AA13CR25

AS (2013) CR 25

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-fifth Sitting

Thursday 27 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 10.05 a.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Urgent debate: popular protest and challenges to freedom of assembly, media and speech

      THE PRESIDENT* – The first item of business this morning is a debate under the urgent procedure on the report entitled “Popular protest and challenges to freedom of assembly, media and speech”, Document 13258, presented by Mr Díaz Tejera on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

We must conclude the debate by 12 noon, so we will interrupt the list of speakers at 11.40 a.m. to give the committee time to respond and to hold the vote. The rapporteur has 13 minutes in total, which may be divided between presentation of the report and reply to the debate. Mr Díaz Tejera, you have the floor.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA* (Spain) – I thank the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for having voted for me to be rapporteur on this report. That is a mark of confidence in me and, in a free vote, a preference was expressed for me to take this report forward.

The report is not directed at any specific country. We are not judges or a court of law but parliamentarians who were elected as representatives of the people, and our electors voted for us in free and fair elections. I am using my right to freedom of expression, and in so doing I am thinking of those who elected me from Gran Canaria to represent them in Spain and the senate. The idea is that nobody should be embarrassed about any vote. We as parliamentarians have to remember the people who do not hold power. People have different ways of aspiring to power, be it economic or media power. We have to bear in mind the right to expression and public assembly – the right to say what is on your mind.

      In this case, for example, we were talking about a concentration of people in Istanbul who came together around an environmental campaign. Elsewhere we find trade unionists or people pushing a particular political point who have come together in public protest. We have seen demonstrations in Paris against homosexual marriage. By the way, the United States Supreme Court recently struck down legislation that denied duly married gay couples the same rights to allowances as heterosexuals.

      We have seen demonstrations in London, Paris and other European capitals. Rather than giving details about Paris or Stockholm, we decided to take a view of the future and how we ensure freedom of assembly and guarantee the right to protest in a proportionate fashion. We need to look at civil rights as well. People have economic, social and cultural rights. They might call for equality or protection of the environment, or express solidarity with other parts of society. We have civil and social rights, but basically we have to ensure that the police and the forces of law and order protect everyone without fear or favour.

      The report assesses facts. We are not dealing with preconceived personal or shared convictions; we are looking at the facts. We want to see how civil and political rights can be better protected in future in the area covered by the Council of Europe. We need to recognise the role played by the security forces – the forces of order. The public servants who work in this field must have proper training to do their jobs properly and effectively. Why do we say this? Because we are talking about the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, and we must permanently fine-tune the instruments available to the democratic State based on the rule of law.

      There was a debate in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on access to information. There are new challenges to society. People seem to be intercepting electronic communications on a massive scale. There are always fresh challenges for the future. In light of what has happened with these protests, we have to ensure that people’s rights are better protected in future. That is always our aspiration.

      We have had dialogues with people morning and night. Nobody will be entirely satisfied; we hope nobody will be left entirely dissatisfied either. We have sought to make this a well-balanced report, and I believe that it is. When I reply, I can take up points raised by colleagues.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Díaz Tejera, you have seven minutes remaining. I call Mr Kürkçü to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – Let me start by expressing deep regret for the loss of four young people in the Gezi Park protests across Turkey and the highest respect for the millions who have continued their revolt for the dignity and freedom of our new generation.

      On behalf of the UEL, I call on the Assembly to vote for this report. Although it refers to demonstrations that have taken place “in many European…countries”, most of the issues raised are directly related to the Turkish Government’s handling of the Gezi Park protests. By endorsing the report, the Assembly would send a strong warning to the Turkish Government: as a member country, you cannot order your police to shoot, gas or beat your citizens to death as you like. You cannot despise your citizens as çapulcus because they express discontent with your rule and take to the streets. You cannot order the smothering of whole neighbourhoods or districts with near-lethal gases for providing shelter to the protesters. For, as the report correctly underlines, “freedom of assembly and association, including unorganised and non-authorised protest, is an essential right in a democracy,” and, “in instances of popular protest, the role of law-enforcement bodies is to protect the rights of demonstrators, their freedom of association and expression”.

      The police officer who killed protester Ethem Sarısülük in Ankara confessed in court that he had fired at the victim because of fear, and he was released. Had this officer been trained as a servant of the people, he would have protected Sarısülük from shooters, not shot him. The report sends the Turkish authorities this message: you cannot sow fear of the people in the hearts of the police and then grant them impunity as they kill your citizens. The report also sends the signal to Turkey’s Prime Minister – who boasts of having ordered all the police operations – that a statesperson cannot boast of “having written a legend” after four people have died and thousands of citizens have been injured as a result of these orders. L’État, c’est moi is indeed a legend. Not even Louis XIV was able to practise it in reality.

      If you claim to remain a pluralist democracy, you cannot turn the mainstream media into an instrument of disinformation that airs a programme about the life of penguins at a time of popular unrest. Assembly members might also express their disagreement with the attempts by the Turkish Government to control social media by sending tweets saying, “¡Ya basta!” to the Twitter account @RT_Erdogan.

      Dear colleagues, your vote for the report will send a signal to all Turkish citizens that they have a guarantee in the Council of Europe for the rule of law, human rights and democracy, which all governments should abide by, including the Turkish Government. No government can kill, gas or injure its citizens under controversial orders at a time of popular unrest. The unrest will continue unless the demands of the millions are met by their governments across Europe, Turkey and the globe.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Mota Amaral to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – Modern democracies include in their DNA the power of the people to demonstrate in the street. Some very important changes around the world were propelled by huge peaceful demonstrations. The civil rights movement in the United States would perhaps not have been successful without the historic gathering in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, where Martin Luther King addressed to the participants and to the world his famous “I have a dream” speech. The fall of the Berlin Wall was pushed for by people on both sides of the infamous wall, to the amazement of everyone around the world who watched history in the making live on TV. I was here in Strasbourg, attending a meeting in the Council of Europe, wiping away tears of disbelief and joy.

The collapse of the communist dictatorial regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was also a result of popular uprisings. The same happened in the Arab Spring, in Tunisia and Egypt. This year, in many countries across Europe and elsewhere – look at what is happening in Brazil, for example – we have once again been watching popular demonstrations, mostly without any institutional leadership and expressly excluding the participation of political parties, flooding avenues and giving us very impressive images of public discontent and anger.

Our debate on this subject is timely and I congratulate the rapporteur, Arcadio Díaz Tejera, from the Canary Islands, on his valuable report. I thank him for having accepted with a very short time limit such an impossible mission, which he performed very well. Freedom of speech, of assembly and of demonstration are crucial elements of a consolidated democracy. As the report and the draft resolution correctly point out, citizens have the right to express their disagreement against the political decisions taken by the governing institutions of any country. Of course, in democratic States there are regular elections to select parliamentarians and leaders of government, but it has become more and more clear that democracy, the power of the people, should not and cannot be reduced to that.

Even legitimate governments must be ready to face public expressions of protest against them and the policies that they consider necessary to promote the general interests of the country. In some cases, those decisions are imposed by international creditor institutions and accepted in extremis to avoid bankruptcy. Those same governments should be prepared to stick to their contested decisions if they are convinced that they are correct.

Democratic principles, normally enshrined in the law on civil liberties, exclude government authorisation for popular demonstrations. Authorities should only be informed in order to grant security conditions to peaceful demonstrations by citizens. In some cases, police forces overreact to incidents in popular demonstrations. The principle of proportionality, as contained in the case law of the Court, must always be respected. A different approach is needed when peaceful assemblies deteriorate into disorder, usually after provocative actions by anarchistic agitators. Preventive actions should prevail, but even repression must always be proportionate. If too many demonstrations occur in a particular country, it looks as if there is a need for reflection. Perhaps the democratic system there is not functioning well.

Unfortunately, the party system tends to limit the expression of opinion before the electorate by party members who bear public responsibilities. If that is so, the solution for reinvigorating democratic institutions is more dialogue and free speech in society as a whole.

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

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – I have four minutes, so I will go straight to the heart of the subject. The Socialist Group has decided that it is time to call a spade a spade. The main subject of this discussion is of course Turkey. Just as the whole generation of the 1990s read the famous book, Time for Outrage: Indignez-Vous!, the same thing has happened in Turkey for this generation of 20-year-olds. It is all about the park of Gezi, a small park next to Taksim Square in the very centre of Istanbul. It is very much like the park here, the Orangerie, and has been there since Ottoman times. The Prime Minister himself decided that it was time to build a shopping mall there.

The police have used disproportionate force against the demonstrators, burning their tents and using tear gas and cannons. International organisations monitoring this, including the Council of Europe, are expressing their concern and claiming that unnecessary violence has been used with impunity against the demonstrators. Gezi is the last straw that is breaking the camel’s back; it is the issue that has triggered this demonstration against the overbearing manner of the head of our government. Everything is monitored and controlled in Turkey, even the sale of the morning-after pill. Schools are becoming semi-religious, people’s alcohol consumption is being monitored and many journalists are in prison. Every time the Prime Minister speaks, we see this happening. Mr Erdoğan was elected legally but that is not a reason to oppress half the population.

Some 56% of the demonstrators have further or higher education, and at least half of them are women. The excessive violence used by the police is out of order. It is also the case that 17% of the demonstrators did not vote in the previous election because they had not reached their majority. Listen to the testimony of Naz, who is 18. She says: “We are not alcoholics or terrorists. We are normal people. We are representatives of the Turkish people. We are upright citizens. Some of us work, some are retired and some are looking for a job. We represent all political parties. We are representing all different religions and no religion too. We are the people who clean the streets after the demonstrations.”

According to doctors, four people have died and 8 000 have been injured out of the thousands who have demonstrated. Approximately 5 000 have been taken in for questioning. It is time that our country respected Council of Europe values before things become really bad there. To quote François Mitterrand: “They may not be right, but if we don’t listen to them then we know we are definitely in the wrong.”

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Khidasheli on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms KHIDASHELI (Georgia) – I thank the rapporteur for doing this report so quickly and so well. The discussions among the political groups and committees prove the importance of this report and the urgency of the issue under discussion. A clear and adequate response from this Assembly about popular and peaceful protest is of paramount importance today.

I speak not just as a member of parliament or a member of ALDE but as a human being who has been attacked, shot at and beaten up on numerous occasions over 20 years while demonstrating in my country. This is a very personal issue for every activist who has ever gone out on to the street, protecting the values that this Organisation was created for, such as democracy and the rule of law, or the environment. The issues may vary, but at its heart this is about being of a different opinion from the ruling party and the government.

We need to decide once and for all clear terms about the necessary balance here. It must not simply be about defending “public order” in general terms. When the terms are not clear, when no one really knows what the issue is and when there is arbitrariness in decision making, every government decides for itself what it means to be protected when it comes to public order. Only very rarely is it about the human beings protesting on the streets.

I do not want to be seen as defending violence – no one in my group or indeed in this building would advocate that – but it is the duty and obligation of this Assembly to create clear rules for governments saying that violence and excessive use of force will not be tolerated by the democratic world. There should be simple rules. First, there should be no arbitrariness in decision making. Secondly, there should be a clear definition of the methods and means that the government may use during mass protests. We should remember at all times that the use of force leads to even more violence and problems from the crowds.

