AA13CR20
AS (2013) CR 20
2013 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(Third part)
REPORT
Twentieth Sitting
Monday 24 June 2013 at 3 p.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 report.
(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.05 p.m.)
THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.
1. Changes in the membership of committees
THE PRESIDENT* – Our first item of business is to consider changes proposed in the membership of committees set out in document Commissions (2013) 06 Addendum 1.
Are there any objections to those proposed changes? I see none.
They are agreed to.
2. Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Mr Edward Nalbandian, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Armenia,
Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers
THE PRESIDENT* – Our next business is the communication to the Assembly from the Committee of Ministers presented by Mr Edward Nalbandian, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Chairperson of the committee. After his address, Mr Nalbandian will take questions from the floor, as has always been our tradition.
Mr Nalbandian, it is a great honour to welcome you here. The priorities of your chairmanship are very much in line with those of our Assembly. We had an initial exchange of views on the activities of your chairmanship when the Standing Committee met in Yerevan. I thank your parliamentary delegation, and the ambassador and permanent representative of Armenia in Strasbourg, for the warm welcome that was extended to us and for the excellent working conditions that were made available to us on that occasion.
Today, we will have an exchange of views, and I am sure that a number of members of the Assembly will want to put questions to you. I welcome the efforts that you are making to strengthen the role of the Council of Europe in the overall European architecture of international organisations. You submitted the priorities of your chairmanship to the permanent council of the OSCE after being invited to do so by the organisation’s Ukrainian chairmanship. Those contacts have resulted in stronger links between our organisation and the OSCE through various joint efforts, such as joint observation of elections or joint attempts to resolve frozen conflicts, and you can certainly count on our full support in those efforts.
I invite Mr Nalbandian to address the Assembly, and it is with great pleasure that I give you the floor.
Mr NALBANDIAN (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers) – Distinguished President Mignon, Deputy Secretary General, members of the Parliamentary Assembly, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the warm welcome. It is a great pleasure to address this Assembly and to report on the activities of the Committee of Ministers. We had an opportunity for an exchange of views in the session of the Standing Committee held in Yerevan on 30 May. It is an honour to address the plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly for the first time as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers and to share with you our vision of the Armenian chairmanship.
The Parliamentary Assembly has received a written communication from the Armenian chairmanship on the major developments that have occurred in the Committee of Ministers since the last part-session. Today, I will highlight a few points that are particularly important to this Organisation, and I will mention several topics that have been on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers since the last part-session.
I will also present the priorities of our chairmanship, which have been defined in response to the challenges that we, as member States of this Organisation, face today, with a specific focus on certain issues. We will also endeavour to contribute to strengthening the capabilities of the Council of Europe in addressing those challenges. That is an important task and a big responsibility, and Armenia, as a nation whose European identity has been shaped by common values, ideals and heritage, confidently takes that responsibility.
Our efforts will follow those of previous chairmanships and concentrate on the core objective of the Organisation: to protect and promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The expertise of the Council of Europe in the areas of democracy, human rights and the rule of law is unique and one of the most valuable assets of this Organisation which we should preserve and further strengthen. While the relevance of the Council of Europe has never been doubted, there is a clear need to increase the responsiveness of this Organisation as new challenges and threats emerge. Having these challenges in mind, the overarching theme of our six months in the chair will be combating racism and racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance, and promoting European values through intercultural dialogue.
The Council of Europe, including the Parliamentary Assembly, has been continuously engaged in the fight against hatred, intolerance and racial discrimination through standard setting, monitoring and awareness raising. We acknowledge that those trends directly challenge our common values and that a common political will is required to counter those threats. In this context, I was particularly encouraged to hear from you, President Mignon, that the Parliamentary Assembly shares and supports the priorities of the Armenian chairmanship, which are in full harmony with Parliamentary Assembly main lines of action.
In connection with our main priority, the Armenian chairmanship definitely supports, and will co-ordinate under its umbrella, the ongoing activities in the framework of the No Hate Speech youth campaign, which the Council of Europe launched on the occasion of International Day against Racism and Discrimination. History has repeatedly shown that, when not addressed properly and in time, hate speech may tear the fabric of society, negatively affecting its cohesion and threatening the most basic and fundamental human rights.
In the era of new technologies, hate speech has gone online. The virus is spread almost without control through social networks and it affects younger generations of Europeans. What is most encouraging is that the No Hate Speech campaign ideas were developed by young people and youth organisations themselves, in close co-operation with the Council of Europe. The campaign is already present in 34 member States of the Council of Europe. One recent example of the official launch of the national campaign was in Italy on 10 June, where it turned into a high-level event. We will have a success story only when the campaign is supported at the national level by public authorities and non-governmental partners and is based on involvement of young activists.
The Armenian chairmanship stands ready to co-operate with the Council of Europe to identify priorities for the follow-up of the campaign, evaluate the achievements and translate the experiences of the campaign into policy measures on how to protect human rights online. In that regard, I look forward to the conclusions of the European campaign conference, which will be the major institutional activity of the No Hate Speech movement in 2013, organised within the Armenian chairmanship.
I would like to inform you, esteemed parliamentarians, that the Armenian chairmanship will organise a series of events dedicated to fostering intercultural dialogue and mutual understanding between Europeans. Armenia will host the 2013 Exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue with a view to stepping up action to combat intolerance and religious hatred and guarantee everyone freedom of religion. I count on your active participation in and contribution to that debate.
Under the Armenian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, and in close co-operation with the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, a conference on participatory democracy at local level was held in Yerevan on 19 June. Local democracy is one of the priority areas of Armenia’s chairmanship, since we consider it a critical component of the democratic development of society. The president, vice-presidents and members of the Congress, as well as representatives of Armenia’s relevant State structures, local self-government bodies and civil society and international and local experts participated in the conference, which addressed issues relating to participatory democracy at local level. It has also been a good opportunity for an exchange of good practice and for the evaluation of the progress achieved in member States of the Council of Europe.
The European Convention on Human Rights is one of the cornerstones of this Organisation, while its proper implementation is, in wider terms, a safeguard of stability and sustainability in Europe. Armenia attaches great importance to the proper functioning of the European Court of Human Rights, which is a key part of the Council of Europe.
The ministerial session held on 16 May in Strasbourg was a good occasion to reiterate our commitment to strengthening democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe and to reflect on the impact of the Council of Europe’s activities. Ministers shared the concerns expressed by Secretary General Jagland, who identified threats to the European political, social and institutional model and proposed as a response to those threats better use of resources, a sharpening of the focus on the most important issues and an improvement in the impact of Council of Europe’s various instruments through more effective assistance to member States. The bottom line is the need for better co-ordination of activities and more attention to the follow-up efforts.
Ministers encouraged the Secretary General to pursue his efforts aimed at optimising the functioning and co-ordination of the Council of Europe’s monitoring mechanisms, as well as a better use of their conclusions. Ministers also invited the Secretary General to present, on a regular basis, to the Committee of Ministers an overview of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe, accompanied by proposals for action to be taken by the Organisation.
The Armenian chairmanship gives high priority to strengthening the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights. We will further reflect on the European standards on the rule of law against the background of the most recent developments in the implementation of the principle of the rule of law by the Council of Europe member States.
Effective implementation of the Convention at the national level is a necessary precondition for securing the rights and freedoms of all citizens of the member States of the Council of Europe. The Brighton Declaration explicitly mentions that, to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention at the national level, we need to provide “appropriate information and training about the Convention in the study, training and professional development of judges, lawyers and prosecutors”. To this end, the Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals, or HELP, network conference, which was organised just a week ago in Strasbourg under the auspices of the Armenian chairmanship, focused on cross-cutting aspects of the issue of capacity building for legal professionals.
To further reflect on the European standards on the rule of law, in continuation of the efforts of the United Kingdom chairmanship of the Council of Europe, in the framework of the Armenian chairmanship, the Constitutional Court of Armenia will organise with the support of the Venice Commission a conference in Yerevan on “European standards on the rule of law and the scope of discretion of powers in the member States of the Council of Europe”. It will focus on the role of public administration, notably, the scope and limits of States’ discretion in designing, implementing and interpreting laws.
Guaranteeing the long-term efficiency of the European Convention on Human Rights and the proper functioning of the Court are among our priorities. The successive chairmanships of Andorra, Armenia and Austria agreed on a set of common priorities, including the follow-up of the Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton Conferences and the conclusion of negotiations on the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. I would like to inform distinguished parliamentarians that during the ministerial session we have adopted a decision on securing the long-term effectiveness of the supervisory mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights. Armenia, as chair of the Committee of Ministers, will follow up the efforts of previous chairmanships aimed at strengthening the application of the Convention, pay close attention to related issues, support the proposed measures and encourage necessary actions.
I would also like to mention that, within the scope of actions aimed at improving the system of the European Convention on Human Rights, the ministerial session adopted Protocol No. 15 and decided to open it for signature today in Strasbourg. This protocol gives effect to certain provisions of the Brighton Declaration. It was presented to the Parliamentary Assembly for examination and the Assembly approved the draft in Opinion No. 283 (2013), adopted on 26 April 2013.
