated in EULEX in the areas of policing, the judiciary and monitoring minority rights.

      We support the increased integration of Kosovo in the international system, including the Council of Europe, in a pragmatic fashion and without prejudice to the country’s international status. From Canada’s perspective, the recommendations in the report are generally consistent with Canada’s efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law, fight organised crime and corruption, promote respect for human and minority rights and improve regional co-operation.

      Canada is satisfied that Kosovo’s Parliament is committed to the protection of minority rights, including cultural and religious heritage. We note, in particular, that the country’s constitution reflects these commitments. We consider the development of Kosovo into a democratic, multi-ethnic State that fully respects human rights essential for peace, political stability and economic progress in the Balkans. Canada supports the full Euro-Atlantic integration of all countries in the western Balkans and sees the normalisation of relations between Kosovo and Serbia as essential to regional stability.

The recent progress in the European Union-sponsored bilateral talks between Kosovo and Serbia is encouraging. In particular, there has been a process of technical dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo, started in March 2011 under the European Union chairmanship, which has led to agreements on security, trade co-operation, recognition of official documents and freedom of movement, and the implementation of an integrated border management agreement between the two countries following a meeting on 4 December 2012 between Prime Minister Dačić of Serbia and Prime Minister Thaçi of Kosovo facilitated by Baroness Ashton, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

With the continued efforts of the Council of Europe, the European Union and other members of the international community, we can build on the progress achieved thus far and help Kosovo on its path to integration in Europe and among the community of nations.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – When we talk about Kosovo, we should talk about the right of self-determination. Kosovo should be a model for how Europe needs to cope with this issue. On the sovereignty of Kosovo, the key to success lies in all the countries of the world respecting what happened in Kosovo. Kosovar Albanians and Serbs living in this new country must find a way of living together and enjoying good governance, democracy, the rule of law and the same legal and human rights as others in Europe. The world must not fail again and again, day after day, by forgetting about the importance of the right of self-determination.

For that reason, I am convinced of the importance of the accession of Kosovo to the Council of Europe in order to raise the standards in the many fields mentioned in this comprehensive report prepared by Mr von Sydow, who is an expert in this area. He and his colleagues must realise that the conflict will not be solved without Serbia, which must be able to convince the Serb community in Kosovo to find a peaceful way to co-exist and ensure a quality of life that guarantees rights. Serbia must not forget about the failure of the so-called one-sided game. If Serbia wants to secure rights for the Serbian community in Kosovo, it must ensure the same rights for all other communities living in Serbia, such as the Hungarians in Vojvodina. Such a willingness on the part of Serbia is a main guarantor of peaceful life in Kosovo. Without it, Serbia must not accede to the European Union. These values are based on the same ground and self-determination must be compulsory for everyone.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Bakoyannis.

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – Dear colleagues, listening to most of you, I am not sure that our policy in the Balkans is the right policy. We have been trying to abolish frontiers in Europe, and we have been successful, but in the past 20 years we have been building new ones in the Balkans. We have to think a little and ensure that our policies will be successful.

I want to address Ms Beck’s position. No, the Council of Europe is not here to decide the status of Kosovo. The current phase of the negotiations between Pristina and Belgrade indicates a good degree of political will from both sides to promoting reconciliation. Mr von Sydow’s report is a realistic one and I am fully in accordance with his spirit. I suggest, however, some steps that could enhance our actions to promote peace and political stability in the region. First, we could invite female parliamentarians from Belgrade and Pristina to participate in a forum named “Women talk to Women” where they would have the opportunity to define their common affinities.

Secondly, the Council of Europe could launch a project under the title, “The Next Generation Initiative”. My idea is to invite to Strasbourg 100 young boys and girls from the two shores of the River Ibar in Mitrovica. Our aim should be to help them bridge the gap. We have to support the next generation, if we truly want to see long-lasting peace in the area. I strongly believe that this would be a low-cost, high-return investment. Last but not least, we must deal with the most important problem in Kosovo – the independence of the judiciary. To this end, we could organise a series of confidential hearings to define the core aspects of this significant issue.

I wish also to refer to the role of Greece’s head of mission in Pristina, Ambassador Dimitri Moschopoulos. His services as a facilitator in religious affairs have been recognised by the Secretary General of the United Nations. Notwithstanding the fact that Greece has not recognised Kosovo, we will continue to play a key role as regional stabiliser. Greece believes that the future of the region lies inside the European institutions.

I wish to make two final points. The new co-operation between the AAK’s leader, Ramush Haradinaj, and Prime Minister Hashim Thaçi constitutes a major political development, and we look forward to it resulting in political deeds. Furthermore, let us notice and praise a new academic institution – the international business college of Mitrovica. It is the only such institution in south and north Mitrovica that has worked so successfully.

      The Council of Europe must assist Serbs and Albanians in creating better conditions for the next generation. At the end of the day, it is that which will help us to define the status of Kosovo.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Bakoyannis. The next speaker is Ms Mehmeti Devaja.

      Ms MEHMETI DEVAJA (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – I commend the rapporteur for his balanced and committed work in drafting the report. The report comes at a politically tense moment for the region, but it is positive in once again urging dialogue and the finding of institutional solutions to long-standing problems.

      Only five years after the declaration of independence, and surrounded by States also working hard to consolidate their democracies, the Kosovar authorities are indeed demonstrating continuing commitment to good governance, democracy, the rule of law and respect for the human rights of all ethnic communities living there. Although problems persist, they are being handled responsibly by the domestic authorities, working in close partnership with EULEX, UNMIK and other accredited international organisations to strengthen the rule of law and the legal, institutional and policy framework for combating corruption.

      Combating corruption must, however, be a genuine commitment of all parties, subjects and ethnic groups living in Kosovo. In parallel, illegal and illegitimate structures, or attempts to stimulate or support such forms of action, are indeed a serious obstacle to legal and legitimate national authorities making efforts to combat corruption. Similarly, attacks at border posts and against national institutions do not serve our cause. The ongoing prime ministerial dialogue must continue to focus on the normalisation of relations between two sovereign States and concentrate on resolving the day-to-day problems of the population of Kosovo. Calls for partition and revision of borders represent a dangerous idea for the western Balkans.

      While I welcome the support that the European Union gives the Council of Europe, I reiterate the importance of the European perspective for western Balkan countries and Kosovo in particular. As we speak, the situation in the region remains tense as a result of recent events in Preševo valley.

      The region has suffered much, and it has suffered enough. Images of special police units in armour and carrying heavy weaponry bring us memories of our recent bitter past, and do not contribute to overall efforts for peace, reconciliation and the European future of the Balkans. There can and must be no alternatives to dialogue as a means to accommodate ethnic conflict. Likewise, frozen conflicts are not in the interests of any State or nation aspiring to a European future.

