AA13CR21

AS (2013) CR 21

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-first Sitting

Tuesday 25 June 2013 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

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

THE PRESIDENT* – This morning the agenda calls for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Iceland and Lithuania.

The list of candidates and biographical notices can be found in Documents 13212 and 13213.

The voting will take place in the area behind the President’s Chair.

At 1 p.m. I shall announce the closing of the poll, which will reopen at the afternoon sitting. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers.

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

The names of Mr Van der Maelen and Mr Bataille have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s Chair at 5 p.m.

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

If a second round of voting is necessary, it will be opened tomorrow morning.

I now declare the ballot open.

2. The situation in the Middle East

THE PRESIDENT* – The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report entitled, “The situation in the Middle East”, Document 13231, presented by Mr Marcenaro on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

To ensure we conclude this debate by 1 p.m., we will have to interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.50 a.m. for replies and voting. I remind members that they have three minutes in which to speak.

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

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Since the Assembly adopted the last report on this issue, matters have not improved. We are focusing on the Middle East, but I will not talk about Syria, which we have already discussed in its own report, or about the Iranian aspect, which merits specific debate. I shall concentrate largely on the situation between the Israelis and the Arabs, which is at the heart of the situation in the Middle East.

The situation has not improved since our last debate. We have witnessed a stalemate in negotiations and confidence has declined in the political situation. Morale has also fallen, but it must improve if we are to move in the right direction. The settlements have continued to expand considerably. I do not have a precise figure, but it is thought that more than 600 000 settlers now live in the West Bank. We have also witnessed a change to the geography, not just to the political geography, but to the legal position in terms of rights to freedom of movement and of access, and this has created a very serious situation.

Nevertheless, in the most recent mission we undertook, we perceived some optimism on many fronts. We visited the West Bank and elsewhere, and we heard many different views from our colleagues, both Palestinian and Israeli. We have also heard from the American administration following the appointment of Mr Kerry as Secretary of State, and we think that there is room for optimism. I shall not talk about how matters are evolving, in part because I have decided to consider just those matters that are our responsibility, rather than pretend that we are a kind of United Nations.

Many aspects of the situation have worsened. At such times, it can seem that the room for democracy narrows. That is why I want to emphasise that, even if we are all aware that the end of the conflict does not mean the end of the problems but only the beginning of the possibility of facing up to them, it none the less remains a fundamental goal to put an end to this phase. In spite of the complexity of the problem and the dismay on both sides, we have no other option than the two-State solution. We should reconfirm that as the substantive element at the heart of our initiative, as it bears repeating.

We cannot deny that even among those who have fought for peace all these years the idea of two States and two peoples has created problems. It is as though someone had said after the Oslo Agreement, “Well, we haven’t managed with one, we will have to have two”, and that had led somehow to a separation in rights and standards. It is not a question of waiting for an end to the conflict, but of understanding that today we are working to do what we can on the issue of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. That means helping with the bricklayers who can help the architects, who can work on a more ambitious building – that of peace. That might seem a little too modest to some of you, but it is an important task. We have the right experience, the means and the competence to do undertake it.

      I will draw my introductory remarks to a close to leave time for discussion. The resolution introduces simple and perhaps banal words, but they are new words. We talk not only about two States, but two democratic and pluralistic States. That is the only way, for example, that we can think about the issue of settlements. Years ago, an Israeli writer told me that it took 40 000 Israeli soldiers to move 9 000 settlers. How many will it take to move 600 000 settlers from the many hundreds of settlements that exist today? How do we go about that? The problem will be solved only if we come up with other solutions. Obviously, there could be a swap with neighbouring land or a financial incentive. However, we believe that two States means that there will still be an Arab minority in Israel and a Jewish minority in a Palestinian State. The minorities should be able to live in safety, as guaranteed by the international community. We hope that the situation will then gradually return to normality.

The question, therefore, is not just one of separation, because there is also the problem of co-existence. As I have said, the solution should be two States, but they are condemned to live together and to live closely side by side. We cannot separate everything. We must bear it in mind that living closely together must be part of those States’ policies. If we cannot have co-existence, we cannot have peace. We can make a contribution. I am not basking in my own glory, but the report includes something new that will help us, and perhaps we can help it to grow.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Marcenaro. You will have around three minutes or perhaps a little more if we have enough time at the end of the debate. I now call Ms Fiala, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms FIALA (Switzerland)* – The situation in the Near East is serious, complex and depressing. Drafting a neutral and objective report is quite an achievement. The report is not about pointing the finger of blame but focuses on the core business of the Council of Europe in the context of the Middle East. The rapporteur has achieved that. We in ALDE thank him very much for the wonderful job of work he has done.

Since 2010, the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians has unfortunately not made further headway. A reconciliation has not taken place, and at the same time, the overall position in the region has become worse. I do not need to go over all the details of what has occurred, but the civil war in Syria has triggered one of the most serious humanitarian crises we in Europe have witnessed over the years and thrown up a number of major challenges, such as dealing with the refugees in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. A Council of Europe delegation visited the largest Jordanian refugee camps and saw with our own eyes just how difficult it is for Jordan to come to terms with the situation, and how much effort it is making. We thank all States that are directly or indirectly playing a part in trying to stabilise matters.

ALDE supports the rapporteur in his call in the report for the Israelis and Palestinians to make efforts. Both sides have work to do in respect of paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2. The latter is on Palestinian forces. To resolve the conflict, the Israelis need to take fully on board minorities, set free a large number of prisoners and stop the settlements. On the Palestinian side, reconciliation must be continued with Hamas, presidential elections should be organised, and anti-Semitic rhetoric and suicide bombers should be stopped.

It is impossible to cover everything in a report on the area in only three minutes, but ALDE endorses the draft resolution and the decisions and recommendations in the report. We thank the rapporteur very much indeed for his work.

THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Clappison, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – I, too, congratulate the rapporteur on his report and the hard work he has put into it. Like Ms Fiala, I take this opportunity to mention the situation in Syria. An outside observer might find it strange that we debating a report on the Middle East but concentrating almost exclusively on the situation between Israel and Palestinians when, only a short distance away, a civil war is raging in which tens of thousands of lives are being lost. The rapporteur looked at the situation in the Middle East in terms of Israel and Palestine, but the situation in Syria has not exactly improved. Among many other things, I am concerned by the dire, existential plight of the Syrian Christian community, which is under threat from extremists. I echo Ms Fiala’s comments in that respect.

The Israeli-Palestinian situation requires above all a balanced approach and one that recognises the legitimate interests of both sides. We need to support the international community as it tries to clear away the obstacles to full and frank negotiations. Some of the obstacles are identified in the report. Only through full and frank negotiations in which the legitimate expectations and aspirations of both sides are realised – all the issues need to be on the table, without preconditions – can we reach the comprehensive settlement required.

I congratulate the rapporteur on recognising some of the obstacles to such full and frank negotiations. In particular, we must recognise the obstacle of the division on the Palestinian side between Fatah and Hamas, which is dealt with well in paragraph 40. We must have a comprehensive settlement and a whole peace – there is no such thing as half a peace. No electorate on earth would accept as a comprehensive peace one in which a part of one side has negotiated and found a solution but where a large part of that side has not entered negotiations, has refused to recognise the right of the State to exist and has continued to fire rockets over the border. That must be resolved.

We need to see more signs of movement from Hamas towards the position of the international community and engaging in peaceful negotiations than we have yet seen. As the rapporteur said, a big effort to promote peace is under way, led by Secretary Kerry. Everybody knows what the potential solution is, and I urge the Assembly to throw its weight behind that effort so that we, Secretary Kerry and the rest of the international community can achieve an internationally agreed, comprehensive solution that does justice to both sides.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Kox, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I give the congratulations of the UEL to Pietro Marcenaro on his excellent final report to the Assembly. It shows that the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe really want to be involved in helping to find solutions to the main problems in the Middle East, which of course are the civil war in Syria and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like the rapporteur, I will concentrate on the latter, but on the civil war in Syria, we urge all parties to do their utmost to promote negotiations and not to send even more arms to the area. There are too many arms there and too few people who are really interested in negotiations, which we know will be the only solution to the conflict.

      With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, my group believes that for a sustainable solution to be found, the illegal occupation and colonisation of Palestine by Israel must end. That is at the heart of the matter, as is recognised in all international resolutions. We call upon Israel to live by its international obligations, partly because it is obliged to do so but also because that would offer Israel the chance of a prosperous and peaceful future. When Israel ends its illegal occupation and colonisation of Palestine, a peace agreement with not only Palestine but all the member States of the Arab League may be around the corner. An area that is now seen as a problem could then develop itself into one of opportunity. The opportunities for the Middle East are vast, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dominates every other conflict in the area. We therefore call upon Israel to end its stubborn position of not negotiating with Palestine and to respect its international obligations. We also call upon its allies to help developments in that direction, which are in Israel’s own interests, and upon Palestine and its allies to do their utmost to make negotiations possible. The Palestinians recognise that the only way out of the problem is negotiations and a sustainable peace with Israel, and that is what I urge on behalf of my group.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Bakoyannis, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – I congratulate Mr Marcenaro on producing an objective report, which was a difficult task. The situation in the Middle East has shown no visible progress, and in fact several signs of deterioration, since the two latest resolutions were published in 2010. Jordan is flooded with Syrian refugees whose situation is a human catastrophe, as Ms Fiala said.

Trust in the two-State solution is eroding among both Palestinians and Israelis, particularly since the halting of negotiations, and settlements continue to spread in the West Bank. The persistence of the problem will make it difficult to make the two States’ population and citizenship distinctive in future. As mingling continues, members of one people establish themselves in the territory of the other, which becomes humanly and economically irreversible. Finally, there are the persisting intra-Palestinian divisions and confusing signs from Israel on both its general will for a solution and practical measures on the ground to improve the situation.

What is strangely missing from the report’s conclusions is a reference to how the Jewish-Palestinian problem is related to the general aggravation of problems in the Middle East following the popular revolutions or uprisings of the Arab Spring. I expect we all agree with the report’s recommendation that the Council of Europe should continue to encourage confidence-building measures, particularly between the Knesset and the Palestinian National Council, and increase our contacts with the other parliaments in the region. We also agree that the issue of human and democratic standards – respect for human rights, the rule of law and so on – should be raised to the same level as purely political issues. However, I wish to add something to what the report says, which is about the situation of Christians in the whole Arab world.