The State parties to the Convention are invited to take steps in order to sign and ratify the protocol as soon as possible. I am particularly impressed that a remarkable number of countries – 19, and Armenia among them – signed Protocol No. 15 half an hour ago. I use this opportunity to call on the members of the Assembly to encourage and support the ratification process at a national level.
We also attach importance to draft Protocol No. 16, which would establish a platform for judicial dialogue, and we will follow this process with the aim of finalising it by the end of our chairmanship. Draft optional Protocol No. 16, on extending the Court’s jurisdiction to providing advisory opinions, is transmitted to the Assembly for its opinion during this part-session. The Committee of Ministers will consider with interest the Assembly`s opinion at the end of this session.
The Committee of Ministers is also closely following the process of the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Negotiators for the Council of Europe and the European Union finalised the draft instruments, paving the way for accession. The European Union Court of Justice in Luxembourg has been asked to give its opinion on the text. The European Union’s accession to the Convention will contribute to the creation of a single European legal space and strengthen the protection of human rights in Europe.
I could not but underline the importance of partnership between the Council of Europe and the European Union. Co-operation between the two at various levels has developed considerably in a number of areas. Contacts, including through institutional mechanisms, have continued with a view to further ensuring coherence between European Union legislation and Council of Europe standards and synergies with the monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe.
The same holds true for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The OSCE remains one of the main partners of the Council of Europe in our efforts to promote respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The level of co-operation between the two organisations, with a regular pattern of consultations and high-level meetings, is yet more evidence of that. I had the opportunity to address the OSCE permanent council a couple of weeks ago. I stressed in particular the importance of encouraging the two organisations to enhance co-operation, exchange information and co-ordinate their activities, with a view to developing synergies and avoiding duplication. The Armenian chairmanship will spare no efforts to further promote targeted and result-oriented co-operation between the Council of Europe and the OSCE.
Implementation of the Council of Europe policy towards neighbouring regions is one of the issues on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers. Significant progress has been achieved, particularly through neighbourhood co-operation dialogue and neighbourhood co-operation priorities, which set out specific activities in the fields of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
The Organisation needs to consolidate and build on those achievements. With this in mind, the Committee of Ministers welcomed the progress made in the implementation of the Council of Europe policy towards neighbouring regions and encouraged its further development. However, further co-operation will depend on the interest and needs of the countries concerned and their readiness to engage and capacity to deliver.
Recently, Ministers’ Deputies decided to grant Morocco observer status with the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. At the same time, discussions continue on the possible creation of a formal status, first and foremost for countries in democratic political transition and for interested countries in the neighbouring regions, that would qualify them for a more structured relationship with the Council of Europe.
I am well aware of the Assembly’s strong interest in these issues. Several items on the agenda of the plenary and committees of this part-session clearly reflect that interest. I am glad to inform you that a number of neighbourhood countries that have expressed their interest in longer-term institutional relations at a governmental level see the existing Partner for Democracy status established by the Parliamentary Assembly as a useful instrument. The Council of Europe’s policy on neighbouring regions requires a coherent approach by the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. With this in mind, the Committee of Ministers will follow with particular interest the Assembly’s forthcoming debate on the evaluation of the partnership for democracy with the Parliament of Morocco.
With full confidence in the Secretary General, we will continue to strongly support the reform process of the Council of Europe and endeavour to raise the visibility, responsiveness and political relevance of the Organisation. Much has been done, but further reforms are necessary to better respond to the new realities, particularly in times of economic crisis. To this end, on 7 May 2013, the Ministers’ Deputies decided to apply zero nominal growth to the 2014-15 programme and budget, in view of the difficult budgetary situation in member States. The application of the principle of zero nominal growth to the total contribution of member States to the ordinary budget is a reasonable approach in these times of austerity and limited resources. We believe that effective use of finances, raising the effectiveness of programmes through clearly defined and verifiable outcomes, avoiding duplications and decreasing administrative expenditure with a view to reducing bureaucracy and making savings, is the optimal way to face the major budgetary constraints of the next biennium.
As part of the reform process of the Council of Europe, the Secretary General has presented his guidelines for the review of the contractual policy and a number of proposals for regulatory changes that require a decision by the Committee of Ministers in order to ensure the best possible fit between contractual policy and organisational needs. On 19 June, the Committee of Ministers adopted a decision on this matter, inviting the Secretary General to submit draft regulatory amendments.
The Kosovo situation continues to be of particular interest to the Committee of Ministers. Following the recommendation on “The situation in Kosovo and the role of the Council of Europe”, the Committee’s reply reiterated that, irrespective of the status of the region, all the people living there should have a European perspective and the benefit of European standards for democracy, human rights, the rule of law and good governance. The Committee also encouraged the Secretariat to continue its efforts in helping to enshrine and implement Council of Europe standards in Kosovo.
The chairmanship is firmly convinced that while speaking about the strengthening of the impact of Council of Europe activities in promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe, we have to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected everywhere in the area for which the Council of Europe has responsibility, and without prejudice to the status of the territories where those individuals live. We should consider exploring, in close consultation with those entities, the ways in which a status-neutral approach could promote our fundamental values and principles. Whatever the status of those entities at present or in the future, these societies bear and share European values and aspirations.
In order to be brief and without going into much detail, I draw your attention to several other issues that have been dealt with by the Committee of Ministers in the present reporting period, which are duly reflected in the written communication of the chairmanship.
In conclusion, I underline the importance of intra-institutional co-operation between all Council of Europe stakeholders. It is essential that, with due respect to their respective mandates, the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly work in synergy towards achieving common objectives.
There has been a marked improvement in relations between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe over the last few years. Increased contacts have taken place through various formats, such as the cross-participation of Assembly rapporteurs and chairs of rapporteur groups of the Committee of Ministers in their respective meetings.
I thank the President of the Assembly, Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, for his initiative to meet regularly with the Ministers’ Deputies in order to inform them of the results of the Assembly sessions.
The Armenian chairmanship is willing and ready to co-operate in good faith and in a co-operative manner with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, aimed at contributing to the realisation of the objectives of this Organisation and the further strengthening of the political dialogue between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much for your address, Minister. I will now give the floor to colleagues who have expressed an interest in putting questions to you.
The first question is from Mr Ghiletchi, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.
Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – As you probably know, Minister, the Vilnius Summit is one of the highlights for this year, both for the European Union and for the six countries of the Eastern Partnership. How can we strengthen the relationship between countries that are members of the Council of Europe but are not members of the European Union? How can we overcome challenges and obstacles to build a greater and stronger Europe?
THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Mr Rouquet, on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr ROUQUET (France)* – In your capacity as Armenian Foreign Affairs Minister, how would you define the major thrust of Armenia’s foreign policy? Our Assembly would also like to hear what you have to say about the most recent declaration made by the three countries that chair the Minsk Group, calling on the two parties to abide by the established principles – the non-use of force or the threat of the use of force – in terms of territorial integrity and the self-determination of peoples.
THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Ms Guţu, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – What are the priorities of the Armenian chairmanship when it comes to finding solutions to frozen conflicts in the territory of the former Soviet Union, such as South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria and, of course, Nagorno-Karabakh?
Mr NALBANDIAN – The launch of the Eastern Partnership in May 2009 brought about a qualitatively new dimension to our relations with the European Union. Since the inception of the Eastern Partnership, we have registered good progress in all main areas of co-operation, notably the negotiations on the Association Agreement, including the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, the mobility of people and sectoral co-operation. Most importantly, it has become a very effective mechanism, streamlining the dynamic of our political dialogue with the European Union, as reflected in regular reciprocal high-level visits. From July 2010, Armenia has been engaged in negotiations on the Association Agreement, which are now in the concluding phase.
Facilitating mobility between our people has also been an important aspect of our co-operation. Within the Eastern Partnership, we have successfully negotiated and signed the Visa Facilitation and Readmission Agreements. We expect ratification of both agreements to be completed as soon as possible and to start the visa liberalisation process.
(The speaker continued in French)
Speaking as Foreign Minister of Armenia, and as far as Nagorno-Karabakh is concerned, a few days ago, on 18 June, a declaration was made public by the three co-chairs of the Minsk Group with an appeal to the presidents of the two countries, and we have already agreed fully with that declaration. The reaction of Azerbaijan shows that it is speaking at cross-purposes with the international community. We greatly appreciate the continued efforts of the Minsk Group and the G8 declaration in Enniskillen, and the efforts aimed at finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Like the three co-chairs, we are convinced that what has been set out in the declaration, and the various other declarations that have seen the light of day over the last four years, could constitute a good basis for a just and lasting resolution to this conflict. As stated in the declaration of the three co-chairs, any attempt to give priority to one of the elements over the others would be an obstacle to finding a resolution. We agree with the co-chairs that people must be prepared for peace and not for war. Unfortunately, the authorities in Azerbaijan have been doing the opposite. We agree with the co-chairs that recourse to force will not be an appropriate way to find a solution to the conflict. Only a negotiated resolution can ensure peace and stability, opening up new opportunities for regional co-operation.
Unlike Azerbaijan, which has in all circumstances referred to only one principle of international law, In response to the appeals from President Putin, President Obama and President Hollande, Armenia has expressed its attachment to all principles of international law, in particular the non-recourse to force or the threat of force, equality in the eyes of the law, territorial integrity and self-determination of peoples.
Despite many appeals by the international community to abstain from declarations of a provocative nature, Azerbaijan continues its bellicose declarations and its incitement of incidents along the border. It continues its policy of propaganda, xenophobia, intolerance and hatred by glorifying people who have in fact engaged in terrorist acts. Like Russia, France and the United States, we express our regret that, rather than trying to find a resolution to the conflict, there has been an attempt by Baku to draw unilateral advantage from the conflict. There has been no appropriate follow-up to the Sochi Summit or other summits.
We believe that that unilateral approach to conflict resolution is unacceptable. The Enniskillen Declaration on Nagorno-Karabakh, made public by the three co-chairs, could provide impetus in achieving progress in the peace negotiations if the authorities of Azerbaijan hear the message that has been transmitted to them.
The third question was on frozen conflicts. The heads of State and the Council of Europe underscored at their summit in Warsaw in 2005 that it is extremely important that member States work together on reconciliation and the search for resolutions to frozen conflicts in order to ensure democratic stability, unity and peace on our continent. All of this must be done within the framework of negotiations on an equal basis – agreed negotiations. The Council of Europe cannot organise such negotiations, but it can make positive contributions to confidence-building measures and promoting dialogue, without which no political solution to those frozen conflicts will be possible. I am very pleased that the Secretary General has included such measures in the proposed priorities that will be explained to the Committee of Ministers.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Minister. The next question is from Mr Walter on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – The Committee of Ministers has approved another world Forum for Democracy to be held in November. It has been planned without the involvement of the Council of Europe’s democratically elected members, either from the Parliamentary Assembly or the Congress. The programme is built around obscure workshops with non-governmental organisations and lobby groups. NGOs are elected by no one and are not democratic – they are self-appointed. The last world forum cost €1 million. Can you tell us, Minister, in these difficult budget times, which is how you described them, how much the forum will cost and whether the money could be better spent?
THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Mr Kox on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr KOX (Netherlands) – It is good to see you again, Minister. As in Yerevan, you managed not to mention Nagorno-Karabakh in your speech, and mentioned it only when we asked questions afterwards. That is a bit weird to me. In your response, you said that solving that frozen conflict is of key interest. What will Armenia do during its chairmanship to address the issue of frozen conflicts? We adopted a declaration in the Standing Committee in which we urged Azerbaijan and you to use your chairmanship to look for reconciliation. If it is important, what will you do in the next six months to make it important?
THE PRESIDENT* – The first question from the floor is from Mr Rochebloine.
Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – My question has to do with Syria. What measures has the committee taken or what measures does it intend to take in order to analyse as precisely as possible the balance of political forces present in Syria, and their ability to take over and form a transitional government when necessary?
Mr NALBANDIAN – On Mr Walter’s question on the world Forum for Democracy, the Committee of Ministers considers it necessary to strengthen the relevance and efficiency of the Council of Europe’s action in the field of democracy, as well as in the organisation’s activities in other sectors. It has therefore paid particular attention to the organisation of the Forum for Democracy from the very beginning. It is expected that the new format of the second edition of the forum, which will take place in Strasbourg on 27 and 28 November, will strengthen its visibility and its impact. The state of preparation of the forum will be on the agenda of the meeting of the rapporteur group on democracy of the Ministers’ Deputies, which will take place on 4 July. It goes without saying that the Parliamentary Assembly should be closely associated with the preparation of this event, since the theme of the forum – it will deal with the participation of citizens in the digital age – is of direct interest to the Assembly. The Committee of Ministers will welcome any ideas coming from the Parliamentary Assembly and will be in full co-operation with it. My information is that the Council of Europe is participating only partially in the financing of the Forum for Democracy.
I did not mention Nagorno-Karabakh in my speeches in Yerevan or here because, as I have said, the Council of Europe is not competent to take part in such negotiations. On the other hand, it can make a useful contribution by promoting the development of confidence-building measures, and thus fostering dialogue, without which no political solution to those conflicts will be possible. From that point of view, we are in full co-operation with the Secretary General and other Council of Europe bodies and structures.
On the position of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, in my capacity as Foreign Minister of Armenia, I expressed my reaction to the three co-chair countries in the framework of the G8 summit. We are sharing that position fully, as we are sharing the position expressed by the three co-chair presidents in previous statements made in L'Aquila, Muskoka and Deauville at previous G8 summits, and at the Los Cabos G20 summit. Armenia’s position is completely in line with the position of the international community, as expressed through the three co-chair States.
The Committee of Ministers has held several discussions on the tragic situation in Syria. On 9 May 2012, the Ministers’ Deputies adopted a declaration condemning the violations of international human rights law committed since the beginning of hostilities in Syria. They voiced their support for the United Nations supervision mission in Syria and commended neighbouring countries for their humanitarian assistance to the Syrian refugees. The Committee of Ministers followed the interesting current affairs debate held by your Assembly last April on Syrian refugees and internal assistance.
As Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, I should like to add that the understanding reached between the Foreign Minister of Russia and the US Secretary of State to prepare the Geneva II conference on Syria is very good. To prepare well and have a successful conference, all the international community must join efforts and consider the reasons for the failure of the first Geneva conference. The conference must involve all representatives of authorities and those who represent factions, including opposition groups. It must also involve major regional countries that can have an influence on the situation on the ground. The most important thing is to join efforts to stop hostilities and prepare the ground to bring the situation to a conclusion. We must find reconciliation through dialogue.
Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – What can you do, Minister, and what can the Council of Europe do, to ensure that resolutions adopted by our Parliamentary Assembly are followed up? I am thinking in particular of Resolution 1416 (2005). As you know, democratic States are losing their credibility. Thousands of citizens are losing faith in their governments. If people followed up on resolutions, they would gain credibility.
Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – Thirty member States have already signed the Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, and the number of ratifications is growing. I do not see Armenia on those lists. I ask the chair of the Committee of Ministers, the Foreign Minister of Armenia, how he can convince the Government of Armenia and the Parliament of Armenia to sign and ratify the Istanbul convention.
Mr JAKAVONIS (Lithuania)* – Minister, why are you so inactive, as it seems to us, when it comes to implementing the Eastern Partnership’s programme of work? Who from your country will participate on 28 and 29 November at the summit of the Eastern Partnership in the capital city of Lithuania, Vilnius?
Mr NALBANDIAN – On the first question, the growing social movements that have taken place over the past few years in Europe and other regions, as witnessed recently in different parts of the world, cannot leave political leaders indifferent. In view of the serious economic crisis in Europe, action must be taken to avoid the marginalisation of a growing proportion of the population and to reinforce social cohesion, otherwise the very basis of today’s democratic Europe might be brought into question. The growing success met by extremist and populist movements in the continent shows that that is a real danger. It is also important that, when maintaining public order, governments act with full respect for the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. At European level, all the organs of the Council of Europe must be mobilised, together with the governments of member States, to combat the threat of extremism and to defend the values and rights, both political and social, that have made Europe a continent of peace, prosperity and stability. It is with that objective that the Committee of Ministers will hold a debate on political extremism in September, which I strongly hope will lead to operational conclusions that may rapidly be implemented.
On the second question, about the ratification of the Istanbul convention on violence against women, before a State can become a party to a treaty a number of steps usually have to be taken to ensure that national legislation and practice comply with that treaty. Ratification of the convention requires steps by both the executive and legislative branches of government. As Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, I have initiated the proposal to consider signature and ratification of the convention. As in any other country, the process of consideration requires intra-State procedures, which take time to conclude.
(The speaker continued in Russian.)
On the third question, about who will be representing Armenia at the Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius, it is still a long time till November, by which time our authorities and our government will have taken the decision and informed you of it.
Mr VUKČEVIĆ (Montenegro) – Tax evasion by politicians and business people, tax avoidance and moves by multinational companies to minimise their tax bills through profit shifting deprive European Union governments of €1 trillion a year and undermine confidence in democratic institutions. What does the Committee of Ministers propose to solve the problem?
Mr KAYATÜRK (Turkey) – I extend my sincere congratulations to the Armenian presidency of the Committee of Ministers. We also welcome your giving priority to the struggle against racism and xenophobia in Europe. As you know, Mr Kocharian mentioned in 2008 that Armenians and Azerbaijanis were not the same and could not co-exist. What do you think about that statement?
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – On 2 February 2013, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the landmark arms trade treaty regulating the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. What measures will the Committee of Ministers take to promote signature among those who have not yet signed the treaty and its ratification by Council of Europe member States, to facilitate its entry into force and implementation as soon as possible?
Mr NALBANDIAN – Tax evasion is among the top priorities on the international scene. The declaration adopted at the G8 summit last week shows its growing importance in these times of financial and economic crisis. The Council of Europe is not at the forefront in the fight against tax evasion. It has, however, adopted one convention in the field in co-operation with the OECD – the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters – which was revised in 2010. That instrument is aimed at helping governments to enforce their tax laws as part of the worldwide drive to combat cross-border tax evasion. It provides for the exchange of information and cross-border assistance in tax collection while respecting national sovereignty and the rights of taxpayers. It also ensures that there are extensive safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the information exchanged. That text is promoted by the OECD, the G8 and the G20, and new requests for accession arrive regularly.
I answer the second question with a question. If the leader of a neighbouring country says that the whole Armenian nation is enemy No. 1, what reaction do you expect?
On the third question, and speaking in my national capacity, Armenia was actively involved in the negotiation process on the arms trade treaty through the preparatory committee meetings, regional seminars and eventually the final United Nations conference this year. We supported the international community’s efforts aimed at drawing up a comprehensive international document that would bring more transparency, accountability and responsibility to the conventional arms trade. Not all the key principles of international law are referred to in the preamble to the treaty, and we have concerns that in its current form it contains loopholes allowing for political speculation. The key objective of the treaty – the encouragement and enforcement of regulation of the conventional arms trade through strong national control systems – should have been upheld more strongly.
Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – Armenia has failed properly to investigate the bloody events of 1 March 2008; to release political prisoner Tigran Arakelyan; to adopt an electoral code that would solve the problem of inflated electoral lists and multiple voting; and to liberalise television. How is that compatible with the declared mission of your chairmanship, namely promoting democracy and defending human rights?
Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan)* – What is your view on the dialogue among the communities in Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis? What can be done to ensure that there is such a dialogue and to bring those people to the table so that confidence can be built up? I have been trying to achieve such a dialogue for a long time as a leader of the Azerbaijani community in Nagorno-Karabakh, but I have not yet succeeded.
Ms FORT (France)* – On relations between Armenia and Turkey, there was some hope for a peaceful outcome with the implementation of the 2009 Zurich agreements, which ran up against the thorny problem of Nagorno-Karabakh. Within the framework of the Armenian chairmanship and the priority of intercultural dialogue, do you think that some new opening between your country and Turkey could be possible?
Mr NALBANDIAN – Regarding the case of Mr Arakelyan, I recall that in reply to a written question from Mr Zourabian on the same subject, the Committee of Ministers stated that appeal proceedings are still pending and that the committee could not comment on the case in question. The term used by the distinguished parliamentarian in his question does not correspond to this decision. I cannot comment in my national capacity as Armenian Minister for Foreign Affairs, especially when the judicial process is not yet over. Moreover, I believe that the Executive should not interfere in judicial proceedings. I can only inform the Assembly that on 8 May the Armenian Court of Cassation heard this case and partially overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Cassation also decided to return the case for further investigation.
(The speaker continued in Russian)
On the second question, which I answer again in my national capacity, all I can say is that attempts to give the impression that the conflict can be resolved among the communities, and that it is a conflict between the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Nagorno-Karabakh, is not a view shared by the co-chairs who have been given a mandate by the international community to resolve this frozen conflict. They are putting forward some concrete proposals and principles, and some elements on the basis of which a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be found. It is, first and foremost, a conflict between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. When I commented on the most recent declaration on the subject—that made by the three co-chairs in Enniskillen on 18 June—I said that we fully share the views expressed by those co-chairs and that that is the right basis for finding a resolution to the conflict. Unfortunately, right after that declaration was made we heard criticism of the three co-chairs by the Azerbaijani authorities. They subsequently said that although they could perhaps agree with what was said by the three co-chairs, there were subsequent comments about certain points that were not mentioned at all by the presidents of those three co-chair countries. That is the fundamental difference in the positions adopted by the Armenian authorities, by the Azerbaijani authorities and by Nagorno-Karabakh.
(The speaker continued in English)
On Turkey, it was the initiative of the President of Armenia to start negotiations on the normalisation of relations between Armenia and Turkey. After a long and difficult process of negotiation—we had 12 rounds of negotiations at the level of Foreign Ministers, including with Ali Babacan—we came to agreements and signed protocols in Zurich on 10 October 2009. Unfortunately, the Turkish side then refused to ratify and implement the agreements without preconditions. Our position is the same as that of the international community and expressed by many countries, including member States of the Council of Europe and the European Union, Russia and the United States—namely that the ball is in Turkey’s court. Armenia passed it that way, and it is now up to Turkey to ratify and implement the agreements without preconditions. The main principle of international relations and diplomacy is that of pacta sunt servanda. If agreements are reached and signed, they must be respected and implemented.
Mr FOURNIER* (France) –We have seen a lot of violence in Turkey over the past few weeks, but there has been relative silence on these events from the Council of Europe. The European Union and the Americans have already reacted officially, despite the diplomatic problems. Will the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers react more quickly and recall to Turkey the commitments it has entered into with regard to the rule of law and democracy?
THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Conde and Mr Xuclà are not here, so I call Mr Bockel.
Mr BOCKEL (France)* – Jean-Claude Mignon mentioned at the beginning of your chairmanship that this could be an important stage towards settling the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. I know that in six months there will be an Azeri chairmanship, which should facilitate dialogue. Apart from the normal answers and taking pot shots at one’s enemy, do you think this would be a useful time and a juncture to try to put an end to this strategy that makes the situation more fragile in your area? Would that not be better for Armenia?
Mr NALBANDIAN – The issue raised by Mr Fournier has been raised in the Committee of Ministers, and clarifications have been provided on this occasion by the Turkish delegation. As the Secretary General pointed out in his most recent statement, dialogue is the only way to settle this matter, avoiding any escalation of violence and ensuring full respect for the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the right to demonstrate peacefully. It is important that legal proceedings initiated against those arrested in the context of the demonstrations are conducted in accordance with the requirements of transparency, independence and impartiality, and in compliance with the Convention. Today, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe will go to Turkey to meet Turkish officials tomorrow, and that will provide an opportunity to address such questions with the highest authorities in the country. When he returns we will follow his report.
On Mr Bockel’s question on Nagorno-Karabakh and our chairmanship, which I answer in my national capacity, the coming chairmanship of Azerbaijan is not in six months but almost a year’s time. We have no difficulty with dialogue, contacts and negotiations. Over the past five years, there have been almost 15 summit meetings between the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents. We have had tens of meetings at the level of Foreign Ministers, and the three co-chair ambassadors came to the region more than 50 times. I am going to meet the three co-chairs after tomorrow, and they had a meeting with the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister beforehand. Before that meeting, the three co-chairs were in the region, and earlier we had the opportunity to meet, including a tête-à-tête with the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan. It is not about whether the president of the Committee of Ministers will have the opportunity to see the Azerbaijan side; we have no difficulty in holding negotiations and continuing the negotiating process.
As I said, the proposals of the international community have been expressed through the three co-chair countries, and they have a mandate from the international community for mediation. One party on the Azerbaijani side has not only rejected all proposals concerning the main principles of the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh, but even confidence-building measures such as the creation of a mechanism of investigation into violations of cease-fire on the line of contact, or on the withdrawal of snipers, the consolidation of the cease-fire and so on. That is the reality, not that there is no will on the Armenian side to proceed to normalisation and settlement of the conflict. As we have said, we support the proposals of the three co–chairs. We have expressed several times in each statement by the three co–chair countries’ presidents – in L'Aquila, Muskoka, Deauville, Los Cabos and, now, Enniskillen – our readiness to go forward towards the settlement of the conflict on the basis of the principles and elements proposed by the three co–chair countries.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Minister.
With regard to Mr Fournier’s question about Turkey and the Council of Europe’s position, if I may say so, it is wrong to say that we have not reacted. The rapporteur, Josette Durrieu, has issued a press statement, which was made available on the Council of Europe’s website. Given that, it would not seem right for me to add my own personal statement. The Secretary General reacted immediately to the events in Turkey. We know from yesterday that he has an opportunity to go to Ankara and meet the Turkish authorities. As far as I am concerned, it would not be appropriate for me to say anything before he has been to Ankara. Once he has come back, we will have a discussion with him on the basis of what he has found out from the Turkish authorities. Issuing a press release or taking a stance while the Secretary General is still in Ankara would seem to be rather disloyal to him and jumping the gun. As I said to our Deputy Secretary General this morning, we can only encourage the step taken by Mr Jagland of going to Ankara.
Thank you very much, Minister, for the answers you have supplied to the various questions. We will have the opportunity to see you again soon because there are five months to go. You will have lots of chances to express your views to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
3. Free Debate
THE PRESIDENT* – We now come to the moment you have all been waiting for with bated breath: the free debate.
Let me remind you that there are 48 members on the speakers list for this debate. To enable as many people as possible to take the floor, it is vital that you comply with the time limit of three minutes. Let me also remind you – I underline this point; it is part of our regulations – that the subjects should not be among those covered in the agenda for this part-session. Without further ado, I call Ms Durrieu to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I will take you beyond the borders of Europe, Mr President. Iran now has a new president, Hassan Rohani. The election showed the relative success of the international sanctions, and certainly the success of a regime that has drawn on the lessons from the faulty elections of 2009 and allowed the public to express their view on a number of competing candidates. That means that the new president will have a kind of legitimacy. The young people demonstrating in Iran were demonstrating their aspiration to democracy, modernity and normality – indeed, the normalisation of relations between Iran and the international community. We all need to hear their call.
As far as Syria is concerned, I do not think the president has much margin for manoeuvre. However, Mr Rohani is well acquainted with the nuclear issue in Iran, because he piloted the negotiations between 2003 and 2005. He was the one who wanted to see a stop to the secret nuclear campaign in his country, so he is very well acquainted with this area and perhaps has an opportunity to do something.
We in the international community need to take stock of the new situation. We should be careful to help the movement of the people. We should pay tribute to the relative progress of the new regime and give the new president some credibility, perhaps by lifting the sanctions and trying to help it to emerge from the crisis. There is an opportunity on Syria and the Iranian nuclear question. Dialogue is not forbidden. We need to talk with this “enemy”, who has now become a potential interlocutor.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Schuster to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Ms SCHUSTER (Germany)* – I would like to report to you about the disquieting events taking place in Russia. I am doing so because in 1996, Russia – independently and of its own free will – joined the Council of Europe. By doing so, it signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. The idea is to apply not “western” values but common, shared values.
At the weekend, we witnessed Russian special units forcibly evicting the All-Russian Movement for Human Rights, an NGO run by Lev Ponomaryov. This act has been condemned in Russia by the human rights ombudsman, Vladimir Lukin, who described it as a violation of the Russian constitution. It was also condemned by Mikhail Fedorov, the chairman of the human rights committee. He demanded that investigations be carried out to shed light on what happened. I fully endorse both statements. I also call on the Russian Government to comply with the standards laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and ensure that the rights of civil society are fully taken on board.
This forcible eviction is not the only disquieting event to have occurred in Russia. Last year we noted the promulgation of the so-called NGO law, under which NGOs that receive funding from abroad have to register as foreign agents. As a result, searches and seizures have taken place. Golos, the first independent election monitoring organisation in Russia, was condemned for apparently receiving funding from a prize from the Helsinki Committee, even though Golos rejected the prize money. This points to one thing: the NGO law is a further attack on civil society.
While Mr Khodorkovsky and Mr Lebedev can point to the European Convention on Human Rights, there are other disquieting events in Russia. On 11 June, a law was promulgated condemning propaganda by non-traditional couples. Let us have no illusions about it: this is a law that criminalises homosexuality and promotes homophobia. Mr Putin should distance himself from it. We should fully respect civil society and NGOs.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Pushkov on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation)* – In this Assembly we often talk about the need to stop people using too much violence in demonstrations and say that the police have been using brutality and the State has been heavy-handed. I draw the Assembly’s attention to part of a statement that was made in the Russian Parliament by a French woman, a member of the Association of French Families, who came to Russia recently to tell us about the protests in France against same-sex marriage. I quote from her statement about a woman with two children: “On 24 March we were part of a demonstration on Avenue Foch. My nephew and niece were with me, as were my children who were six months and seven years old, and we were tear-gassed. One of the children was actually in his pram. My son is asthmatic and he was in a state of great distress. They were all in a state of distress and said, ‘We’ve done nothing. Why are they trying to do that to us? Mummy, they’re trying to kill us. We’re going to die’.”
I draw your attention to the fact that there should not be any double standards in our judgment of police activity in member countries of the Council of Europe. You know that Russia has often been criticised, by rapporteurs among others, for so-called heavy-handedness by the police, yet in Russia never have such things been done as have occurred in many countries in Western Europe, including France. We all witnessed on television the running battles in the streets of Paris between demonstrators against same-sex marriage and the police.
For this Assembly to retain its authority on human rights and as a defender of European values and principles, such police brutality in any country of the Council of Europe must be the subject of an impartial investigation and perhaps a special report, and should even trigger monitoring. It is only in this spirit that we will be able to re-establish the role of this Assembly as a defender of values, rather than being preferential to certain countries and criticising others all the time.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr Pushkov. I remind you that, as we were saying earlier in the Assembly, we have decided to have an urgent debate on protests and threats to the freedom of assembly and expression. In the context of that debate, we can raise any issues that we want to.
I call Mr Loukaides on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – On behalf of my group, I will speak about the recent developments in Cyprus concerning the economy of the island. Since 2008, Cyprus has been negatively affected by the world economic crisis. These negative effects have become progressively more dramatic as a consequence of the Greek debt crisis, transmitted to Cyprus due to the excessive exposure of the Cyprus banking system to the Greek economy.
The political determination of Cyprus to proceed with the implementation of the measures contained in the memorandum, even without having signed the final loan agreement, coupled with the huge losses incurred by the Cypriot State as a result of the solidarity that it manifested towards Greece – €4 billion, or 30% of the country’s GDP – were significant elements that, unfortunately, did not make the Troika more lenient towards Cyprus. On the contrary, Cyprus had to deal with unprecedented and unjust treatment from its lenders. In fact Cyprus is the first country, under a rescue programme, to have experienced a bail-in from the European Union, a policy measure that had thus far never been discussed or agreed upon. The way in which this decision was reached illustrates once again the notable lack of transparency, accountability and democratic legitimacy in the functioning and decision making of European Union institutions.
At the same time, the solution imposed on Cyprus constitutes a collective punishment of the people of that country. The use of Cyprus as a guinea pig runs counter to any principle of solidarity and equal treatment. As a result of this decision, Cyprus is in the midst of a catastrophe as a large number of people are becoming impoverished. Unemployment, significant wage cuts, the tightening of employment rights and the closure of businesses are increasing exponentially. This is creating a vicious cycle of recession, bringing on even more austere measures and increasing fiscal deficits and public debt.
As the leaked minutes of the IMF's board of governors suggest, but as official statements from a number of European Commission and European Central Bank officials also say, important reservations have already been expressed about the viability of the Cyprus programme. Consequently, it is a matter of urgency that initiatives and actions be taken to drastically revise policies implemented at the European level, especially for those countries under rescue programmes. In particular, harsh austerity measures should be replaced with growth policies; decisions taken by European Union institutions should comply with transparency, democratic legitimacy and accountability; and measures should be taken to protect the rights of workers and the sensitive areas of education, health and the provision of social welfare services.
Immediate action should be taken to alleviate Cyprus’s credit crunch by restoring stability to its banking system. Restrictions imposed on banking transactions since 15 March 2013 should also be lifted. In this context, certain provisions of the rescue programme containing unbearable terms need to be replaced with provisions allowing for the stability of the banking sector and the recovery of the economy.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Kandelaki on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – There is one simple lesson that the history of this Organisation, and the history of democracies throughout the decades handling non-democracies or agents of non-freedom, teaches us: clarity and avoiding the temptation of ambiguity really help. Indeed, they are the solution in order to avoid any further departure from democracy. As Ronald Reagan once said, “Don’t be afraid to see what you see.”
Eight months or more have already passed since Georgia changed its government through elections for the first time in its history, and indeed for the first time in the history of the broader region. I regret to report that the tremendous opportunity that emerged with this change has largely been squandered by the new government and by the democratic backsliding that has been going on in Georgia. The Prime Minister, Mr Ivanishvili, who accumulated his wealth in Russia in the 1990s, has immersed himself in a misjudgment and believes that the solution to his problems is the elimination of opposition and ensuring that the United National Movement, my political party, which handed over full power to him and conceded defeat in a free and democratic election, ceases to exist.
Many people who follow Georgia consider what is happening as fully fledged democratic backsliding. It is very hard to classify Mr Ivanishvili’s consistent linkage of the performance of the opposition with the number of arrests and prosecutions as anything else. Incidentally, he reiterated that linkage right after his speech in this Chamber in April, and he said that everyone here loved him – that was his conclusion after his appearance.
It is hard to call it anything other than backsliding from democracy when the leader of the opposition – the main organiser of the party, a probable candidate in the presidential elections and a former Prime Minister – is arrested and held in pre-trial detention. Again, if someone’s misconduct or crime is proven, they should go to jail regardless of whether they are a politician. Being a politician offers no immunity. However, political responsibility is exercised by voters, not prosecutors. That is the major misjudgment that Mr Ivanishvili is making, and this has been one example of it.
I am speaking on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party. This week, we are marking the 50th birthday of a fighter for freedom, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a political prisoner in Russia; there are also political prisoners in Georgia today. Mr Khodorkovsky has a vision for a free and democratic Russia, a vision that we here all share. We believe that a free and democratic Russia is possible and, indeed, would make the world a different place. I salute Mr Khodorkovsky in Siberia and wish him well. I believe that he will soon be with us, and that the world will be different when he is.
Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)⃰ – No reasonable person can be unmoved by the plight of the Syrian people, who are suffering a war and an exodus. Every day we have to come to terms with news of terrible tragedies. We would like – to the extent allowed by our resources, which are limited – to play a part in promoting peace, but although that objective is clear in our hearts and minds, the means of achieving that are not always that obvious. If we in Europe want to act effectively internationally, it is important first to be clear about who the forces are, and who is supporting them. That is by no means easy.
Criticisms focus on President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. It is definitely not a pleasant regime, and its actions are not based on even the slightest respect for the most basic human rights. There are thousands of reasons to condemn the human rights violations for which the regime is responsible, its lies, and its stubbornness, but while we must condemn it, we should not adopt the overly convenient language of good and evil.
First, we should realistically evaluate exactly what support the Syrian President still enjoys. Is he really a lone man, as is sometimes claimed in descriptions of the Syrian crisis, or does he enjoy the support of key groups beyond the military? We should also give realistic thought to a phrase that is sometimes used, erroneously, as a catch-all term: the opposition. What do the movements that make up the opposition represent? What place is really held by forces whose leaders are more or less swayed by terrorism? Recent precedents call on us to use extreme caution when assessing these forces. It is quite easy to get a feeling for the number and violence of the movements that have been more or less identified as calling the shots in the rebellion, but it is more difficult to identify the forces supporting them, and sometimes ordering killings, as we saw on the border with Turkey a few weeks ago. It is important for us to make a full inventory of these forces.
If we want to reach a stable solution in Syria, we need to bring together representatives from all political families in the country, regardless of whether they are for or against the regime. We must not be behind any given Syrian faction. We need to say, loud and clear, that we are working to restore peace for the whole population.
I do not want to finish without mentioning the fate of two Syrian bishops, Boulos Yaziji and Yohanna Ibrahim, whose whereabouts have been unknown for two months now. No one can officially tell us who is behind those kidnappings. The bishops’ fate is emblematic of the drama in Syria. We need to free the Syrian population from the scourge of war, but we are not quite sure where our first efforts should focus on.
Mr PYLYPENKO (Ukraine) – On November 2012, a new code of criminal procedure for Ukraine took effect. As it has been in force for more than half a year, let me draw colleagues’ attention to some statistics directly connected to the adoption of the CPC.
First, let me mention detention in custody. Over seven months, the number of persons held in custody in Ukraine decreased by almost 30%. Since December 2011, the number has decreased by almost 40%. We are glad to say that the downward trend in the number of prisoners continues.
Secondly, the number of cases in which a new preventive measure – house arrest – is being used is going up. As a result of direct requests, there are 1 875 house arrests. House arrests account for almost 10% of all preventive measures taken.
Thirdly, bail sums have increased considerably – by 94% since 2011, and by 70% since 2012. In 2011, bail amounted to 9.3 million Ukrainian hryvnia; last year, it was 44.4 million Ukrainian hryvnia. In just the first six months of this year, it was almost 75 million Ukrainian hryvnia. The fact that less than 1% of bail money becomes state revenue indicates the effectiveness of this preventive measure.
Fourthly, the number of concluded plea agreements has increased rapidly. In December 2012, there were only 30; in April this year, the total number was 1 712. In total, almost 6 000 plea agreements were concluded in just half a year. Almost 14% of all criminal proceedings that reach court conclude in a plea agreement.
I do not have time to show colleagues all the data, but even these statistics clearly define the advantages of the new CPC adopted in Ukraine.
Ms FORT (France)⃰ – Two years after the commencement of the Arab Spring, the situation of women in transition countries is becoming more and more alarming. Most of the time, those involved have decided not to incorporate in their constitution international treaties on human rights; they have even chosen to refer to Sharia law. That jeopardises rights that could easily be written into constitutions. For example, article 2 of the new Egyptian constitution affirms the principles of Sharia. It says that exercising normal rights should not be an offence against ethics, morality or public policy, but it also says that the State should safeguard the balance between women’s obligations to their family and to their work outside the home. As Human Rights Watch said in its 2013 report, this is a possible invitation to future restrictions on the freedom of women. Tunisia used to be ahead of things in that respect, but as we come up to the vote on the new constitution, we might ask ourselves whether that is still true.
Of course women are no longer defined as men’s chattels, but they have not been granted equality with men. Words are so important. This is not just about semantics but about safeguarding rights, rather than withdrawing them. There has been an undermining of women’s rights. There has been sexual violence, even against young girls in the street, often involving people who are supposed to be protecting citizens. There has been harassment in the streets. Provocation has been offered to young women who are not dressing the “right” way, particularly in universities and women artists, journalists and lawyers have been arrested and given harsh sentences for not doing what is “right”. This is not acceptable. The young Amina in Tunisia has perhaps gone further than some other feminists and non-governmental organisations, but that cannot justify the violence of the repression that we saw.
I cannot accept that half of humanity should be considered inferior to the other half, so let us affirm strongly that Islamist governments in the region will be judged largely by how they deal with women’s rights. One thinks of Syria, where we have seen rape again used as a weapon of war, yet there, too, women were and are part of the revolution. They are playing an essential role in getting vital aid through to the people, who are being martyred. In Taksim Square in the past weeks, young people – men and women – have wanted to protest against an abuse of power that is a threat to their individual rights.
Modern Turkey has been able to combine Islam and modernity, bestowing rights and a real role on women. Mr Erdoğan must heed the calls for tolerance and freedom. It is about the democratic credibility of his country. I was greatly touched by a message that was posted on Facebook by women participating in the Arab Spring. In the post, a young Yemenite woman with a sticking plaster over her mouth waves a banner that says “I support the uprising of women in the Arab world to avoid my rights ever being silenced again.” We must support their struggle.
Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – Today I want the Assembly to consider the unacceptable link between austerity policies and human rights. I have recently read and discussed the European Union policy papers on economic and monetary union with Commissioner Olli Rehn, and with President Van Rompuy. They argue for more austerity from countries with high debt-to-GNP levels, the result of which is that societies in the European Union are being stripped of jobs and social services. Tens of thousands of families in the United Kingdom are having to go to charity food banks, one of which I opened recently, to feed their families. Middle-class families in Greece are reportedly putting their children into children’s homes because they cannot feed them.
The European Union is carrying out an attack on human rights in pursuit of a flawed currency union and a flawed economic theory. Those who argue the necessity for an austerity policy have in recent years cited as proof the work of Harvard professors Reinhart and Rogoff, who claimed to prove that countries whose debt exceeds 90% of GDP are doomed to slow growth. A recent study paper entitled “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff” by Thomas Herndon, a PhD student at UMass Amherst, revealed errors in the 2010 Harvard paper “Growth in a Time of Debt” by Reinhart and Rogoff. The paper showed sloppy computing; in an Excel spreadsheet, the authors left five rows of figures out of their calculations. Professor Pollin and Professor Michael Ash, from the economics department at UMass Amherst, said that pro-austerity movement policies are based on bogus – that is, incorrect – information. In addition, further work by UMass Amherst professor Arindrajit Dube supplied additional proof that there were serious theoretical and causal problems, as opposed to the sloppy mathematics in the Reinhart and Rogoff theories.
I call on the Council of Europe to monitor and report on the European Union’s attacks on human rights and the right to family life in pursuit of their flawed policies on economic and monetary union. Which comes first, human rights or a currency obsession?
Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has recently been actively seeking out ways to play its part in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. What can the Parliamentary Assembly do? It is important to create an atmosphere of trust between both sides. The Minsk group of the OSCE is working in two key areas to try to resolve the conflict: creating the fundamental principles and creating an atmosphere of trust. In the second avenue, the Parliamentary Assembly can play an important role.
Having said that, I would like to ask how we can talk about trust when an inquisitorial draft law, which is devoid of any logic, is being prepared in the Azerbaijani national assembly. It is unbelievable that in the 21st century, a Council of Europe member State can introduce legislation that will criminalise citizens of Azerbaijan who have any contact with Armenian institutions. According to the Azerbaijan Press Agency, article 7 of the draft law states: “citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan, who cooperate with the aggressor country's government and non-government agencies, judicial and legislative bodies, political parties, public unions, media outlets, State and private companies and their representatives, will be brought to justice." Article 4, the chef d’oeuvre, sets out strict sanctions for foreign nationals who dare enter into territories that Azerbaijan considers as occupied when passing through Azerbaijan. That is not a quote from a far-distant regime based on slavery, but the reality in a fellow member State.
I thank all the international organisations that have been trying hard to bring about a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict based on the understanding that conflicts are resolved first and foremost through respect and in an atmosphere of trust, and through the fundamental principles of human rights and democratic values.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you for talking about a climate of trust. I remind you that next Wednesday I will bring together delegations from your country and from Azerbaijan. We are all keen for that meeting to take place; I hope that it will be as serene as possible and that we will be able to create a climate of trust, so that we can help in the work that the Minsk Group has been doing. The Armenian Minister talked about the matter earlier, and we need to keep our cool and remain calm and collected. Since I became President of the Parliamentary Assembly, I have been trying to bring together the elected representatives of the delegations at regular intervals. I ask you to help me as I try to do whatever I can to help the Minsk Group in its search for a positive, constructive and effective solution to the problem, which has been going on for far too long.
Mr SIDYAKIN (Russian Federation)* – I am wearing a T-shirt to make the point that thousands of people have been arrested for showing their opinion on T-shirts. It does not make me a homophobe; it shows that I am tolerant. It shows that I have an opinion, and that I do not want anyone to deprive me of the opportunity to voice it. In Russia, the Duma voted almost unanimously in favour of a law banning same-sex adoptions. There is no discrimination against such people, however. They can work freely, they can operate in all sorts of spheres and, if they earn them, they can get state awards. Ms Schuster spoke about people facing criminal persecution because of their opinions, but that does not happen. There is no criminal responsibility for being a homosexual, and there never would be, but we have a clear position on how people bring up their children.
Perhaps this issue, rather than electricity or fuel, constitutes the largest mental schism and will be where we part company. I do not think that there is any chance of achieving a sensible compromise. I believe that it is the job of any State to protect the growing generation and the birth rate, which is what we are thinking about when we take such decisions. Russia is virtually a lone voice on the matter. When a country writes into its constitution that marriage is a union of man and woman, you all start saying, “We should open monitoring against them. How dare they?” Every country must have the right to make such decisions, which reflect what its society wants. In Georgia, the situation has led to violence. It is not possible to do the same thing in every country.
THE PRESIDENT*— Thank you. You talked about tolerance; I am being tolerant. I did not say anything about the fact that you are wearing a T-shirt. That is clearly different from what others wear in the Chamber. I did not say anything about it, but of course in the Parliamentary Assembly we try to avoid wearing clothing with clear or conspicuous signs. I am not going to ask you to remove your T-shirt, but I would like you to think about such things in future. We all have values that we feel strongly about.
Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan)*— Once again, I express the opinion that in all countries there are lots of different societies and that if any problems occur we need to sit around the table and have a dialogue. In Azerbaijan, there are lots of different communities. We do not have any problems with any other community apart from the Armenian one in Azerbaijan.
I was able to talk directly to the Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs to say that we are looking for dialogue with the Armenians on Nagorno-Karabakh. Ms Zohrabyan said that there is now a draft Bill before the Armenian Parliament, but there is not one about discrimination. Some people are starting to try to make contact. We want contact. We want a dialogue. As we all know, under the Minsk Group, Azerbaijan and Armenia are both recognised by the parties to the conflict, but the parties to the negotiations refer to the Armenian community and the Azeri community and that is why we hope that we will be able to have an input to the negotiating process.
Unfortunately, however, I cannot find anyone to support this move. I have gone to the members of our parliament, some of whom I know, and to President Mignon about the matter. I am grateful for his efforts on the issue. There is a group here, the Armenian and Azeri group, under his leadership, which is to have a meeting. We can at least talk to each other, but I hope that we will be able to strengthen that process.
I turn to Ms Zohrabyan and say, “Let us get together on this and create dialogue around one table.” If there is such a draft Bill before the Armenian Parliament, I would be the first person to be punished under that law. I am sure that people in my parliament will listen to me. We should listen to the Azeris in Nagorno-Karabakh who want to solve the problem by talking around a table and negotiating. Only in that way will they be able to have a normal life in Nagorno-Karabakh. I would like to add that the President of Azerbaijan has also said that he supports and respects the latest decision by the presidents of the Minsk Group countries last week during the G8 summit.
Mr NICOLAIDES (Cyprus) — An issue that has long been debated concerns the accountability of international organisations for their decisions and for the effect that those decisions have on human rights. The discussion is focused on the extent to which those decisions affect human rights in a negative way. Who monitors those organisations and to which body are they accountable in relation to respect for human rights? Of course one may say that an organisation is accountable to its members, but is that sufficient to ensure that an organisation's decisions comply with the need to uphold and protect human rights?
A dramatic example of how such a decision can contradict basic human rights is the euro group's recent decision on Cyprus. That decision, judged by any standard, was a blunt violation of the human rights of the people living in Cyprus. Instead of a bail-out, an unprecedented bail-in was imposed overnight, in essence a haircut of all non-insured deposits in Cyprus’s two major systemic banks. That haircut was in addition to the harsh austerity measures imposed by the loan agreement and effectively led to the stripping of the people of Cyprus of some of their basic fundamental economic and social rights. As a result of the euro group’s decision, the country has started witnessing soaring unemployment, poverty and impeded access to health care and higher education opportunities, particularly for the most vulnerable sectors of the population.
In these extremely difficult times of economic crisis, human rights should be upheld and not undermined, especially by respected international organisations and institutions, which should set an example in safeguarding human rights, not the opposite of that. It is obvious that this issue is of interest to the Assembly, because it lies at the centre of our principles: human rights and the rule of law. I am sure that the Assembly will in the immediate future deal with the issue of the accountability of international organisations and institutions with respect to human rights. That will be a step in the right direction – the direction of reinforcing and restoring the diminishing credibility of the European decision-making system and the lost trust of citizens in European values and principles.
Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I want to discuss two important issues that we will hear about this week. The first is corruption and the other is the division of political and criminal responsibility. There are some interesting figures on European countries such as Ukraine and Georgia. With the rise of corruption, we have more and more political prisoners. Why is that so? We can answer that question briefly. There are cases where we can demonstrate the rule of law, judicial reform and the reform of the prosecutor’s office in Ukraine. However, in the past year, people who protested against the regime of President Yanukovych by writing graffiti are now in prison. People who shoot peasants openly and directly – we can see such images all over the world on TV – are now free.
People who protested against tax reforms that closed millions of small businesses in our country are in prison. Those who killed people are now free. It is a good result for those who are struggling against corruption and other crimes in our country. When the struggle is headed by the government authorities, the president’s authorities and police officers, it is impossible to struggle against corruption. How can you struggle against those who are corrupt when they are at the head of the system?
In Ukraine, we have other serious issues. Only in the last month, in two cases, so-called sportsmen organised in criminal gangs beat journalists who wrote about their political meetings. Just three days ago, in one small village, which is now well known in Ukraine, more than 100 criminals tried to fight against peasants using rifles, pistols and other weapons. In our country, there is a real struggle against a criminal regime. We can fight against that regime only if we are not divided in the Assembly, if Liberal, Socialist and EPP members and other groups are united. Our main goal is to struggle against corruption and to fight for democracy.
The PRESIDENT* — Mr Japaridze is not here, so I call Mr Nikoloski, who will be the last speaker.
Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – I want to discuss two important issues that I think we should debate in the Parliamentary Assembly’s next session.
The first is the extradition process and codes used in Europe for multi-level criminals operating in multiple countries. Not all countries respect the process, even when they receive requests from Interpol, and neither do all countries fulfil the criteria set by European institutions on the extradition of criminals facing charges in different countries.
For example, several States, including the newly created State of Kosovo, do not respect the extradition process. Often, criminals are charged for crimes committed in my country of Macedonia, but they do not face justice because Kosovo protects them. There are several other similar situations.
The second issue is that of human trafficking. According to a new report by the State Department on the world situation, the position in Europe, mainly in south-eastern Europe, is getting worse. The only two countries there that are in the group with good results in the fight against human trafficking are Macedonia and Slovenia. All other countries there are in the second or third group and do not meet the required criteria for the fight against human trafficking. Only last year, there were more than 20 000 victims of human trafficking in Europe, most of them, according to the report, in south-eastern Europe.
In future sessions, I want members to create reports on these two issues so that we can discuss and understand them, because they are fundamental not only with regard to the rule of law, but for the freedom of persons.
THE PRESIDENT* – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. It is 5 o’clock and meetings are scheduled to take place. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given, in typescript, to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. I am very sorry, but I tried my best to give the floor to as many speakers as possible: 48 speakers wanted to take the floor, but we had only one hour’s speaking time. That was mission impossible, as I am sure you will understand.
The debate is closed.
4. Next public business
THE PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda which was approved this morning.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 5.05 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Changes in the membership of committees
2. Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Mr Edward Nalbandian, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers
Questions: Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova), Mr Rouquet (France), Ms Guţu (Republic of Moldova), Mr Walter (United Kingdom), Mr Kox (Netherlands), Mr Rochebloine (France), Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain), Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal), Mr Jakavonis (Lithuania), Mr Vukčević (Montenegro), Mr Kayatürk (Turkey), Mr Toshev (Bulgaria), Mr Zourabian (Armenia), Mr Rzayev (Azerbaijan), Ms Fort (France), Mr Fournier (France), Mr Bockel (France).
3. Free debate
Speakers: Ms Durrieu (France), Ms Schuster (Germany), Mr Pushkov (Russian Federation), Mr Loukaides (Cyprus), Mr Kandelaki (Georgia), Mr Rochebloine (France), Mr Pylypenko (Ukraine), Ms Fort (France), Mr Connarty (United Kingdom), Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia), Mr Sidyakin (Russian Federation), Mr Rzayev (Azerbaijan), Mr Nicolaides (Cyprus), Mr Sobolev (Ukraine), Mr Nikoloski (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).
4. Next public business
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
Pedro AGRAMUNT
Arben AHMETAJ*
Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ
Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*
Karin ANDERSEN/Anette Trettebergstuen
Lord Donald ANDERSON/Michael Connarty
Paride ANDREOLI
Khadija ARIB/Tuur Elzinga
Volodymyr ARIEV
Francisco ASSIS*
Danielle AUROI/André Schneider
Daniel BACQUELAINE/Dirk Van Der Maelen
Theodora BAKOYANNIS*
David BAKRADZE*
Gérard BAPT/Christian Bataille
Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA
Doris BARNETT*
José Manuel BARREIRO*
Deniz BAYKAL
Marieluise BECK*
José María BENEYTO*
Levan BERDZENISHVILI*
Deborah BERGAMINI*
Robert BIEDROŃ
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Brian BINLEY*
Ľuboš BLAHA*
Delia BLANCO*
Jean-Marie BOCKEL
Eric BOCQUET/Bernadette Bourzai
Mladen BOJANIĆ/Snežana Jonica
Olga BORZOVA/Alexander Sidyakin
Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz
António BRAGA
Anne BRASSEUR
Márton BRAUN*
Federico BRICOLO*
Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL*
Gerold BÜCHEL*
Patrizia BUGNANO*
André BUGNON*
Natalia BURYKINA/Olga Kazakova
Sylvia CANEL
Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*
Mikael CEDERBRATT*
Otto CHALOUPKA
Irakli CHIKOVANI
Vannino CHITI/Paolo Corsini
Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU*
Christopher CHOPE
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN
Desislav CHUKOLOV*
Lolita ČIGĀNE/ Aleksandrs Sakovskis
Boriss CILEVIČS
Henryk CIOCH/Grzegorz Czelej
James CLAPPISON
Deirdre CLUNE*
Agustín CONDE*
Telmo CORREIA*
Carlos COSTA NEVES*
Katalin CSÖBÖR
Joseph DEBONO GRECH
Armand De DECKER
Roel DESEYN*
Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA
Peter van DIJK
Şaban DİŞLİ*
Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ
Jim DOBBIN
Karl DONABAUER/Sonja Ablinger
Ioannis DRAGASAKIS*
Damian DRĂGHICI
Daphné DUMERY*
Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*
Josette DURRIEU
Mikuláš DZURINDA*
Baroness Diana ECCLES
Tülin ERKAL KARA
Gianni FARINA*
Joseph FENECH ADAMI
Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*
Vyacheslav FETISOV
Doris FIALA*
Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Krejča
Axel E. FISCHER
Jana FISCHEROVÁ*
Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*
Hans FRANKEN*
Jean-Claude FRÉCON
Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*
Erich Georg FRITZ
Martin FRONC*
Sir Roger GALE*
Karl GARÐARSON
Tamás GAUDI NAGY
Nadezda GERASIMOVA
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Paolo GIARETTA*
Michael GLOS*
Pavol GOGA*
Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Iwona Guzowska
Alina Ştefania GORGHIU
Svetlana GORYACHEVA
Martin GRAF*
Sylvi GRAHAM
Andreas GROSS
Arlette GROSSKOST/Jacques Legendre
Dzhema GROZDANOVA
Attila GRUBER
Gergely GULYÁS
Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR
Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/ Carmen Quintanilla
Ana GUŢU
Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON
Carina HÄGG/Lennart Axelsson
Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva
Andrzej HALICKI
Mike HANCOCK
Margus HANSON*
Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Vahe Hovhannisyan
Håkon HAUGLI
Norbert HAUPERT*
Alfred HEER
Martin HENRIKSEN
Andres HERKEL
Adam HOFMAN*
Jim HOOD
Joachim HÖRSTER
Arpine HOVHANNISYAN/Armen Rustamyan
Anette HÜBINGER*
Andrej HUNKO*
Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova
Rafael HUSEYNOV*
Shpëtim IDRIZI*
Vladimir ILIĆ*
Florin IORDACHE/Viorel Riceard Badea
Igor IVANOVSKI
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI
Denis JACQUAT/Marie-Louise Fort
Gediminas JAKAVONIS
Stella JANTUAN
Tedo JAPARIDZE*
Ramón JÁUREGUI*
Michael Aastrup JENSEN*
Mogens JENSEN*
Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ/Katarina Rakić
Ögmundur JÓNASSON*
Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić
Antti KAIKKONEN
Ferenc KALMÁR*
Božidar KALMETA/Ivan Račan
Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*
Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel
Ulrika KARLSSON
Burhan KAYATÜRK
Jan KAŹMIERCZAK*
Serhii KIVALOV*
Bogdan KLICH*
Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko
Haluk KOÇ*
Igor KOLMAN
Attila KORODI
Alev KORUN
Tiny KOX
Borjana KRIŠTO*
Dmitry KRYVITSKY*
Václav KUBATA*
Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ*
Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Nicos Nicolaides
Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT
Igor LEBEDEV*
Harald LEIBRECHT*
Orinta LEIPUTĖ
Christophe LÉONARD*
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE/Andris Bērzinš
Lone LOKLINDT*
François LONCLE*
Jean-Louis LORRAIN/Bernard Fournier
George LOUKAIDES
Younal LOUTFI*
Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*
Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*
Philippe MAHOUX
Gennaro MALGIERI*
Pietro MARCENARO
Thierry MARIANI
Epameinondas MARIAS*
Milica MARKOVIĆ*
Meritxell MATEU PI
Pirkko MATTILA/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila
Frano MATUŠIĆ*
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA*
Sir Alan MEALE*
Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/Aleksandar Spasenovski
Ivan MELNIKOV/Vassiliy Likhachev
Nursuna MEMECAN*
José MENDES BOTA
Jean-Claude MIGNON
Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ*
Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI*
Andrey MOLCHANOV*
Jerzy MONTAG*
Rubén MORENO PALANQUES*
Patrick MORIAU*
João Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*
Lydia MUTSCH*
Lev MYRYMSKYI*
Philippe NACHBAR*
Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*
Marian NEACŞU*
Aleksandar NENKOV*
Pasquale NESSA*
Fritz NEUGEBAUER*
Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*
Brynjar NÍELSSON*
Elena NIKOLAEVA/Anvar Makhmutov
Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI
Mirosława NYKIEL/Elżbieta Radziszewska
Judith OEHRI
Carina OHLSSON*
Joseph O'REILLY*
Lesia OROBETS*
Sandra OSBORNE/Joe Benton
José Ignacio PALACIOS
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS
Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà
Ganira PASHAYEVA*
Lajla PERNASKA*
Johannes PFLUG*
Danny PIETERS*
Foteini PIPILI*
Ivan POPESCU
Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/Nikolaj Villumsen
Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN
Cezar Florin PREDA
John PRESCOTT/Paul Flynn
Jakob PRESEČNIK
Gabino PUCHE
Alexey PUSHKOV
Mailis REPS
Eva RICHTROVÁ*
Andrea RIGONI
François ROCHEBLOINE
Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*
René ROUQUET
Marlene RUPPRECHT*
Ilir RUSMALI*
Pavlo RYABIKIN/Iryna Gerashchenko
Rovshan RZAYEV
Giacomo SANTINI*
Giuseppe SARO
Kimmo SASI
Deborah SCHEMBRI
Stefan SCHENNACH*
Marina SCHUSTER
Urs SCHWALLER/ Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter
Senad ŠEPIĆ*
Samad SEYIDOV*
Jim SHERIDAN
Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO*
Boris SHPIGEL/Alexander Ter-Avanesov
Arturas SKARDŽIUS*
Ladislav SKOPAL*
Leonid SLUTSKY*
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli
Yanaki STOILOV
Christoph STRÄSSER*
Karin STRENZ*
Ionuţ-Marian STROE
Giacomo STUCCHI*
Valeriy SUDARENKOV*
Björn von SYDOW
Petro SYMONENKO*
Vilmos SZABÓ*
Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI
Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO*
Romana TOMC
Lord John E. TOMLINSON*
Latchezar TOSHEV
Mihai TUDOSE*
Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ
Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*
Theodora TZAKRI
Tomáš ÚLEHLA*
Ilyas UMAKHANOV*
Giuseppe VALENTINO*
Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Spyridon Taliadouros
Volodymyr VECHERKO*
Mark VERHEIJEN*
Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN
Luigi VITALI*
Luca VOLONTÈ*
Vladimir VORONIN*
Tanja VRBAT/Melita Mulić
Klaas de VRIES*
Nataša VUČKOVIĆ
Zoran VUKČEVIĆ
Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*
Piotr WACH
Johann WADEPHUL*
Robert WALTER
Dame Angela WATKINSON*
Katrin WERNER
Karin S. WOLDSETH
Gisela WURM
Karl ZELLER*
Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ*
Svetlana ZHUROVA*
Emanuelis ZINGERIS*
Guennady ZIUGANOV*
Naira ZOHRABYAN
Levon ZOURABIAN
Vacant Seat, Cyprus*
ALSO PRESENT
Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote
Christian BARILARO
Giorgi KANDELAKI
Kerstin LUNDGREN
Jaana PELKONEN
Observers
Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA
Partners for Democracy
Najat AL-ASTAL
Bernard SABELLA