      This is another momentous opportunity for both Kosovo and the Council of Europe to look at the possibilities and to advance their relationship through ensuring that Kosovo becomes a full member of the Council of Europe.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Mehmeti Devaja. The next speaker is Ms Zohrabyan.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – Today we are discussing a very important report on the situation in Kosovo and the role that the Council of Europe should be playing there. People have a right of self-determination, and Kosovo benefited from that right in declaring its independence in 2008. I agree with Mr von Sydow that, irrespective of the policy of neutrality applied by the Council of Europe with regard to the status of Kosovo, all people living there should be entitled to good governance, democracy and the rule of law, and should enjoy the human rights principles that other people in Europe have.

      Mr von Sydow’s report forces me to draw a parallel with another State that is also located in Europe, but which has not yet been recognised although it declared its independence on the same basis as Kosovo. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh also declared their independence in accordance with all international standards.

      I fully endorse the points set out in the Bureau’s activity report, which says that if a specific question relating to Kosovo were to feature on the agenda of this Organisation, representatives of that country’s assembly could be invited to take part in discussions. We commend that approach. Why cannot we apply such an approach when discussions are held on matters concerning Nagorno-Karabakh, guaranteeing the presence and participation of representatives from the parliament of that country? That would be a fair decision in keeping with the fundamental values underpinning our Organisation.

      In the same activity report, questions are asked about whether the representation in our Assembly of communities from Palestine and the northern parts of Cyprus could be a precedent in respect of Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In my opinion, it can be a precedent and we should give thought to that. Otherwise, our Assembly will attempt to create committees to discuss Nagorno-Karabakh that could harm the good intentions which I hope the Assembly is continuing to pursue.

      Mr von Sydow is right to State that the Council of Europe should step up its influence and commitment to Kosovo by maintaining relations with the Kosovar authorities at all levels. I hope that it will not be long before the Council of Europe, as well as my colleagues, will agree that an unresolved conflict can never justify violations of human rights.

The Kosovar people, by exercising their right to self-determination, have gained independence. Today we are discussing what can be done to help Kosovo to develop as a genuinely democratic country. It has several serious problems with regard to political freedoms, the rule of law, dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade, corruption and other fundamental issues. I would like to believe that the people and authorities of Kosovo, with the help of the international community and of this Assembly, will attempt to build a genuinely democratic republic – a republic of the sort that is being developed by Nagorno-Karabakh but which has not yet been recognised.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Zohrabyan. The next speaker is Ms Gündeş Bakir.

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – We all want a stable, democratic and united Europe. If the Cold War and our memories of the two world wars have taught us anything, it is that we need a Europe that is peaceful, secure, free and undivided. However, the political and security situation in the Balkans remains fragile. All of us in the Assembly should be concerned about the possibility of a conflict in Kosovo, because such a conflict could easily spread throughout the Balkans. As President Clinton rightly put it, it would be a conflict without borders.

In order to prevent conflict, the full territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo should be respected by Serbia before its eventual Euro-Atlantic integration. The existence of parallel structures in northern Kosovo can be detrimental to the rule of law, and some have turned into criminal structures. Serbia should in no way encourage the formation of parallel governmental structures in northern Kosovo, and it should respect the Pristina Government’s right to exercise its authority throughout the country.

Kosovo is an independent State in its full territory. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should oppose any discussions regarding the full territorial integrity of Kosovo. It should also be noted that it would not be just or politically correct to make the Pristina Government accountable for the full territory of the country in respect of human rights violations, corruption or criminal structures unless the parallel governmental structures and vacuums in the north are abolished, and unless the northern region is fully integrated with the rest of the country.

There are external factors behind the current situation in Kosovo. As we all know, Kosovo came from hard days, and it is now recognised by 96 countries. In order to establish an effective governmental structure in Kosovo, the country should be empowered by international recognition.

I call on all Council of Europe member States to recognise the full territorial integrity and sovereignty of Kosovo. Kosovo should be given the opportunity to develop international collaborations in order to address the concerns raised by the rapporteur, including on security. If Kosovo is given greater international recognition, that would serve to integrate the country economically and politically with the wider world, and international collaboration would give greater strength to its fight against organised crime and corruption. The former Yugoslavian States of Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro are all member States of the Council of Europe, and I call on the Parliamentary Assembly to accept Kosovo as a full member as soon as possible.

Until it is recognised by all member States of the Council of Europe, Kosovo should be guaranteed observer State status. It should be given an office here, and its parliamentarians should be given the right to speak in the Chamber or to propose amendments to any resolutions concerning them. That would provide a platform for further dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo and open up possibilities for bettering relations between the two countries. No European should be excluded from the Council of Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Mr Xuclà is not present, so I call Ms Woldseth.

      Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I agree with everything Ms Gündeş Bakir said. I commend Mr von Sydow on his work as rapporteur on Kosovo. It is not an easy country to be rapporteur for. Kosovo is not a member of our Assembly, but I think the rapporteur is doing a good job looking at how the Council of Europe might contribute to strengthening democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in Kosovo. I know the rapporteur does not want today’s debate to be about the status of Kosovo, but I would very much welcome colleagues from the Parliament of Kosovo being members of our Assembly. Norway has recognised Kosovo and I hope more Council of Europe member states will do the same.

      The European Union-facilitated dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade is important. It is encouraging to note that there has been progress. I can only hope that the dialogue will continue, and the parties progress still further in finding solutions so Serbs and Kosovars can live side by side. I also encourage Serbia to show the rest of Europe that it is serious about the dialogue and improving the relationship with Pristina.

      Secretary General Jagland deserves credit for supporting the dialogue and focusing on what the Council of Europe can do in Kosovo. His proposal to open up direct contact between Council of Europe officials and the authorities in Kosovo is an important step forward.

      I have followed the developments in the Balkans for many years. Bosnia has a special place in my heart. Last year, I had the privilege of visiting Kosovo for the very first time. Together with the Norwegian Assembly delegation, I visited both Mitrovica and Pristina. Visiting Kosovo made a great impression on me. I was struck by the courage and optimism of all the people we met. They were hopeful for the future. It is our job, as fellow Europeans, to support them and help them build a democratic and prosperous Kosovo.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Mr Kaikkonen is not present. The last speaker on the list is Ms Giannakaki.

      Ms GIANNAKAKI (Greece)* – The status of Kosovo is one of the most complex legal issues in European diplomacy. Even though 34 of the 47 Council of Europe member States have recognised its independence, all our debates on Kosovo should take place on the basis of United Nations Resolution 1244. We should avoid any speculation on its future status. The status of Kosovo is unique, and does not apply to any other region.

      I congratulate Mr von Sydow on his excellent work. The report addresses the promotion of dialogue between Pristina and both Belgrade and the wider region. The authorities of the region have co-operated with the relevant entities of the European Union and the United Nations, and they want to promote the principles of the Council of Europe: democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. In accordance with the decisions of the Council of Europe and other international organisations, we must promote the autonomy of various communities and respect for their rights.