The situation is difficult. Christian populations that have lived in the region for thousands of years are being persecuted and thrown out, and the slogans that are used and the reality on the ground are worrying. As I said yesterday to members of my party, I have made many speeches about the rights of Muslim minorities, but this is the first speech that I have made about the rights of Christian minorities. The Council of Europe should send a clear message that what is happening to those minorities in the whole Arab world, including in Egypt and at the moment particularly in Syria – I am not just talking about the kidnapping of the two bishops – is unacceptable. The Russian, French and Greek delegations, and I hope some others, will table a motion on the subject, and I ask you to sign it, because the Parliamentary Assembly should discuss the issue as soon as possible.

THE PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Durrieu, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I thank our rapporteur, Pietro, for his last report to the Assembly. The situation in the Middle East has not improved, and we must ask a number of questions about how to avoid the tragic end in Syria that has been mentioned and how to open the path towards dialogue.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has lasted 60 years. Once the principle of Israel’s existence and security has been established, does that authorise it to transgress on all possible rights and to continue its policy of occupation and the expansion of settlements on Palestinian land? The answer is no. We are at an impasse, which has become the status quo. The status quo is a strategy in itself – nothing moves, even though there is a new Government of Israel, a new Prime Minister of Palestine and a new President of the United States. We must also mention the rebellion in Syria and changes in Iran.

I do not want the statement that Israel wants negotiations without peace while the Palestinians want peace without negotiations to be true. There is a future – two democratic and pluralist States. The Socialist Group supports the relaunch of direct negotiations and Secretary Kerry’s efforts, and we would welcome a responsible approach by both parties, including a freeze on settlements and an attempt by the Palestinians to engage with international forums on the issue. We want peace for everyone, including between Israel and all the Arab States.

THE PRESIDENT* – I remind members that the vote is in progress to elect two judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The poll will close at 1 p.m., and will reopen during the afternoon sitting. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s Chair.

      Ms POSTANJYAN (Armenia) – War in Syria challenges not only the Armenian diaspora but all Christians in the Middle East. For about 70 000 Armenians living in Syria, survival is an effort rooted in history. To understand the wish of the Armenian community to remain in Syria, even though they are caught in the cross-fire of civil war, we must go back nearly a century. Long before the fighting began more than two years ago, Armenians settled in Syria after being driven out of Western Armenia and Cilicia, which then were occupied by Turkey, during the genocide of 1915. Destitute and sick, the Christians were welcomed by the Syrians – who were mostly Arabs – and they flourished, especially in Aleppo, a city close to the Turkish border that has been hit hard by war between rebel forces and the government.

      While the war is going on, we must make all efforts to allow that community to survive. Although many Armenians may feel indebted to Syria as a country that welcomed them when they were at their lowest point, thousands continue to flee amid increasing kidnappings and reported damage to homes and churches. Even an Armenian genocide memorial has been ransacked. Humanitarian aid is the primary goal, and there is also a deeper desire to prevent an Armenian community with historical significance from completely disintegrating. The dwindling of the Armenian community in Syria will have a detrimental, long-term impact on the cultural heritage of Christians in the Middle East as a whole but efforts to preserve the Armenian diaspora in Syria are increasingly difficult as fighting continues to rage, especially in Aleppo, which claims the largest Armenian population.

      It is important that the Armenian people remain in Syria, but if that is impossible, Armenians have no place to retreat to in their homeland cradle of Western Armenia, including Cilicia, which is currently Turkish territory. Estimates vary, but before the conflict began there were about 70 000 Armenians in Syria, 70% of them in Aleppo. Syria’s 22.5 million people are 90% Arab, with Kurds, Armenians and others making up the rest of the population. Our stability is gone in Syria. Individual and collective rights to self-defence would be the main way for the Armenian people to return to their homeland in Western Armenia and Cilicia.

      Mr FRÉCON (France)* – I commend the excellent report submitted by our colleague, Pietro Marcenaro. It covers complex territories and says that there are two peoples and therefore two States. Once recognition of the Palestinian State has finally been achieved, it is clear that only democracy and pluralism will guarantee sustainable co-existence for both entities. Let us never forget that only by consolidating our democracies in the wake of the Second World War was peace finally able to reign over our continent. Therefore, in light of our experiences we must support the current process in the Middle East, which is being carried out under the auspices of the United States. Let us be in no doubt: our position goes hand in hand with that of the American Secretary of State, John Kerry. It is of paramount importance that the dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which has been at a standstill since September 2010, is resumed, but that new departure can happen only if all provocation is stopped from both sides. I am thinking particularly of the announcement about the resumption of settlements on the West Bank, which has been met with responses from the other side.

      We must contact both governments and envisage with them true co-operation that promotes democracy and human rights. We already have instruments along those lines—I think in particular of the Partnership for Democracy that we have granted. Since we have opened that up to the Palestinian National Council, why should we not extend it to the Knesset, which already has the status of observer in our Assembly? It is important to submit to both States a real road map for democracy, human rights and the rule of law that should be able to embed democratic culture within the fledgling Palestinian State, and also put a stop to arbitrary arrests and consolidate the rights of the Arab minority in Israel.

      The ties we have been forging since the Arab Spring with a number of States in that region should play a part in promoting such work. As the rapporteur underlined, the interest represented by Jordan for such structures is an undeniable opportunity. Along those lines it is also important to accompany Egypt, whose responsibility in the region is clear to us all. Once again, unless there is full and total democracy in Egypt, the fear is that prospects for sustainable peace in the region will be fragile. In conclusion, I underline the urgency of coming up with a political response to the civil war in Syria. Within a traditional secular country the desire of the Syrian people for freedom must be emboldened, and that should be helped by resuming dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians.

      Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – Once again, we must consider the state of relations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority. That is completely normal while the evolution of this painful conflict conditions security and peace in the Middle East, and while our available information makes us sensitive to all forms of violence, which have terrible consequences for the lives of the populations involved in those confrontations. At the same time, we must conclude that, sadly, the situation is barely changing in the field, and it is not moving in the right direction. The building of Israeli settlements in the newly occupied territories is continuing, and the wall is a terrible sign of the separation of land and people, and seems more unshakeable than ever. Despite pressure from the United States and the international community in general, negotiations are not making any significant progress.

      What can our Parliamentary Assembly contribute to the peace effort? In describing possible action, our rapporteur mentioned one approach that attracted my attention. He writes that the Assembly must concentrate on the prime mission of the Council of Europe, which is to evaluate and promote the principles of democracy, “rather than limiting itself to the political aspects of the peace process.” One might think that as long as those political aspects have not been addressed, the task of evaluation to which Mr Marcenaro alludes remains purely academic. However, without concentrating on a deadline, it remains possible to maintain the conditions for dialogue and mutual understanding on a greater level between the two parties. In that vein, I welcome the admission of the Palestinian National Authority to different international organisations, and particularly its recognition as a United Nations observer State, so as to build dialogue. Indeed, we must give each party involved a status that allows such dialogue to take place, so that questions can be put and recommendations made, such as those in the report that emphasised some questionable behaviour by Hamas in Gaza.

Given the way that our Parliamentary Assembly works, we should allow those bodies that can do so to have the means to discuss and exchange ideas, and that is the approach of our rapporteur. We must maintain the possibility for dialogue with our partners, to whom equal dignity must be accorded and to whom we must give equal respect and consideration. That goal is true to the founding principles of the Council of Europe, and I conclude by thanking and congratulating our rapporteur.

      Ms GORYACHEVA (Russian Federation)* – The more than urgent theme of the Middle East has been unjustifiably narrowed in the draft resolution, reduced to just the problem of Israel and Palestine. Where is the analysis of the consequences of the Arab Spring, so welcomed by the West? Why the total silence on the tragedy of dismembered Iraq, war-torn Lebanon, unstable Egypt – now joined by Turkey – and Syria, bleeding to death? Were these consequences sought by those who welcomed the conflicts as they exploded?

      As we now know from the press, back in 2003 a plan was developed in the United States to reorganise the Middle East through regime change and by moving the borders. How was it done? That is obvious: in the target countries, those responsible sought out the disaffected, especially the young – we now know what is possible, given the latest scandals involving world–wide monitoring of the Internet. The radicals are furnished with money, drugs and weapons. Trained terrorists are parachuted in from other countries. The developed countries’ media feed in information as needed and there is open or covert military support. Is that not how it was in Iraq, Lebanon and now Syria?

      In Syria, there are 60 000 dead and more than 1 million refugees. It is obvious that no country ever interfered with by the United States or Europe has seen the dawn of peace and democracy. Nobody has been answerable for the blood and suffering. Does anyone trust those we call the rebels? Recently in a film on Syria, we saw eyewitness accounts of how these dregs amuse themselves by slashing open the stomachs of pregnant women and playing football with the babies. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, 400 million of whom are in the Middle East. If the rest of the Muslims should want to take revenge, what can we expect in Europe and the USA?

      One last thing: of course there is the right to hold meetings and make speeches about democracy, but – I am sorry to be so frank – no one has the right to whip up civil war.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Sabella from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine) – At a time when some are attempting to present a lop-sided view, where Israel is always a victim, and accordingly finding justifications for all its actions, irrespective of compliance with international law or otherwise, Mr Marcenaro’s report is to be especially lauded for its relentless insistence on finding an equilibrium that reflects the realities on the ground and for doing justice to the interests, concerns, fears and expectations of both sides.

      Our Palestinian people wish for Syria’s peace and stability through an agreed political process that returns the country to normalcy. We hope that the Geneva conference called for by Russia and the United States will work out. I thank those who are concerned for Christians in Syria. There are close to 2 million Christians in Syria, of whom 200 000 are internally displaced, according to Patriarch Laham of the Greek Catholic Church of Syria. Like most other Syrians, Syrian Christians wish for a peaceful transition to democracy and normalcy in their troubled country. We Palestinians support this as well.

      There are more than 500 000 Syrian refugees in Jordan, which puts enormous social, economic, education, health and other pressures on the Jordanian system. I laud the support showed by President François Hollande on his recent visit to Jordan, when he called for Jordan to be supported in its efforts at rehabilitating Syrian refugees. At present there are also more than 60 000 Palestinian refugees from Syria in Lebanon and UNRWA – United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East – cannot support them.