      Governments make mistakes, which usually spark a reaction among people, and then the situation becomes even more problematic. That is why it is important to talk about peaceful demonstrators. Governments cannot give the police the right to kill, beat or punish people just for having a different opinion or because they have decided to go out and speak up. There is a duty to protect not only public order, but human life, first and foremost. That is the most important value. All governments should do everything in their power to defend the core values of democracy – freedom of speech, expression, and assembly, and the right to life – regardless of people’s opinions.

      We need to support the resolution and the report, which protect the core values of this institution, and we need to make them our guiding principles domestically. That is why it is very important that the document should not be country-related: it should be relevant, and address all the issues, across the board, whether we are talking about Turkey, Russia, Georgia or western European countries. Every government should take the report as a guideline on how to deal with peaceful protests and mass protests.

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

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteur on the report, and on the intense hard work that he put into it in a short time. This balanced and timely report is an important restatement, across the board, of the right to peaceful protest, free speech and freedom of assembly – rights that apply to the same standard throughout the member States of the Council of Europe; they should not apply to different standards in different member States.

Those freedoms and the freedom of expression are fundamental to the values that we defend, which include, of course, freedom of expression on the Internet – something that we need to be vigilant about. The freedom to assemble and peacefully protest, which are dealt with at length in the report, are inherent parts of the freedom of expression, but one has to emphasise that the right is confined to the right to peaceful protest. There are, however, responsibilities on governments and authorities to play their part in making sure that demonstrations and assemblies are peaceful. That, too, is dealt with thoroughly in the report.

I turn to a part of the report that is very important to all our member States: the freedom of the press. The best way to protect and guarantee that is a subject that is very much under debate in the United Kingdom today, and, I believe, in other countries as well. We have to protect journalists, and we have to listen to the voices of those who represent them. We can certainly challenge and refute the work of journalists, but we cannot suppress it. International human rights law, which protects journalists, must be observed to a high standard, and we must make it part of our work to ensure that that happens. That applies to both domestic and foreign correspondents. I have seen it suggested in at least one quarter recently that a BBC correspondent was a foreign agent and an agent of the United Kingdom Government. As a member of the governing party in the United Kingdom, I can give this Assembly an absolute assurance that the BBC is not an agent of the United Kingdom Government, or any part of the United Kingdom political spectrum.

We must protect the right to peaceful and legitimate protest. Governments may or may not listen to protests, but protests must be allowed to take place, and governments should enable and allow them to take place. A few years ago, I took part in a massive demonstration against a law, which I opposed, that was being introduced by the then government. Hundreds of thousands of people walked through the streets of London. I think up to a million people protested against this law, but the government continued with it. It pains me to say it, but at the next election, that government was returned with absolutely the same majority that it had had at the last election. It is through the ballot box that we change governments, not through activities on the streets. Protesters have the right to express their views, but it is the ballot box that gives legitimacy to governments, and that is a distinction that we must be careful to observe in the present circumstances.

The rights to protest and assemble, to free speech and to express oneself on the Internet are fundamental freedoms; they are part of democratic debate. We must ensure that they are cherished. Again, I congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which I think will lead to better protection in these areas.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – The rapporteur does not wish to reply now, so I call Mr Dişli.

Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur. I take this opportunity to thank the international community and media institutions for their in-depth consideration and critiques of the situation in Turkey. Of course, my thankfulness would have been much greater if that consideration and those critiques had been objective, impartial and constructive, but they were mostly not, particularly those that came from the international media.

We believe that political participation and opposition are not threats, but encouraging progressive instruments of democracy. However, we have to strike a balance between that principle and the need to maintain public order. The protests in Turkey began as a peaceful environmental movement. Afterwards, unfortunately, the purpose of the protests was deflected by violent extremist groups that wanted to take down the government. Their intention was to undermine public order, using all kinds of violence.

Every democratically elected government has to protect public and private property and ensure safety for all, so our security forces had to take the necessary measures. Of course, they had to act in accordance with the law and meet European and international standards. We should recall that in similar incidents in other member countries such as France and Sweden, the use of tear gas and detention was quite extensive, resulting in many injuries. There were some mistakes regarding the use of force against protesters, especially on the first day of the protest, and the Turkish President and Government have expressed their regret for that. It cannot be expected that all mistakes could have been prevented. The criticisms would be fair only if the incidents were not being investigated, and those who are responsible were not being held accountable.

Once again, I stress that objectivity, impartiality and a constructive approach are essential. The violent acts of protesters are always ignored by the international community, and especially by the media. They are even portrayed as innocent, peaceful, pro-democracy groups. That prompts the question: how did it come about, then, that public and private property was so badly damaged? About 300 businesses, 400 private and public vehicles and various buildings were greatly damaged. The cost of the violence so far is $70 million, but the overall cost to the Turkish economy is over $1 billion.

I understand our sensitivity towards freedom of assembly and association – that is an essential right – but as the rapporteur rightly said, democratically elected governments do not change their justified policies in the face of protests.

Mr MICHEL (France)* – I thank Mr Díaz Tejera for his impartial report and his draft resolution. There have indeed been protests in France, organised by people objecting to a law that has now been passed and is in force. The same applies to Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom and elsewhere. When extremists tried to breach the barriers in the Champs-Élysées, the police rightly stepped in.

We have seen the protests in Turkey, which demonstrate how hard it is for Erdoğan’s government to breathe fresh life into its activities and to achieve economic development, consolidate democracy and support social cohesion. A large part of the population supports conservative politics and worries about instability at the borders, particularly with Syria. Nevertheless, some in Turkey accuse international financial organisations of trying to destabilise the government, and they dismiss young people as vandals and gangs of terrorists. The Turkish Government has allowed itself to be backed into a corner, which the prime minister is unable to get out of.

Attempts to ban alcohol in Turkey show the influence of the mosques at work. The demonstrators in Taksim Square have found the promise of victory and a better future, and the Turkish Government should not engage in triumphalism. The problems with Gezi and Taksim Square will not be swept away by water cannon. We are concerned that repressive actions will be taken against the demonstrators, their supporters and their lawyers.

      Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Freedom is the essence of life. All human beings deserve to be respected and to live with dignity. They should have equal opportunities to realise their potential to their utmost capacity. All human beings want to be valued and need to be understood. Every society must give different people room to breathe and a space in which to lead their lives in dignity. Every human thought, belief or feeling deserves to be expressed, as long as it does not involve violence. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly as enshrined in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Peaceful protest is a human right.

Turkey will always stand up for those aspirations. That was our founding purpose. We, the MPs of the ruling party, wholeheartedly believe that participation in decision-making mechanisms is an important freedom that must be granted to all of our citizens regardless of their gender, belief or ethnic identity. Participation brings pluralism, and pluralism guarantees a healthy democracy. Our party got more than 50% of the votes in elections in Turkey, but we have the assurance in our hearts and minds that other citizens who did not vote for us are as much citizens of our country as those who did, and they deserve a respectful hearing. We believe our job is to act in accordance with Turkey’s national interests and to serve all of our citizens, not only our supporters.

The scale of the peaceful protests shows the energy and dynamism of our democracy and the modernity of our people. We listen to the voices and demands of the streets. In Turkey, there will be no impunity for members of the security forces and police who used disproportionate force or violence towards peaceful protesters. However, I equally condemn the extensive vandalism by some protesters towards the police, public buildings and public property. There is no excuse for protesters who burned buses, ambulances, police cars and private cars. There are no words that excuse protesters for throwing Molotov cocktails or for shooting at police. One policeman lost his life when escaping from the protesters. A 12-year-old child was thrown from a bridge by the protesters. Roads have been blocked by burning barricades. There is also no excuse for protesters who attacked women who were wearing headscarves on the streets. In a country under the rule of law, such violent protest is not acceptable.

No matter how dark the day may seem, victory will always belong to those who choose to side with justice. I pledge that Turkey will always stand for those who stand up for their dignity and their rights, for our citizens who demand to be heard, for the oppressed who long to be free, and for our people who want to determine their own destiny, but who do all those things in a peaceful way. I want to draw your attention to the bias of the international media, which broadcast the protests in Turkey live for nine hours a day, but which has totally ignored for two years the human tragedy and killing in Syria.

Dear colleagues, we are all in the same boat. A strong Turkey is to the benefit of the European Union. Turkey belongs to the West. We share Western values: human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We are a candidate country for membership of the European Union, and we are committed to that goal. Turkey needs more European engagement, more encouragement and more progress towards its way to the European Union at this time, not less.

Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – The rights to freedom of speech and assembly, and the right to demonstrate, are the rights of every citizen in a democracy. Turkey has acted decisively, leaving no shadow of a doubt, to protect and develop those rights. That also applies to our citizens who have assembled to express their demands for democracy. What has happened in Turkey since the end of May is no different from events that have taken place in many European cities, particularly over the past few years. In fact, the demonstrations have provided an opportunity to see how much has been achieved in the evolution of democratic awareness and the culture of democracy in Turkey.

The authorities are taking all necessary measures to ensure that the demonstrations are peaceful and safe for all citizens. In that respect, there has been a series of talks with representatives of the groups of demonstrators, with positive and concrete results. During any such public demonstration, the police must respond proportionately, and I stress that inquiries are under way into the allegations of disproportionate use of force by the police.

However, we must remember that there are limits on the freedom to demonstrate defined in the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the authorities have a responsibility to guarantee public security and protect the rights and liberties of others. During the three weeks of protests, 660 police have been injured and one police commissioner lost his life. In addition, 290 private buildings, 20 public buildings, 116 police vehicles and 270 private vehicles have been damaged as a result of violence by some demonstrators. A democratic country has a responsibility to prevent violence by bringing the perpetrators to justice before an independent court. In that respect, the international community must adopt an objective view of the events in Turkey, which prioritises our shared goal of protecting democratic values and the rights of every individual, to stop this mounting wave of violence and extremism.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I thank the rapporteur for such a broad-ranging and sensitive report. Apart from the freedom of the press, the most exalted values in a democracy are freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, so we are dealing with core aspects of democracy. The way in which a government deals with demonstrators is a litmus test that shows just how democratic a government is. Although the demonstrations were initially about Gezi Park in Istanbul, the ultimate aim of the protesters might be to topple the government. In my own country in 2000, there were weekly demonstrations to try to bring down the government. In that context, the forces of law and order have certain tasks. They have to maintain law and order but also make the demonstration possible; that is necessary in a democracy.

      In Germany, during the CASTOR demonstration, the forces of law and order and the democratic State were put in a very difficult position. We have seen massive demonstrations in France against homosexual marriage. There, the government and State showed their mettle. Since the beginning of the financial crisis, the Occupy movement and the Arab Spring, we have seen more and more demonstrations. When I listen to my Turkish colleagues, I cannot but underline that in a democracy we must ensure that demonstrations are peaceful, but if a demonstration in a park is peaceful and the police from the outset use force disproportionately, they begin on the wrong footing and criminalise and bully demonstrators.

The government has threatened to use the army. We in the Council of Europe must be clear: an army should have nothing to do with policing a country. An army should not be used against its own people. With all these demonstrations, we are talking about citizens. Some are defending their standard of living, others are defending a park. Of course that is a challenge to the democratic system but it shows how strong and rigorous democracies are. In Turkey, a democracy has suddenly resorted to extreme measures. The use of the forces of law and order was completely disproportionate.