Despite the efforts of the Kosovo authorities, progress in combating corruption and organised crime has been slow. There is a lack of transparency at all levels of the economy. This has an impact on Kosovo and is a major obstacle. It prevents the region from complying with European standards. Corruption affects all levels of society. Kosovo has a long path ahead of it, in spite of the agreements that will be signed with Belgrade, on combating organised crime and corruption.

      The issue of deported or disappeared people will need to be examined with the participation of all the communities living in the region. We must, of course, condemn organised crime. We also need to consider how to encourage dialogue between communities within the structures of civil society. It will be impossible to improve the lives of the people in the region unless everyone is aware of the need to guarantee diversity, a principle that is fully in line with Balkan tradition.

      THE PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers.

      I call Mr von Sydow, rapporteur, to reply. You have five minutes.

      Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – This has been an interesting debate, and I thank members for their warm welcome for my contribution. We still come at this issue from a variety of perspectives, but it seems that we have reached a consensus on the fundamental points and on how to proceed. We all agree, for instance, that there must be dialogue on a variety of levels: dialogue between the prime ministers – which is already taking place – and also dialogue locally, even in the schoolhouses.

I remember on one of my previous visits going to a schoolhouse fairly close to Pristina. It had two entrances. One of them was for the Kosovar and Albanian-speaking kids. Inside it, they had their classes, and they played outside their door. On the other side of the schoolhouse there was a similar door, behind which the Serbian-speaking kids had their classes. We were told they did not play together even in the playground. There should be dialogue at all levels, as you have asked for.

Thank you very much for your contributions and ideas on various programmes, which I hope the Secretariat can pick up. How can we find projects that will work? I would put the stress on the younger generation. Much also needs to be done to get women out of their hidden situation at home and in their families. There have been lots of ideas.

One positive thing has been the implementation of change. There is a good deal of resolution of intentions in Kosovo itself and by the international organisations. I think that the Council of Europe can contribute to this. The previous report, which we adopted and which even the Committee of Ministers adopted in principle, was about establishing a way of monitoring the human rights, democracy and rule of law commitments made by the Kosovar authorities. I will not go into the details, but it was impossible to find practical solutions. This time, the idea is that Council of Europe programme officials, working in the north and south of Kosovo with Kosovar people, will have a hands-on approach to developments day by day. That is a way, I hope, for us to promote, address and support the implementation of all the commitments. If you accept the report and the resolution, that will open the way for that. It is in the hands of the Secretary General, given his decision on allowing Council of Europe officials to operate with the different partners.

It has been interesting to follow the discussion on status, but I will avoid saying anything on status issues even in my final words to you. The issue of standards has opened doors. I have no problem with having open doors, from the highest level right down to the individual schoolhouse. The catchphrase “standards not status” has been fruitful. We are out to support the same standards for people living in Kosovo that all Europeans should have. That has opened doors. This report is based on that presumption.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr von Sydow. Mr Marcenaro, you have the floor, if you would like to speak on behalf of the committee that you chair.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Mr von Sydow has produced an excellent report on a delicate subject and I believe that the unity in the discussions in the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy will be reflected in the vote. That is important. Mr von Sydow has insisted on and underscored the distinction between standards and status. That is not about opportunism; it hails from three assessments. The first is the seriousness of the crisis that he mentioned. It is a material crisis, with growing poverty and increasing inequality. It is also an institutional crisis, with an absence of security and certainty with regard to the justice system—all matters that concern fundamental rights.

The second point is that we concentrate on standards because that is our field of action. The Council of Europe does not need to invent competition with other institutions or authorities that have greater powers and competences than we do. There is a third aspect, which I think is as important as the other two. To talk of standards means knowing that the processes of reconciliation in serious conflicts are slow and need time to mature. No decree can resolve them instantly. These substantive problems concern the human condition and the only base on which we can build something solid is the joint vision that we have about fundamental problems. I thank Mr von Sydow for the fantastic work that he has done.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution, to which three amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled. I understand that the Chairman of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wishes to propose that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. The amendments are Amendments 1 and 2 to the draft resolution. Is that so, Mr Marcenaro?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Yes.

The PRESIDENT* – As there are no objections, I declare that Amendments 1 and 2 to the draft resolution are agreed.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Fatiha Saïdi, Mr Ludo Sannen, Mr José Mendes Bota, Mr Stefaan Vercamer and Mr Dirk Van Der Maelen, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 11.7.3, insert the following paragraph:

“inviting the Kosovo Assembly to establish co-operation with the PACE Parliamentary Network ‘Women free from Violence’.”

Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Björn von Sydow, Ms Anne Brasseur, Ms Karin S. Woldseth, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Andres Herkel and Mr Tiny Kox, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 12 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly welcomes the recent instruction issued by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to the Organisation's Secretariat, which authorised Council of Europe officials to interact with the Kosovo authorities with a view to facilitating the implementation of Council of Europe activities and programmes.”

We now come to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Aleksandra Djurović, Mr Vladimir Ilić, Mr Djordje Milićević, Ms Stefana Miladinović, Ms Nataša Vučković and Ms Vesna Marjanović, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, second sentence, replace the words “in particular in the north of Kosovo” with the following words: “both in the north and the south of Kosovo”.

I call Ms Djurović to support Amendment 3.

Ms DJUROVIĆ (Serbia) – In order to achieve the consistency of the whole paragraph, it is more appropriate to make reference to the whole territory of Kosovo, both north and south, as it was referred to in the first sentence of the paragraph.

The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr von Sydow.

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) –At the meeting of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy in Turin, I accepted that the first part of the paragraph should refer to Kosovo both north and south. However, the latter part refers to the EULEX decision and strategy, so I disagree and I ask the Assembly to reject the amendment.

The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The committee is against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We will now proceed to the vote on the whole of the draft resolution, as amended, contained in Document 13088.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 13088, as amended, is adopted, with 115 votes for, 11 against and 5 abstentions.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13088. A two-thirds majority is required.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 13088 is adopted, with 121 votes for, 5 against and 4 abstentions.

      I congratulate Mr von Sydow on his high-calibre work. I had the opportunity to be involved in that work during the Turin meeting, and I am delighted that things have gone so smoothly.

4. Communication from Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

      THE PRESIDENT* – Dear colleagues, we now move to the traditional communication from our Secretary General, Mr Jagland. We are delighted that you are here, because your presence demonstrates your interest in the Parliamentary Assembly’s work. We keep a close eye on your activities, and the Bureau is always keen to hear your statements and those from the Deputy Secretary General. We are happy to have an opportunity to ask you questions, and I am sure that you will have many to field after your communication. I welcome you to the Assembly.

      Mr JAGLAND (Secretary General of the Council of Europe) – Mr President, I congratulate you on your re-election and look forward to working with you again during the coming year.

      Dear friends, history is not a linear process. Sometimes, history runs slowly; nowadays, it does not. We live in times during which changes that previously took years can happen in a minute. Political leaders do not know how to react to, and political institutions are not set up to tackle, all the changes that are so rapidly taking place, so we are witnessing a number of crises.