Given this context, it is important that the Council of Europe adopt Mr Marcenaro’s report, which reflects not only his wisdom, but the more engulfing concern of your august Assembly to create the necessary conditions to promote peace, security and good neighbourliness between Israelis and Palestinians with the implementation of the two-State solution.

      Ms SCHUSTER (Germany)* – I express my deepest thanks to the rapporteur for his objective report. Mr Marcenaro is unfortunately leaving the Assembly. I wish him all the best for the future and thank him for his hard work. He is a colleague we will miss.

      I am not sure how many times we have discussed the situation in the Middle East in the Council of Europe or in our parliaments at the national and international levels. We all favour a two-State solution. I remember my very first trip, when I met an NGO called Peace Now, which was founded in 1978, yet what we do not yet have in the Middle East is peace now. The report that Mr Marcenaro has submitted is vital. In light of the difficult situation, we should not despair but redouble our efforts.

      The region is in a difficult situation. As my colleague Ms Fiala mentioned, the civil war in Syria is very grave. We have thousands and thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of refugees. The internally displaced persons are looking for safe refuge and shelter. Neighbouring States are doing everything they can to welcome the refugees. Let me take this opportunity to thank them very much for the willingness they are showing. We in Europe should do more to take on the refugees. This is a humanitarian crisis. I therefore appeal to you all to bear in mind what we are deciding on today, and to take this message back home and communicate it clearly to the outside world.

The Arab Spring now seems to be having unclear consequences. We were clear at the beginning that it would not be a linear process towards democracy, but we are very concerned by some recent developments, including in Egypt. In Germany we were very shocked following a judgment against employees of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, which has been operating for years. They were sentenced to years of imprisonment. This is a worrying turn of events, which raises concerns for civil society. We have to do everything we can to ensure that the convictions are quashed.

It is almost impossible to set out a clear position in three minutes. We want a peaceful two-State solution. Mr Marcenaro has made a number of recommendations to both States. I thank him for his work and would like us wholeheartedly to endorse the report.

      Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – I would like to use the report presented to us by Pietro Marcenaro to bring your attention to the immediate danger of violence spilling over beyond Syria to other countries of the region. If that happens, it could complicate even more the solution of the Israeli–Palestinian crisis, which is already extremely complicated.

      Initially, the rebels in Syria had an image of being freedom fighters, but I am afraid that since then there has been a lot of water under the bridge and that image has changed. It is clear that the majority of the rebels are not concerned about democracy and freedom in Syria. A lot of foreigners and mercenaries are fighting alongside the rebels, and their goal is to establish an Islamist State in Syria. They are waging this war under the most radical slogans: they promise to send all the Alawites to the cemetery and chase all the Christians to Beirut. There is a danger of a spill-over into Iraq. In May, 1 000 people were killed in Iraq, mostly Shias, as a result of terrorist acts conducted by the same forces that are fighting against Assad’s government in Syria. The slogan of some of the Syrian rebels is, “First Damascus, then Baghdad”.

This is a very serious development. A radical Islamist wave is spreading across the region, consciously supported by a number of countries. There is a danger of shattering the precarious situation in Lebanon, while stability in Jordan is also endangered. As you may know, Qatar has already spent $3 billion on supporting the radical Islamist rebels, and Saudi Arabia spends comparable sums. It is clear that no progress can be achieved between Israel and the Palestinians without first finding a way out of the Syrian crisis. For that reason, we think that the decision to arm the rebels is another investment in violence. It is clear that nothing will happen between Israel and the Palestinians before there is some kind of resolution in Syria. There is no option other than the peace conference, but the decision to arm the rebels is subverting the conference because it sends them the wrong signal. The signal is, “Fight, and we will assist you in that fight.” We think that the prospects of the conference are being endangered by that decision.

I stress the importance of the motion for resolution on the defence of the Christian population in Syria, and I fully support the message that was delivered earlier by Ms Bakoyannis.

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

Mr FOURNIER (France)* – I commend the excellent report from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which rightly places the affirmation of democratic values within the two States as the necessary precondition for lasting peaceful co-existence between Israel and Palestine. I would go further. The region as a whole should of itself create a space for the values that we defend. In this respect, the Arab Spring has not borne the fruits that had been hoped for. Even if Egypt is learning democracy painfully and timid reforms have seen the light of day in Jordan, we are all aware of the extreme difficulties faced by Syria and the uncertain future still before Lebanon. We have no illusions; if political stability and the rule of law make no progress in these four countries, any attempts to normalise relations between Israel and Palestine will be in vain, even if those two countries have full respect for democracy and pluralism.

The success of Bashar al-Assad’s army at the beginning of June is symbolic. Now that it has retaken the town of Qusair and is attacking rebel forces in Quneitra, it is once more at the Golan Heights, at Israel’s frontier. As we know, no military escalation in the region has ever been a positive factor that might lead back to the negotiating table and the peace process, nor has it ever contributed to the easing of tension advocated by our colleague Pietro Marcenaro in his report when he stresses the necessity of putting an end to arbitrary arrests. A State that is at war is always less conscientious about basic liberties, especially when we see the idea developed that an external enemy is being abetted by a fifth column inside the country.

The American attempt to relaunch negotiations between the Jewish State and the Palestinian Authority is bound to come up against the challenge of this regional instability. Unfortunately, religious radicalism is on the rise, be it in a country at war such as Syria or a State at peace like Egypt. The Arab Spring, as certain experts feared, has been a destabilising factor for Israel, forcing it into even greater vigilance. The history of our own continent shows us that all “springs” lived through by people tend in the end to lead to democracy, but the period of transition is fraught with danger for the Jewish State and could well lead to a retrenching of positions. Our Organisation should be a forum that allows the European participants in the Geneva II conference to find a modus vivendi that would allow a political solution to the terrible war that is ravaging Syria and indirectly destabilising the region. Without such an initiative, I fear that the conflict between Israel and Palestine will be stuck at an impasse.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – I have three main points. The first is an expression used by Pietro Marcenaro in his address: “Security is not an absolute value.” It is important to recall that when we have seen this week how some States can act at times, even those that we admire. In my case, I admire the United Kingdom and the United States of America, which have never co-existed with or tolerated fascism or Nazism. In spite of that admiration, though, let us recall that claims of national defence or security are not sufficient for the use of instruments that spy on millions of other people. No law, and no value, is absolute. We have to underline that security is not an absolute value when it runs up against other fundamental values, which is the case for freedom or privacy.

The second point is the phrase that our dear friend Pietro shared with us, “Due stati democratici e pluralisti”. This is important because for decades we have emphasised a two-State solution, and it is important because the two States have to be democratic, so power can be legitimised only through the ballot box, and pluralistic. That is, we have to admit that there must be a diversity of religions, ethnic groups and races. It is not a kind of biblical curse; rather, there is a wealth that we should be sharing.

Thirdly, it is important to emphasise the role of parliamentarians, not simply in repeating what brings us together and what these States are doing but in working together to help, with just two tools: words and good examples. We need to work together as parliamentarians to emphasise democracy and the rule of law, to think about our different aspects here and in our countries of origin and to close ranks to support this process. I congratulate the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, and one way to help the people who live in this region is by supporting this report. I thank our dear friend Pietro Marcenaro because his patience, his wisdom and his spirit of consensus have moved us in this Assembly.

      Ms OSBORNE (United Kingdom) – I add my congratulations to Mr Marcenaro on his report. It is obviously important that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy continues to monitor and contribute to the development of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in line with the aspirations of the many peoples of the Middle East who currently lack those fundamental freedoms. As paragraph 5 of the draft resolution implies, until now, western democracies have happily relied on dictators to provide stability in the region, thereby protecting their national interests. That is no longer an option, and we have a moral obligation to respond to the overwhelming humanitarian needs.

      A report by the Palestinian Return Centre and the Council for European Palestinian Relations raised the matter of the Palestinian refugees from Syria who are among those fleeing the violence of the civil war and are going to Lebanon. Almost 500 000 refugees are already registered in Lebanon with UNRWA. That is a result of the failure to achieve a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The irony is that those refugees are now providing refuge themselves. Lebanon is generously keeping its borders open, but UNRWA desperately needs additional funds to cope with the humanitarian crisis resulting from new Palestinian refugees entering the country. It is estimated that there will be 80 000 of them by the end of the year.

      The report is detailed and balanced when it comes to the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is certainly true that there are two equally legitimate aspirations, but there is not a level playing field in terms of power or international law. Having visited the area on numerous occasions recently, I can well understand those who are pessimistic about a two-State solution being achieved, or about whether there is a genuine interest in pursuing it, in the light of ever more settlements, the blatant denial of human rights, the lack of progress on national reconciliation with the Palestinians, and the failure of the international community to take effective action.        Only last week, the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary ruled out taking action against trade with illegal Israeli settlements. However, the only chance of progress is for European Union governments to exert economic pressure on Israel to reinstate the freeze on settlement building.

      The continued insistence that the Palestinians should give ground, getting nothing in return, undermines the president’s authority and plays into the hands of those who pursue violence. It is obviously essential that the Sub-Committee on the Middle East continues its important work, and I very much support the report.

Mr REIMANN (Switzerland)⃰ – I am on the Sub-Committee on the Middle East, which was in the region in April, as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the draft resolution, and some things went wrong on that visit. Out of courtesy, the report does not allude to them, so I shall take this opportunity to comment on that.

At the outset, let me say that I largely support this positive and useful report. It is balanced and clearly mentions the positives and negatives on both sides. It is a sound foundation from which to try to move closer to a solution after 60 years, but I am not very optimistic that we will manage to do that, because both sides are too intransigent, and sadly it seems clear that this may remain just a pious initiative.

Let me turn to our journey, which was not completely successful. First, from the point of view of respecting our taxpayers and the costs that they have to bear, it was not right for us to go twice to the Middle East in just four weeks, first to Palestine and later to Israel. I do not know who is responsible for that unfortunate planning; I am sure that Jerusalem and Strasbourg will try to pass the buck. Secondly, I did say that I wanted to meet both sides, including Hamas, but I was told that it was not possible for security reasons, which is incredible. Palestine is divided, and not just geographically by Israel. If the Council of Europe really wants to form an opinion on the situation on the ground, it is not sufficient to hold talks in Ramallah. If Hamas is to be part of the Partnership for Democracy in the Council of Europe but cannot guarantee our safety when we are in the region, I have to question its ability to lead a State. Thirdly, two Moroccan members of our delegation were refused entry to Israel, and that is an act of discourtesy to this Assembly, because Morocco is a Partnership for Democracy country. We should not take that lying down, even if Israel claims that certain visa formalities were not completely complied with.