Therefore, I can only appeal to our Turkish colleagues to open the prisons and to release the hundreds of demonstrators who have been arrested. There must be moderation on both sides – that is clear – but there are hundreds now in the prisons and there were certainly not hundreds who became violent. In a spirit of democracy, let us open the doors of those prisons. That would introduce a new tone into this discussion.

      Mr BIES (France)* – I thank the rapporteur for the work that he has managed to do in such a short time. The Assembly has a long history and a responsibility. Since 1949, whenever in Europe people have spoken out to claim their fundamental rights and to protest against suppression of freedom, they have turned to this Assembly, hoping that their voice will be heard. In recent months, we have found that some members of our Organisation did not have the capability, organisation or will to respect certain rights that we believe to be indispensable.

I do not speak as a representative of a State that claims to have a higher virtue. France is often known as the cradle of human rights, yet the case law of the Court serves to remind everyone that a country supporting fundamental rights and embracing the rule of law and democracy can never consider itself infallible. Therefore, we must look at what is happening in certain member States of our Organisation. I am particularly concerned about the situation in Turkey.

Turkey is a historic member of the Council of Europe. It entered into commitments which led to an unprecedented blooming of freedom. A number of programmes have been set up to support the judicial and police authorities in applying the standards of the Council of Europe, and those need to be strengthened more than ever. The disproportionate police violence that we have seen in recent weeks in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir and other cities cannot be tolerated. That is not worthy of a major member of the Council of Europe. If we wish to perform our job thoroughly, we cannot content ourselves to look merely at the facts; we must look further at political responsibility. We cannot tolerate impunity. Nor can we forget that orders were issued and that people must be brought to account where appropriate.

We cannot accept what we have seen in Turkey in recent months. The government considers its opponents terrorists and is locking up journalists to a greater extent than anywhere else in the world. The authorities have resorted to fear and retrenchment rather than the justice and development promised in the manifesto. We should not fall into the trap of seeing everything in black and white or engage in partisan debate. Recent protests straddle traditional divisions. When we see threats to freedom of assembly, the media and speech in Europe and elsewhere, the Council of Europe and this Assembly have an historic duty not to turn their face away. That is our political responsibility.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I thank the mover of the motion, Tiny Kox, for his initiative in focusing members on this important issue and the rapporteur, Mr Díaz Tejera, for his efforts in putting together the report. In recent years, the number of protests against governments and international organisations has been increasing. The response of the security forces to maintain the safety of the public at large and to contain the protesters while respecting the protesters’ right to assemble and freedom of expression have raised new issues about the role of the security forces and the use of force. Many member States as well as Turkey are reviewing the procedures and methods of their security forces to prioritise peace during protests. For the information of colleagues, 76 people were detained in Turkey during the recent protest and not hundreds, as was said earlier.

The incentives that motivate people to organise and to participate in protests are myriad: unemployment and migration policies in Sweden, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community’s demands in France, environmental issues in Turkey and Germany, and frustration with authoritarian regimes in Egypt and Libya. The list goes on. It is important to make the effort to understand the rationale behind such protests and address the cries of the people before the problems become chronic.

It is important to respect international norms when protesting and when trying to maintain public order. Often, peaceful protests are hijacked by marginal extremist or anarchist groups that resort to violence, looting and vandalism to create chaos. That was also the case in the recent protests in Turkey, which started out as a peaceful protest by environmentalists but were unfortunately taken over by extremist groups that caused a lot of damage to public and private property. The investigation is continuing into the violence of the extremists and the use of police force.

I would like to touch on the role of the media during times of protests. As the editor of The New York Times recently said, “The cameras focus wherever the smoke comes from.” The media can influence perceptions through the length, frequency and priorities of the broadcast news. Although the media should be completely free to operate, the position of editors requires more caution and responsibility to avoid unnecessarily feeding the aggravation.

Social media grant people the opportunity to share their ideas and information at enormous speed and across a wide area. The new technology also brings many problems with it: sometimes it is the messages, sometimes it is the unedited messages, sometimes it is the manipulated messages that negatively affect a situation. At such times of crisis, the international community should not confine its efforts to simply producing reports and statements based on media reporting. It is crucial that it invests time and energy in objectively assessing the situation and learning from various experiences in different societies.

      I therefore thank the Secretary General, Mr Jagland, for taking the time to visit Turkey in order to continue its constructive dialogue and good relationship with the Council of Europe, which has contributed a lot to recent democratic progress in Turkey. I hope that his exemplary efforts will set a new trend in other concerned international institutions.

      Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – The report is valuable, because it differentiates between all kinds of different protests, particularly peaceful ones. If a protest is peaceful and does not include any vandalism or looting, it must be protected and not interfered with by the authorities. The rapporteur, Mr Díaz Tejera, also makes the good point that protests can be unauthorised and spontaneous. Again, if such protests are peaceful, the authorities should not interfere with them. Countries with a more authoritarian past find it difficult to understand that concept, because bureaucratic registration and permits prevail over the fundamental right of freedom of assembly.

      Innovative and peaceful protests have taken place during the recent demonstrations in several countries. However, some, or even many, have been met with the disproportionate use of police force. For example, a week ago in Taksim Square in Istanbul, Erdem Gunduz performed a standing protest for five hours, looking at the Atatürk monument. When five other protesters joined him in just standing there, they were all of a sudden surrounded by police. The initiator of the action managed to escape, but others were detained.

      Similarly, a pianist, Davide Martello, played for 14 hours in Taksim Square and received a lot of support and inspiration from the crowds that had gathered there. Nevertheless, when he left, his piano was seized by police and only released after several days. That was disproportionate use of force by the police.

      Similarly, in Russia in mid-May a group of protesters intended to cycle through the streets of Moscow in order to highlight the fact that the previous year several people had been detained during mass protests. When they gathered at a park it turned out that it was closed, supposedly for cleaning, even though it was a Saturday night. The police demanded to see their documents and some were allegedly detained for a short period. Those are innovative ways of protest for which the authorities have to be ready but the use of force is not permissible.

      Finally, the report makes another very good point: the authorities must engage with people in the management of public life. The civil society organisations of several member countries of the Council of Europe – for instance, the Russian Federation – face all kinds of obstacles. I have just heard that the election monitoring group Golos has been suspended because it failed to register as a foreign agent. How can civil society engage with public life if it faces such infringements?

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This urgent debate addresses the importance of the freedom of demonstration, assembly, media and speech. This freedom is one of the core values of the Council of Europe, because without it democracy cannot exist. This is relevant to all our member States, but the immediate reason for having this urgent debate is, of course, the ongoing protests in Turkey and the disproportionate response of the Turkish authorities.

      As Ms Bilgehan made clear, violence is used not only against demonstrators who use violence themselves, but against the large number of peaceful demonstrators and even against people standing nearby – that is, people who support the protest or who are just there by coincidence. The demonstrators’ lawyers are also arrested and prosecuted, and journalists are locked up.

      The brutal crackdown has already led to deaths and thousands of injuries. The protests address many different topics, but what they have in common is that they are critical of government policies. As Mr Schennach rightly said, the way in which governments respond to such criticism is the litmus test of a country’s democracy and rule of law.

      Many people in Turkey are shocked by the violent response. It has had a damaging impact on their trust in the government and politicians. Fear and distrust are leading Turkey further away from the positive democratic reforms that it had undertaken.

      It is not only the international community that condemns the policy; the people themselves do not accept this kind of oppression any more and we have to support them. I urge the Turkish authorities and members of the Turkish Parliament not to reverse the democratic process and to stop the violence, look for proportionate ways to regulate protest and start an investigation into the current response in order to learn lessons for the future about how to respect the vital right to criticise national policies, whatever they may be.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Each topic has its own philosophy and the problem that we are debating is the notion of the limit of freedom. The words “freedom” and “limit” seem to contradict other, but each liberty enjoys a certain limitation and each freedom has concrete boundaries regulated by law. In other words, there is no absolute liberty and no borderless freedom. When freedoms overstep their defined boundaries, chaos is born. A genuinely democratic country, therefore, is not one that permits everybody to do anything they want, but one that enables humans to freely enjoy their rights and liberties in the context of fair, objective, democratic laws and order.

      I know Turkey very well. It is a democratic State and one of the founders of our Organisation. Undoubtedly, certain misdeeds may take place when ensuring freedom of assembly, expression and media in any country. However, we should not ignore the fact that certain individuals and groups use the excuse that their rights and freedom are being infringed on in order to violate law and order. That is why a debate on the issues necessitates a serious investigation and fair study of the details, as well as an unbiased assessment of the views of both sides.

      Life demonstrates that the human being       does not always benefit from the freedoms and liberties guaranteed to him, either because he is unaware of them, or because he goes to the extreme and oversteps all limits due to his bad manners, moral shortcomings and internal aggression. There was a big difference between yesterday’s friendly meeting and useful discussions between the Azerbaijani and Armenian delegations, kindly organised by the respected President of the Assembly, and the speech given by the Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs three days ago.

The Council of Europe has done and is doing so much to prevent the violation of human rights and freedoms, and to ensure they apply universally. This place has the highest European values, and we have to continue this policy in all our activities.

Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – Tiny Kox did a great job assessing the latest events, but I am worried by the apparent proclivity for choosing a country and making it a scapegoat, even though the violation of human rights during demonstrations happens in quite a few countries. Do we react only to the scope of the violation, or do we react to the violation of the principle that the police should not resort to excessive violence? Are the countries of the European Union less prone to such criticism just because they belong to the European Union?

These are the questions that we have to face. We all know that if we defend the principle of the right to demonstrate peacefully without being beaten up, we must look further than Turkey. We have to look at Belgium, where in June 2012 there was some impressive violence during a demonstration. We could look at Spain, where in February 2012 the same happened in demonstrations in Valencia. Or we could look at France and the infamous demonstration in March against same-sex marriages. I suggest that we fight for the principle, rather than just reacting to some events, however dramatic, in one country. Otherwise, we could be accused of double standards.

Our Latvian friends, for example, like to criticise Russia, but for some reason they turn a blind eye to the fact that every year on 16 March there are neo-Nazi demonstrations in Latvia, with former members of the Waffen SS. We understand the complications of Latvian history, but does that explain that practice, which is tolerated by international institutions? During the last demonstration in Latvia, a member of a Latvian anti-Nazi movement was beaten up. That example of violence was reported in the mass media, but I have not heard any reaction from members of the Latvian Parliament.

We are living at a time of profound changes, of revolutions in morals, social behaviour and the economy. We will face many protests all over the world, and no country will be immune. Remember the violence against the Occupy Wall Street protesters in the United States. I do not wish to criticise our countries, but to point out this new phenomenon.

For different reasons, many countries are experiencing mass demonstrations that lead to confrontations with the forces of order. We have to define to what extent the forces of order should act to maintain social order and to what extent demonstrators have the right to demonstrate. We have to establish certain principles and then ask countries to follow them. It would be wrong to single out a few countries where negative things happen and make them the object of criticism without establishing those criteria, and those criteria should not include double standards. That is a major requirement for this sort of resolution.

      Mr KAYATÜRK (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur for producing such a good report in such a short time.

Every freedom has limits, and freedom of assembly is no exception. In some circles, it has been argued that the Turkish Government and security forces did not respect the freedom of assembly during the recent protest demonstrations in Turkey. On the contrary, for the last three to four weeks, widespread demonstrations were organised in Turkey. This would not have been possible if Turkey was not a fully fledged democracy that respects the freedom of assembly. Security forces did not intervene unless the demonstrations posed a threat to public order and the safety of our citizens.