Europe faces several concurrent and closely interrelated crises – an economic one, but also a crisis of institutions. European institutions are struggling to cope with the economic crisis, and are often perceived as unable or unequipped to deliver immediate, concrete and effective responses to the problems we face. The crisis of institutions has bred a third crisis – a crisis of confidence. The sharp decline of trust in public institutions is not restricted to European bodies, but it is dramatically reflected in people’s attitudes to their national institutions of government and their political classes.

Economic austerity has certainly reinforced those sentiments, but it would be wrong to blame all the problems on the current economic and financial crisis alone, because many challenges pre-date it and are linked to other developments. The cumulative effect of the three crises is a fourth one – a crisis of values. We have not perhaps lost our belief in them, but there are many signs that we may have lost the stamina to live up to them. That is reflected in the rise of extremism, hate speech and new nationalism, and in the vilification of immigrants and other forms of otherness. Countering such preoccupying trends is and must remain the key priority for all governments in Europe and for this Organisation.

Given that background, I want to outline what I believe our focal points and political priorities should be. The first priority should be the fight against corruption and other forms of the misuse of power. Corruption is today’s biggest threat to democracy, and it undermines citizens’ trust in the rule of law. According to European Union Commission data, almost three quarters of European Union citizens perceive corruption as a major problem in their country, and almost half think that the level of corruption has risen over recent years.

That is found in all countries. Finland is prosecuting the leading managers of a major armament company for alleged corruption in several countries in south-east Europe. In Slovenia, the government is at risk of collapse following the publication of an anti-corruption commission report that involves both the prime minister and the leader of the opposition. In my own country, there has recently been a lot of focus on corruption at the municipal level: we thought we were clean, but we are not. In Italy, the scandal regarding pollution from industrial waste is growing, and people are increasingly angry at learning about how the mafia has been able to infiltrate political bodies, which has allowed the pollution to continue for so long. The former president, like the current one, has said that corruption is the biggest challenge in the Russian Federation. Those are only a few examples, but we have to act.

The first precondition for fighting corruption is a trustworthy, effective and independent judiciary. In many countries, developing an independent judiciary is a long-term process. For example, in Ukraine, there has been a rush of visits to Ms Tymoshenko in prison, which is good – I appreciate it – but visitors far too often think that the job is done when the visit has been carried out and a picture has been printed in the media. That does not change much; only hard work on the reforms and practices that slowly develop an independent judiciary will make a difference. We are doing that by implementing a broad reform programme for the entire judicial sector in Ukraine. We will continue such work, but it is costly, which is why we must concentrate our resources on doing the most important things, such as helping member States to develop an independent judiciary.

Fighting corruption requires genuine freedom of expression. Without free and independent media, the system of checks and balances cannot function and there can be no effective safeguards against misuses of power and incompetent governance. Again, that relates to a Council of Europe prerogative par excellence: one that should be – and will be – further reinforced in the future.

      I emphasise in this Assembly that there can be no effective fight against corruption without genuinely autonomous parliaments that are willing and able to control executive power. Unfortunately, too many parliaments in Europe have immunities that make it attractive for powerful people, particularly those in business, to seek a seat in parliament and to hide there. If you have a seat in parliament while lengthy procedures in the courts make the judiciary ineffective and you also control the media, you can keep going for a long time without being brought to justice, as is unfortunately the situation in some of our member countries. I appeal to you all, as an autonomous Assembly, to stand up and combat this evil in our democracies, because otherwise we run the risk of losing further confidence. GRECO – the Group of States against Corruption – and MONEYVAL, the Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures, are our main weapons in fighting corruption. I urge you all to get your governments and national parliaments to look into their recommendations and to implement them speedily.

The second focus should be the fight against intolerance and hate speech – a widespread evil that is always the first sign of something more worrying ahead. This focus is the follow-up to the “Living Together” report. Since its publication, not a day has passed without Europe being reminded of its relevance, sometimes in the most dramatic and even tragic fashion. We should remember what happened in Norway on 22 July 2010. What happened at a soccer game in northern Italy might seem less dramatic at first, but it can lead to similarly dramatic action, because words pave the way for action. I refer to the Milan soccer team walking off the field after the fans of the opposing team jeered black teammates. Another example is when the fan club of the Zenit soccer team in St Petersburg issued an open letter saying that it would not accept dark-skinned players being “forced down Zenit’s throat”. Dear friends, this concerns the hottest issue in the public debate across Europe: what is our identity? If it ends up in an increasing divide between “us” and “them”, Europe is heading for more violence. The Council of Europe must take a leading role in combating all forms of extremism and violence so that we can continue to live together in diversity. Europe is a diverse continent.

The third priority is closely connected: protection of minorities. It concerns the relationship between majorities and minorities. I believe these relations are the best reflection of the general state of democracy and human rights in our societies. This is where our commitment to values and standards is exposed to the most rigorous tests. Our work on Roma people should be at the very heart of this exercise. The discrimination against the Roma, who are the biggest minority on the continent, shames all of us. The Council of Europe and the European Union have joined forces to move from nice speeches to concrete action. We will continue with our concrete action, but again we need help from you, particularly in speaking out against racism and all kinds of prejudices, which are probably the biggest impediment to getting something positive done at the local level. There are also other minorities and vulnerable categories of population, be they ethnic, religious, sexual or any other group of people, who require special attention when it comes to the protection of their human rights and human dignity.

The fourth and final set of priorities concerns the consolidation of the Council of Europe legal space. First, there is the need to fill territorial gaps and to ensure that Council of Europe standards and mechanisms are applied throughout Europe. Belarus is the first such gap. It is my strong intention to continue with a proactive attitude and manifest our readiness to engage in a meaningful dialogue and co-operation. But the pace of that process will depend on the progress that Belarus demonstrates in democratic and human rights conduct. The abolition of the death penalty and the release of political prisoners remain at the top of our expectations, but they are not the only tasks that Belarus should accomplish before it becomes eligible for Council of Europe membership. It is clear that Belarus belongs to Europe and to this Organisation, and we should make every effort to see that it becomes a member one day.

The other territorial gaps in the application of Council of Europe standards and instruments are the so-called zones of frozen conflicts. In that respect, Kosovo is a special case. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 provides the basis for international involvement and activities in Kosovo. In the past year, we have had some important advances regarding our involvement in Kosovo, creating the basis for a qualitative and quantitative expansion of our activities. We are now in position to interact directly with relevant and competent authorities in Kosovo, so we can deploy our instruments and, with the European Union, institute concrete programmes. I am particularly pleased that this breakthrough, which is in line with a long-standing recommendation by this Assembly, has been achieved in dialogue with the authorities in Belgrade.

When it comes to other so-called grey areas, the absence of a United Nations framework limits the possibilities of involvement, but I am determined to continue with efforts focusing on confidence-building measures. The ultimate objective is and will remain to allow every European citizen to benefit from Council of Europe standards, regardless of whether they live in Norway or Tskhinvali, Germany or Nagorno-Karabakh, Italy or Transnistria. It is unacceptable that the human rights instruments in our hands cannot be deployed in the human rights black holes of Europe.