Mr FETISOV (Russian Federation) – We, along with the rest of the world, are watching the terrible fire that is spreading across Syria. We are greatly concerned by the development of the crisis, which is turning into a religious and ethnic conflict. Our colleague Ms Bakoyannis mentioned the unresolved kidnapping of two Christian bishops near Aleppo. That shows that representatives of religious minorities, and particularly the old Christian community, are being targeted in Syria. That is a big concern for us, especially in light of the systematic targeting of Christians that took place in Iraq.

Furthermore, the recent Shia-Sunni fighting may inflame sectarian wars involving Muslim communities across the Middle East, Europe and Russia. A scary example can be found in Pakistan, where sectarian killings have placed a terrible burden on the nation. The Middle East is populated by many religious and ethnic groups, so when peaceful co-existence suffers a blow, the results are devastating. History books are full of similar sad examples.

Today, we hear of many foreign fighters, both Sunni and Shia, going to Syria to kill in the name of God, believing that that is their way to heaven. The Syrian situation has all the hallmarks of becoming fertile ground for a long, bloody conflict, involving the entire region and easily reaching the shores of Europe, the lands of central Asia, and Russia.

Europe has come a long way, and has set an example of ethnic and religious tolerance. It cannot turn a blind eye to a religious and ethnic conflict in Syria. Europe has a historical and moral responsibility to protect ethnic and religious minorities in Syria. We are preparing a motion for a resolution, together with the Greek delegation, on protecting ethnic minorities in the Middle East, and especially in Syria, and I ask friends who are present to support that initiative. Liberty has to be protected for all of us. In closing, allow me to quote Gandhi: “Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.”

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – I am very fond of the popular Arabic saying, “The camel has its plans, and the herder has different ones.” That reflects perfectly the contradictions and interests that often divide people, States and politicians. We have witnessed many dramatic situations of that sort in the Middle East in the last century, particularly since the United Nations General Assembly resolutions of 1947 on the division of the British-mandated territory of Palestine, and the setting up of two independent States. I welcome Mr Marcenaro’s report, which is concise but realistic and wide-ranging. I support his conclusion that we must promote dialogue and build confidence between representatives of the Knesset and Palestinian Legislative Council, and that we must increase efforts to establish contact with other parliaments in the region, especially in Jordan and Egypt. I was fortunate enough to be able to participate in both of the recent visits by the Sub-Committee on the Middle East to Jordan and Palestine and to Israel. Those visits were extremely interesting, although it would have been better to have had them jointly, as was the case years ago.

We have heard several optimistic messages from King Abdullah, President Abbas in Ramallah and some Israel politicians, but that is not enough. In the past, Nobel prize winners have reached peaceful agreements in the region, but no breakthrough has followed. Three problems still need to be solved: approval of the “two States for two peoples” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the 1967 borders, the future of Jerusalem and the issue of Palestinian refugees. Today, the main bone of contention seems to be the rapid development of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Many factors have an impact on a possible solution, including the tragic civil war in Syria where different Lebanese factions support the government or the rebel forces, the deterioration of the situation in Egypt, concerns about Iranian policy, divisions inside the new Israeli ruling coalition and the split between Fatah and Hamas.

What alternatives might there be if the Obama administration’s efforts to restart negotiations fail? There is a Chinese proverb about two people sleeping in one bed but having different dreams. I still believe in a positive scenario, in which Palestinians and Israelis live together and have common goals. We saw such an exemplary situation in Hadassah medical centre in Jerusalem, where Palestinian children with serious heart conditions undergo surgery in Israel. That should be a model for others.

Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – We are witnessing an enormous change in the Middle East. It goes far beyond the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, under which the Turkish Empire was divided between Britain and France. The internationalisation of the conflict in Syria gives space to Iran and Hezbollah, and on the Sunni side to the Arab States and to organisations such as Jabhat al-Nusra, a friend to al-Qaeda. The clash is terrible, and the huge number of refugees who are invading Turkey and Jordan may completely change the balance of power in those States. Nowadays, our main issues in such States are humanitarian ones, and we must strictly guard human rights from the continuous violations that are taking place everywhere, with people being slaughtered and subjected to all kinds of violations.

      Turning to Mr Marcenaro’s point of view on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I believe that it is a good idea to emphasise the democratic and pluralistic aim of two States for two peoples, because it underlines Israel’s serious and appreciable will to maintain a flourishing democracy during so many years of conflict. The situation is not the same for both sides. On his visit to Israel next week, Secretary of State Kerry will seek to get both sides to negotiate without preconditions, because since 1993, preconditions have not helped. The situation has changed, and we have to look for new ways to solve it, which should involve not preconditions but a mutual will to sit together and discuss the matter. In my opinion, the aim should not be a final agreement, because a final agreement has never been achieved. We need to look for different sorts of agreements instead.

      The “two States for two people” formula is a basic one, and it must never be refused. I have heard some people say that we should speak only of two States, without naming the two peoples. That may emphasise the refusal to recognise the presence of a State for the Jewish people in the region, which has negative implications for the future of the peace process.

      Mr LIKHACHEV (Russian Federation)* – When responsible and thoughtful people think about the current global situation, they ask why there is so much fluctuation, conflict and contradiction. It is obvious that certain political forces have an interest in creating division along ethnic, religious and political lines. Some favour an unfettered arms race and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and some support the illegal drug trade and terrorists. We must keep that reality in mind, and the Council of Europe must conduct an analysis and adopt a clear, principled position. Europe is capable of developing its own position and taking action in this world full of contradiction and conflict.

      The peace process in the Middle East should be based on the inviolable principle of security, and the right of both Israel and Palestine to exist. The principle of security should also apply to the building of a Palestinian State. Human rights and liberties, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, must be protected. The strong statements made in this Chamber must be translated into action, so the Council of Europe must develop a road map, which could be amended as necessary depending on how the situation evolves. Certain issues require particular attention. First, when we consider whether the international community has been effective in the peace process, we must note there are many actors in this arena but the links between them are weak. We must bolster communication between the Quartet, the United Nations, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and other actors. Secondly, a progressive codification of international law is being threatened by political forces that are spreading international legal nihilism. Based on this excellent report, I believe the Council of Europe can become a major player in regulating such issues.

      THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Khader from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr KHADER (Palestine) – I congratulate Mr Marcenaro on his excellent and objective report. He has brilliantly shown that to be balanced and objective does not mean to be neutral, but rather to uphold the principles of international law and to judge issues accordingly. That position reflects the spirit of the Council of Europe, which is based on the pillars of the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Many colleagues have referred to the deterioration that we have witnessed as a result of the impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The main reason for the impasse is the Israeli Government’s continuing disregard for its obligations pursuant to the United Nations resolutions, including the Quartet road map. Senior ministers and leaders of coalition parties in the government have openly voiced their flat rejection of the two-State solution and their avowed intention to obstruct all efforts to relaunch the peace process based on that principle.

The international community has been called upon to act more effectively and creatively to end Israeli intransigence by activating the provisions and instruments of international law. This will prove to be the only way out of a prolonged impasse which threatens to lead to the eruption of a new cycle of violence. Europe can play a key role in that process. Mr Marcenaro’s report outlines the specific steps that could activate that role.

THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker on the list is Mr Kamiński from Poland, but I do not see him, so I call Ms Arpine Hovhannisyan.

Ms A. HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – I congratulate Mr Marcenaro on his objective and balanced report. The recent developments in the Middle East send an alarming signal that the Arab Spring has turned into a regional winter that might become a world winter. The revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have failed in their goals and the one in Syria has succeeded only in destroying the country and its people.

In the Middle East, where a certain mentality prevails, it is impossible to draw dividing lines between the comrades-in-arms. If the al-Nusra Front is fighting alongside the so-called moderate Free Syrian Army, it would be a mistake to assume that the aid directed to the FSA will stay in the FSA's hands. By helping the rebels, and defeating the regime, we will open the door to revenge massacres, a true genocide of the Alawites and other minorities—Christian Arab, Assyrian, Druze and of course Armenian.

It is indeed a sectarian war and not a conflict for democracy or freedom. The Sunni uprising against the rule of a Shia minority community, which is deeply non-religious and has successfully kept the country secular, has as its core agenda the creation of a Muslim caliphate. If Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are promoters of democracy and human rights, the definition of democracy itself shall be changed for good. The Saudis brutally oppressed the Shia uprising in neighbouring Bahrain and Turkey’s own people are in revolt in Taksim square.

Some of the pillars of the European civilisation are pushing for an intervention. But an intervention for what – another failed revolution, another failed State and another genocide that we will not be able to prevent or contain, like that of Armenians during the Ottoman empire, the Tutsis in Rwanda and black Africans in Darfur, Sudan?

If the price of a campaign to neutralise another regional power is a change to not only the political but the ethnic, religious and cultural map of the whole Middle East, we as the bearers of the western and Judeo-Christian culture are in deep trouble with our vision of reality and the values on which our countries are based. Indeed, the region where Christianity was born and that was once a dominant civilisation is becoming Christian-free. The huge Christian communities of Iraq of just a dozen years ago are now almost completely gone. In Egypt, the Copts and other Christians do not seem to enjoy the new life they have after the revolution. In Syria, the minority groups are looking with horror towards a future that undeniably will destroy their communities, their livelihoods and their lives. 

Is Sharia law and a Sunni majority the new democracy we envisage for the Middle East? Is the so-called democracy of one particular major community the democracy we know? What are the volunteers from Afghanistan, the Gulf States and Chechnya fighting for in Syria – for freedom, for diversity, for tolerance and human rights? They have all gathered under the black flag of a certain movement that is not just a group anymore. The vision they have is not the one we have fought for since the Second World War. It is not the one our fathers sacrificed their lives for – the one for democracy, for human rights and for tolerance. It is time to stop and to reflect now, before it is too late.

Mr HEER (Switzerland)* – I thank members for the report, which puts its finger on a number of important aspects in the Middle East. A democratically legitimate State must recognise the principles of the rule of law and democracy. You can always call on Israel to sign a peace settlement, but whom should Israel deal with? Should it be the Palestinians? Should it be Fatah? Should it be Hamas? They are fighting among themselves. Who should Israel sign an agreement with?