If the demonstrations were completely peaceful, as some circles argue, how were 292 business offices, 116 police vehicles and 271 private vehicles damaged? Likewise, how can one explain the death of a police officer in Adana? It is evident that some of these demonstrations were violent and necessitated the intervention of the security forces. In this context, the use of tear gas by Turkish police forces is in compliance with the relevant national and international standards. The use of tear gas in Turkey is regulated by the law on the prohibition, stockpiling, production and development of chemical weapons which is based on the Convention on Chemical Weapons.

On the other hand, there were incidents in which security forces may have exceeded their authority and acted in a way incompatible with the relevant legislation. These cases are being thoroughly investigated by the authorities.

The demonstrations in Turkey and the response of the security forces are no different from those seen in the riots that swept Europe in the last decade. In Spain, plastic bullets were used to stop the demonstrations in May 2011. In Italy, tear gas was used in November 2012 to disperse demonstrators. Many other examples could be cited.

If an objective and unbiased perspective is adopted, it is easily understood that the recent events in Turkey are a clear example of freedom of assembly being respected. However, if a country is governed by the rule of law, security forces cannot sit idle while violent demonstrations pose a concrete threat to public order and safety of other citizens.

Mr MARIAS (Greece)* – The urgent debate affords us the opportunity to establish our positions on matters of great topicality. We are also afforded an opportunity to draw conclusions and express support for those whose rights have been denied. I refer to Article 10 of the European Convention. The right to peaceful assembly is also protected by the terms of Article 11.

      We find general remarks at the beginning of the report, but we must give our opinion on recent and current events in Turkey. Very many young people are expressing points of view that differ from those of their government. We must see how government action has affected them and their lives. Protest must be deemed to be legal. Obviously, everyone would agree that excessive violence is in breach of the European Convention. It must be registered and recorded that the government has reacted in an authoritarian manner, and that, in dealing with the situation, the government has acted unacceptably. We must denounce excessive police violence, but we should not forget the verbal violence used by the Turkish Government about the protesters. Under the Convention, the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly can be restricted by legislation, but it must be democratically enacted. We must therefore see where the problems for democracy lie.

      Other countries are bound by the terms of international financial agreements and held in thrall by the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and others that are imposing austerity. I believe that austerity breaches the terms of democracy. Who is responsible for that breach? Is it the governments and parliaments of the countries that are held hostage by austerity programmes, or is it the Troika, which says to those countries, “Either you implement these financial packages or you are not going to receive any financial support and will go bankrupt”? We should ask whether the Troika is responsible for breaching human rights in countries such as Greece, where the government closed down the public broadcaster, which has to exist – that is a guarantee under the Convention for which we are standing up.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – Anyone who has listened to the debate will be impressed with what everyone has said, with the rapporteur’s report, and with the efforts of Tiny Kox to bring the matter to the attention of the Assembly. Mr Pushkov was right when he said that there is no hiding place for any country in the current climate. Any one country could be affected in the same way as Turkey has been affected. That is why it is important that we learn the lessons of what the report tries to portray. We must be aware that the journey from peaceful demonstration to a chaotic, shambolic nightmare of anarchy is, in some instances, a very short one. We must be able to put in place the right sort of expertise and training for the security forces, the police, the fire service, the health service and all who will be called into play when demonstrations get out of hand. They must be trained to know when the trigger point on the journey from peacefulness to anarchy has been reached.

      It is not easy for people on the ground to make such decisions. Sadly, the United Kingdom has a very bad record. Twelve people were shot dead by soldiers on the streets of the United Kingdom because a demonstration got out of hand. We used troops to put the people down and 12 people were shot dead on that one day – Bloody Sunday. Nobody in the United Kingdom is proud of our record, but we have had to learn lessons. The most important lesson is to have the right chain of command and the right authority, so that people know when to act and when to decide that a demonstration has gone beyond reasonable.

Every speaker in the debate has said that the authorities have a responsibility to protect the innocent and their fundamental human right to say that they disagree. Protecting those people must be the role of the forces of law and order. However, those forces also have a responsibility to protect other innocent people – those not involved in the demonstration whose property gets damaged and whose homes get burnt down, as happened in London recently. Demonstrations spread across London like wildfire in next to no time, but they were not about an issue and ended up as no more than looting sprees. Properties were broken into and warehouses were systematically stripped of their goods and set on fire. It was an excuse for people to loot – they were e-mailed or received messages via Facebook or tweets that they could go to certain places to get themselves a new television or pair of sneakers. There was no demonstration about an issue, so law and order had to step in to protect the lives of innocent people.

We must use this urgent debate as a stepping stone to a much more formal report for the Assembly. I hope one of the committees takes the matter up through the Bureau. This is the first time we have discussed the issue in such a way. As others have said, we are talking about Turkey today, but we could or perhaps should have previously discussed the situations in Spain, France, Italy, Greece or the United Kingdom. Because of the widespread publicity that accrued during the demonstrations in Turkey, it is being treated with a double standard, as people have rightly identified. That is unfair to Turkey, because we could and should have discussed the issue six or 12 months ago, when riots happened in cities in other countries. Let us not be too hard on Turkey and its situation, wrong though it is. Instead, let us learn lessons and get the right answers. No country currently has the ability to say that it knows how to solve such problems. Collectively, we might just be able to find a remedy that suits all.

Ms LOKLINDT (Denmark) – Freedom of assembly, media and speech are fundamental rights, and I therefore welcome this urgent debate. In the past couple of years, we have witnessed the changes taking place in the Arab Spring. We saw massive gatherings of men and women claim democratic rights and freedom of assembly, media and speech. Those rights remain fragile in countries that are on the road to democracy.

In Europe, however, and in member States of the Council of Europe, those rights are fundamental. Violence and the excessive use of force cannot be accepted. We have a duty to protect all citizens. Any government has a duty to protect citizens’ rights to exercise peaceful demonstrations. Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe and signed up to those rights from the very start. The recent movement in Turkey has come as a shock to most Europeans. What started as a peaceful protest in Gezi Park turned into a violent police intervention and triggered a widespread protest movement.

I deplore the reaction of the Turkish Government, which has totally denied reality, and which, from the very start, called protesters vandals and terrorists. The demonstrations and peaceful assemblies were in many ways a sign of a well-functioning democracy, but the reaction of the Turkish Government has put that picture of the country in danger. The authorities’ reaction has been completely disproportionate, which is why it is important that the Assembly takes up the debate and sends a clear signal that, in a State founded on democracy, human rights and the rule of law, it is important for the government to undertake the necessary investigation and change the organisation of its authorities to prevent a repetition of the disproportionate responses to the people’s exercise of their fundamental rights. Turkey is on the way to entering the European Union, which I fully support. However, the recent events indicate that it still has some way to go, and I am pleased that more chapters of the negotiations will now be opened and others sped up, especially in relation to free media.

      This debate is not intended to provide a scapegoat, and it is not a question of double standards. It is based on principles that are fundamental to us all, but the violent incidents in Turkey are the obvious reason for the urgent debate. I thank the rapporteur for his valuable report, and I hope that we will support the resolution unanimously.

      Mr GARÐARSON (Iceland) – This topic is a big one, and the issues involved – freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and freedom of speech – cannot be solved in this short discussion. Each of those points deserves thorough discussion, but most or all of us can agree that people should be able to express their views and that individuals have the right to demonstrate against their elected governments. Peaceful assembly should always be allowed, but we know that peaceful protests often turn into violence and looting. Often, those who organise protests do not have the necessary control over perhaps thousands of people. In such instances, the use of force is sometimes necessary for public safety and public order, as Mr Hancock mentioned. However, we should be absolutely clear that the use of excessive force by the police, the army or any government can never be tolerated.

      I worked as a journalist for more than 20 years and believe that we should always be careful when we talk about the freedom of the press. The media and journalists are not all that free, because owners, who can be the State, companies or individuals, always have either a direct or an indirect effect on the media that they own. Journalists are just like other people, and they do not work in a vacuum without any influence from the outside world. Their goal is usually to write without bias, and some can do it and some cannot. We should never forget the important point that there is always somebody who pays their wages.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next speaker is Mr Yatim from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr YATIM (Morocco)* – This subject is of major importance. The report deals not merely with Turkey but with a phenomenon that has been multiplied in our part of the world. Both north and south of the Mediterranean, we find more and more immigrants and more and more people who feel marginalised, and people have found a way to enact change – peaceful demonstration. People are getting a taste for that and are seeing how they can command the streets. That has to be seen as the backdrop to the draft resolution.

      Of course there is a right to freedom of assembly, media and speech, and we must investigate any disproportionate or excessive response by the forces of law and order if they perpetrate violence. However, the right to personal safety applies to both sides, and the courts have to bear that in mind. It is a complex picture.

As we have seen in a number of countries in Europe and the countries of the Arab Spring, people involved in demonstrations tend not to have a particular political affiliation, although sometimes they associate themselves with a previous regime that has been thrown out of office. There have been peaceful protests throughout Morocco since 2011, without the police becoming heavy-handed. If there is an excessive police reaction, it is denounced. In Gdim Izik there were 11 deaths of police officers, which shows that there needs to be a proportionate response to the phenomenon that we are discussing today. I thank the authors of the report and draft resolution.

THE PRESIDENT* – The next speaker is Ms El Ouafi from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

Ms EL OUAFI (Morocco)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on this balanced report. I wish to share some of my thinking on what the authorities are doing in a sensitive region, the Sahara. Sometimes discussion of the matter is wrong, and it is an honour to share in this discussion of the freedom of assembly, media and speech, especially in light of what we have discussed this week. The Moroccan delegation is lucky to be here in the Parliamentary Assembly to share this platform for an exchange of views on human rights, and we are lucky for all that is done to help Morocco in its transition, in the hope that it will be a model for the region is a whole.

The transition towards democracy is not coming easily, but the will of the people stands behind it. There is a real struggle for the freedom of assembly and speech. In a State with the rule of law, it is important that those rights should be institutionalised and democratic institutions built on them, but that is a difficult process and there are political, social and cultural aspects to it. It certainly does not happen mechanically of itself. It is about making an effort to establish institutions, including those for monitoring human rights and for raising the alarm when necessary. In that respect, it is important to stress that human rights institutions – the council of human rights and the ombudsman – should be highly professional.

In all parts of Morocco, including the towns and cities in the south, we have regular meetings with local committees in the field, so monitoring is by activists who are part of the whole picture and represent civil society. Those grass-roots local committees provide reports, in which we see how important it is to combat all efforts to infringe human rights, wherever they may happen. Also, 21 foreign delegations have provided several reports to our government, some of them critical. Again, it is the institutional aspect that is important, and we must identify problems and work together to resolve them. Thank you, Mr President.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Madam, it is I who should thank you and all other partners for democracy for speaking. It is important that you should have the floor, and in that spirit I now give the floor to Mr Ameur from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr AMEUR (Morocco)* – The Arab Spring led to movements and demonstrations of unheard of proportions, as well as the fall of totalitarian regimes. Today, those movements persist and have taken on unknown dimensions that demand the implementation of promised reforms and speak out against regressive steps. The demonstrations have gone together with a notable increase in freedom of expression and assembly. Faced with unheard of situations, and in the absence of a long tradition in that field, the management of such demonstrations is a matter for the authorities and those involved in the movements.