Another gap is related to our neighbourhood. The concept that has served as the basis for the post-war and post-Berlin Wall reconstruction of Europe – that peace, security and prosperity must be built with your neighbours, not without them – must be applied today in a much broader geographical space, first and foremost in North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. This is not a vision, but a necessity. It is also the basis for the Council of Europe neighbourhood policy launched successfully a year and a half ago. Today we already have co-operation agreements with Tunisia, Morocco and Jordan. The next step, in my view, should be to offer a prospect of formal status to the countries in the neighbouring regions that would be interested and qualify for a more structured relationship with the Council of Europe. As such a status would largely be based on the participation in relevant Council of Europe conventions, it would be both a boost for the larger Council of Europe legal space as well as an important incentive to build their post-Arab Spring future in line with the universal standards of democracy and human rights.

The third dimension in the completion of the European legal space is geopolitical rather than geographic. It concerns the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. I am concerned that the negotiations have stalled. The accession, decided by the Lisbon Treaty, will close an important gap. It will bring everyone in Europe under the same set of rules and the same Court. This will, in return, create the basis for a dialogue, on equal footing, among all geopolitical players in Europe. The potential benefits for lasting stability and security on our continent are huge, and we should spare no effort in bringing about a speedy conclusion to the accession process. Jeopardising it for short-term, narrowly defined interests would be both short-sighted and irresponsible. Again, I appeal to members to look at what their own governments are doing in that respect.

The fourth dimension of the common legal space that we are building is virtual. The Council of Europe has made important advances in adapting our standards to the rapid progress of technology, especially information technology. However, we are only at the beginning of the exercise and shall invest our maximum efforts to ensure that our standards in human rights, democracy and the rule of law are applied and complied with not only off line, but online.

To achieve all this, we have to continue to improve our working methods. We must further consolidate partnerships, especially with the European Union, but also with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the United Nations and the most prominent NGOs. We also have to further develop and expand the practice of using action plans for the assistance of Council of Europe member States. An action plan provides a framework for more structured, coherent, comprehensive and targeted assistance, guaranteeing a much more effective use of resources and better results. I have mentioned the example of Ukraine, where what we are doing is based on an action plan agreed between us and the Government of Ukraine.

The blueprint for action plans is based on the data provided by the conventional and non-conventional monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of the Council of Europe, including the reports of the Assembly and the Commissioner, and Court judgments. An integrated analysis of these data helps us to identify the shortcomings and the appropriate remedies. I intend to improve the way in which we benefit from our monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and will discuss this with the Committee of Ministers in the coming weeks.

There is still a huge, unused potential that lies in a more integrated and better targeted processing of the data. I believe that all member States should be able to benefit from an aggregated X-ray of their overall performance, and a dialogue on the problems and possible solutions. I would call that the Council of Europe matrix. The matrix should be non-political. Our work and advice should be based strictly on legally and politically binding obligations. The matrix should be based on dialogue. This is not about the Council of Europe dictating what must be done. The objective is to work with the authorities in question, both in identifying challenges and drawing up possible solutions. The matrix could be accompanied by a Council of Europe action plan to implement the matrix conclusions. The matrix would not add any new monitoring mechanisms or procedures; it would simply ensure a more effective return on the existing efforts that are invested by member States and the Council of Europe.

I believe that the Council of Europe has come to a crossroads. There are a number of human rights and rule of law problems in several member countries. In fact, there are problems in every member country. If we cannot prove that we provide an effective response, we will slowly undermine the credibility of the whole Organisation and the conventions system. We therefore have to distinguish between the member States that clearly recognise that they have shortcomings and want to work with us to find remedies and those that have problems but do not recognise it and do not want to commit to concrete action plans. Those in the latter group must face increasing pressure; otherwise we will collectively lose credibility.

I will conclude with the words with which I started. Yes, the political and economic situation in Europe is worrying. At the same time, there should be no room for pessimism. After all, the construction of Europe had its origins in a far bleaker period in almost every respect. Its founders saw co-operation and integration based on trans-European solidarity as a way to overcome the economic, social, political and security challenges of the post-war era. It worked at the time and it can work again. We simply have to recapture the meaning of European solidarity. The perspective must be pan-European. It is in everybody’s interest that the European Union overcomes its economic crisis. At the same time, we have to keep it in mind that Europe is about more than the European Union and the economy. Without common values for all, Europe will not be held together. What Europe needs is a pan-European alliance based on common values, interpreted through commonly agreed standards and supervised by common mechanisms, in which every partner has the same rights and the same responsibilities. What Europe needs, therefore, is the Council of Europe. We must move ahead with a clear focus and clear priorities. That is what we are doing and what we will continue to do.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Secretary General. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you. I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds. The first question is from Mr Herkel, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Thank you, Mr Jagland, for paying attention to the death penalty and political prisoners in Belarus. We recently received information that there was a Council of Europe delegation in Minsk. Belarusian sources said that it was a high-level visit. What was the aim of the visit, what were the results, and do we still have the common strategy not to have high-level visits? The Assembly was not properly informed, so there is a question over how the different branches of our Organisation are co-operating.

      Mr JAGLAND – Thank you for that question. As I said, it is of the utmost importance that we try to advance democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Belarus because it belongs to Europe. As we all know, there are particular reasons why it is not a member of the Council of Europe and why all forms of interaction ceased. I had a meeting with the new Foreign Minister of Belarus at the high-level segment of the United Nations General Assembly last autumn. I encountered a slightly more open attitude from that new minister. There have been several other attempts to find out about the intentions in Minsk. For instance, there have been several delegations from member countries and the European Union. I therefore decided to send the head of my private office to Belarus to try to find out more about the general thinking. Whether or not that was a high-level visit is up to you, but it was a fact-finding mission, along the lines of other missions from different parts of Europe and European institutions, in order to see what can be done.

We must be ready at any time to advance relations if Belarus is ready, but we have underlined, as we did again in Minsk, that the precondition for any step in that direction is at least a moratorium on the death penalty and the release of political prisoners. We gave a very clear message, and Belarus must think about it.

THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Lord Anderson, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Secretary General, you mentioned the breakthrough on Kosovo, after your welcome instructions to your staff to co-operate with the Kosovar authorities, as a first step in relation to Council of Europe programmes. What are the next steps? What degree of co-operation exists with European Union authorities on the reconciliation efforts? What relationship will exist between the Council of Europe and the new consul-general of Kosovo shortly to be set up here in Strasbourg?

Mr JAGLAND – The next step depends to a large extent on the ongoing dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade. We have always said that we do not want to do anything that might harm that dialogue; on the contrary, we would like to contribute to enhancing it. We have taken an important step and, for me, it was important that it was taken with the agreement of Belgrade. Now let us see how things work out.