Syria is experiencing dreadful civil war, with tragic consequences. Given that situation, the position is very difficult. Ms Schuster mentioned the movement in Israel. A former minister has made a key contribution to the peace process. It has been clearly shown that the State of Israel is willing to move towards a peaceful solution if the conditions have been met and the partners are there.

In Egypt, a revolution has occurred, which has not yet been fully completed. We hope that the situation there will become more stable; we thought it was stable in the 1970s. Jordan and Egypt have been making progress. In some Arab States, the rule of law and democracy do not exist – they do not exist in Syria under Bashar al-Assad’s regime and they did not exist under its former leaders. Given that, the Council of Europe should advocate the rule of law in Arab States. That is the case for Palestine as well. On Hamas, attacks should cease. That is the core of the issue. I am convinced that Israel will be willing to sign a peace agreement if it has partners that respect the rule of law and are willing to sign a sustainable peace agreement.

Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I too thank the rapporteur for the work that has been done, but I do not think that the report reflects the situation as it stands in the Middle East. Unfortunately, there can be no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without tackling the Syrian crisis.

We used to have a romantic attitude to the Arab Spring, but now we see dozens of thousands of victims and hundreds of thousands of refugees. Terrorist groups are rising and have weapons. When we discussed the matter in this very forum several months ago, I said that if money is spent on giving weapons to terrorists, those weapons will end up being turned against the donors. The so-called opposition is not a real opposition; they are just terrorists from different countries who are fighting in Syria alongside people from Europe. When it is all over in Syria, those people will come back home to Europe. What do you think they will do when they arrive back? What do you think they will do with the weapons that all the radical Islamists have received from so many European countries? I think that they will continue the Jihad. They will continue it on the territory of Palestine and in European countries. Basically, we are laying the foundations for future terrorism.

The report should give more space to the problem of the Syrian conflict. Those European countries providing weapons to terrorist groups should stop doing so. Only then will the war in Syria stop and only then will we be able to move on to securing a peace settlement for the Middle East as a whole.

Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – In what seems to be his farewell contribution to our Assembly, our honourable colleague Pietro Marcenaro has presented us with an excellent, comprehensive and well-balanced report, which deliberates with wisdom and prudence the main questions in the complex situation in the Middle East. I join previous speakers in congratulating Mr Marcenaro and thanking him for his report and his effective participation over the past couple of years as Chair of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

The political problems of the Middle East are a continuous challenge for the international community and represent a serious burden for the populations of the area, who have for generations lacked the peace and stability they deserve.

As our rapporteur wisely points out, the relationship between Israel and Palestine is not the only problem in need of a fair and reasonable solution. The current crisis in Syria, the nuclear power threat of Iran, the fragility of Libya and Jordan, and the uncertain evolution of Egypt and Iraq all constitute a constellation of delicate problems that could deteriorate and cause a general conflict.

Given that it is not easy to solve every problem at the same time, the report focuses on the Israel-Palestine conflict and makes interesting observations and suggestions. There is an urgent need to bring all the parties involved to the negotiating table. That is the main purpose of the Quartet, but so far it has not succeeded in its mission.

Our Assembly, through the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and the Sub-Committee on the Middle East, chaired by our honourable colleague Josette Durrieu, is to be commended for its persistent efforts over many years to promote dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian parliamentarians.

Israel and Palestine are entitled to live together as two free, independent, democratic and pluralistic States and, as the draft resolution stresses, in peace and mutual and beneficial co-operation. Until a definitive solution can be achieved, those parties should take small steps in order to grant human rights to every person, whatever his or her ethnic origin or citizenship.

Today’s debate and the vote on the draft resolution submitted by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy are a new and strong appeal to dialogue and mutual understanding among the officials and people living in what used to be called the Holy Land.

THE PRESIDENT – Mr Phelan is not here, so I call Mr Salles.

Mr SALLES (France)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on his efforts. The subject of the Middle East is regularly on the agenda and the press devotes a lot of column space to it. It has to be placed in the context of Israeli-Palestinian relations.

I am surprised, however, that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has devoted less time to problems that are just as disquieting in the Middle East. The constant human rights violations in Syria and the deaths of more than 100 000 people have not mobilised the committee as much as the subject under discussion. Moreover, Iran’s nuclear weapons programme is a real threat, both to Israel and to the rest of the world, but it receives far less interest than relations between Israel and Palestine.

I also regret that the Assembly’s work, culminating in this report, has not left enough time to enable both of the parties concerned to provide an exhaustive reply. The report does not, therefore, fully capture the reality on the front line.

I also doubt the reasons behind the Assembly’s continuing to draw a parallel between the State of Israel and the Palestinian authorities. I remind the Assembly that Israel is the only democracy in the region. It is the only State governed by the rule of law and the only State that complies with human rights. Of course, criticisms can be made that such rights are not always applied in exactly the same way as they are in Europe, but how can we compare our situation with that of a State that is threatened by war and that has to put up with waves of terrorist attacks?

I endorse the efforts made to promote dialogue and to build a future based on peace in the Middle East, but I want a much more balanced approach to be taken.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* – I thank the rapporteur for the work that has gone into the report. My speech will be based on the sub-committee’s visit to Jordan, Palestine and Israel. I thank Ms Durrieu for presiding over the sub-committee.

I have four points. First, I remind Mr Salles that the Palestinian delegation is a Partner for Democracy. It comprises parliamentary representatives from Palestine and they do excellent work. Unfortunately, one of the delegates, Ms Jarrar, is unable to be present, because she has been refused the right to leave Palestine to come to Strasbourg. It is claimed that this member of Parliament is also a member of a terrorist organisation, but she has not been questioned or interrogated and has never been found guilty of any crime. We should appeal to the Israeli authorities to give her the right to be a part of our work and give her a visa.

Secondly, when we visited Israel I was very surprised to find that people, even within the government, had different views on the peace process. The speech given by Ms Tzipi Livni, the Minister of Justice who is leading the peace process negotiations, was very different from that of the deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. One cannot help wondering what the attitude of the Israeli Government really is when Ministers hold such different views.

Thirdly, I regret that we were not able to visit Gaza and that it was not made possible for us to meet Hamas officials. Had we met them, I think we would have had a better, more complete overview of the situation.

Fourthly, we visited the Za’atri refugee camp in Jordan, where there are more than 100 000 Syrians. It is 9 sq.km and we cannot remain indifferent to the tragedy that is taking place.

Finally, I personally thank Mr Marcenaro not just for the report, but for the extraordinary amount of work he has done over the past few years as rapporteur and as Chair of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. I thank him from the bottom of my heart, not just for his commitment to this Organisation, but for the way in which he has acted throughout the process. I cannot praise him too highly for that. Mille grazie, Pietro.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Brasseur. I am sure that we all share your sentiments towards Mr Marcenaro. I call Mr Aguzarov.

      Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation)* – The conflict between the armed opposition and the government forces of Syria, which has run uninterrupted since March 2011, has reached a point where either a new conference in Geneva provides good prospects for a solution, or significant changes must be made with consequences that are difficult to predict. It is difficult to assess the impact of actions such as the Israeli airstrike on Syria or the United States decision to supply weapons to the rebels.

      As President Putin has said more than once, Russia is worried that external interference in the Syrian conflict that leads to the ousting of the regime could result in civil war, which could then fuel further radicalism in the region. That is why the Russian position has always been to allow the Syrian authorities to determine how the government is shaped and how to ensure the legitimate rights of all the people living in Syria, and then, on the basis of those decisions, to make systemic changes.

      With regard to chemical weapons, the possibility that this topic could be used as a pretext to begin foreign intervention, or other kinds of interference in the Syrian conflict, was so high that even major European pundits did not ask the question that Foreign Minister Lavrov asked. He asked what reason the Assad regime would have to use chemical weapons when that would only give a pretext to his foreign enemies to trigger intervention.

      I am also worried that the Western countries did not react to information about chemical weapons being in the hands of the rebels. There was a special committee in the United Nations, and even Carla Del Ponte said that, based on the information she had, the rebels were possibly using sarin. These double standards do not enhance the reputation of the European Parliament. By the way, the authors of the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly were somewhat hasty when, in April last year, they demanded the end of the conflict, thinking that Assad’s regime was nearing its end. Well, the regime is still in power and the over-hasty call for Assad to be replaced was not very well thought out.

      Unlike countries that supply money and weapons to the rebels, Russia does not want to take a direct part in a civil war. We do not want to see women, children and old people killed or cities and ancient monuments destroyed. We are against such horrible crimes being committed.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – I would like to convey my sincere appreciation of the rapporteur's high quality work. The stalemate in negotiations between Israel and Palestine is still worsening the climate in Middle East. It is of the utmost importance, and our duty, to make every effort to keep open the channels of communication.

      Turkey has always supported a two-State solution that would create a State of Palestine on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, living in peace and security side by side with the State of Israel. We support all efforts for the revival of the peace process and expect our international partners to encourage parties to come back to the negotiation table. We hope that the recent visits by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry to the region will contribute to the revival of the peace process.

In an era of change and transformation in the Middle East caused by the Arab Spring, the Palestinian question has gained even more significance. Turkey remains a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause. Nevertheless, reconciliation within the Palestinian side is essential for the peace process and for the overall stability of the region. I am pleased to see growing co-ordination with all Palestinian factions recently.

On the other hand, Israel's settlement activities in the occupied areas are a serious obstacle to the resumption of the negotiations. The government should end all settlement activities once and for all and seriously commit itself to respect the established parameters, particularly on the 1967 borders. Above all, Israel must understand that stability and security can only be sustained through a just and comprehensive peace between the parties.

At a time when the world in general and the Middle East in particular are passing through an extremely critical period, Turkey attaches great importance to close dialogue and co-operation with all parties and the international community. We hope to see a positive reflection of our efforts, first and foremost on the Middle East peace process, and we set a great value upon achieving "two democratic and pluralist States".

THE PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. 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 to the Table Office in Room 1083 for publication in the Official Report.

I call Mr Marcenaro to reply. You have three minutes remaining.

(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Walter)

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The debate has reflected and shared the substance of my report. It seems that we do not look sufficiently at the regional picture, which has changed so profoundly. As I said, that is one element in all of this. We have looked at the context, but we are not discussing Syria. We said that when we talked about how institutions have changed over time, after the mission that was led by Mrs Durrieu, and about the issue of refugees.