      In Morocco, the process of reform was under way well before the Arab Spring and it has been accompanied by genuine progress in human rights and fundamental freedoms. The demonstrations of 20 February 2011 increased the speed of reform and led to the evolution of a new constitution that guarantees freedom of thought, opinion and expression in all its manifestations. The freedom of the press is limited and cannot be guaranteed against censorship. Although the authorities have made considerable efforts to create a new context, in reality there are a number of restrictions and things that need to be rectified. The situation is characterised by great dynamism in the press, and there is considerable freedom in comparison with other countries in the region. We must point out, however, that restrictions and sanctions are sometimes imposed on journalists, hence the need to reform the press code to bring it in line with new constitutional provisions.

      Peaceful demonstrations have evolved in both size and quality over the years. In 2008, there were almost 6 000 demonstrations in Morocco, and they affected all cities and regions of the kingdom – in 2013, just in Rabat, the authorities that deal with law and order sometimes noted 40 per day. We are aware of those facts, and of the need to draw on the teaching and cultural aspects, which we sometimes miss. The training of law enforcement officers, and others, particularly in human rights, is important to avoid any excess. We must work on all those things to promote human rights and the development of social freedoms and democracy. Civil society has been helpful in doing that through its values and dynamism, but we realise that there is still far to go. We must work on legislative, fiscal and other measures. The new constitution enshrines all those things and brings Morocco closer to international standards.

      To consolidate the dynamism of change, and to anchor irreversibly all those values, human rights associations and all democratic forces must work together to consolidate achievements and reduce the gap between reality and law. Morocco has chosen democracy, fundamental freedoms and human rights, and we must take such things up with both hands, without hesitation and with great determination. Finally, we thank the rapporteur for his balanced report and relevant recommendations.

      THE PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers. Rapporteur, you have seven minutes.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – The word most used here must be “thanks”. First, I thank again the members of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for appointing me as rapporteur, and I emphasise that that was a question of individual freedom, which I particularly value. I also thank all my colleagues for their hard work. Believe me, my task has been to work with all parties to try as far as possible to link all suggestions with a common thread – the facts, what actually happened. A great effort has been made by the secretariat, and great contributions have been made. The report is wide-ranging and we have thought about the future because these challenges and goals will continue. It is therefore important that we continue updating such reports with all the tools we have available, in order to protect fundamental rights.

      Let me clarify one or two points. First, those colleagues who say that we must establish principles in this field should read Resolution 1920, which was adopted this year by the Council of Europe, and also Document 13078 and the report by Mr Johansson. Those documents establish the Council of Europe’s criteria in this field because the European Court of Human Rights, which monitors the respect of human rights, has established that the protection of demonstrations applies not only to authorised demonstrations, but also those that have not been authorised. They, too, must be protected. The right of assembly must be protected, and that applies to all European capitals and other cities. Protection should not exist just at the beginning or end of a demonstration. At the end of a demonstration, there may be small groups that try to provoke the situation, but none the less, such things must be consolidated under the rule of law. It is crucial to have police, but the vast majority of demonstrations are completely peaceful, just as we are in this room.

      We must concentrate on what we have learned about co-existence and from the Court, and we must convey that to all public servants. Why? Because responsibility for what has happened is something we must then put to the courts. If any police officer has gone too far, we should go to the courts. It is not a matter of questioning what was done afterwards when things became violent; it is about the initial intervention. For example, we are talking about peaceful environmentalists who are worried about the future of the park, and it is important to bear in mind the words of my friend, Mr Mota Amaral, who is much wiser than I am in so many ways, and above all in parliamentary matters. He used a fundamental term – profound transformation – and such change is taking place in technology, the economy and society.

Sometimes there is profound change in politics. In Spain, we are tired of talking about the problems we face and the limitations on our mandates. It is good that we apply and limit our mandates here. Sometimes this means that we do not have 20 or 30 reports at the same time, which frees MPs up to work on just a few things, but with greater concentration – which is important – so there is great change in the field of politics, too. It is good that we learn from the exercise and learn from these changes.

      Let me close by sharing a pleasing experience that I saw on Spanish television. What was the response of the President of Portugal – I congratulate António Braga on his great culture, the Portuguese culture – when there were millions of demonstrators? The response was political, and wisely so. The government came up with ideas, proposals and suggestions. At the end, there were still a few violent demonstrators. That is the only place where it was appropriate to use real force. We are talking about legitimate defence. We have given the State the right to use force, but always subject to certain limits and rules.

      The key term in all this is proportionality. There must always be a sense of proportion, in order to uphold the values that we defend and that bring us together. There must be proportionality in the way we defend the interests of those who are not demonstrating. The key thing is to learn the reality of what is happening in so many countries in both the south and the north. We need each other. We must learn from each other and use this experience to continue developing the values of this Assembly. We are all friends of Turkey – we are all friends of London, Madrid, Paris, Athens and any other capital where there might be demonstrations. In the future, there will be more demonstrations, which is a good thing, because it reflects the vitality of those countries and their democratic culture, but we need to protect the rights of all.

      Let me not close without thanking colleagues for their many expressions of affection and support for our work. If any mistakes have been made, I take responsibility for them. As for all the positive aspects and strengths of report, thanks are due to the secretariat, among others. This is the first time, after four years here, that I have received so much support for my work on the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. I thank Mr Marcenaro, who has done splendid work as chair. I also welcome the new chair, Mr von Sydow, whom I knew in the past.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr Díaz Tejera, for this extraordinary plea, which you made with such conviction. I call Mr von Sydow, the chair of the committee.

      Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The Assembly decided on Monday to issue this report. Behind the decision was a round of negotiations between the party groups.

      The matter came to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. We had a discussion about the scope, going into events and developments in Turkey in particular. As has been outlined today, there are several references in paragraph 9 to the European Court of Human Rights, the Convention and the fundamental norms that should be applied to all countries in the Council of Europe – for instance, “guarantee freedom of assembly”, “duly investigate the use of excessive…force”, “draw up clear instructions concerning the use of tear gas”, and so on. A compromise was found today, in the last sitting of the committee. Two sub-amendments were drafted, starting with paragraph 3, to make reference to what has occurred in Paris and Stockholm, the capital of my country, thereby taking a broader perspective.

      Then there is the discussion about how to describe, define and assign responsibility for what has happened in Turkey. As it stands, paragraph 3 is the result of the discussions about the sub-amendments and how the responsibilities are balanced between the partners who participated – and are maybe still participating – in these developments. I recommend this report to you. It has not been easy, but it has been duly handled by the rapporteur and the committee.

      THE PRESIDENT* – That concludes the general discussion. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has produced a draft resolution, to which seven amendments have been tabled. I remind members that they have 30 seconds to speak either in support of an amendment or against it.

      We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Agramunt, Mr Hancock, Mr Volontè, Mr Çavuşoğlu, Mr Walter and Ms Mateu Pi, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 3 with the following paragraph:

      “Examples of peaceful demonstrations which developed into violent clashes with the police in the last few months in Europe include:3.

      3.1 several demonstrations against same sex marriage staged in Paris between 24 March and 27 May 2013 ("Manif pour tous"), involving more than 2 million people, triggering the intervention of law enforcement forces including the use of tear gas on peaceful demonstrators. 4 persons were injured and several hundred were arrested;

      3.2 riots which took place in the suburbs of Stockholm from 20 to 24 May 2013 where people demonstrated against the killing of an immigrant by the police and against immigration and integration policies in general. No injuries were reported and the police arrested 29 persons;

      3.3 a peaceful demonstration on 31 May 2013 organised by environmentalists to an urban renovation project in Istanbul was in part taken over by unrelated extremist groups, whose intervention increasingly intensified the situation which then led to a heavy police intervention and triggered an unprecedented popular protest movement in Turkey. In many places these demonstrations resulted in violent clashes with the security forces, involving the systematic use of tear gas (pepper spray), water cannons and, in some cases, the firing or rubber bullets. The Assembly deplores the death of four people, including a police officer, and the injuries of roughly 4 000 people.”

      There is an oral sub-amendment to Amendment 5. If Amendment 5 is adopted without the sub-amendment, Amendments 3, 6, 4 and 7 fall, but if it is adopted with the sub-amendment, Amendments 3, 6, 4 and 7 must be taken individually.

      I call Mr Walter to support Amendment 5.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – As was made clear in the debate, and also by the committee chairman just a moment ago, the feeling is that we should focus not just on Turkey, but on other countries where there are recent examples of popular protest and challenges to freedom of assembly. Amendment 5 simply adds examples from Paris and Stockholm to those from Turkey, thereby bringing us up to date and, I believe, making this a balanced resolution.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in Amendment 5, to delete paragraph 3.3, and to insert the remainder of the amendment before the existing paragraph 3 of the draft resolution.

      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 Díaz Tejera to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – In the original draft we referred not only to Paris and Stockholm, but to Madrid, London and a lot of other capitals. However, we ended up with a preference for a generic reference, rather than specific references, hence our agreement to sub-paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 – we have gone with Paris and Stockholm as instances, but that has to be compared with the original draft.

      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?

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – On the basis that we keep the original wording of paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 in my amendment, but not paragraph 3.3 – which is what I believe is proposed – the oral sub-amendment is acceptable.

      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? I call Mr Rouquet.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – The amendment seeks to bring together the interventions by the forces of order in Turkey and Paris, but the comparison is ridiculous. The signatories of the amendment are seeking to challenge the legitimacy of the law passed by the French Parliament on marriage for all. The comparison between what may have happened in Paris and what may have happened in Turkey is invidious and ridiculous.

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

      Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Memecan, Mr Agramunt, Mr Hancock, Mr Volontè, Mr Çavuşoğlu and Ms Mateu Pi, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, to replace the first sentence with the following sentence:

“Recently, on 31 May 2013, a peaceful demonstration organised by environmentalists against an urban renovation project in Istanbul was in part taken over by unrelated extremist groups whose intervention increasingly intensified the situation, which then led to a heavy police intervention and triggered an unexpected popular protest movement in Turkey.”

I understand that Ms Memecan does not wish to move Amendment 3. Is that the case?

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey)* – Amendment 5 has already been adopted. Is Amendment 3 still valid?

THE PRESIDENT* – I am being told that Amendment 3 would have fallen automatically if Amendment 5 had been adopted without the oral sub-amendment. In fact Amendment 5 was adopted as amended, so Amendment 3 does not fall. I call Mr Kox.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I thought that when we adopted this amendment, the others would fall, but that seems not to be the case. That was indicated in the committee and the paper that we were given.

The PRESIDENT* – I am so sorry. I have the session documents here. Amendment 3 would fall if Amendment 5 had been adopted unamended, but Amendment 5 was adopted with a sub-amendment so now we should be considering Amendment 3. Of course, it is possible that the information I have been given is wrong. Ms Memecan, I will ask you the question again: would you like to speak in support of Amendment 3?

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – In this amendment we just wanted to point to the fact that the protests were begun by peaceful environmentalists, but later on there were extremists and the police had to react to them. The amendment makes it sound that way. I would like the amendment to be approved.