We have some programmes that are important for Belgrade as well as Kosovo. It is important to the dialogue that we will now be able to use some of our monitoring bodies in Kosovo, but the agreement was necessary in order to get them to work. For instance, if our monitoring bodies are to work there, they must report to the right authorities, or their work will be meaningless. When we can watch the human rights situation in Kosovo, it will enhance the dialogue with Pristina.

      That is where we are for the time being. We will see what happens in future and what kind of relationship we will have with the possible new consul-general here in Strasbourg. In the first place, its business is between France and Kosovo, not between Kosovo and the Council of Europe. When the consul-general is present here, we must discuss what to do.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Ms Brasseur, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* – Secretary General, I would like to pick up on the question asked by Mr Herkel and return to what you said. You said that we should adapt or strengthen our working methods. We have so many different able and competent units within the Council of Europe. How do you see co-operation between all those different units being strengthened in order to ensure that their action is more coherent and our credibility is stronger?

      Mr JAGLAND – You are right that we have many bodies. Many are defined as independent bodies, and they should be independent, but better co-ordination is needed, particularly in relation to monitoring bodies, in order to make better use of their findings. That is why I suggested that we set up a matrix showing clearly the state of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in each member country. On that basis, we would be able to discuss with member countries the necessary actions to take to find remedies for shortcomings. We will, of course, use not only the independent monitoring bodies but reports from the Human Rights Commissioner and the Parliamentary Assembly.

      One very good example of how intergovernmental bodies and the Parliamentary Assembly should interact involves Kosovo. We based our action there on reports from the rapporteur for Kosovo, and I had good and direct interaction to try to find a way forward. The Parliamentary Assembly paved the way, and I picked up its work and used it in order to find a way to direct interaction with the right people in Kosovo, as I said in my speech and afterwards.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Mr David Davies, on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

      Mr D. DAVIES (United Kingdom) – Does the Secretary General share my concern and that of many others about decisions from the European Court that have prevented member States from deporting known terrorists such as Abu Qatada?

      Mr JAGLAND – I would be much more concerned if we were not complying with judgments from the Court, because that is the rule of law. The rule of law is that the Court has the final word. For me to comment more on that would be wrong. I am the rule of law man, so I always comply with and try to defend the Court’s judgments.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Mr Petrenco, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – Mr Secretary General, the UEL would like you to pay attention once again to the worrying developments in many Council of Europe member States regarding the violation of basic civic rights and freedoms. An eloquent example is Moldova, where the ruling alliance is closing the only opposition TV channel remaining, NIT. Opposition symbols are banned, activists are persecuted and an extremely corrupt judiciary takes part in the violation of human rights. What are you personally going to do to prevent this precedent of the pseudo-democratic model from being implemented in other Council of Europe member States?

      Mr JAGLAND – I have raised some of the issues that you mentioned – for instance, the closing of the television station – with the leaders of Moldova, and I have urged the opposition and the government to find a solution. On the other things that you mentioned, we have been heavily involved in the reform process in Moldova, and Moldova is still under monitoring.

That also exemplifies what I said about how our having to work towards a point at which we can say that we have an independent judiciary. It is a very long-term process of reforming laws and practices, and of getting in new people who are willing to base their working practices on their standards and obligations under the Convention. It is important to understand that going from one system to another, which to a large extent was the case in Moldova, as well as many other places, is a very cumbersome, long-term process, but one has to start with concrete reforms to laws and, in particular, practices. We are watching this process carefully.

THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Ms Durrieu.

Ms DURRIEU (France)* – Mr Secretary General, the European Union received the Nobel peace prize, thanks to you, no doubt. However, there is a conflict going on in Mali, and France is directly involved, having heeded the urgent call of that country, which is waiting for the African forces to be ready. Mali is faced with a terrible adversary in the Jihadists, who are redoubtable armed terrorists. Should Europe be more closely involved?

Mr JAGLAND – Actually, this matter is not the prerogative of the Council of Europe, so I find it impossible to speak on behalf of the Council of Europe, but my personal attitude is that one should always be very cautious about using military forces. As far as I understand it, the conflict in Mali is very much due to the poverty in the country, and there is also a conflict between the north and the centre, but the matter is, of course, much more complicated. I am not in a position to make a judgment about whether European countries or institutions should intervene. The only one that could do so is the European Union. The Council of Europe cannot take a position on it, but of course we can have personal views based on recent historical experiences of military interventions.

THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Baroness Nicholson.

Baroness NICHOLSON (United Kingdom) – Has the Secretary General considered using the enormous weight of all institutions of the Council of Europe to protect us and our citizens against the huge corruption of political lobbying, which nowadays is endemic, with vast sums of money behind it? It not only destroys trust between colleagues but contributes to the great lack of trust between the people of Europe and their politicians on which the Secretary General has himself commented. Political lobbying is an enormous new enemy to be combated.

Mr JAGLAND – Thank you for those words. We should all take note of them. A parliamentary assembly, whether at a national or a European level, should be autonomous and able to control the executive power. This Parliamentary Assembly should, of course, be able to contribute to upholding standards and common obligations under the Convention. You cannot do that independently if you are not independent. If you receive money or other gifts, you are no longer independent. Corruption is an evil, and it undermines political bodies and the people’s trust in them. That is why I said that it must be a priority for us all to do away with it where it exists – here and, in particular, at a national level. We are the only Organisation that has excellent mechanisms for doing that – GRECO and MONEYVAL. We should look carefully at the recommendations from those bodies, such as those regarding the financing of political parties, and see to it that the recommendations are implemented at a national level.

If we are to fight corruption in general in society, we have to start at the political level. If the political bodies are corrupt, there will, unfortunately, be widespread corruption in society. We have seen that again and again. That is the main reason the revolutions took place in the Arab world. People got fed up with corruption, mismanagement and the misuse of power. We should stop corruption in Europe when we have the chance to do so.

THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Mr Szabó.

Mr SZABÓ (Hungary)* – Secretary General, you visited Budapest in November. Why did you not feel it important to inform the Hungarian delegation of the Council of Europe and meet it? You met representatives of the government. Why did you not meet any representatives of the opposition?

Mr JAGLAND – Actually, I did.

Mr SZABÓ (Hungary)* – Once again, why did you not meet any representatives of the opposition? You met government representatives, but the Hungarian delegation received no information about the visit. Why did you not feel it necessary to meet them?

Mr JAGLAND – I had a meeting with László Kovács. The mission in Budapest was twofold: first, to make a speech at the conference against hate speech, at which parliamentarians from many parties were present, and then, afterwards, to discuss with the government its controversial laws. We have been working on that for a long time, with regard to the judiciary as well as media freedom. I am glad to say that we made a lot of progress on both issues, thanks to the meeting that took place. As I said, I also met the opposition, in order to be informed by that part of the parliament how it sees those laws and what needs to be done.

THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Ms Christoffersen.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Mr Secretary General, in October 2010, there was a high-level meeting on Roma issues, which resulted in a joint pledge to co-operate in fighting the long-lasting discrimination against the Roma people on an international, national and regional level. Do you see any sign of progress on this important matter?

      Mr JAGLAND – There has been progress on action from the European institutions. I commend the European Union and the European Commission for the initiatives they have taken. We have done a lot, starting immediately after the resolution that resulted from the Strasbourg high-level meeting: namely, to start educating mediators who are to be deployed where the Roma people are living, to help them to get access to public services, such as schools, hospitals and housing. Up until now we have educated some 1 000 mediators. I also discussed this when I was in Budapest before Christmas. We are discussing with member countries how to use the mediators. We have also implemented many other things that were mentioned in the Strasbourg declaration.

The problem – I say this directly – is at the national and local level. For instance, the big funds set up by the European Commission are not being fully used by member States. I do not know why – maybe because it is not so popular with the wider population. There must be some answers to the question of why we are not using funds that are available to do something concrete for these people. One reason is, as I said in my speech, all the prejudices against these people, which we have to combat. There is widespread racism and parliamentarians have to stand up and speak out against it, and get your governments to act and use what we have done. Use the mediators and the funds that have been set up by the European Commission. Again, we have a responsibility not only here but at the local and national level.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Legendre.

      Mr LEGENDRE (France)* – Secretary General, last year we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the memorandum of understanding between the European Union and our Organisation. One cannot fail to notice that the complementarity sought through this document has given way to a veritable duplication of effort. Questions are still being asked, following the nomination of a special representative of the European Union in charge of human rights, despite the fact that the memorandum is expected to make the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe the pivot for relations between both organisations. Do you not think it is time, Secretary General, to prepare a new text that clearly sets out the competences of both bodies?

Mr JAGLAND – I see the need for the opposite – to do something concrete, which we are doing. For instance, what we are doing now in neighbouring countries could not have been done without funding from the European Union. The reform programme in Ukraine, which costs approximately €23 million, is being supported by the European Union. We have a lot of joint programmes that could not have been implemented without the partnership that we have been able to establish with the European Union. I see a need for more action in that direction.

There can be discussions. I recognise that one can have views regarding the special representative for human rights of the European Union. But we should not see this as a threat. When a big player such as the European Union wants to focus more on human rights, it is an asset. Many European countries have the same thing – a special representative for human rights. It was a natural step to take for the European Union to have a special representative who can work with human rights in particular. The United States, Russia, France and Germany, and many European countries, have such a special representative, so why not the European Union? It is not a threat. Getting more countries and entities to focus on prerogatives other than human rights is a big asset for Europe.

The only way to go forward is to co-operate. I have already met the new special representative, and I think it will not be a problem for the Council of Europe. It can only be a new way of co-operating between us and other partners.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Sir Roger Gale.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – The Secretary General described himself a few moments ago as a rule of law man. I am a rule of sovereign parliament man. Would the Secretary General seek to explain to ministers and to the Court of Human Rights that it is simply not possible for a government to compel a sovereign parliament, voting democratically and overwhelmingly, to change a law if it chooses not to do so?

Mr JAGLAND – What I can explain is that this is the logic of the Convention. If you decide in a national parliament to join the European Convention, you are under the Convention and the Convention has established a Court, which has the final word regarding the Convention. If the United Kingdom, for instance, does not want to be under the Convention, it is a sovereign right for the United Kingdom to withdraw. I agree that it is a sovereign right of a member country to denounce the Convention and leave the Organisation, but no member country has the right to stay under the Convention and not comply with the judgment of the Court. This is the rule of law. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are in the Convention and comply with the judgment of the Court or you are not. If one member country wants to leave the Convention, you cannot deny the right of others to leave it.

I remember when Willy Brandt was in Norway, at a time when many youngsters in Norway were against NATO membership. He gathered some of these young people to have a conversation and learn about their arguments. All of a sudden, he said, “Yes, I understand you want Norway to leave NATO. But should it be a right also for Germany? Do you think that it is a good way forward for Europe to renationalise security and military forces? Do you not understand that we have had it in the past?” I would say the same regarding the Convention. Is it a good way forward for Europe to renationalise human rights and the rule of law?

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – Am I being asked a question?

Mr JAGLAND – No, I am just taking the opportunity to say what I mean. I think we have to continue to build not only on collective military responsibility, but on collective responsibility for human rights and the rule of law. If one country wants to leave, other countries where the Convention is much more important could say, “Yes, we also want to leave”. Where are we then?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – Mr Secretary General, it is good to hear that you think it important to protect minorities. Do you plan to stand up for the human rights of people – among them Roma people – who live in regions where most crimes are committed by Roma people and everyday life is almost unbearable? How would you convince them to be tolerant, when they live in fear of being victimised by Roma people? Do you also plan to stick up for people who belong to traditional minorities, such as the Székely Hungarians in Romania, who are deprived of the fundamental right to territorial autonomy?

      Mr JAGLAND – I would need to be better informed to address those concrete examples, but yes I will stand up for all minorities. As you know, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities defines national minorities. I am not aware of the situation in Romania, but we have to uphold the obligations under the framework convention. Europe has always been, and will continue to be, a diverse continent containing many minorities, including ethnic minorities, and religious groups. We have to respect that, while saying to everybody that they have to respect the common values and the rule of law. Of course, people should not be allowed to commit crimes simply because they belong to a particular minority. The rules and responsibilities are for all. I agree – I think you meant this – that we should focus on our communal responsibilities on this continent. The rules – those enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights – are for everybody, not only minorities.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The last question is from Mr Huseynov.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – The occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territory by Armenia, with the support of big external powers, is a commonly known fact and has been reflected in special resolutions by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is pity that instead of putting an end to this 20-year-old occupation, Armenia has launched subversive activities in violation of the airspace of Azerbaijan. There are efforts to construct an airport in occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, in the settlement of Kholaji, and to run flights from there in breach of international conventions. What is your attitude to such activities, which prevent a solution of the Azerbaijani-Armenia conflict through diplomatic channels and thus promise terrible consequences?

      Mr JAGLAND – The Council of Europe is not a direct player in this conflict but is important to both member countries involved and so can contribute to an end to the conflict, if we can improve the rule of law and democracy in both countries. I have always maintained that the best way to create peace is by enhancing democracy and human rights.

It will help if we can do what I said in my speech – close the black holes in Europe regarding human rights and the rule of law. Nagorno-Karabakh is one of those black holes – we cannot work there, but we should be able to, without being involved in the political settlement of the conflict. Whether or not you live in an area of conflict, you should have access to justice and enjoy the same protection as other Europeans. That is why I indicated in my speech that we will continue to work on this. We have taken some small steps forward in Kosovo, but there are other areas where we need to do some good work. Indeed, we have taken confidence-building measures in the conflict in Transnistria, which is a step in the right direction.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Jagland. I would like to thank you, Mr Jagland, on behalf of the Assembly, for your statement and your replies to questions. I also thank parliamentarians for having stuck to the 30-second limit.

5. Next public sitting

      THE PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 pm with the agenda that was approved yesterday.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.05 pm.)

CONTENTS

1. Challenge to credentials

2. Changes in the membership of committees

3. The situation in Kosovo^** and the role of the Council of Europe

Presentation by Mr von Sydow of report of the Committee of Political Affairs and Democracy, Doc. 13088

Speakers:

Mr Michel (France)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Leigh (United Kingdom)

Mr Papadimoulis (Greece)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Fournier (France)

Ms Mulić (Croatia)

Mr Kalmár (Hungary)

Mr Szabó (Hungary)

Ms Beck (Germany)

Mr Pushkov (Russian Federation)

Ms Djurović (Serbia)

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal)

Mr Schennach (Austria)

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

Mr Jakič (Slovenia)

Ms Kanelli (Greece)

Mr Chisu (Observer from Canada)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Ms Bakoyannis (Greece)

Ms Mehmeti Devaja (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)

Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia)

Mr Gündeş Bakir (Turkey)

Ms Woldseth (Norway)

Ms Giannakaki (Greece)

Replies:

Mr von Sydow (Sweden)

Mr Marcenaro (Italy)

Amendments 1 and 2 adopted.

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation adopted.

4. Communication from Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Questions:

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)

Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg)

Mr D Davies (United Kingdom)

Mr Petrenco (Republic of Moldova)

Ms Durrieu (France)

Baroness Nicholson (United Kingdom)

Mr Szabó (Hungary)

Ms Christoffersen (Norway)

Mr Legendre (France)

Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

5. Next public sitting

Appendix

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

Francis AGIUS*

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ/Vesna Marjanović

Karin ANDERSEN/Ingjerd Schou

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI/Alessandro Rossi

Khadija ARIB/Pieter Omtzigt

Volodymyr ARIEV

Mörður ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Þuriður BACKMAN

Daniel BACQUELAINE/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Viorel Riceard BADEA

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK

José María BENEYTO/Jordi Xuclà

Levan BERDZENISHVILI*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Robert BIEDROŃ*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY/Edward Leigh

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL/

Eric BOCQUET/Jean-Pierre Michel

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ/Mladen Ivanić

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO*

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL

Piet DE BRUYN/Ludo Sannen

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Kerstin LUNDGREN

Otto CHALOUPKA/Pavel Lebeda

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI/Paolo Corsini

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH*

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE

Igor CORMAN*

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Giovanna DEBONO*

Armand De DECKER*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA/Carmen Quintanilla

Peter van DIJK

Klaas DIJKHOFF*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Jim DOBBIN

Karl DONABAUER

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Gianni FARINA*

Relu FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV

Doris FIALA*

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ/Rom Kostřica

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON*

Erich Georg FRITZ

Sir Roger GALE

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI*

Paolo GIARETTA/Renato Farina

Jean GLAVANY*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI

Svetlana GORYACHEVA/Anton Belyakov

Martin GRAF

Sylvi GRAHAM

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER/Péter Hoppál

Gergely GULYÁS/László Koszorús

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Ana GUŢU/Corina Fusu

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI/Marek Borowski

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Armen Rustamyan

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER

Martin HENRIKSEN

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD

Joachim HÖRSTER

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER*

Andrej HUNKO

Susanna HUOVINEN

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Vladimir ILIČ

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT*

Roman JAKIČ

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI

Michael Aastrup JENSEN

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ/Aleksandra Djurović

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić

Antti KAIKKONEN

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Burhan KAYATÜRK

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK

Serhii KIVALOV

Bogdan KLICH*

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN*

Alev KORUN

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Dmitry KRYVITSKY/Olga Kazakova

Václav KUBATA

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV/Sergey Kalashnikov

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

Jean-Louis LORRAIN*

George LOUKAIDES/Stella Kyriakides

Younal LOUTFI*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX*

Gennaro MALGIERI

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET/Bernard Marquet

Pietro MARCENARO

Thierry MARIANI

Epameinondas MARIAS/Maria Giannakaki

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA/Riitta Myller

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE/Michael Connarty

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA

Ivan MELNIKOV/Otari Arshba

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/ Bernard Fournier

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI*

Andrey MOLCHANOV*

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

Patrick MORIAU*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK/Marek Krząkała

Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO

Lydia MUTSCH*

Lev MYRYMSKYI

Philippe NACHBAR/Jacques Legendre

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Gebhard NEGELE

Aleksandar NENKOV*

Pasquale NESSA*

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON

Elena NIKOLAEVA

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Mirosława NYKIEL/Iwona Guzowska

Carina OHLSSON/Jonas Gunnarsson

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS

Sandra OSBORNE*

Liliana PALIHOVICI*

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Eva PARERA

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG

Foteini PIPILI

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/Nikolaj Villumsen

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT/David Crausby

Jakob PRESEČNIK/Polonca Komar

Radoslav PROCHÁZKA*

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV

Mailis REPS/Indrek Saar

Eva RICHTROVÁ/Miroslav Krejča

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET*

Marlene RUPPRECHT

Ilir RUSMALI*

Pavlo RYABIKIN

Rovshan RZAYEV

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Damir ŠEHOVIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Boris SHPIGEL/Yury Solonin

Arturas SKARDŽIUS

Ladislav SKOPAL/Kateřina Konečná

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV

Christoph STRÄSSER

Karin STRENZ*

Giacomo STUCCHI

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO/Yevhen Marmazov

Vilmos SZABÓ

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO*

Romana TOMC

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Mihai TUDOSE/Florin Iordache

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI/Konstantinos Triantafyllos

Tomáš ÚLEHLA*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Viktor USPASKICH/Egidijus Vareikis

Giuseppe VALENTINO*

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Liana Kanelli

Ljubica VASIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Volodymyr VECHERKO/Larysa Melnychuk

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ*

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Varujan VOSGANIAN*

Tanja VRBAT/Melita Mulić

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER*

Dame Angela WATKINSON

Katrin WERNER

Renate WOHLWEND

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM

Karl ZELLER*

Svetlana ZHUROVA

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Montenegro*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Joris BACKER

Johannes HÜBNER

David DAVIES

Cheryl GILLAN

Elvira KOVÁCS

Robert SHLEGEL

Spyridon TALIADOUROS

Observers

Marjolaine BOUTIN-SWEET

Corneliu CHISU

Sladan ĆOSIĆ

Aldo GIORDANO

Javier LOZANO ALARCÓN

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Michel RIVARD

Bev SHIPLEY

Nycole TURMEL

Partners for Democracy

Mohammed AMEUR

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Hassan BOUHRIZ

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YAT

¹ *Any references to Kosovo in this text, whether to the territory, institutions or population, shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.

² All references to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, in this text shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.

^* Any references to Kosovo in this text, whether to the territory, institutions or population, shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.