Let me be frank, given that this is one of the last times that I will have the floor. I hear our friends and colleagues from Russia talk with such vehemence about Syria, but I have to say that much responsibility is borne by the major States for what is almost a parody of the Cold War. We see threats to use the veto, and we should think about all these things, especially as it is now more difficult to reach a solution than it was a few months ago.

I have heard many ironic allusions to the Arab Spring. Let me be ironic about those comments. If anyone thinks that stability can be entrusted to the old regimes that in the past guaranteed stability, they are barking up the wrong tree. The challenge of creating peace and stability in the Middle East means that in those countries that had an Arab Spring we need more democratic and advanced solutions, not the solutions that in the past guaranteed the existence of dictatorships and the rest, and to which we turned a blind eye. Yes, that is something we need to think about in a more general context as we try to face the situation square on and find points of agreement. Of course, we cannot evade that and must think about it carefully. I therefore continue to insist that that particular aspect is a problem when it comes to the autonomy and independence of States. The process will lead necessarily to separation, but how we organise co-existence is a problem. The Council of Europe can do something and has experience. It has its own history, competence and prestige. When it comes to human rights, we can do something when two States and two countries are involved. We need to remember that, despite all the problems, which have worsened over the years of stalemate, we can do something.

I repeat that the solution needs to be two separate, democratic and pluralistic States. I do not believe there is another desirable solution, and certainly not a realistic one. No one can impose a Palestinian State, and certainly not one in which there are so many hundreds of thousands of settlers. They cannot be chased away by force – no one can do that. We therefore need to find a solution based on consensus, and one that is pluralistic and democratic. We need to give the chance for Arabs to live in Israel and for Jews to live in a Palestinian State. If we manage that, we will have succeeded. We must ensure that they can live in safety. Let us not delude ourselves. We need to be aware of the options and to look at the details. Let us think along larger political lines.

If you will give me a couple more seconds, I want to say something before I finish. Our work is made possible only thanks to the secretariat, which has worked fantastically on the report as it has on all other issues. You are our greatest supporters and I must pay tribute to you. It is a source of delight to see our supporters, because they help us to formulate our ideas and think about how we can go about things, and how we can draw on the best of the history of this institution. If we try to separate our ideas from the rich history of this Assembly, we will go nowhere. We manage to build upon what we already have – our capital. Therefore, to João, Pavel, Despina, Silvia – it is easy for me to remember Silvia because it is an Italian name – and all of you, I thank you for all your work, kindness and the good wishes extended to me.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Marcenaro. I understand that you were in charge, but you are absolutely right about the services of the different committees. Certainly, any committee headed by someone of your calibre is grateful. We are all grateful to you for all the work you have done. I know you do not like compliments, but we thank you most sincerely. You are Chair of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. Does any of your vice-chairs wish to speak during the discussion to offer a response to any of the different speakers? If not, the debate is closed.

The committee has presented a draft resolution to which 30 amendments have been tabled. I believe there are sub-amendments and oral amendments too, which will make this a longer process.

      Before we take the amendments, I remind you that the voting for the judges is still under way. It will be completed at 1.00 p.m. but continue in the afternoon. At 6.00 p.m., it will be definitively completed, so if you have not voted, please do so now.

      The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches are limited to 30 seconds.

      We come to Amendment 25, tabled by Ms Gündeş Bakir, Mr Suleymanov, Mr Huseynov, Ms Erkal Kara and Mr Kayatürk, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 2 to insert the following words: “and Israel has carried out the operation ‘Pillar of Defense’ which killed many Palestinian civilians including children and women.”

I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment 25.

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Israel has continued to carry out military operations in which many civilians, including children and women, have lost their lives. That must be mentioned in order to portray a more accurate and balanced view of the situation. That is the aim of Amendment 25.

THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Marcenaro to speak against the amendment.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – I do not agree with the amendment. We could make a long list of the violence perpetrated over the years by different sides, but I have decided to present a report that is different in nature. That is why I am against the amendment. As has been mentioned, that is the also the opinion of the committee.

      THE PRESIDENT* – That is the question I was going to ask. The committee is against. The vote is open.

      Amendment 25 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, after the words “Concerned about recent acts of hostility of the Assad regime against Israel and other neighbouring countries,” to insert the following words: “and about the immense influx of weapons into the area, in open violation of UN Resolution 1701, forbidding the arming of Hezbollah,”.

      I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 2. She is not here. I call Mr Marcenaro to support the amendment. I have been informed that he wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the committee, as follows: in Amendment 2 to delete the words “in open violation of UN Resolution 1701, forbidding the arming of Hezbollah”.

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

Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Marcenaro.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The sub-amendment to the amendment was carried unanimously by the committee.

THE PRESIDENT* – You have supported Amendment 2 and proposed your oral sub-amendment to delete part of the wording.

Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

We know the opinion of the mover of the oral sub-amendment, who has also supported the amendment.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 2, as amended?

That is not the case.

We know that the committee is in favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment 2, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 20, tabled by Mr Loukaides, Mr Kox, Mr Gross, Mr Hunko and Mr Van der Maelen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, after the words “neighbouring countries” to insert the following words: “and the Israeli raids against Syria,”.

      I call Mr Loukaides to support Amendment 20.

      Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – The amendment reflects our effort to have a balanced document. We cannot speak of acts of hostility by the Assad regime and ignore Israeli raids against Syria. We propose to amend the draft resolution to reflect that reality.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – I do not think one can put on the same level the responsibilities of the Syrian Government in the situation referred to and those of the Israelis, which are not officially admitted but whose motive is to block the flow of arms. The two are not equal, so our view is against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We know that the committee is against the amendment. The vote is open.

      Amendment 20 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, to replace the words "The Assembly expresses its gratitude to the Jordanian authorities, as well as to those of Turkey and Lebanon, for hosting and assisting thousands of Syrian refugees”, with the following words:

“The Assembly expresses its gratitude to the receiving countries, in particular the Jordanian, Turkish and Lebanese authorities, for hosting and assisting over one and a half million Syrian refugees, according to the UNHCR estimates”.

      I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 3. If it is adopted, Amendment 26 automatically falls.

      Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – The amendment is intended to underline the enormous effort that the authorities of Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon are making to host the millions of refugees from Syria. We want to show our gratitude for that effort.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Shlegel.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation) – That effort is very important, but there is also the issue of Lebanon, where there are many refugees.

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

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – In favour, because the amendment clarifies both the dimension of the humanitarian aid – the fact that we are talking about not a few thousand refugees but millions – and the role of neighbouring countries.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is adopted.

      That means that Amendment 26 falls.

      We come to Amendment 27, tabled by Ms Gündeş Bakir, Mr Mustafa, Mr Suleymanov, Mr Huseynov, Mr Kalmár, Ms Erkal Kara and Mr Kayatürk, which is, in the draft resolution, in paragraph 7, to replace the words “assistance to the Kingdom of Jordan” with the following words: “financial assistance to the Kingdom of Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon”.

      I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment 27.

      Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – This is just a factual correction. The Syrian civil war is an international problem, and it is not only Jordan that shoulders the burden. Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon all do so, and they should receive more financial support from international organisations to make their humanitarian support sustainable.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

       Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 27 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 21, tabled by Mr Loukaides, Mr Kox, Mr Gross, Mr Hunko and Mr Van der Maelen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, to replace the words “two States for two peoples solution” with the following words: “two-State solution”.

      I call Mr Loukaides to support Amendment 21.

      Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – Our amendment would enable the terminology in our document to comply with that in United Nations resolutions, which mention only a two-State solution, not a “two States for two peoples solution”. There is a possibility of misinterpretation.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The committee adopted the amendment by majority.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 21 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, after the words “a rapid resumption of the negotiations”, insert the following words: "without preconditions".

      I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 4.

       Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – The amendment States that there should be negotiations without preconditions. The two sides have had a lot of preconditions, which has meant that it has not been possible for them to reach an agreement or even sit together since 1993. It is therefore extremely important that we approve the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – In a delicate situation such as the one that we face, I do not think it is up to us to establish whether we should allow preconditions. That is not within our purview.

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

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      I have received an oral amendment from Mr Marcenaro, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Development, which reads as follows: “In paragraph 9, replace the word ‘interim’ with ‘parallel’.”

      I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7.a which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

      In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

      That is not the case.

      I call Mr Marcenaro to support the oral amendment.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – It is simply for the clarity of the text.

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

The committee is obviously in favour. The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, after the words “the release of imprisoned members of the Palestinian Legislative Council”, insert the following words: “provided they are not indicted of involvement in acts of terror”.

      I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 5.

      Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – The amendment is clear. Evidently, it is not advisable to put persons who have been indicted on terrorism charges out of jail as part of a political agreement.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr Marcenaro wished to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Development, as follows:

      In Amendment 5, to replace the words “indicted of” with “convicted of direct”.

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

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

Mr MARCENARO* (Italy) – This is simple. The amendment should apply if someone has been found guilty of, not accused of, terrorist acts. We are talking about members of the Palestinian Legislative Council. That is the context. The sub-amendment was accepted by the representative and supported by half the committee.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – I agree.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO* (Italy) – The committee is unanimously in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 5, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 22, tabled by Mr Loukaides, Mr Kox, Mr Gross, Mr Hunko and Mr Van der Maelen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, replace the words “the building of new settlements” with the following words: “settlement building activities”.

I call Mr Loukaides to support Amendment 22.

Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – Our proposal is to include in the draft resolution the possibility of extending the measure to all settlements, not only to the building of new settlements. That is in compliance with paragraph 13.1.4 of the report, which calls on the Israeli authorities to “stop the building of new settlements and the extension of old ones.”

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO* (Italy) – A majority of the committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 22 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, after the words “ceasing home demolitions and forced evictions”, insert the following words: “provided that the buildings are in compliance with the law”.

      Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – The amendment has been tabled because there are laws that permit or forbid the building of houses, or any kind of buildings, on both the Palestinian and Jewish side. For a sort of par condicio, the same laws must be applied to both sides.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.

      Mr MARCENARO* (Italy) – We are talking about construction on occupied territories so it cannot simply be Israeli legislation that prevails here; Israel cannot decide on its own where the settlements can be. That is why I am against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 23, tabled by Mr Loukaides, Mr Kox, Mr Gross, Mr Hunko and Mr Van der Maelen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, replace the words “two States for two peoples” with the following words: “a two-State solution”.