The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? The rapporteur is asking to speak against it. I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – With all my affection for my colleague, Ms Memecan, we do not agree with the word “extremist”. In general, that is an argument that is always used when there has been a disproportionate intervention. Initially it was ecologists who were demonstrating peacefully, so the first police intervention was disproportionate. After that, all sorts of other civil rights groups – trade unions, women’s rights groups and so on – came to join the demonstration. I reject the term “extremist” so, with all my respect and affection, I disagree with the use of that term. My apologies if I have taken up more time than I should have done, but that is why I am against.

The PRESIDENT* – What is the view of the committee on Amendment 3?

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – Against.

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

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Ms Gündeş Bakir, Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, Mr Kayatürk, Mr Dişli and Ms Memecan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, to delete the second and third sentences.

This amendment, too, needs to be considered. As with the previous one, it would have fallen had Amendment 5 been adopted without any sub-amendment. I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment 6.

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – The report should focus more on principles and fundamentals. This amendment would make the report more concise and focused. That is the reason behind the amendment.

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

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – I want to speak against Amendment 6 in simple, unambiguous language. If this Assembly carries Amendment 6, it would make a nonsense of its first vote, because the amendment contradicts the spirit and intention of the oral sub-amendment on the first vote. I urge the Assembly to reject it.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Lord Tomlinson; your position is very clear. I call Mr Walter.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – Following on from what Lord Tomlinson has said in speaking against, I am now confused. If we are going to delete the second and third sentences of paragraph 3, which are the second and third sentences? We have amended paragraph 3 and it now contains seven or eight sentences. It is illogical that we should even be considering this amendment.

The PRESIDENT* – I can say the following, Mr Walter. As I understand it, sentences were added to paragraph 3 but we did not in any way delete anything from it. We have merely added wording to it. Amendment 5 was amended by deleting new paragraph 3.3 and inserting the remainder of the amendment before the existing paragraph 3 of the draft resolution. As I understand it, this means that Amendment 6 is discussable. I call Ms Lundgren.

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – The first sentence in the new paragraph 3 that has been decided is the one that begins “Examples of peaceful demonstrations” and, as I have it, the second sentence is the beginning of paragraph 3.1. I do not know if we want to delete those sentences, because that would be the result of the amendment.

The PRESIDENT* – As I understand it, it is perfectly clear that paragraph 3, as worded here, is not affected. With the sub-amendment we inserted new language, as voted on a few moments ago. I am looking to right and left to be corrected if necessary. We cannot go back on something that we have already voted on; that is already enshrined. I call Mr Pushkov.

      Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation)* – Further to that point of order, Mr President. You should read out paragraph 3 as amended, so that we can all hear what it says.

      THE PRESIDENT⃰ – It is difficult, because we are about to vote on Amendment 6. I was just asking the committee for its view; we cannot interrupt proceedings on the amendment. We have voted on Amendment 5. Paragraph 3 has not changed in any way; all that we have done is insert further wording. I read out the oral sub-amendment slowly, and asked the chair of the committee to confirm that I had got it right, but I will read it again, for full clarity: “in Amendment 5, to delete paragraph 3.3, and to insert the remainder of the amendment before the existing paragraph 3 of the draft resolution.” Am I right, rapporteur?

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT⃰ – I cannot keep going back to amendments that we have already voted on, and these explanations are taking up a lot of time. A vote is definitive.

Let us go back to Amendment 6. Ms Gündeş Bakir spoke in favour of it, and Lord Tomlinson, with great panache, spoke against. What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The committee voted on it, and the amendment was carried, by two votes.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – For perfect clarity, the committee supports Amendment 6.

The vote is open.

Amendment 6 is rejected.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – On a point of order, Mr President. The problem is that we are not psychic. When the amendments were tabled, they related to the original wording of paragraph 3; the report has been amended, but the amendments have not been changed. These are legitimate amendments to the original paragraph. If we had foresight and knew that the report would change, the amendments could have been reworded, but we could not do that, as we did not know what the result of the vote would be. It is quite in order to vote on the amendments, which relate to the wording of paragraph 3.3.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – I do not know what more I can do. Would the chair of the committee like to speak? No. Let us move on.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Ms Memecan, Mr Agramunt, Mr Hancock, Mr Volontè, Mr Çavuşoğlu and Ms Mateu Pi, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace “8,000” with “4,000”.

Amendment 7 is identical to Amendment 4. As Amendment 4 was tabled first, I call the proposer of Amendment 4, Ms Memecan, to support the amendment.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I would like the amendment to be accepted.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Bilgehan.

Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – This is complicated, but if I have understood correctly, we are talking here about the number of people injured. According to the Turkish doctors’ association, the figure is exactly 7 832.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – Yes, it is a question of the numbers. If the number is 7 000-odd, that is 7 000 too many. What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Kürkçü, Mr Papadimoulis, Mr Loukaides and Ms Andersen, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 3, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly welcomes the European Parliament resolution on 13 June expressing ‘concerns regarding the disproportionate and excessive use of force by the police in Turkey’ and underlining the importance of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and peaceful protest which are also core values of the European Union (EU).” I

       I call Mr Kox to support the amendment. [Interruption.] Listen, I am presiding here. If anyone would like to speak, all they have to do is raise their hand, and I will give them the floor with pleasure – if there is a reason for them to speak, that is.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Last month, Mr President, you stated in Brussels that the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should speak with one voice when it comes to democracy, the rule of law and human rights. This month, the European Parliament – our colleagues just a few metres away – adopted a resolution on the popular protests in Turkey that referred to the obligation on the Turkish authorities under our European Convention on Human Rights. The amendment proposes that we welcome the European Parliament’s resolution, to show that we can speak with one voice when our shared values, described in the Convention, need to be defended. I urge colleagues to vote in favour of the amendment, because then we are speaking the same language across the whole of Europe.

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

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – Turkey is not a member of the European Union; it is a member of the Council of Europe. This “me, too” amendment is unnecessary and superfluous. It is the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that is speaking on this important matter – a matter on which we should speak with one voice, but we should not be seen to be following in the shadow of another assembly; we should speak as ourselves.

      THE PRESIDENT⃰ – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Čigāne, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Lībiņa-Egnere, Mr Cilevičs and Ms Reps, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9.7, insert the following paragraph:

“refrain from unnecessary administrative and organizational hurdles on the work of civil society organizations by subjecting them to controls, fines and penalties. Such excessive practices intensify popular discontent and may lead to further increased popular protest activity.”

      I call Ms Čigāne to support the amendment.

      Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – The amendment expands on paragraph 9.7, in which the rapporteur says that countries should find a way to engage their population in the management of public affairs. We want the resolution to state that countries should refrain from placing any hurdles, administrative or organisational, on civil society organisations. The issue was mentioned here by the Commissioner for Human Rights when he spoke about his visits to several member countries, so we ask colleagues to support the amendment. Thank you.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13258, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13258, as amended, is adopted, with 106 votes for, 15 against and 14 abstentions.

       I congratulate our rapporteur and the secretariat of the committee, who worked so hard and so quickly on the text.

2. Current affairs debate: State interference with privacy on the Internet

THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is a current affairs debate on State interference with privacy on the Internet.

We must finish this debate by 1 p.m. I remind members that speaking time is limited to three minutes, except the first speaker, Mr Flego, who has been chosen by the Bureau to open the debate, and who is allowed 10 minutes.

      I ask all members to stay in their seats, because this is a current affairs debate on an issue of urgent importance. State interference with privacy on the Internet is much discussed in today’s world.

In the debate, I call first Mr Flego. You have 10 minutes.

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – The Internet has changed, and continues to change, the structure of power. The unprecedented development of information technology, the ability to exchange information instantly, the huge amount of knowledge available to everyone, the development of social networks and the enormous number of people communicating have all changed the structure of the public sphere. The Internet has opened new highways for mutually informative, inter-subject communication in society and business, which has affected both decision-making processes and the substance of decisions. That paradigm revolution has changed democracy. The modern State is deliberative and democratic, and it assists and serves its citizens through institutions and public infrastructure. It is supposed to protect citizens and their belongings; to ensure that there is justice, equal opportunity and democratic decision making; and to safeguard citizens’ rights.

Democracy does not exist for its own sake. It is a space and a process in which people can make joint decisions on matters that concern them. Democracy is the practice of freedom, and the practice of freedom is an important component of human happiness. Of course, happiness cannot be reduced to freedom alone, but there is no happiness without freedom, even in a democracy. Contemporary democracy has certain prerequisites, including, first and foremost, freedom of expression and freedom of information. They are largely channelled through media, such as the Internet, social networks, online media, mobile platforms and new media. They are not mere instruments but a new kind of public space that is open to everybody. The only precondition is the ability to communicate. Anyone can participate in the electronic and global linguistic community without having to declare their membership of any group, their adherence to any ideas or their geographical location.

Electronic communication and online media have become part of the infrastructure of contemporary living. The degree to which a State ensures the optimal functioning of that infrastructure says a great deal about the State, as does the degree to which it protects the media from pressure and interference. It is up to the central State authorities to ensure that none of the State bodies puts pressure on editors, journalists, media professionals and publishers. That can be done with traditional media, but with the Internet everything is different. The Internet belongs to no one does but its users and co-authors. Social networks largely have no editor, and online media is frequently created by non-professionals.

Old-fashioned control of the Internet is impossible. Some State apparatuses, particularly those that still tend to control everything, try to restrict or disable that which they cannot control. By acting in such a way, they strangle freedom of expression and thus make their citizens un-free and unhappy. The character of any political system can be evaluated by looking at its relation to the media and whether it promotes or restricts media freedom. If the government suppresses news about demonstrations that last several days; if the government scares people by threatening 5 million Twitter users who disseminated news of public interest or spoke out about the excessive use of force by the police, like in Turkey; or if the parliamentary majority uses police units to remove journalists and opposition MPs from the Parliament, like in Macedonia, such States not only violate European Union and United Nations covenants and conventions, and the Parliamentary Assembly’s resolutions and recommendations, but restrict and disable basic human freedoms. Democracy is not about transmitting someone else’s will, but about a process of deciding on it oneself. Democracy is not an obedient transfer of politicians’ programmes, but a process of deciding about what politicians have to do. Democratic political leaders lead by introducing proposals; if they try to dictate what people have to do or think, they approach the fatal area of dictatorship.

The Internet has also its dark sides. It is open to violations of others’ rights, manipulation, social and political mobilisation – for good or bad – anonymous threats and intimidation, propaganda, child pornography, hate speech and cyber bullying. The Internet needs some sort of supervision and regulation, but instead of clear and transparent regulation, some countries restrict access to the Internet, which violates their citizens’ rights to express themselves and to access information. Some sites filter the content of the Internet. Some governments, in contravention of their own laws, penetrate into people’s legally protected private electronic data, whether they be citizens or not. Such governments try to legitimate their activity by citing security reasons and the fight against terrorism.

From the very beginning of the Internet, people have attempted to find the right balance of regulation between freedom and security – between individual initiatives and societal protection. In her strategically important report on the Internet and politics, Ms Brasseur faces the same problem. Whatever we decide about regulation, it is crucial that State apparatuses do not violate but instead protect the rights of their citizens. It is crucial that regulation be balanced. It should protect the innocent and powerless from abuse, but certainly not at the cost of freedom of expression and the new path of democratic developments. In any case, I am under no illusion that the latter would be possible.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call Mr Wach, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr WACH Poland)* – We are discussing an important and sensitive subject. The Internet is used in many different ways but there is a sensitive and private aspect to it. We communicate private, even intimate things through the Internet, including family and health problems. We share our successes, worries and weaknesses. Therefore, we do not want anyone to spy on us and our private business.