      I call Mr Loukaides to support Amendment 23.

      Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – I thought I had already moved this amendment. Amendment 23 speaks about “two States for two peoples” and that refers back to my argument on a previous amendment. I do not know whether I have made a mistake. Anyway, our proposal is to amend the document to comply with the United Nation resolution that from 1967 speaks about a two-State solution, not a two-States and two-peoples solution.

      THE PRESIDENT* – You have submitted the same amendment several times. The wording is the same, but according to the rules I have to give you the floor to defend it.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARCENARO* (Italy) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 23 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, after the words “should be further qualified as a requirement for ‘two democratic and pluralist States’.”, insert the following words:

“When using this definition, it must be taken into consideration that the Palestinian Authority is still undergoing a process to define several essential and institutional aspects of its form of government, while Israel is a democratic State. It must also be taken into consideration that the Palestinian Authority has never agreed with the idea to have Jewish citizens in its territories, while Israel has a population of over 1,650,000 Arab inhabitants with full and equal citizenship rights”.

I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 7.

Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – First, whenever we speak about Israel it is always mentioned as the only democratic State in the Middle East, and that cannot be ignored at a time when we ask for and hope that we will have two States for two people, one next to the other, and both democratic and pluralist, as stated in the report. It must also be remembered that the Palestinian Authority has never agreed to have Jewish citizens in its territories, but Israel has more than 1.5 million Arabs in its territories who enjoy the same rights.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.

Mr MARCENARO* (Italy) – I know, of course, that they are not the same things. The Palestinians do not have a State whereas Israel does, and I do not think it is right when we ask for two democratic and pluralistic States that we are putting the question to all, despite the fact that the Israelis are doing better. Otherwise, the conflict puts at risk the fundamental elements of a State, even if it is as democratic and strong as Israel. I am therefore against the amendment.

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

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

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 12, after the words “Palestinian National Council.”, insert the following words:

“It expresses its concern over the alleged renewed involvement of some of the released prisoners in plotting terror attacks against the Israeli population”.

      I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 8.

      Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – Although we were all very happy about the liberation of Gilad Shalit, we should express some concern about the fact that some of the prisoners who were liberated went back to terrorism. I am not saying that all of them did, but some did. Statistically, this is quite common among prisoners guilty of terrorism, so why not express concern?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The committee said that this was a mistaken amendment. If there were numerous cases of those released from prison once again committing terrorist acts, it would be difficult, but the amendment seems to cast aspersions that, when we look at the reality, are not justified. There are limited cases of such violations. We talk about terrorist activities, but this amendment gives a misleading impression. That is why I am against it.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is against. The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is rejected.

      I have received an oral amendment from Mr Marcenaro, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which reads as follows: “In paragraph 13, delete the words ‘in the territories under their control’."

      In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

      That is not the case.

      I call Mr Marcenaro to support the oral amendment.

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The amendment arose from the need to clarify the text. In paragraph 13, the Assembly calls on the two different sides to do various things “in the territories under their control”, which seems a little strange, as one authority has control whereas the other does not. We thought it would be clearer to do away with that phrase.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour. The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 13.1.1.

      I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 9.

      Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – Paragraph 13.1.1 of the draft resolution is useless, because Israeli law already establishes that Arab and all other minorities have exactly the same rights as the majority. We might ask for the law to be respected, but there is already equality in law.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – My colleague Ms Nirenstein is right that the Israeli constitution foresees equal rights for both Jewish and Arab citizens, but in the current situation this equality is questionable and is compromised in many instances, hence the need for a reassessment. We are talking about today and the future. It is essential that we are forward looking. We must have de facto equality of rights. It is not just a question of status, but a question of standards, as we have heard before.

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

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.1.2, after the words “violence against detainees”, insert the following words: “according to Palestinian sources”.

      I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 10.

      Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – It is self-evident that descriptions of violence against Palestinians are usually from Palestinians, even when presented by Amnesty International. Just as with the Goldstone report, it is Palestinian sources who have been interrogated.

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

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – It is not just Palestinian sources that talk about the violence, but major organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Surely we must consider these sources valid.

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

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 10 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.1.3, after the words “and a large number of other prisoners”, insert the following words: “(provided that they are not indicted of involvement in acts of terror)”.

      I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 11.

      Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – The amendment would insert the same words as Amendment 5, and I approve the change made in that case.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr Marcenaro wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, as follows: “In Amendment no. 11 to replace the words ‘indicted of’ with ‘convicted of direct’.”

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

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

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The unanimous opinion of the committee is the same as before.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub–amendment?

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – I agree.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour. The vote is open.

      The oral sub–amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 11, as amended? That is not the case.

      We know that the committee is in favour. The vote is open.

      Amendment 11, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.1.4, after the words “cease all home demolitions”, insert the following words: “provided that the buildings are in compliance with the laws”.

I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 12.

      Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – Just as with the previous amendment, I repeat that the law must be the same for Arabs and Israelis.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Yes, for the same reasons that I explained for the previous amendment. We should not leave it just up to the Israelis to decide on this.

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

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 12 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.1.4, replace the word “lift” with the following word: “ease”.

I was going to call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 13, but I understand that the rapporteur wishes to speak.

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Ms Nirenstein, might I speak to this amendment? I was in a minority in the committee. Today I think I prefer the proposal that would not remove the blockade on travel for individuals and goods but instead would ease it. That seemed right to me but the opinion of the committee was different, hence mine is a minority view.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Just so that everyone understands the situation, Amendment 13 was submitted by Ms Nirenstein and supported and defended by the rapporteur, Mr Pietro Marcenaro.

Does anyone wish to speak against this amendment? I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I am against the amendment. All the restrictions must completely cease as they deny freedom of movement. The restrictions should not be eased but instead should be stopped.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 13 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini, and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.1.5, after the words “lift the blockade of Gaza”, insert the following words: “contingent on the acceptance by Hamas of the Quartet's three conditions for recognising the Islamist movement, i.e. renunciation of violence, recognition of Israel and accepting the agreements signed in the past by Israel and the PLO.”

I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 14.

      Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – This is to underline the necessity that, whatever political actions are taken towards Gaza and the blockade, Hamas will accept the Quartet’s three conditions of recognising the State of Israel, renouncing violence and accepting the agreements signed in the past by Israel and the PLO.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – If you read paragraphs 13 and 14, these things have already been said. For us, it is clear that the general position of the international community, and of the Quartet in particular, apply when it comes to Hamas. We do not think it is right to state the same thing three times in just one document. Perhaps it will be said in the next document on this subject.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I did not quite understand the end of your contribution. What is the view of the committee?

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – We can state it again in the next report in 2015. The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is against Amendment 14. The vote is open.

Amendment 14 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 15, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini, and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.2.1, after the words “based on the Quartet principles”, insert the following words: “and on the Quartet's three conditions to Hamas, i.e. renunciation of violence, recognition of Israel and accepting the agreements signed in the past by Israel and the PLO,”.

I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 15.

      Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – Again, the text mentions the three preconditions for Hamas. This is a completely different context because here it is talking about our need to aid the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. I think that Fatah will remain a more viable partner for peace in making an agreement but only if Hamas also becomes a viable partner for peace, which today it is not since it is not complying with the three preconditions.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 15? I call Mr Marcenaro.

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – I shall simply repeat what it says in paragraph 13.2.1: “the several times announced reconciliation between the Fatah and the Hamas based on the Quartet principles”.

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

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 15 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 28, tabled by Ms Gündeş Bakir, Mr Mustafa, Mr Suleymanov, Mr Huseynov, Mr Kalmár, Ms Erkal Kara and Mr Kayatürk, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 13.2.1, insert the following words:

“Hamas should be represented within the PLO which will further encourage Hamas to be politicized rather than militarized”.

I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment 28.

      Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – We all want lasting peace and a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In order to achieve that, Hamas should be pulled into the political arena and included in the system. This would also help with the demilitarisation of Hamas and would facilitate the Palestinian side being represented in a united body during peace negotiations.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – I do not think you can submit an article like this about Hamas without recalling that we have created the conditions that the international community asked us to.

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

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 28 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 24, tabled by Mr Loukaides, Mr Kox, Mr Gross, Mr Hunko and Mr Van der Maelen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.2.3, to replace the words “anti-Israeli rhetoric” with the following words: “anti-Semitic propaganda”.

I call Mr Loukaides to support Amendment 24.

Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – We propose changing “anti-Israeli rhetoric” to “anti-Semitic propaganda” for a simple reason: “anti-Israeli rhetoric” can include anything, even criticisms of the occupation of Palestinian territories, but “anti-Semitic propaganda” is a concrete and convenient term.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – I have been informed that Mr Marcenaro wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in Amendment 24, to insert the words “and anti-Semitic propaganda” after the words “anti-Israeli rhetoric”, rather than replace those words.

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

I call the rapporteur to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Anti-Semitism is the persecution or hatred of Jews throughout the world, but here we are talking about the State of Israel and its right to exist. We are talking about anti-Israeli rhetoric, rather than anti-Semitism. The sub-amendment would make the text read “anti-Israeli rhetoric and anti-Semitic propaganda”; we should address not just the anti-Semitic aspect, but the anti-Israeli aspect if we wish to achieve peace; otherwise, peace is hindered.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 24 on the oral sub-amendment?

Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – We cannot agree on the phrase “anti-Israeli rhetoric”. As I explained, it covers everything. If “anti-Semitic propaganda” is included as well, our amendment is still meaningful.

      THE PRESIDENT⃰ – To be crystal clear, Mr Loukaides is against the rapporteur’s oral sub-amendment.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Mr Loukaides said that he was in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT⃰ – Mr Loukaides just said that he was against it.

The committee is obviously in favour of the oral sub-amendment. The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 24, as amended? That is not the case.

I take it that the committee is in favour of amendment 24, as amended; that is the case.

The vote is open.

Amendment 24, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 16, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.2.3, after the words “anti-Israeli rhetoric”, to insert the following words: “inciting against the very existence in the area of a State for the Jewish people,”.

I have been told that Ms Nirenstein is not moving the amendment. Does anyone else wish to support it? Amendment 16 is not moved.

We come to Amendment 17, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.2.4, after the words “against detainees”, to insert the following words: “and to executions of Palestinian citizens accused of collaboration with Israel”.

Ms Nirenstein, I think that you do not wish to move Amendment 17 either. Is that correct?

Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – Yes. What the amendments say is assumed elsewhere in the text.

      THE PRESIDENT⃰ – Does anyone else wish to move Amendment 17? That is not the case.

      Amendment 17 is not moved.

We come to Amendment 30, tabled by Mr Dişli, Ms Memecan, Ms Gündeş Bakir, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Kayatürk and Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14, to delete the words “and reject the use of terrorism and combat it effectively.”

      I call Mr Dişli to support Amendment 30.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – It would be a case of double standards if, on the one hand, we saw Hamas as one of the legitimate parties to a solution to the conflict and, on the other hand, accepted it as using terrorism.

      THE PRESIDENT⃰ – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.

       Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – I am against, because it would be a scandal if the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a document that did away with the words “reject the use of terrorism”; that is simply not possible.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – The committee is obviously against the amendment.

The vote is open.

Amendment 30 is rejected.

       We come to Amendment 29, tabled by Ms Gündeş Bakir, Mr Mustafa, Mr Suleymanov, Mr Huseynov, Ms Erkal Kara and Mr Kayatürk, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly urges Israel to stop all types of military operations and attacks towards the Gaza Strip that have killed an unproportionally high number of Palestinian civilians in the past including hundreds of innocent children and women.”

       I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment 29.

      Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Mutual violence has to stop immediately so that peace negotiations can start. The report calls on the Palestinian side to stop launching rockets at Israel, but it does not say that Israel, too, has to stop all types of military operations aimed at the Gaza Strip. These operations have killed a disproportionately high number of Palestinian civilians, including hundreds of children and innocent women. That is the reason for the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT⃰ – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – This is the same problem that we faced when we discussed the first amendment. We chose not to include a list of all the dramas that have been played out in the region, hence the significance of the document. That is why the committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT⃰ – The committee is obviously against.       The vote is open.

      Amendment 29 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 18, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 16.3, to insert the following paragraph:

“promote reconciliation between the Palestinian factions, i.e. Fatah and Hamas, only in compliance with the Quartet principles according to which, in order to be recognized as a partner, Hamas must (i) renounce violence; (ii) recognize Israel; (iii) accept the agreements signed in the past by Israel and the PLO.”

      I call Ms Nirenstein to support the amendment.

Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – It looks like we are repeating the need for Hamas to renounce all violence, but here, the context is completely different; we are talking about the Palestinians’ international relationships. It is important that, in this context, Hamas renounces violence, recognises Israel, and accepts agreements. The theme has changed, and we have to repeat, in this different context, the need for Hamas to change.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – I set out what I think earlier in the document, so the amendment would just repeat what is already in the document. The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT⃰ – The committee is obviously against.       The vote is open.

      Amendment 18 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Kürkçü, Ms Brasseur, Mr Kox, Ms Werner, Mr Gross, Mr Pushkov, Mr Likhachev, Ms Gerasimova and Mr Loukaides, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17, to replace the words “the Palestinian Authority” with the following word: “Palestine”.

I call Mr Kox to support Amendment 1.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – After the decision of the United Nations General Assembly to give Palestine non-member State status, we decided that we would, as always, follow United Nations terminology in this Assembly. The amendment brings this excellent report in line with our earlier decisions.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 19, tabled by Ms Nirenstein, Ms Carlino, Ms Boldi, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Santini, Ms Bergamini and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 18, after the words “democracy and the rule of law in the region”, to insert the following words: “with special attention to the crucial developments in Egypt and Syria.”

I call Ms Nirenstein to support Amendment 19.

      Ms NIRENSTEIN (Italy) – The amendment underlines the fact that given the problems in Egypt with the growing power of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the dangers to democracy that we have witnessed in Syria during recent weeks, the Council of Europe must focus special attention on human rights in those areas.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 19 is adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13231, as amended. I remind you that a simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 13231, as amended, is adopted, with 135 votes for, 1 against and 3 abstentions.

I congratulate the Chairman and Rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, as well as the secretariat of the committee and all those who have taken part in this fascinating debate. I remind colleagues that the vote to elect two judges to the European Court will now be suspended. It will resume at 3.30 p.m. and close at 5 p.m.

3. Next public business

THE PRESIDENT* – Our next meeting will take place this afternoon at 3.30 p.m.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1.00 p.m.)

CONTENTS

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

2. The situation in the Middle East

Presentation by Mr Marcenaro of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy in Doc. 13231.

Speakers: Ms Fiala (Switzerland), Mr Clappison (United Kingdom), Mr Kox (Netherlands), Ms Bakoyannis (Greece), Ms Durrieu (France), Ms Postanjyan (Armenia), Mr Frécon (France), Mr Rochebloine (France), Ms Goryacheva (Russian Federation), Mr Sabella (Palestine), Ms Schuster (Germany), Mr Pushkov (Russian Federation), Mr Fournier (France), Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain), Ms Osborne (United Kingdom), Mr Reimann (Switzerland), Mr Fetisov (Russian Federation), Mr Iwiński (Poland), Ms Nirenstein (Italy), Mr Likhachev (Russian Federation), Mr Khader (Palestine), Ms A. Hovhannisyan (Armenia), Mr Heer (Switzerland), Mr Shlegel (Russian Federation), Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal), Mr Salles (France), Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg), Mr Aguzarov (Russian Federation), Mr Dişli (Turkey).

Replies: Mr Marcenaro (Italy),

Amendments 2 as amended, 3, 27, 21, 5 as amended, 22, 23, 11 as amended, 24 as amended, 1, 19 and two oral amendments adopted.

Draft resolution in Document 13231, as amended, adopted.

3. 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/ Christian Barilaro

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON/Michael Connarty

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB/Tuur Elzinga

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Daniel BACQUELAINE/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki

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/Sir Edward Leigh

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET/Bernadette Bourzai

Mladen BOJANIĆ

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Federico BRICOLO*

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL*

Gerold BÜCHEL

Patrizia BUGNANO/Giuliana Carlino

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA/Olga Kazakova

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Mikael Oscarsson

Otto CHALOUPKA

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI/Paolo Corsini

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE

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/ Maria Giannakaki

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/Malik Azmani

Jean-Claude FRÉCON

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC/József Nagy

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*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER*

Gergely GULYÁS

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/ Carmen Quintanilla

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG/Lennart Axelsson

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON/Indrek Saar

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Zaruhi Postanjyan

Håkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD

Joachim HÖRSTER

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER*

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Vladimir ILIĆ/Vesna Marjanović

Florin IORDACHE/Viorel Riceard Badea

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Rudy Salles

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/Kerstin Lundgren

Burhan KAYATÜRK

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK/Marek Krząkała

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Haluk KOÇ*

Igor KOLMAN

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Václav KUBATA*

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV/Sergey Kalashnikov

Harald LEIBRECHT/Annette Groth

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Christophe LÉONARD*

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT

François LONCLE*

Jean-Louis LORRAIN*

George LOUKAIDES

Younal LOUTFI*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX

Gennaro MALGIERI/Fiamma Nirenstein

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/Bernard Fournier

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI/Renato Farina

Andrey MOLCHANOV/Vitaly Ignatenko

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES/Ángel Pintado

Patrick MORIAU*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Lydia MUTSCH*

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Marian NEACŞU/Florin Costin Pâslaru

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/Olena Kondratiuk

Sandra OSBORNE

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Danny PIETERS*

Foteini PIPILI/Eleni Rapti

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/Per Stig Møller

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV

Mailis REPS

Eva RICHTROVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

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/Maximilian Reimann

Senad ŠEPIĆ/Nermina Kapetanović

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO*

Boris SHPIGEL/Alexander Ter-Avanesov

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Ladislav SKOPAL*

Leonid SLUTSKY/Alexander Sidyakin

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Giacomo STUCCHI

Valeriy SUDARENKOV/Yury Shamkov

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Tamerlan Aguzarov

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/Grigore Petrenco

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/Øyvind Vaksdal

Gisela WURM

Karl ZELLER/Paolo Grimoldi

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ/Andreja Črnak Meglič

Svetlana ZHUROVA*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Robert Shlegel

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Jaana PELKONEN

Michael FALZON

Deo DEBATTISTA

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Partners for Democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Hassan BOUHRIZ

Nezha EL OUAFI

Qais KHADER

Bernard SABELLA

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)

Ahmet ETI

APPENDIX II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of the judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Iceland and Lithuania

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA/ Christian Barilaro

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB/Tuur Elzinga

Volodymyr ARIEV

Daniel BACQUELAINE/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki

Gérard BAPT/Christian Bataille

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA

Deniz BAYKAL

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY/Sir Edward Leigh

Eric BOCQUET/Bernadette Bourzai

Mladen BOJANIĆ

Olga BORZOVA

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Gerold BÜCHEL

Patrizia BUGNANO/Giuliana Carlino

André BUGNON

Otto CHALOUPKA

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS

James CLAPPISON

Josette DURRIEU

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

Gianni FARINA

Joseph FENECH ADAMI

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Krejča

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO

Erich Georg FRITZ

Karl GARÐARSON

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Iwona Guzowska

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Sylvi GRAHAM

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER*

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG/Lennart Axelsson

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON/Indrek Saar

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Rudy Salles

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Antti KAIKKONEN

Božidar KALMETA/Ivan Račan

Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel

Ulrika KARLSSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK/Marek Krząkała

Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV/Sergey Kalashnikov

Harald LEIBRECHT/Annette Groth

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT

Meritxell MATEU PI

Michael McNAMARA

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/Aleksandar Spasenovski

Ivan MELNIKOV/Vassiliy Likhachev

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Brynjar NÍELSSON

Elena NIKOLAEVA/Anvar Makhmutov

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Mirosława NYKIEL/Elżbieta Radziszewska

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà

Ivan POPESCU

Cezar Florin PREDA

Mailis REPS

Eva RICHTROVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

René ROUQUET

Pavlo RYABIKIN/Iryna Gerashchenko

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI

Marina SCHUSTER

Samad SEYIDOV*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV

Giacomo STUCCHI

Björn von SYDOW

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Theodora TZAKRI

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Spyridon Taliadouros

Tanja VRBAT/Melita Mulić

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON

Gisela WURM

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Naira ZOHRABYAN