      The Internet is used widely. Its openness and flexibility is the source of its popularity but also of its weakness. It is open to all sorts of fraud and crime. We all agree that it is used for organised crime, terrorist attacks and fraud. There is also child abuse on the Internet. With that in mind, we must consider some control of the Internet post factum – after the crime has been committed.

The problem arises in all kinds of communication, but live control of the Internet is a hot issue. Some argue that it is necessary to protect the community. If we do that, it should be done according to the law passed by the parliaments and controlled by parliamentary bodies. In principle it is simple, but the problem is implementation. Implementation in this area is very difficult, and people do not believe that it can be done properly and effectively.

We are at the beginning of a very difficult problem. We have a tool of communication which belongs to us and which is free but sometimes is used against us. Control of traditional communication is relatively easy; control of the Internet is more difficult. Young people in particular do not believe that we can do that properly. Therefore, we have a problem to solve.

The PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Marjanović, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Ms MARJANOVIĆ (Serbia) – I thank Mr Flego for raising the main issues in relation to the influence of the Internet on democracy and human rights. As we all know, the Internet has become a global phenomenon and transformed almost all aspects of our lives. However, we are talking about an issue that is not new: the protection of privacy, which can be endangered by the State. That is regulated by the European Convention on Human Rights, which defines that everyone has the right to respect for their private life and that there shall be no interference by public authorities, with some necessary exceptions when it comes to national security and public safety. However, history is full of examples of abusive practices, and policies can often be changed to allow further abuse. We must prevent such abuses.

We need to find the right balance, understand the changing world and prevent manipulation of access to information. The development of the Internet and social media has become a huge issue for law makers. The speed of technological development presents a challenge to which law makers cannot always react. We need be more creative in understanding how to protect privacy and human rights in the digital age. That is particularly important when we acknowledge that privacy is associated with autonomy, dignity, liberty and trust. There have been occasions in the recent past when people have lost trust in governments and institutions.

Recently in London, an interesting conference was organised by our Sub-Committee on Media and Information Society. There we found out that children spent more hours a week on the Internet or watching digital programmes than in school. That issue requires our special attention.

As societies and democracies, we have gained a lot from the Internet, but the new media environment is becoming more and more difficult. It is difficult for us to decide what is important, what is true, what is false, what is manipulation and what is information. However, we need to find that delicate and necessary balance in protecting human rights and freedoms.

The PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Brasseur, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* – Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this subject. I thank Mr Flego for his introduction to the debate. What a difficult issue it is. I am preparing in the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media a report on the Internet and politics and the effects of new information technologies on democracy. The report refers to two hearings that we had and it shows how difficult it is to grasp this problem.

Many of us say it is increasingly difficult to draw a distinction between the public and private spheres. Jürgen Habermas has just added a third sphere: the social sphere. We find ourselves in the social sphere when we are dealing with the Internet. However, we are witnessing contradictory tendencies. On the one hand, we must have the right to respect of private life, family, home and correspondence, as enshrined in Article 8 of the ECHR, which we must defend. However, people feel a need, which is often uncontrolled and unwitting, to put everything on the net. Surfers put all the information about themselves, their friends and relations on the Internet. I would call it digital exhibitionism. I think that people need to be protected. Through education, you need to tell young people that they should not put absolutely everything on the net, which cannot be controlled – it is out of control in some ways.

The net does not belong to one person; it belongs to everyone. That means that it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand. Information is stored, manipulated and passed on. Data has become a commodity for commercial purposes but also for political purposes and to wield power. Mr President, I hope I may refer to a few passages in my report, which has not yet been adopted. One of the points states that the danger is clear where respect for human rights is no longer complied with and where those rights are undermined and in decline. That is what is happening today. In our States, for security reasons, people are saying, “Everything can be monitored.” Some governments try to do that by linking up with private companies. We must find a way to face up to these challenges, which are undermining our society, but I am afraid that at the moment we do not have the instruments to do so. We have to guarantee protection of the right to a private life, which is one of our most precious values. We must oppose the threat to individual freedom.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next speaker is Sir Roger Gale, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – International security forces engage in espionage. I do not want to make light of this and I know it is not fashionable to say so, but spies spy – that is what they do – and if they are going to do it effectively they have to keep pace with modern technology.

      What we have to address is the balance between counter-terrorism and security and the individual’s right to privacy. There will always be a danger, particularly in States veering towards totalitarianism, that security agencies will abuse their powers, and the ends do not always justify the means in a free society. However, there is also a danger, exacerbated by an hysterical media, of overreaction, which is to the advantage of those who seek to destabilise a democratic society. There cannot be an inviolable right to privacy in all circumstances.

We hear about the failures. The tragic murder in London recently of Drummer Lee Rigby is a case in point. It may be true, as the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Hague has said, that the security services prevented bombings at the 2012 London Olympics, but for obvious reasons we seldom, if ever, hear about – and therefore cannot evaluate – the successes of counter-terrorism and interdiction. I cannot speak for the United States or the European Union, but I have good reason to believe that in the United Kingdom at present the balance of security is proportionate to the threat.

I end with this: I believe that it is up to us as elected parliamentarians to hold the Executive to account and to challenge the abuse, under any circumstances, of any power, not only by the State, but by State agencies. That is our job.

THE PRESIDENT* – The next speaker is Mr Jónasson, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – I thank Mr Flego for his excellent report. As he has pointed out, the Internet opens up endless possibilities. It allows us to obtain and exchange information and it can serve as an important and powerful tool for democracy. However, it can also be used for other means: it enables corporations and governments, if they are so inclined, to gather information about groups and individuals and thus infringe on their privacy. That information can be used in such a way that it stifles democracy.

Edward Snowden has informed the world that United States authorities – the FBI and the National Security Agency – have gathered information on individuals. Major Internet providers, including Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others, have been made to supply authorities with information about individuals. Given that we are a forum for human rights, I urge everybody to shield democratic whistle blowers such as Edward Snowden.

I also want to raise the issue of violent pornography on the Internet. If, Mr President, five men were raping a woman in front of you and using all kinds of sadistic cruelty, we would all stand up in abhorrence and you would stop it immediately. If such an act were shown at a school for 11-year-olds and the headmaster turned a blind eye to it, I bet that he and the entire school board would be fired before dawn.

When such an act is shown on the Internet, however, very few people say a word. Research in the Nordic countries has shown that, on average, children are 11 years old when they see violent pornography on the Internet, not because they are looking for it, but because the product’s salesmen know how to approach their future customers. This is a serious issue and it is not an option for us or for governments to turn a blind eye and remain neutral.

When I was the Icelandic Minister of the Interior, I took the first steps in addressing the issue by mapping out the technical and legal possibilities, but I was accused of censorship. I am against censorship, but this is a matter of discretion.

Finally, I pay tribute to the Council of Europe for its great work in protecting children’s rights. Its awareness campaign on child abuse has been run to great effect in Iceland. I convey our gratitude to those working on it in the Council of Europe.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – Advocating freedom of expression is very easy to do in many circumstances, in the expectation that one will get applause for doing so. However, modern society has always accepted limitations on freedom of expression in the greater public interest. I rejoice in the fact that we have limitations on freedom of expression in my country which prevent people from inciting racial hatred, religious hatred, armed insurrection and terrorism. We have always accepted that there have to be some restrictions on freedom of expression, but those restrictions should be permitted only in accordance with human rights legislation.

The restrictions are imperative, but it is more problematic to deal with them in the context of the Internet. For a long time, I have not believed the Internet to be an unmitigated good for society. I look at it in my academic capacities at a university and see that, while it has produced an enormous range and volume of information, it varies greatly in quality. The massive quantities of information available have resulted in a greater incidence of plagiarism. The hope of getting away with using one of the many pieces of information available on the Internet has damaged some students’ approach to studying.

I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Flego, on his approach. As he has said, “the Internet has its dark sides”. Those dark sides are increasing and the bright sides sometimes have diminishing utility. I have long thought that the time has come to attempt the almost impossible task of a cost-benefit analysis of the Internet. I junk about 90% of the e-mails that my office receives daily without bothering to look at them, because they have been sent in a lazy way by people who are completely undiscriminating in how they communicate and who, having produced a communication once, send it to everyone. That is also happening in political parties. The amount of junk mail I get from my party is almost as bad as that from other sources.

Mr Flego’s report provides a very good basis for discussion and I look forward to Ms Brasseur’s report, which will enable us to go into the subject in much more detail.

      Mr HANSON (Estonia) – In many respects, information has never been as free as it is today. We must be aware, however, that the Internet can also strengthen the hands of governments in areas where many of us would not like to see them intervening. This is true not only with respect to the savvy authoritarian States, but also to democratic countries. In the latter case, the main argument behind collecting those data is that they are relevant to investigations of crime or protecting against international terrorism. I do not need to say that this is not reassuring to too many people.

Among others, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Mr Frank La Rue, warned in a recent report that the broad interpretation of outdated laws is enabling sophisticated and invasive surveillance measures to flourish around the world, and governments should draw up new regulations that properly acknowledge their growing power.

I am an optimist who believes that human rights can be best defended when the rule of law is applied, and that includes the complex matrix of privacy, national security and technology. To me the key to this debate is an informed public. Some surveillance may be necessary in some justified cases, but in a democratic country, it can be legitimate only if it is based on informed consent. The level of public scrutiny of the legal basis of any kind of surveillance has to be adequate: it should be citizens or their elected representatives who decide what is right and what is wrong.

The potential threats of State interference in privacy on the Internet should not be the reason that prevents us from fully embracing the information society. In my own country, Estonia, many of our vulnerabilities as one of the most Internet-connected countries in the world were revealed. Our response to this was not less Internet. On the contrary, we believe that our security threat can best be met by developing our e-Estonia concept further, with even more openness and transparency. Flaws in privacy should not legitimise the efforts to undermine the current multi-stakeholder model of the Internet or the values we hold dear.

Mr TRIANTAFYLLOS (Greece)* – These new technologies are neither conservative nor left wing. They sometimes take on a different political hue, but if we audit who is in favour of new technologies and who is against, we see a continual search to find a democratic way to control and regulate this new technology. This technology plays a very important role in the day to day life of European citizens, so this regulation will also affect them.

Our citizens should have the same rights online as they do offline, but it is difficult when their rights to privacy online are undermined. On the one hand, we have extreme freedom, but on the other we have security fears. It could be argued that we have no freedom without security, but if the Internet were subject to massive controls, it would lose a great deal of its usefulness. We need a balance between freedom and security. We need some kind of regulation of the ways in which people’s freedom and privacy may be undermined. We have to protect anonymity, but we also need to protect pluralist, democratic expression. We need to protect private lives, but we also need to protect against child porn. We need to protect societies against cybercrime, and governments and companies must be protected from Internet intrusions, but we need to ensure that such protection is proportionate and that human rights and multiculturalism are respected on the Internet.

The possibilities are limitless, and we need to ensure that that international organisations such as the Council of Europe play their important role in this fight.

Ms BLONDIN (France)* – The right to a private life is an elementary right recognised in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Technological evolution has made this principle more and more tricky to implement. It can be easy to gather personal information on the Internet, for example. The Internet is a splendid tool to promote freedom, but while it makes it easy to access information, it also makes it easier to cross boundaries. Everyone will recall the Arab Spring and the Syrian tragedy.

There is another side to every coin, and the ease with which information circulates on the web goes alongside the weakness of measures to protect personal data. It is up to us to update our principles to ensure that we develop a new legal instrument that guarantees the protection of private life as we move towards electronic working. The American PRISM project and the debates in the European Union about Acta, or the modification of the directive on the protection of personal data, show that this issue of interference by public authorities in our private lives is not a problem peculiar to dictatorships.

We should be vigilant as members of parliament to ensure that pressing social needs -- the guarantee of law and order or the preservation of copyright, for example – do not lead to too broad rights to monitor our private data on the web. I note that the European Union is trying to find the right approach to this to try to reconcile the right to a private life, national security and the protection of intellectual property. If the European Union manages to come up with a helpful compromise, it would be a shame were it limited to the 28 member States. A Council of Europe convention could take up the principles identified, with value added by its own expertise in the field.

All member States of the Council of Europe must ban the export of surveillance technologies to countries that trample fundamental rights underfoot. The United States and the European Union have shown the way forward by banning such exports to Syria and Iran. We need to go further and extend this measure globally. Five companies share the market in cyber-security. One is American and four are European, with British, German, Italian and French companies. We in Europe therefore bear the responsibility and it is up to us to manage their activities.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia)* – Just a few months ago, Georgian citizens saw the sexual life of a Georgian journalist. It was the first time that a video of that kind was circulated on the Internet. Thanks to Internet social networks, the video unfortunately appeared pretty well everywhere. The distribution of the video was commissioned by senior officials close to the prime minister. The journalist said that the deputy prime minister had threatened to circulate a video of his private life if he did not cease to investigate corruption of senior State officials. The only person who had been investigated by the minister of justice – the deputy interior minister – was liberated on bail at the request of the general prosecutor service. The deputy prosecutor was accused of being part of the case, and the complaints against the journalist were said not to have been an abuse of power. Those people were not investigated. All the components of impunity in respect of those who attacked the journalist are present in the affair.

      In Georgia, the militants in favour of the individual people who are active on Internet social networks and who wish to express their criticisms of the government are interrogated by the police. One case is that of a militant blogger for the opposition. I was contacted by a woman who wanted to share information about the violation of human rights by a senior official in the ministry of defence. The next day, a dozen policemen appeared at her front door without any legal authorisation. They told her that her Internet activities could give rise to problems for her in future.

      I draw attention to the use of interference in private lives among Council of Europe member States, which happens particularly in countries where such technologies can be used to counter the opposition or any criticism of the government. I hope the debate will be useful in drawing attention to this phenomenon and targeting it.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – We currently face a frightening phenomenon: the over-control of communication between people. The recent activities of the United States, which we learned about through leaks, are not an exceptional case. In the war against terror and hate speech, States are more and more inclined to control our privacy and lives.

      Citizens are not servants of the State. On the contrary, the State must ensure the welfare and dignity of the people. That is why privacy is one of the most dominant and important values, and it must be secured. There must be a common platform, irrespective of different points of view and political opinions, that some circles must not be controlled by any means by the State.

      In reality, the main question and challenge is finding a balance between security and freedom, and between proportionality and necessity. They are the most important aspects of Council of Europe legislation and European Court of Human Rights case law. The right to freedom of expression is a main feature of democracy. It means that everyone has the right to receive important information and ideas without interference. That is the main goal for the State to realise. Unfortunately, there have been annoying developments in Hungary. Recently, a new law was adopted that ensures the opportunity to finally block certain content of home pages that are linked somehow with crimes. However, using that legal tool, the authorities are able to eliminate certain home pages that are unpleasant for the State, and that reflect views critical of State activity. Some are bizarre, and some of the language is tough, but the opinion content should be defended. That is why it is important to stand up for the freedom of the Internet.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I thank Mr Flego for initiating the debate. Experience has revealed time after time how difficult it is to protect people from interference on the Internet. The interception practices of the United States Government using the Prism program were recently disclosed, but such activities are not new. For instance, more than 10 years ago, we learned about Echelon, another United States system that appears to have routinely intercepted our communications. Our own governments take part in blanket Internet surveillance practices. With the development of technology come new possibilities to gather more information.

      We are shocked about such revelations every time, but do not find a proper answer. It is clear that, in the framework of criminal investigations or prosecution, authorities should have certain competences in order to disclose communication between suspects. Intelligence services need a certain amount of space to follow closely developments that could endanger our societies. Hate speech also needs to be tackled. However, routine methods of interception clearly go beyond those legitimate goals. The right to privacy and to a private life are therefore at stake.

      How can we find a balanced system in which we do not need to fear interference, and in which we can freely enjoy the possibilities that the Internet offers? Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights traditionally offers the right to private life. Of course, that right is invoked at the Court in cases of Internet interference or in cases of the illegitimate storage and misuse of our personal data. It will be interesting to see how the Court further develops standards as technologies continue to grow.

      Protection against interference goes beyond the right to privacy; it is also vital for the freedoms of assembly, expression, opinion and speech. Those freedoms can be affected by censorship or manipulation. Alternatively, there could be active interference in debates on the Internet or social media. Social media and the Internet were massively used in the Arab Spring, but they are also used in other protests and movements, and have therefore played a part in democratic reforms. We should foster that because, in that way, more people become politically involved. We should ensure that the Internet supports and does not hinder public debate and the democratic process.

      We have conventions on cybercrime, data protection and the protection of children. We also have recommendations to member States and guidelines for private sector Internet actors. We need to address not only governments, but companies that benefit from the use of our personal data. It is time to investigate the whole acquis. Do we have enough standards and do we apply them properly in practice? I urge the Committee of Ministers to go beyond the territories of Council of Europe member States and set international, global standards.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Flego, you have one minute left to reply.

      Mr FLEGO (Croatia) –        We have been discussing an enormous subject. It is obvious that we and the world need regulation of new media. As we have stressed several times, that regulation should be balanced, and we look forward to learning the principles behind the new rules. It would be optimal if they were global; if not, they should be regional; but in every case they should be international. There is no absolute freedom, but as John Locke said, a person’s freedom in a civil society is limited by the freedom of others. We need further interpretation of the matter, but simplistically put, that is the case.

      There is another principle that I would like to apply to any rules that are made – the relatively simply one of moral behaviour and reciprocity. Let us treat others as we would like them to treat us. That should be the basic rule of the regulations that I look forward to seeing. I also wish Ms Brasseur all the best.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr Flego, for having accepted the role of rapporteur on this important issue and for having worked so swiftly.

I remind you that at the end of a current affairs debate, the Assembly is not asked to decide upon a text, but the matter may be referred by the Bureau to the responsible committee for a report.

The debate is closed.

3. Next public business

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

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1.15 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Urgent debate: popular protest and challenges to freedom of assembly, media and speech

Presentation by Mr Díaz Tejera of report f the Committee on Political Affairs and Development, Doc. 13258

Speakers: Mr Kürkçü (Turkey), Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal), Ms Bilgehan (Turkey), Ms Khidasheli (Georgia), Mr Clappison (United Kingdom), Mr Dişli (Turkey), Mr Michel (France), Ms Gündeş Bakir (Turkey), Mr Erkal Kara (Turkey), Mr Schennach (Austria), Mr Bies (France), Ms Memecan (Turkey), Ms Čigāne (Latvia), Ms Strik (Netherlands), Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Mr Pushkov (Russian Federation), Mr Kayatürk (Turkey), Mr Marias (Greece), Mr Hancock (United Kingdom), Ms Loklindt (Denmark), Mr Garðarson (Iceland), Mr Yatim (Morocco), Ms El Ouafi (Morocco), Mr Ameur (Morocco)

Replies: Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain), Mr von Sydow (Sweden)

Amendments 5 as amended, 4 and 1 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13258, as amended, adopted

2. Current affairs debate: State interference with privacy on the Internet

Speakers: Mr Flego (Croatia), Mr Wach (Poland), Ms Marjanović (Serbia), Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg), Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom), Mr Jónasson (Iceland), Lord Tomlinson (United Kingdom), Mr Hanson (Estonia), Mr Triantafyllos (Greece), Ms Blondin (France), Ms Taktakishvili (Georgia), Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary), Ms Strik (Netherlands)

Replies: Mr Flego (Croatia)

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

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON/Michael Connarty

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Daniel BACQUELAINE/ Dirk Van Der Maelen

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Tinatin Khidasheli

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIC/Ismeta Dervoz

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL*

Gerold BÜCHEL

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA /lga Kazakova

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Tina Acketoft

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI/Paolo Corsini

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH*

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE*

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER/Ludo Sannen

Roel DESEYN*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ*

Jim DOBBIN*

Karl DONABAUER*

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Damian DRĂGHICI*

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU/ Maryvonne Blondin

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Gianni FARINA*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/ Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOV

Axel E. FISCHER

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Hans FRANKEN*

Jean-Claude FRÉCON

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE

Karl GARÐARSON

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA*

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Paolo GIARETTA*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA*

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Iwona Guzowska

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Gergely GULYÁS/Imre Vejkey

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU*

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG/Jonas Gunnarsson

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI*

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER/Eric Voruz

Martin HENRIKSEN/Per Stig Møller

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*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Stella JANTUAN*

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI/Laura Seara

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ*

Antti KAIKKONEN/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Ferenc KALMÁR*

Božidar KALMETA/Ivan Račan

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel

Ulrika KARLSSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Burhan KAYATÜRK

Jan KAŹMIERCZAKMarek 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

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV/Robert Shlegel

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Christophe LÉONARD/Philippe Bies

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE*

Lone LOKLINDT

François LONCLE*

Jean-Louis LORRAIN/Bernard Fournier

George LOUKAIDES

Younal LOUTFI*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Pietro MARCENARO

Thierry MARIANI/André Schneider

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Frédéric Reiss

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ*

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI*

Andrey MOLCHANOV*

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES*

Patrick MORIAU*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Lydia MUTSCH/ Félix Braz

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*

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS*

Sandra OSBORNE

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI*

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Danny PIETERS*

Foteini PIPILI/Maria Giannakaki

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN*

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT*

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV

Mailis REPS

Eva RICHTROVÁ*

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Ilir RUSMALI*

Pavlo RYABIKIN/Iryna Gerashchenko

Rovshan RZAYEV

Giacomo SANTINI*

Giuseppe SARO

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER*

Urs SCHWALLER/ Luc Recordon

Senad ŠEPIĆ/Nermina Kapetanović

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO/Oleh Pankevych

Boris SHPIGEL*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Ladislav SKOPAL*

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV*

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Giacomo STUCCHI

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Tamerlan Aguzarov

Romana TOMC

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV*

Mihai TUDOSE

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Theodora TZAKRI*

Tomáš ÚLEHLA*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV/Guennady Gorbunov

Giuseppe VALENTINO/Oreste Tofani

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Konstantinos Triantafyllos

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN/Tineke Strik

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ*

Vladimir VORONIN*

Tanja VRBAT/Melita Mulić

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ/Damir Šehović

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Katrin WERNER

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM*

Karl ZELLER*

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ/Polonca Komar

Svetlana ZHUROVA*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Christian BARILARO

Maria GIANNAKAKI

Indrek SAAR

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Partners for Democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Nezha EL OUAFI

Qais KHADER

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM