AA13CR26

AS (2013) CR 26

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-sixth Sitting

Thursday 27 June 2013 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Credentials of the Italian delegation

      THE PRESIDENT* – As a result of late receipt of the membership of the Italian delegation, I inform the Assembly that the credentials of the Italian delegation will be examined at the opening of tomorrow morning’s sitting. Those credentials are in Document 13262, which will be available in the Document Centre this afternoon.

2. Tackling discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity

      THE PRESIDENT* – The first item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report, presented by Mr Haugli on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, entitled “Tackling discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity”. Once we have heard from the rapporteur, it will be our pleasure to hear an address from Ms Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, Minister of Women’s Rights of France.

      I remind the Assembly that we aim to finish the debate at 6.40 p.m. We will therefore interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.30 p.m. to leave time for the replies and votes. Rapporteur, you have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr HAUGLI (Norway) – The question before us this afternoon is this: are human rights for all, or can some people, based on who they are, be denied freedoms such as the freedom of expression or of assembly? The answer is and must be clear: human rights are our rights as human beings, regardless of who we are. International human rights law lays down obligations for governments to act in certain ways, or refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect the human rights of individuals and groups. As members of this Parliamentary Assembly, we have taken it on ourselves to defend those rights.

      While the family rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people – LGBT – is a controversial issue in some countries, human rights should not, and cannot be controversial. This report concerns itself not with family, marriage or adoption, but with the core values of the Council of Europe: freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the prevention of and protection from violence. I want to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for their support and input throughout the six meetings in which the report was discussed. I am happy to inform the Assembly that the report was adopted unanimously by the committee and supported across political groups and geographical areas.

      In Europe, as elsewhere in the world, LGBTs have historically suffered ridicule, prejudice, violence, hospitalisation, imprisonment and persecution. Europe has come a very long way. The Council of Europe has played an important role in setting standards of non-discrimination. In 2010, this Assembly passed comprehensive texts on how to tackle discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, based on a ground-breaking report by Andreas Gross. His report is the starting point for mine. Everything in the 2010 resolutions still stands and is still important; my aim has been to capture recent trends and address specific concerns. There has been progress and setbacks.

      First, there has been a lot of progress. In many countries, laws, action plans and strategies have been developed to combat discrimination of LGBTs. The Council of Europe is currently working with the governments of six countries – Albania, Italy, Latvia, Montenegro, Poland and Serbia – to develop cross-sectoral plans to combat discrimination and strengthen the human rights of LGBTs. Heads of State and government across Europe – including, recently, in Albania, Croatia and Georgia – have spoken out forcefully against discrimination. These are some of the many examples of progress.

      Secondly, violence remains a problem across Europe. LGBTs appear to be a particularly vulnerable group in times of economic difficulty. Many of you will recall the report and statement to the Assembly on this matter by Thomas Hammarberg, the former Commissioner for Human Rights. In a recent survey by the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency, 26% of LGBT respondents indicated that they had been attacked or threatened with violence in the last five years. This number is shockingly high. The draft resolution calls for action. Governments must act to prevent violence and protect people from it.

      In the last couple of years, LGBTs have been the target of political initiatives attempting to force them out of the public eye. On 11 June, the Russian Duma adopted a comprehensive law banning so-called “propaganda for non-traditional sexual relations”. Similar laws have been discussed in Ukraine, Moldova and Lithuania. The draft resolution calls on the parliaments of the respective countries not to pursue the examination of these laws, and on the Russian Duma to repeal the new law. A recent opinion by the Venice Commission deals with this topic. It is crystal clear: the so-called propaganda laws are vague and disproportionate, lack justification and “are incompatible with ECHR and international human rights standards.” The commission continues, “they are blanket restrictions aimed at legitimate expressions”.

      Here is some food for thought. What if a member of the Council of Europe banned red-haired, tall or disabled people from organising demonstrations? Or made “Jewish propaganda” punishable? Or denied black or left-handed people the right to free speech? It is not acceptable – it is probably unprecedented in the history of the Council of Europe – that conscious, open-eyed efforts are being made to exclude one group of people from the European Convention on Human Rights.

      The alleged justification for many of these laws is that they seek to protect children. It is indeed the right and the duty of all States to protect children. Children should not drive cars, drink alcohol or smoke. Children should be protected from violent and pornographic materials of any kind. However, this is not the issue. These laws against so-called homosexual propaganda assume that protecting children from knowing about the very existence of LGBT people is conductive to their health and development. There is absolutely no basis for this. On the contrary: as the European Court of Human Rights has confirmed, there is no evidence that public debate about sexual or other minorities has any negative effects on children.

      Politicians have a special responsibility for fostering a climate of respect for diversity. The draft resolution calls on all public figures, parliamentarians and others in positions of authority to refrain from homophobic and trans-phobic discourse and to publicly condemn it. The report deals with fundamental rights: the right to speak freely, the right to form organisations, the right to demonstrate peacefully and the right to live a life without threats or violence. Our responsibility in this Assembly is to defend and promote human rights. This is what I am asking you to do today.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. You have six minutes remaining to reply to the debate.

      It is now my great pleasure to welcome Ms Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, the French Minister for Women’s Rights. You have just participated in an important meeting of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, at which the chair was of course present. Members were able to have a free and frank exchange with her and other members of the committee in attendance, as well as other representatives who took part.

      Let me say to you what a great pleasure it is to welcome a minister here from my own country. Come more often! Come down to Strasbourg and take advantage of what we do here! You know that we spare no effort in either the Parliamentary Assembly or the Secretariat, which is represented here today by the Deputy Secretary General, whom I welcome.

      You were in New York with us a short time ago, evaluating the much vaunted Istanbul Convention. You said you would be tabling a bill in the French Parliament to see to it that France also ratified it. You have now done that, in keeping with your undertaking. I hope very much that other countries will soon follow suit, so that the convention can become operational. You will be aware that we will celebrate the third anniversary of the Istanbul Convention in 2014. I hope that, along with the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, we will manage to organise an event to raise awareness in countries that have not yet been won over by the campaign to fight against the kind of violence that women experience on a daily basis. We have waged an effective campaign so far, raising awareness in parliaments and in public opinion, and tackling domestic violence, particularly against women and children.

      It is a great pleasure, both as the President of the Parliamentary Assembly and as a French citizen, to welcome you this afternoon. We very much look forward to listening to what you have to say and, if you would be so kind, to listening to you field questions from members in due course. It is with great pleasure that I now give you the floor.

Ms VALLAUD-BELKACEM (Minister of Women’s Rights of France)* – Mr President, thank you for your warm words of welcome, and thank you, Mr Rapporteur, for the report that you have just introduced. I believe that this report is very much in line with what the Council of Europe has always been about since its foundation – that is, a will to share commonly held values, to take forward the rights of all, to defend the freedoms of all and to protect the most vulnerable in our midst.

There is a very simple point that I can never forget: at the time when the Council of Europe was created, France was still a colonial power. At that time, the rights enjoyed by women were dependent on their husbands and they did not have the right to control over their own bodies, while men were still sent to prison or to hospital simply for being homosexual. Every one of our countries has come a very long way as we have committed ourselves to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In just a few decades we have all followed our own criss-crossing paths, but ultimately the Council of Europe has led everyone onwards and upwards. We have become more demanding in terms of demanding respect for all people. What has been achieved goes beyond any national border. Achievements in one place inspire others elsewhere. They then go on to make their own achievements and inspire still others. That is how human rights shape the common history of greater Europe.

We all know just how important the Council of Europe has been in seeking to tackle homophobia, lesbophobia and transphobia. The texts adopted in 2010 by the Committee of Ministers and by your Assembly are among the most highly developed and accurate that we have. They are used today by LGBT activists as benchmarks in their fight to defend their rights. These texts have enshrined sexual orientation and gender identity as being key criteria that have to be taken into account as we seek to craft antidiscrimination policies. This is has been a key contribution, as indeed is the report that has just been submitted today.

As you know, France has recently adopted legislation that opened marriage to all couples in the country. There was a lot of talk about this in France; there was public debate on the issue and there were debates in our parliament. In the course of that, I am sorry to say, we did not avoid homophobic violence, insults and instances where people were all tarred with the same brush. France is very proud today to be one of the eight European countries that, one after another over the past 10 years, have opened up marriage to all couples. This is an issue of liberty, equality and fraternity, the French values par excellence, although I know that they are also values shared by many other countries in the world today. The law that we now have makes it possible for us to combat violence and discrimination where they exist; after all, it is more difficult to try to argue that a homosexual and a heterosexual have different values if in fact they enjoy the same rights. However, the commitment of the French Government against such discrimination is not limited to the adoption of the law opening marriage up to all couples.

On 26 March, I invited representatives of government and civil society from all over Europe to Paris to work together on question of how to tackle discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Together, we identified three key priorities. The first is cross-cutting actions undertaken by governments to combat homophobia. Last October, I submitted to France’s Council of Ministers a government plan of action to tackle violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. I know that similar initiatives have been taken in other countries such as Norway and the United Kingdom, while something very similar has been done by my colleague Joëlle Milquet in Belgium.

We are trying once and for all to put an end to hatred and the violence that results from it. If we are to do that, we need to act at all ages, in all places and at all times. We need to combat discrimination in schools, the workplace, the health sector, the media and the public sector. The victims of homophobia, lesbophobia or transphobia face the risk of violence everywhere – in the classroom, when they are working, their private life and in public places – so we need to act everywhere. That is what is behind the plan of action that I have submitted. I seek to involve all ministries and social partners, elected representatives and local municipal authorities. I want to train professionals, help victims and educate people through this programme. What is homophobia, after all? It starts with a simple unpleasant joke being shouted out in a playground or scrawled on a cloakroom wall, but then it becomes violent and sometimes it ends in tragedy. We need to put an end to these tragedies by taking a holistic approach, starting at the root of the problem and involving all public authorities. Tackling homophobia today has to be a fully fledged part of the policy pursued by any modern government.

I said that we identified three priorities at the Paris meeting, and that was the first. The second relates to Europe’s commitment to the fight against such discrimination. After all, for Europe, respect for fundamental rights is the most important commonly held value that we have. That means that politicians have to speak out strongly in favour of fundamental freedoms and against discrimination. They have to make their voices loud and clear so that they can be heard around the world. That is why we need the recommendation that the rapporteur has proposed today. It is also why need to have the European Union involved in this. Last Monday, clear guidelines were adopted on the matter, echoing recommendations adopted by the Council of Europe in 2010.

The third priority relates to the universal dimension of the on-going fight – the need for international, multilateral action. The work that was launched at the conference in Paris continued in April in Oslo at another meeting that brought together, from different continents of the world, people who had previously participated in similar regional meetings where they were. We very much hope that this will continue under the auspices of the United Nations, with southern hemisphere countries and all those who are particularly active on this issue.

Our continent, Europe, has a significant contribution to make. The more exemplary we are in what we do ourselves, the more robust our contribution to global action can be. Today, to be quite frank, not all countries of the Council of Europe can claim to be exemplary in this regard. Wherever laws prevent LGBT people from organising a march for their rights, the cause of human rights falls back. Wherever teachers are prevented by law from explaining to a young homosexual that he is worth the same as anyone else, again, the cause of human rights falls back. Wherever two men or two women cannot embrace in public without putting themselves in danger, the cause of human rights falls back. I believe that we should pay tribute to the courage of LGBT activists throughout Europe today who are fighting to obtain the same rights as others, sometimes putting their very lives in danger. I am thinking particularly about the immense bravery of LGBT activists in Russia. I very much hope that the authorities in that country will reconsider their position and will protect their freedom of expression and of assembly.

I remind you that we are talking about freedom here. We cannot forget the tragic fate of Europe in the previous century, nor that it was the survivors of these tragedies who founded the Council of Europe. We cannot forget that men and women were targeted just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. We must keep their memory alive. Every single day, we must take action to ensure that we in Europe protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. I most sincerely pay tribute to the commitment entered into by a number of European countries to fight against such discrimination and to their co-operation with the Council of Europe. I invite other countries to reconsider the way in which they look at LGBT people and look again at their legislation. After all, if you stigmatise someone then you are not going to teach your children to respect others.

Last week, the Duma adopted a law preventing same-sex families from adopting children in Russia. As the President of France has said, it is Russia’s sovereign right to take that decision, but if Russia wishes to take its rightful place in the global concert of nations, it has to understand that it needs to reaffirm democratic values and human rights. It must understand the way in which our societies are evolving. The right of LGBT people is inseparable from the right of their children to thrive in families that are recognised by public authorities and protected from all discrimination.

      THE PRESIDENT⃰ – Thank you, Madam Minister. In the debate, I call Mr Michel, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr MICHEL (France)* – Madam Minister, I thank you for coming to Strasbourg to support Mr Haugli’s report on this very important topic, and this debate, which will probably be quite controversial and lively. I thank Mr Haugli for his report on what is, unfortunately, a very topical subject. The Socialist Group will, of course, vote in favour of the report – that is, in its current form; many amendments have been submitted that would alter it, and that clearly demonstrates that we do not agree on the fundamental principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which is unfortunate.

      These issues go to the core of the Assembly’s existence, because our Assembly was the very first to condemn all forms of discrimination, including on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Colleagues will recall our resolution of 2010 on this topic, which was very progressive. Unfortunately, there is continued homophobia and transphobia in all member States, including mine. A law establishing equal rights for all citizens – the law on same-sex marriage – gave rise to violent homophobic reactions in France. Consensual adult homosexual relations have not been decriminalised effectively everywhere. Criminalisation is contrary to our principles, regardless of some religions’ views on the subject. Even more seriously, in several cases, demonstrations for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights have been banned, or steps have been taken to repress them. That is contrary to the principles of the Court.

      There is serious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The issue of violence is very important; violence leads people to commit suicide, and the suicide rates in these groups are considerably higher than in other social groups. This has to be combated, including by public authorities at all levels, though they often turn aside from the problem. In many countries, same-sex civil partnerships have been recognised, and some have recognised same-sex marriage; the latest to do so was France. Ireland and Croatia are preparing to do so.

      I have heard Russian colleagues welcome a recent law passed by the Duma that bans adoption by homosexual couples. A 2013 Court decision condemns Austria for restricting adoption by homosexual couples; the Court considers that to be counter to certain fundamental principles of the Convention. Decisions of the Court have to be acted on by all member States; perhaps Russia has not taken note of that.

      I commend the courage of LGBT activists in all countries, especially those where they are most at risk and most exposed, and I commend those who support them and have been fighting to ensure that their dignity is recognised. I conclude by expressing the Socialist Group’s full support for the draft resolution and the recommendation proposed by Mr Haugli, whom I congratulate once again on his courage and far-sightedness.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – I call Ms Taktakishvili, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – On behalf of ALDE, I thank the rapporteur for this important report. Madame la Ministre, je vous remercie, car votre présence ici souligne l'importance que vous attachez aux valeurs de l'Europe.

The report does not question the religious convictions of anyone in the Chamber. It is about basic values that unite us. It says that every member State should adopt legislation that criminalises hate crimes committed on the ground of sexual orientation, implement decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights on protecting the equality of all citizens in Europe and refrain from adopting discriminatory legislation.

We have seen positive developments in a number of member States over the past few years, but in others, there have been difficulties. In the Russian Federation, representatives of LGBT rights activists have been obliged to register as foreign agents under the foreign agent statutes. We had an excellent exchange of views with representatives of non-governmental organisations. That event was hosted by ALDE in this Chamber, and on that occasion, the representatives of a number of important NGOs from Russia said that the measures were humiliating for them. Of course, we demand that the Russian Federation revise that legislation, and ask the Venice Commission, with its expertise, to consider the legislation, which goes against the standards that we are committed to observing.

In Russia and Ukraine, draft legislation has been proposed that says that so-called homosexual propaganda should be prohibited. Those countries must follow the standards set by the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. In Tbilisi in Georgia, on the international day against homophobia, participants in a rally protesting against homophobia were subject to several violent attacks by thousands in the crowd. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights concluded that the police did not prevent large-scale violence against LGBT representatives and fighters for LGBT rights.

Of course, it is our duty to remind all colleagues and authorities in member States that they have to meet the fundamental standards of this Organisation, which say that people’s rights should be observed and protected, regardless of their personal choices, sexual orientation or gender identity. Failure to do so goes against a core value of this Organisation: the protection of human rights. It is our duty to raise our voice today to protect the rights of all the citizens of Europe. That is why I strongly recommend that colleagues support the draft report, and support the position taken by the rapporteur and the committee when we come to deal with the amendments. That is necessary if we are to protect the 10 million citizens of Europe who are subject to discrimination just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Kazakova to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Ms KAZAKOVA (Russian Federation)* – We are against the adoption of the report and the associated resolutions and recommendations. Despite the author’s intention to remain objective, the philosophy behind the report is the separation of LGBT individuals into a discrete group, which is a form of discrimination. The sexuality of a human being is a broad notion that cannot be fitted into a single category. We all have a specific sexual orientation. The report proposes to make the position of LGBT individuals a priority principle of government policies, which will foster division and violence rather than co-operation.

Teenagers usually say that whoever is offended first is right. We are manipulating people’s sense of offence, but that should not be our guiding principle. In discussing this topic, we must be guided by the principle of non-discrimination. When we separate a whole group of people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender equality, we discriminate against them. We often separate handicapped people because of their physical or other handicaps, but we consider LGBT individuals to be talented and capable, so why should they be put in a separate category and benefit from special treatment? The question is especially relevant because Russian legislation does not separate people on the basis of gender identity; it upholds equality. LGBT individuals have the same rights as the rest of society. The right to privacy about our sexual orientation is one freedom that we still have, and we want it to remain that way. Nobody wants such matters to be regulated in the public domain.

Member States have to decide for themselves whether to allow same-sex couples to adopt children or whether to legalise same-sex marriage. There cannot be a single standard for all. Furthermore, some of the report is absurd, such as the recommendation that parliamentarians take part in gay pride parades. That is a question on which every individual must make up their own mind based on the dictates of their conscience. The report suggests that such topics should be discussed in schools, which is also absurd. Schools already seek to inculcate the values of humanism and tolerance. I am the mother of a son and a daughter, and I am the parliamentary representative of millions of voters who are also parents. I have one clear request: let children have their childhood. Let them have their toys and friendship in a carefree way. When they reach puberty, they will decide on their orientation.

I can think of nothing worse than introducing yet another cause of division, violence and aggression. Everyone should be equal, and nobody should be set apart on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation. Manipulation of that notion is quite dangerous. As the minister said, we need to speak frankly and openly about this question, and we need to understand all the risks that it entails for our nations and for the demographic situation around the world.

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

Ms WERNER (Germany)* – I thank the rapporteur for his hard work.

Picture this: five years after leaving school, you decide to meet up with some of your school friends. You sit down together around the table to have a few drinks and something to eat, and you celebrate. At the end of a really great evening, you decide that it is time to be honest with your friends, so you announce to them that you no longer want to hide the fact that you are gay. You are making yourself vulnerable by revealing something about yourself, and you hope that your friends will accept you as you are. Now imagine this: your friends react with disbelief. They start to insult you and abuse you, and they even go so far as to beat you. I am sorry to say that that is not an imaginary scenario. On 13 May this year, in Volgograd, a 23-year-old man was beaten up by his friends after outing himself. He was repeatedly sexually assaulted with beer bottles, he suffered injuries to his genitals and, finally, his skull was smashed in with rocks. I cannot spare you the brutal details of that attack.

Discrimination on the basis of gender identity is no trifling matter, particularly since Russia is passing laws that promote discrimination and inequality against LGBT individuals. That is why I am so grateful to the rapporteur for having considered the policy in great detail in his report. As politicians, we are responsible for safeguarding human rights in our countries. Since we must serve as a positive example of respect for the dignity of our citizens, we must not indulge in hate speech or discourse that might incite or goad others into expressing homophobic ideas in thoughts, words or deeds. If we do not set a positive example, we will be partly responsible for rapes and violence such as the one in Volgograd.

The UEL believes that member States must take steps to ensure that all lifestyles are treated with equality and without discrimination. We understand that people think differently, because we have freedom of thought, but we must all subscribe to the values of the European Convention. We must all do what we can to eliminate inequality and discrimination. The UEL therefore supports the current version of the report, particularly paragraph 8, which calls on politicians to talk about the issue openly and to condemn violations.

THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Volontè, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) – I am afraid I cannot go along with other colleagues and say that I share the rapporteur’s views. However, one of the wonderful things about the Parliamentary Assembly is that we can have differences of opinion and listen respectfully and attentively to each other’s views. I believe that the report goes beyond the remit of the Council of Europe. I do not doubt the passion and enthusiasm that the rapporteur has put into it, but the Group of the European People’s Party is concerned about several passages, which is why we have tabled some amendments.

Of course, we will vote against some of the rapporteur’s recommendations. Some principles were already in the Gross report, and I think there has been some mediation already. Let me give you a couple of examples. How can one assert, as the rapporteur does, that there are now several million more cases of violations? How can one state that discrimination has increased in European countries? Where has the figure of 10 million come from? Why is there a discrepancy between Mr Gross’s figures and these figures, and what accounts for the rise?

Concern is expressed in the report about homophobic statements. What does homophobia mean? You may have a pope, a priest, a rabbi or someone of faith saying that certain passages in sacred texts call homosexuality a sin. A priest in Sweden was convicted for having asserted that publicly. What is that all about?

One term in the resolution is nowhere to be found in the universal declaration of human rights or in other international conventions. Nowhere is there an internationally recognised definition of gender identity, but that term is found throughout the report. You talk about Volgograd. Crimes should be punished – not only crimes against homosexuals but crimes against heterosexuals – so how can you talk about discrimination there?

      You talk about bullying in schools as a result of sexual identity, but why should you be discriminating on that basis when you talk about bullying? You talk about not wanting any exceptions to these rules for religious communities, but I am sorry to say that that is not in compliance with an article in our Convention, which talks about religious freedom. Unless I am very much mistaken, we have such an article in the Convention safeguarding religious freedom.

      You talk about ensuring that we protect people’s lives in all regards. I think this is something that pertains to the realm of privacy and to people’s private lives. Everyone would like to have a minimum of privacy in their lives and that is afforded us by Article 1 of the Convention. I thank the rapporteur for all his commitment but I have another question for him. I would like an explanation: what are “intersexual” and “LGBT” supposed to mean?

The PRESIDENT* – Rapporteur, if you wish you can reply to the speakers representing the groups now, or we can continue with the debate. You have a maximum of four minutes.

Mr HAUGLI (Norway) – Thank you, Minister, for your wise comments. I also thank the group leaders for taking the floor. I am not surprised that we have different views on LGBT rights, but it does surprise me that we do not fully share a common understanding of human rights and freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association, the core values of the report.

Mr Michel made an important point about change occurring over time. That is definitely the case, but I think that we are at a point where we are seeing a reversal of rights in certain countries, which is worrying. Ms Taktakishvili also raised an important point. The report does not question the religious values of anyone in this room. Nor does it question the value of family. Nothing in the report attacks families. On the contrary, LGBT people are families too.

Ms Kazakova asked why we put people in a special category and give them special attention. It is not we who are giving them special attention. LGBT people were sent to concentration camps. Even today, suicide rates among those people are four to six times higher than for other people. As I have said, LGBT people are the only group of people who are by law denied rights that are considered universal.

Mr Volontè, the figures are imprecise in the report. We are just saying that prejudice affects millions of Europeans. That is a fact. Even assuming that LGBT people constitute a very small percentage of Europeans, it is still millions who are affected, so we are not attempting to give a precise figure, but merely saying that it is a major problem.

As for your question on homophobia, to a certain extent, I agree with you: it is an imprecise term. However, we lack a better term. I think that we all intuitively understand what homophobia is about when we face it. I would welcome a better term, but it is about inciting hatred and violence and making statements that are hurtful to a group and individuals. I think that is fairly clear.

Gender identity is an established term in the United Nations, in many Council of Europe documents, including the Istanbul Convention and in the resolutions that we passed in 2010. We are simply being consistent with past documents and with what is happening in the United Nations.

The term “intersexual” is not in the report, although it may be denoted by the letter “I”. Intersexual people used to be called hermaphrodites. They are a special group. They may not face the same issues as LGBT people, but they certainly face discrimination and a lack of recognition. I remind you that the report is about human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and being protected from violence. The report is not about adoption, marriage or the family.

The PRESIDENT* – We return to the general debate. Mr Ghiletchi is not here, so I call Ms Kyriakidou.

Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – The report presented by our colleague Mr Haugli encompasses, inter alia, the respect for rights and freedoms that people of different sexual orientation and gender identity should enjoy. They have an inalienable right to be able to live freely, irrespective of their sexual orientation and to enjoy life as any other person does. It is encouraging to note that various positive developments have occurred in many member States of this Organisation concerning this sensitive issue – developments that should certainly be acknowledged and underlined, but that should make us all be even more persistent in working for our continent to be free of any such discriminations.

I am well aware that that is easier said than done. People tackling discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are often faced with prejudice, incomprehension, even fear. Some people are hesitant to talk about the issue or even to acknowledge its existence. These reactions often stem from ignorance rather than animosity. Sometimes, however, sheer ignorance and the fear of the unknown bring about reactions and statements that can harm people. It is therefore with great sadness that, only last month, I read in the news of some terrible homophobic murders, where the victims were killed simply because they were homosexuals. I was particularly shocked to hear that, in one instance, the victim was killed by a group of his friends when he admitted that he was homosexual.

As politicians who, by our actions or statements, can shape public opinion and inform our people on many important issues, we should include in our mission the promotion of respect and understanding towards LGBT persons. In this respect, I cannot but recall the Council of Europe's successful slogan, in its campaigns in 1995 and 2006, "All different, all equal" and how much this slogan should apply to the theme under discussion.

Despite the fact that homosexuality was decriminalised in 1998 in my country, Cyprus, I cannot but express my deep regret that the only area in Europe where criminalisation of homosexuality is still applied is the northern, occupied part of Cyprus. Although the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control in that part of the country, I strongly believe that pressure should be exerted on Turkey, which exercises de facto control over that part of Cyprus, for a change in that respect, as the rapporteur rightly states in his report.

I underline that a strong effort should be made by all, in order for a true change to come about on the issues that we have discussed. Unless we show genuine respect and tolerance to all people and to all views and ideas that are considered "different", no real progress or change can be achieved in respect of the primary target this Organisation was set up to safeguard and promote. That is none other than respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of each and every person on this earth. I congratulate Mr Haugli on the important work that he did on this report.

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – I thank Mr Haugli for his excellent and important report. When I read it, I thought back to the time before I became a parliamentarian. I worked as a teacher for 16 years and my pupils were aged 12 to 16. During our lessons, we always had good discussions about relevant issues, one of which was sexuality education. Such education is necessary, not only for helping young people understand themselves better and make informed decisions about sex and relationships, but to counteract myths and false attitudes towards sexuality. Quality sexuality education aims to prevent sexual harassment, violence and discrimination against LGBT persons and people living with HIV/AIDS. I recommend Jonas Gardell’s film, “Never Dry Tears Without Gloves”, which deals with the issue under discussion.

      Quality sexuality education also addresses the issues faced by young people. It supports them in making personal choices and in respecting others in relation to intimacy and sex. We also had very good discussions about human rights issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, sexual and reproductive health and so on. I often co-operated with my colleague Håkan Gustavsson, who is both teacher and priest. Sexuality education has been compulsory in Sweden since 1955. If such lessons had taken place in some other European countries, would they have been against the law?

      The report notes that local and regional authorities in several countries have introduced legislation prohibiting so-called homosexual propaganda. What is that?

      Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and a pillar of a democratic society. We must work and struggle for a more tolerant society. Together, we must combat all forms of discrimination outlined in the report – discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. This is about human rights. What sort of society do we want to build for our children and grandchildren?

      The future must be about a more inclusive and tolerant Europe that is against violence and discrimination. I therefore hope that members will vote in favour of the proposed resolution and recommendation and reject amendments that limit their intention.

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – I too thank Mr Haugli for his very good work on the report. Luckily, the conditions and equal rights of sexual minorities are improving in a number of countries in Europe and around the world these days, including across the Atlantic, where the Supreme Court’s latest decision has given hope to many in the States who, in the same way as most members of the Council of Europe, are defending the right of every human being not to be discriminated against. Unfortunately, however, prejudice, hostility and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity remain a serious problem in some countries, including some member States of the Council of Europe, and that is why we have to have this discussion time and again.

      As the rapporteur has said, this problem affects the lives of millions of European citizens. Hostility manifests itself in the form of hate speech, bullying and violence, and it is often directed towards young people. It also manifests itself in the form of attacks in a number of countries on the right of LGBT people to peaceful assembly. We have to take stronger action to prevent the violation of human rights in Europe, and politicians and others in authority need to stop making homophobic statements that turn into hate speech and inspire hostility, discrimination and violence against sexual minorities.

We also have to prevent some countries from introducing legislation prohibiting so-called homosexual propaganda. I ask, together with my Swedish colleague, Ms Ohlsson, “What is that?” Such laws and draft laws, which are being introduced in a number of European States, are a direct threat to the fundamental rights of European citizens. They are a violation of the freedom of assembly and expression, and they are a form of direct discrimination, which we cannot accept. We have to support the report’s demands and ask the Parliaments of Ukraine and the Russian Federation not to pursue their draft laws for the prohibition of so-called homosexual propaganda. We must also demand that local and regional authorities in the Russian Federation repeal legislation that prohibits so-called homosexual propaganda.

      As parliamentarians we should, together with other public figures, take action, including establishing dialogue and trust with the LGBT community and taking part in pride marches and other similar events, thereby sending a clear signal, which is not, as Ms Kazakova has said, that we want special treatment for LGBT people or sexual minorities. We do not want special treatment; we want equal treatment – that is what this is about. If we in this Assembly cannot agree on the equal treatment of all people, whatever their sexuality, we should not be defending the values of the Council of Europe. I call on members to support the report and the rapporteur when we vote on amendments.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* – Why are we holding this debate today? It is because there is a real problem: no one in any country is completely safe from overt or concealed homophobic tendencies. We have seen this in many countries, and progress has been made, but what we are seeing today is countries regressing.

I recall our lively debates when Mr Gross presented his report in 2010. In 2007, the Patriarch of Moscow said, in this Chamber, “If some engage in propaganda in favour of homosexuality, is the duty of the Russian Orthodox Church to say what is good and what is bad? Because homosexuality is a disease that modifies the personality of a person. It is not one of these diseases about which you can speak in a detached fashion, like stealing. The organisation of Gay Pride in Moscow is indeed propaganda for homosexuality and advertising for sin.” What shocked me most was that after that statement many of the members of the Assembly applauded, but that statement goes against every resolution we have taken on this topic

We want to achieve the same rights for everyone. We do not want to strip one group of its rights and prefer another group. The Commissioner for Human Rights has said that every individual experiences their own gender, which does not always correspond to the sex they were born with, although the sex people are born becomes their social and legal identity. Some individuals have trouble identifying with the sex in which they were born, and they tend to be put into the transgender category. Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation. These individuals can live in a tragic situation if their sexual identity does not correspond to their gender identity.

This is an important debate and I congratulate the rapporteur. I also thank the minister for her statement. This debate is really about human dignity – the dignity of every single member of our societies.

Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I am sure that the rapporteur started off with the best possible intentions. None the less, to my mind the report contains an internal contradiction. It tries to protect a particular group from discrimination but it ends up discriminating against that group. The report takes the view that there is a group of people who are somehow different from normal people, and that that group needs special rights. Human rights are universal and apply to everyone regardless of gender, religion, nationality, age or sexual feelings. I do not see any point in singling out people and putting them into one particular group. After all, we live in a world in which the State can listen to your phone calls and read what you say on Facebook. Surely there has to be some place in this world where you can be private, an area that is no one else’s business, and where the State does not come in and leave the sticky imprints of its recommendations, resolutions and reports everywhere. Sexual preference should be such an area.

Do we really think that this report will reduce aggression in our countries? Obviously not, as whipping up hysteria on this topic will only further fan the flames of conflict. Who will suffer as a result? It will be the very people we are supposed to be trying to defend. Is that where we want to go?

The rapporteur does not take account of the cultural specificities in countries of the Council of Europe or their particular cultures. The very strength of the Council of Europe lies in the fact that we come together here around the issue of human rights and the ideals of democracy. We come from different countries and cultures, and we talk and listen to each other. I appeal for us to continue to do that. We must also remember that we represent our peoples here. In any decision that we take, we have to bear in mind their viewpoint and the cultural features of their countries. We know there are particular views in Scandinavia and France, but their views cannot always be accepted by all, because they have different cultural specificities. If you try to impose particular values, you will only drive us further apart.

It is my impression that people are afraid to express their real view on this issue. I listened carefully to what the French Minister said – I am sorry that she has left – but it amounted to the fact that she has not listened to what has been said by a significant proportion of the population of France. In Russia it is not the done thing to parade your sexual preference in public, nor to insist on that sexual preference and impose it on others. Our constitution does, however, guarantee equal rights for all our citizens in accordance with the declaration of human rights. I understand that the rapporteur had the best intentions, but sadly we cannot adopt the report.

I must also point out that the legislation was not on the prohibition of propaganda in Russia: it was on the prohibition of propaganda targeted at minors. Obviously adults can decide what they want to do and who they want to do it with, but it is different for minors. Russia has taken a particular view on this issue, and it has been suggested that Russia has a particular place among civilisations. Russia is a great power and has certain rights. We have a particular view on this issue, but it is far from being our top priority.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. With regard to the fact that the French Minister had to leave, Mr Shlegel, it was because of her tight schedule. The fact that she came here to listen is commendable and we should show respect for that. I call Ms Bilgehan.

Ms BILGEHAN (Turkey)* – Like colleagues before me, I thank Mr Haugli for this report, which talks about human rights. Gender identity is one of the most fundamental aspects of someone’s life. Somebody’s gender is determined at birth and then becomes a legal and social fact. The plight of LGBT people in terms of human rights was neglected for a long time, even though they face serious problems, such as discrimination, intolerance and violence. Often, their fundamental rights are violated, including the right to life, to physical integrity and to health care.

In principle, international human rights instruments afford protection to all people without distinction. In March 2010, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation on measures to be taken to eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and, to date, this is the most comprehensive recommendation we have. Member States have subscribed to this recommendation and, in so doing, have undertaken to try and improve the situation of LGBT people in Europe.

Since 2010, our Assembly has also looked into discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and has adopted various recommendations. Protection is also afforded by the Istanbul Convention. In passing, I can say I am very proud to come from the country in which the convention was signed and which was first to ratify it. We are awaiting further ratification so that it can come into force. For now, the convention is not in force in Turkey or anywhere else. But in certain member States of the Council of Europe, some positive strides have been made, notably with the implementation of laws, plans of action and specific strategies.

      Having said that, a number of countries are failing to comply with their legal obligations. In Turkey, in principle, the constitutional system is based on equality for all before the law, regardless of language, race, skin colour, sex, political opinion, philosophical beliefs, religion or sect, but those are just words – in real life and in practice, the picture is not that rosy. We are in the process of drawing up a new constitution, in which we want gender equality enshrined. We must also heed the various rulings on sexual discrimination.

      Homosexuality is not a criminal offence in Turkey, which is a good thing. I can assure you that there has been a shift in mind-set in our country recently. For example, there was a gay pride march just last weekend in Istanbul with a big turnout. A lot of LGBT people have been working in favour of various civil society organisations. I commend everything non-governmental organisations in Turkey have done. Bravely, they continue to battle for their rights. At all events, I thank Mr Haugli and assure him that I fully support the report.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – In almost every session, there are reports to the Assembly on which we have broad debates on sexual minorities and the attitudes manifested towards them and on sexual violence. A superficial glance at the collection of Council of Europe documents left behind reveals a rich panorama of such reports and debates. The rights of each human should be protected and his personality should be respected. He should also be ensured the opportunity of self-expression and freedom of will.

Nevertheless, the expression “sexual minorities” in its classical definition has changed. In some countries 25 to 30 years ago, sexual minorities and those with various sexual orientations were pursued – there were even punitive articles in criminal codes – and did not appear so much in society. At that time, they hid themselves, but the situation is quite different now. Transsexuals, bisexuals and other such people do not hide their personalities but display them. They are identified by their garments and behaviour, and appear on TV channels and in various areas of society. It has been said that the definition of “sexual minority” should be reversed. It is now more correct to apply the term “sexual minority” to those who used to make up the sexual majority. Those are general observations, but regardless of whether people belong to the majority or minority, I am resolute that their rights should be protected, that their dignity should be respected and that their lawful liberties should by no means be restricted.

      I decided to speak in the debate after receiving a letter from an elector who has regularly watched through the media the activities of Council of Europe over the past 10 to 12 years. He has also appealed to me from time to time. He is a refugee, and his rights need protecting. In Azerbaijan, nearly 1 million people have shared for the past 20 years the hard life of a refugee and internally displaced person. Those people desire very ordinary human rights rather than such moral and physical rights as sexual feelings. They wish the sorrowful expressions of “refugee” and “IDP” to be removed from their names.

In my constituent’s letter, he writes that jealousy is not a positive sensation, but that he looks with envy at homosexuals, bisexuals, gays and lesbians regardless of his will. He says that if the care demonstrated towards that group of people were demonstrated in respect of refugees and IDPs, and if equal efforts and initiatives had been made towards protecting their rights, their problems would probably have been settled long ago. Envy is not a positive feeling, and I am taking this opportunity to mobilise our forces to solve the global problem of refugees and IDPs in such a way that we can finally benefit from real outcomes. I hope refugees and IDPs can return to their homeland and start living normally. That will eliminate my constituent’s compulsion to envy sexual minorities and sexual majorities.

      Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Håkon Haugli. As colleagues from different political parties, we do not always agree, but today, I assure you that I fully stand behind his excellent work. I encourage all Assembly members to vote for the resolution and recommendation. I have zero tolerance for intolerance, and for the first time in this Assembly – I have been a member for eight years – I disagree with the spokesperson of my political group and other European Democrat Group colleagues who have spoken. For me, individual freedom is crucial. My freedom stops where yours starts. Sexual freedom is a freedom I hold high, as long as it does not harm others.

      I have followed the work of our rapporteur closely. I could not agree more when he states that LGBT rights are not special rights, but universal human rights guaranteed to all human beings. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and our own European Convention on Human Rights define human rights – the Convention is based on the universal declaration. The very first article states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. Thus, all human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, are born free and equal. We all have the same rights.

I appreciate the fact that Mr Haugli paints an honest picture of the situation for LGBTs in Europe. He gives credit where credit is due – many member States have improved the situation for LGBTs since 2010 – but he is not afraid to point his finger at those that are not fulfilling their obligations, and shows us that the development in some member States is negative. The situation today is worse than it was in 2010. Council of Europe member States have passed legislation banning so-called homosexual propaganda, which is unacceptable. Such legislation contributes only to prejudice and discrimination.

As elected representatives, we must take the responsibility we have as role models to work against prejudice and discrimination. We have condemned hate speech, discrimination and violence against different groups numerous times. I do not understand the people who cannot support Mr Haugli’s report. It makes no sense to me to condemn discrimination against one group and believe it is all right to discriminate against others. We have heard many times of double standards in this hemicycle, so let us for once show the world that we are united and that we are all equal.

I encourage you to vote in favour of the resolution and recommendation. We must give a strong signal that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity is not acceptable.

Mr ROUQUET (France)* – I thank Mr Haugli and the chair of the committee and congratulate them on the report, which marks a new milestone in the fight against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Hillary Clinton, back in 2011 when she was the United States Secretary of State, reminded us that being a woman, belonging to a racial, religious, tribal or ethnic minority or being LGBT does not make someone less human. That is why gay rights are human rights and human rights are also those of homosexuals.

However, we cannot take equality of rights for granted in many of the countries represented in this Assembly. Often, LGBT people come up against prejudice, tradition, religion or even outright homophobia in certain sections of society. The great thing about a democracy is that it can set examples and be courageous enough to pass laws and take effective steps to change people’s mind-sets and mentalities, and in that way it can fight against discrimination. That is the choice that my country, France, has made since 1982 and continues to make. It has decriminalised homosexuality, prohibited homophobic discrimination and, more recently, put in place civil partnerships for gay couples. Just a few weeks ago, we went a step further and, like other countries, opened the rights of marriage and adoption to homosexuals. France also put in place an inter-ministerial plan of action in 2012, and it sets great store by prevention and information campaigns directed specifically towards young people. That is an essential plank in the fight against discrimination against LGBT people.

Tolerance and dialogue are the key to a democracy in which everyone can take his or her rightful place. That is why we should condemn in the strongest possible terms laws that outlaw “homosexual propaganda”. We have to examine laws that curtail freedom of expression in matters pertaining to sexual orientation or gender identity, which are rightly of concern to civil society in the countries that have adopted them. Not only do they flagrantly flout the fundamental freedoms of LGBT people, but at the same time they create a climate of violence, hatred and fear and are inimical to the freedoms of other minorities and each individual. That is why I support the draft resolution and the report’s recommendations.

      Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – I thank Mr Haugli for this excellent report, which I support. I recommend that the Assembly vote down most of the amendments, which show that some people have a well-developed ability to turn a blind eye to the facts of discrimination and violence in our society. They have an amazing ability not to recognise that this is about having the same human rights for everybody – the same human rights for LGBT people as for me. I do not think that is too much to ask.

      I would like to comment on some of the statements that my colleague from Russia, Mr Shlegel, made. He said that this was not about equal treatment for everybody, but it is. LGBT people are normal people but countries that establish laws against their human rights put them into a specific group and strip them of their rights.

      Never in my life have I been able to understand the reasons for the negative attitudes and hatred towards LGBT people. I have tried to understand what it is about. We heard a speech today about protecting our children. Of course we want to protect our children, but are they especially attacked by LGBT people? They are not. The only way we can protect our children is to teach them about their identity and value, about sexuality and about how to protect themselves. We should teach them, “This is nothing to be ashamed about. You can talk to your parents, teachers or any adult about it.” Then we can protect our children.

      It is totally inappropriate to imply that LGBT people are more inclined to commit abuse against children than anyone else, because it is not true. Nor is that true of abuse against adults. I am a grown-up woman and I have lived long, and never in my life have I been abused by LGBT people. I am a heterosexual, and if you ask any grown-up woman, I can assure you that most of us will tell you that we have been harassed by heterosexual men. Should I hate them for that and take away their human rights? Should I deny them their right to be proud of themselves as men? No – they have the same rights as me. We must recognise the right of all people to dignity, to be informed and proud about themselves and to have confidence that everyone has the same values. Then we can also protect children and women from abuse.

      Ms GIANNAKAKI (Greece)* – I will never tire of saying that LGBT rights are human rights, so we can never accept any regression on the matter. I thank the rapporteur for his excellent work, of which he should be very proud.

      LGBT people of every age and in every region of Europe are exposed to flagrant violations of their human rights due to deeply rooted homophobic and transphobic attitudes. They lack sufficient legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and they are victims of discrimination in the labour market and hospitals. In some cases, they are mistreated or even rejected by their own families. They are often the targets of physical or sexual abuse.

The policies of States should seek to protect LGBT people from transphobic and homophobic violence, prevent torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and abrogate laws that criminalise homosexuality. They should ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and protect freedom of expression, association and assembly for all individuals. In the framework of a dialogue with other governments, member States must air their concerns, follow recommendations and identify human rights violations that affect LGBT individuals. They must raise awareness in society of decriminalisation and other measures that are necessary to protect the human rights of LGBTs. They should work with partners and other international organisations on various information campaigns and other educational measures to combat homophobia and transphobia. Finally, they should support special procedures in their contacts with other member States.

      Ms BLONDIN (France)* – I, too, applaud the excellent work done by our colleague, Mr Haugli, who has presented a clear picture of the prejudice and violence from which LGBT people in Europe still suffer. His report reminds us to what extent respect for human rights can vary from one part of our continent to another, whenever life choices take people away from a particular tradition or dogma. However, the fundamental values that we defend do not change, no matter what principles of spirituality or so-called natural law are brought to bear. Defence for human rights does not just mean defending people’s opinions and allowing democracy to flourish; it also means allowing people to make the choices they wish to make in their intimate and private lives.

      We see today that even our most liberal societies find it difficult to fully and legally integrate LGBT people. Too often, those people fall victim to intolerance or different kinds of violence, simply because of their sexual orientation. Many of them – especially young people – end up suffering very deeply indeed, and those people have an increased risk of suicide or of being killed. We must focus on sexuality in the context of mutual respect, and that must start at school if we are to protect our children better.

      As the French Minister recalled earlier, on 26 March, France convened a meeting and invited people from all over Europe, as well as 200 members of civil society organisations, to come together and discuss this issue. One of the main lessons we found was that there is a need to enhance the role of organisations such the Council of Europe on this matter. What we have to do is clear. We must say that no distinction whatsoever can be made in fighting discrimination, and we must state clearly that we are in favour of the universal decriminalisation of homosexuality. Adopting a convention to that effect here in our Assembly would send a strong signal.

I think that today should be the starting point for pan-European thinking on a new legal instrument to bear witness to our Organisation’s commitment to this issue, and ensure that we are fully in step with our evolving societies. No member State of the Council of Europe should tolerate or encourage homophobia or transphobia of any kind. At stake is the credibility of this Organisation, as well as the messages and values that we wish to convey.

      Ms BLANCO (Spain)* – I, too, thank Mr Haugli for his excellent and relevant report, and also the French minister – a young female minister who works on human rights – for attending our debate. Politics are important when we consider how human rights and fundamental liberties are defended, and that is what the Council of Europe is about. We are the representatives of the people and are defending human rights. We have referred to Resolution 1728 (2010), but between 2010 and 2013 there has been a regression, which is very dangerous.

      We are discussing fear and normality. Fear of what? Those who are not heterosexual. That is what people in our societies and countries are afraid of. That is what politicians are afraid of – people who are not heterosexual. Are LGBT people a threat to family units in our societies? Well, LGBT people have families in exactly the same way and they are just as good as heterosexual families. LGBT people are not a threat; we are the threat because our fears are dangerous. It is about our fear that LGBT people might become visible, that the omertà around them will end, and we put a stop to impunity because we have put a stop to all kinds of totalitarianism.

Why have LGBT people been persecuted by every single totalitarian regime throughout history? They are exactly the same as us. Some colleagues say that we are trying to give LGBT people special rights, but that is not the case at all. We want LGBT people to have the same rights as heterosexual people, including for their families, because they are exactly the same as us.

I am a socialist and a social democrat, and I come from a country that is not secular but a confessional State. When the socialists were in power, we changed laws concerning the rights of LGBT people, same-sex marriage and gave same-sex families the same rights as heterosexual families. The campaign of the Catholic Church, carried out with the support of many colleagues, stated that such measures were a threat to normality and the normal development of society. It was ferocious. I have a colleague from the Spanish Social Democratic Party, a former secretary of State for equality. She could say something about that campaign and what we suffered. This is a matter of political determination and conviction about the equality of all human beings. These are third-generation human rights that should have been first-generation human rights from the beginning.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – In his report, our colleague, Mr Haugli, is historic as the first rapporteur to speak about discrimination against sexual minorities across all member countries, and he solved his task in an excellent manner with this very thorough report. After reading the report and listening to the minister, one can no longer find any valid argument in any member country for depriving LGBT people of their obvious human rights. The report goes systematically through those rights, which are the same for all human beings. The rapporteur clearly documents violations of those rights in several member States, and urges us all across party lines to take active and binding actions in accordance with our obligations as national parliamentarians and members of this Assembly.

The immediate test of our ability – perhaps I should say willingness – to follow our human rights obligations is today’s debate on this report on gender identity. According to Amnesty International, each one of us has a sexual orientation and gender identity. However, when someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity does not conform to that of the majority, they are often seen as legitimate targets for discrimination or abuse.

Here we are at the core of human rights. To deny people their identity, their exclusive right to define themselves, is a clear violation of human rights. To my great consternation, a number of amendments to the report have been tabled, denying the very existence of gender identity as a basic human characteristic. First, that is totally unscientific. Secondly – and this is worse – it is nothing but a covert attack on the human rights of minorities. Minorities in all different aspects are what the European Convention of Human Rights was made to protect, was it not?

      We discussed this severe attack on basic human rights in the social democratic women’s group at the beginning of this session. We have seen the movers of these undemocratic amendments in action before, here in this Chamber, attacking women’s rights as well, especially women’s rights to reproductive health services. Well, we have had enough of it, and we will definitely vote against such amendments. The social democratic women’s group urges our fellow parliamentarians to vote in favour of Mr Haugli’s report and protect people of all gender identities from attacks on their human rights. As members of this Assembly, our commitment and obligations lie with the European Convention on Human Rights – nothing more, nothing less.

      Let me finish by saying something to Ms Kazakova and Mr Volontè. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to protect all children. As parents, we all want to protect our children, but which of us can know in advance that LGBT rights will not protect our own children or – for people my age – our own grandchildren?

      Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – I congratulate Mr Haugli on this excellent and timely report. This is the second such report in our history, so I do not agree with Mr Huseynov, our colleague from Azerbaijan, that we talk about this issue every time this Assembly meets.

      I have here a map of today’s Europe. It might resemble the Cold War map, but it is not. It is a map showing those countries that respect fundamental LGBT human rights, in green, and those that do not, in red. It is a map of shame. We should always have this map in mind when we talk about democracy, human rights and the rule of law in this Assembly, because these things still do not apply to LGBT people living in those Council of Europe member States.

      I am sorry, Mr Haugli, but your report is not up to date. Since its publication, there has been an incident in Georgia. On 17 May, a mob of many thousands of people, led by priests of the Georgian Orthodox Church, broke through a police cordon and attacked a tiny handful of LGBT people holding a peaceful demonstration. In May, the Lithuanian Parliament stated it was considering proposals that are clearly aimed at restricting the freedom of expression of those who support the rights of the LGBT community. In Russia, the lower house accepted a law prohibiting so-called homosexual propaganda. Yesterday, the upper house agreed and also supported this law, denying LGBT people equal human rights. These things show how much we need this debate.

      What we are talking about is not, as was said by Ms Kazakova from the Russian Federation, the separation of people – quite the opposite. What the Russian Duma has done is to separate people. You have denied people the freedoms that we have agreed in this Assembly. You are the first ones who should say no to this.

      I completely disagree with Mr Volontè, who asked – publicly, here in this Chamber – “What about religious freedom?” Is there a God who wants to treat LGBT people like that? Is there a God who wants to beat people up or who agrees that transgender people should suffer this kind of treatment? I cannot imagine there is, and I am sure Mr Volontè does not either.

      And it is not a matter of cultural differences, Mr Shlegel. I know of no cultural difference that allows us to hate anyone, including LGBT people. This is about human rights.

      This is not about marriage or the adoption of children by LGBT people, either. Let me remind you of the title of this report: it is about decriminalisation. I can imagine what Mr Volontè or Ms Kazakova would do if sexual intercourse between heterosexual people was banned. They would be the first to fight against it.

      I ask you today to break the last wall and stop treating people as though they belonged in category A or category B. We have a chance to demolish the wall today. This report will help to change things, so that this map can show a green Europe, not a red Europe – even though I am a socialist.

      Ms MAGHRADZE (Georgia) – I thank the rapporteur for this report, which is timely, given the hostile attitude to LGBT people that exists in many developed European countries. We have an urgent obligation to answer these challenges.

      I have tabled a sub-amendment, and I want to explain the context. The previous speaker, Mr Biedroń, talked about the incident in Georgia. On 17 May, activists from a small LGBT group who had organised a demonstration gathered to celebrate international day against homophobia. However, thousands of people who had gathered at the same location became aggressive towards the LGBT activists. At that moment the State faced the enormous challenge of shielding the LGBT group and guaranteeing not only their safety, but their right to peaceful assembly and demonstration. The right decision was taken by the ministry of internal affairs: to evacuate the small group of LGBT activists to ensure their safety.

      Despite the fact that the ministry of internal affairs had elaborated a preliminary action plan and mobilised 2 000 policemen, thousands of counter-protesters managed to forcibly break through the police cordon from the outset. Following the active involvement of police, all incidents were contained in a timely manner. However, the outbreak of violence resulted in various injuries being suffered by three journalists, eight policemen and 12 citizens. It is important to note that none of the citizens gathered to support the LGBT minority rally was injured during the incident. I should add that, two days later, LGBT activists held a big demonstration in the same place without incident.

      High-ranking Georgian politicians – the prime minister, the chairman of the parliament, the minister of justice and others – condemned the violence against LGBT people and emphasised that everybody has equal rights to free expression, regardless of their sexual orientation. The prosecutor’s office began a prompt investigation. Ten people were charged, among them two high-ranking clerics. We should note that this is the first time in Georgia that clerics from the Orthodox Church – the most powerful and popular institution – have been charged criminally. The chief prosecutor announced that more clerics, as well as civilians, were under investigation.

      The Georgian authorities have made some other steps in this direction, including the designation of a special contact person by the ministry of internal affairs to respond to calls by LGBT representatives. Ten days ago, a big conference was held in Tbilisi on sexual minorities’ rights, with the participation of parliamentarians, ministries and NGOs. We are taking some good steps to answer these challenges. It is not easy and it takes time, because the attitude of no small part of the population, including Georgia’s, is not very positive towards LGBT people. However, the main principle is the attitude of the government. If the government has the will to defend minority rights, everything can improve in such countries. I am glad and proud that my new government in Georgia is ensuring the defence of all minorities’ rights.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – Thank you, Mr Haugli, for this report and for your work. Discrimination and hostility are not acceptable in any circumstances, and I personally think that on several levels they are a waste of resources. As Mr Haugli notes, progress and change occur unevenly between countries, which makes the report even more relevant as it points out the need to have this discussion. Let us make it clear that non-discrimination is our final goal.

Maybe it is easier to change laws than to change prejudices. I warmly welcome laws that denounce discrimination on the ground of gender identity, even if the law goes against common sense, so to speak. Maybe, if we look at the matter the other way around, we need laws because of our prejudices. My point is that I see discrimination as a waste of not only social but also economic resources. Societies should be built on reliability but most importantly, of course, on the rule of law.

      I am happy that you have put clear limits on your report and said that it is not about marriage. As we know, though, the discussion will continue. As a Lutheran, I think it is important that we listen to those who have a different opinion. In Finland, we have a State church and there are widespread opinions within it. I am happy about that. Questions about whether a church wedding should only be between a man and a woman are also timely in my country. In this situation, we must make compromises based on a proper discussion where we have listened to both sides and, most importantly, done so in a reasonable way. We have to look at the facts, not at our fears, and respect each other.

Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – As a member of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, I am very proud of this report. The rapporteur, Mr Haugli, has done a great job. He has listened to all our thoughts and views, and his aim has always been to produce a good report describing how LGBT people in Europe are denied their fundamental human rights, as well as what needs to be done to tackle these problems.

All my political life, I have worked with LGBT issues, both nationally and internationally, as a political activist and as an elected official at various levels. I remember when I joined the youth league of my party some time in the mid-1990s. At that time, the revolution in LGBT rights in Sweden had barely started, and for a young gay man life felt very uncertain. I was outright afraid for my own future. Would I be able to live a good life? Would my friends and family stay my friends and family? Would I be able to find someone to love and share a life with? All these questions and many others flew around in my head before I came out of the closet. Still, though, who would want to live a lie? So I came out, life went on and my fears turned out simply to be fears. At the same time, the revolution in protecting my and other LGBT people’s rights gained momentum. It was as if society woke up and realised that we were around and that we too were citizens with demands that it grant us the conditions for a good life, as for all other citizens.

When I look out at Europe today, it is clear that the revolution is still going on. Many countries and societies have realised the same thing as my own: gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people are all around us, and we need to facilitate their needs. Sadly, that is not a fact in all our member States. Although it is evident that the whole of Europe realised that we were around, many of the governments around our continent seem to have decided that they need to push us back into the closet.

What amazes me is how ingenious some governments are when it comes to their efforts in restricting rights for people like me. In several member States, for example, legislators are trying to create laws that would clearly infringe the freedom of speech and assembly for LGBT people. These propaganda laws are all very ambiguous – no one can really say what will be regarded as propaganda. Will people like me be able to speak about our partners? Will people like me be able to put a rainbow sticker on our car to show our support for LGBT rights? Will people like me be allowed to hold hands when taking a stroll in a park in Moscow or Kiev? All these and many other questions remain unanswered, and the initiators of these laws have not even tried to answer them.

In this address to the Assembly, I have been rather personal. That is because the issues that the report is dealing with are personal for many people around our continent. Every banned pride, every homophobic speech and every act of discrimination is an attack on my personal fundamental human rights and those of millions of others. This has to stop. Governments all over Europe have to realise that we are here and we are not dangerous; we are just human beings demanding the same rights as everyone else.

Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – I am happy to address this honourable Assembly for the first time in support of Mr Haugli’s report. The subject matter of the report is very much at the top of my government’s agenda, as we are in the process of changing existing legislation to give transgender people who have changed to their desired sex the right to marry. This is one of the very first proposals that the newly elected Labour government has tabled since its election in March, a proposal that is currently in the final stages and will shortly become law. Labour governments have never been afraid to rock the boat in Malta on LGBTI rights. It was way back in 1973 in a heavily Catholic Malta that a Labour government decided to repeal the law that made homosexual acts criminal – a bold step indeed at the time but a step in the right direction. More than that, it was a step taken out of conviction.

In Malta, there is full respect for the rights to assembly, association and expression. As our rapporteur states in a fleeting remark on Malta in his report, in 2012 the Maltese Parliament has also amended the criminal code regulating hate crimes, extending the scope of the law to include sexual orientation and gender identity. This change in the law came in the aftermath of a couple of incidents that seemed to have homophobic motives – incidents that, though few in number, provoked indignation and a cry for justice from our people.

My government has a clear and unambiguous electoral mandate from the Maltese people to do its utmost when it comes to civil liberties. After less than a month in office, the honourable Helena Dalli appointed a consultative committee on LGBT rights and announced that the council’s first priority will be the preparation of legislation that would allow same-sex couples to obtain civil unions. The prime minister, who earlier this month was presented with an award by the LGBT community for his constant support for their cause, said that the civil unions bill and a gender identity bill will be presented in our parliament and discussed by the end of the year. This will most definitely improve by a considerable margin Malta’s ranking in the list of countries that respect human rights and the full equality of LGBTI people.

I am in agreement with the rapporteur that LGBTI rights are not additional, special rights but are basic, fundamental human rights. When we speak of tackling discrimination, we are not in fact giving LGBTI people any rights but merely recognising rights that are already theirs by nature and ensuring that our laws reflect them.

      Recognising lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights makes not only LGBTI people’s lives better – it makes all our lives better. If the laws of a country and the attitude of a people prohibit gay people marrying the people they love, they will end up marrying people of the opposite sex just to please society. That only serves to increase the problem, taking it from a personal problem to one involving spouses and children. A placard caught my eye during a rally for gay marriage. Held by a gay man, it simply stated, “Would you rather I married your daughter?” That certainly gives us food for thought.

      I have a problem with the Russians’ logic, because I cannot see how asking States not to discriminate could, in itself, be discriminatory. We members of the Council of Europe, who have human rights and democracy at heart, must not forget that we calculate how democratic a country is not by the strength of its majority, but by the amount of respect it has for minorities. I thank the rapporteur and hope that the report goes through with flying rainbow colours.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – That concludes the list of speakers. I am delighted to have been able to give the floor to all the many people who wished to speak on the issue; we have had a very interesting debate. Rapporteur, you have a few minutes in which to respond to the debate. It should be two, but I will give you three, or maybe even four.

Mr HAUGLI (Norway) – Thank you, Mr President, and I thank all my colleagues for their contributions to the debate. I cannot comment on them all, but I appreciate all the views that have been put forward, and the breadth of support for the report, both politically and geographically speaking.

Ms Schembri and Ms Woldseth raised an important point about special rights. It makes no sense to talk about LGBT rights in the context of the report; it is about human rights. Freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the freedom to live a life without violence are not special rights; nor are they LGBT rights – they are rights for everybody.

Mr Rouquet made a very good point about a climate of fear. The fear created by the new laws obviously affects LGBT people, their families, friends, colleagues and other people who know them, but the fear goes broader than that, because if human rights are taken away from LGBT people, who is next?

Mr Shlegel sees a contradiction in the report, and says that it discriminates against LGBT people, but that is not the case. Scorn, ridicule, discrimination in many forms, and hate speech are problems for LGBT people. The fact that the Council of Europe is writing a report about LGBT people is not a problem; on the contrary, it should be applauded.

Finally, let me make a comment on culture and traditions. When the Croatian Prime Minister, Mr Milanović, was here, he said, “Traditionally, husbands were allowed to beat up women.” Not all traditions are worth preserving. The tradition of subjecting LGBT people to ridicule, scorn, hatred and violence, and of denying them rights, is not worth preserving. Again, I ask colleagues this question: are human rights for all, or just for some? Should we all enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association, or are human rights a privilege for a majority?

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – Thank you, Mr Haugli. Would the chair of the committee like to take the floor?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – I thank almost everybody in the Chamber for their contribution. We have agreed on almost everything. Of course, that will not be the case when we come to vote; colleagues will have noticed that it was mainly people who are for human rights for everybody who spoke. Very few of those who oppose the report have spoken, and of course that is tactics; I am fully aware of that. Nevertheless, at this moment, I am extremely proud of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. I am also extremely proud of Mr Haugli’s report and all the work that he has done, and I am proud of the way that he has been able to keep things balanced and calm, and to make it obvious to everyone who wanted to participate in the debate that this is about equal rights for everyone – nothing less, nothing more. That is what we are debating.

On a personal note, as a mother of three, nothing scares me more than someone saying, “This is a threat to your children.” Nothing makes me more frightened. I went into politics to safeguard my children, and every single child. My sons might be LGBT – I do not have a clue – but if they are, I want them to be safeguarded from people who say that their rights are not equal to mine. As Mr Gunnarsson said, I will not have them hesitate to come out of the closet because of homophobic people. We are in this Assembly to safeguard every single person. If we do not stand up for those standards, who will? I therefore urge colleagues to vote for the report, and not to vote for the amendments, because they do not stand for equal human rights.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has presented a draft resolution, to which 28 amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which eight amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled.

I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments to the resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

The amendments are Amendments 3 to 5, 7 and 8.

Does anyone object? That is not the case.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Gunnarsson, Ms Karlsson, Ms Ohlsson, Mr Axelsson and Mr Saar, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.4, insert the following paragraph:

“the Russian authorities to halt further action under the ‘Foreign Agents’ Law against the Side by Side LGBT film festival and ‘Coming Out’, to ensure due process in any appeal proceedings by these organisations against their conviction under this law, and to cease further prosecutions of LGBT human rights organisations for not registering as ‘foreign agents’;”

Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly particularly deplores the unanimous approval by the Russian Duma of the draft law on so-called ‘Propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships among minors’ which, if approved also by the Council of the Federation, would be the first piece of legislation on the prohibition of homosexual propaganda being introduced at national level in Europe.”

       Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5, insert the following paragraph:

“In this context, the Assembly takes note of the Opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on the issue of the prohibition of so-called ‘propaganda of homosexuality’ in the light of recent legislation in some member States of the Council of Europe; it shares its analysis and endorses its findings, notably that ‘the measures in question appear to be incompatible with the underlying values of the [European Convention on Human Rights]’, in addition to their failure to meet the requirements for restrictions prescribed by Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention.”

Amendment 7, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.5, insert the following paragraph:

“the Parliament of Ukraine not to pursue the examination of the draft law on the prohibition of so-called ‘homosexual propaganda’;”.

Amendment 8, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.6, insert the following paragraph:

“the Parliament of Lithuania not to pursue the examination of proposals to introduce administrative penalties for so-called ‘public denigration of constitutional moral values and of constitutional fundamentals of family life’.”

      We will proceed to consider the other amendments in the order in which they apply to the text.

      We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Tofani, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, replace the words “and gender identity remain a serious problem, affecting the lives of tens of millions of Europeans” with the following words: “may remain a problem in some places”.

      I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 12.

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – As I said in my speech, “tens of millions” seems out of proportion, given that only two years ago we were referring to 1 million people. This is an exaggerated figure that is not based on anything in the report.

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

Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – The point about discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity remains true. Also, it is not the case that discrimination is a problem only “in some places”; even in places such as Sweden, we know that there is discrimination. I am therefore against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – The vote is open.

Amendment 12 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Tofani, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, replace the words “expresses concern vis-à-vis homophobic statements by politicians and other personalities in a position of authority, which, far from being manifestations of freedom of expression, amount to hate speech and incitement to hostility, discrimination and violence” with the following words: “calls on politicians and other personalities in a position of authority to avoid threatening and violent statements against persons of a particular sexual orientation, whilst acknowledging that the fundamental right of freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention and the case law of the Court must be upheld.”

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 13.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – As I said earlier, there is no legal definition of homophobic statements, so anyone could say that they were offended. Even a priest or a religious person – anyone who believes in a god – who did not believe in discrimination, but affirmed certain things, could lay themselves open to an accusation of homophobia, so the definition has to be changed.

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

Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – There is a recognised definition of homophobia in the Council of Europe; it is used widely in the Organisation, so Mr Volontè’s argument falls.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT⃰ – The vote is open.

Amendment 13 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Tofani, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 5 with the following paragraph:

“However, the Assembly does acknowledge that free speech must have its limits when it comes to the protection of minors from age inappropriate and explicit adult sexual material. It therefore urges Member States contemplating the drafting of legislation on the prohibition of so-called homosexual propaganda to limit the scope of such laws to the protection of minors only.”

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 14.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – In this case as well, the report leaves something to be desired. It would not completely ban the use of pornography or sexual material in the education of children. I am not saying that the report is completely wide of the mark, but our amendment would make it more precise.

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

      Mr BOROWSKI (Poland)* – Those who have drafted the amendment want to prohibit homosexual propaganda, but I would like to know what is meant by propaganda. Propaganda is designed to convince someone with false arguments, but can you imagine someone being convinced to change their sexual orientation? That is simply impossible. It is question of discussing such issues with young people, it is a question of education and it is a question of understanding what sexual orientation is.

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

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 14 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Gunnarsson, Ms Karlsson, Ms Ohlsson, Mr Axelsson and Mr Saar, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly also expresses deep concern at the recent conviction of two organisations, the Side by Side LGBT film festival and the LGBT human rights group ‘Coming Out’, under the ‘Foreign Agents’ Law. Not only does this law violate international human rights principles, but concerns have been expressed that the trials were not subject to due process. The targeting of these LGBT NGOs under the ‘Foreign Agents’ Law, together with the proposed law prohibiting so-called ‘propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations’, constitute a serious threat to any advocacy for LGBT rights in Russia.”

I call Mr Gunnarsson to support Amendment 2.

Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – The amendment concerns the recent events in Russia and the effect that the law on foreign agents has had on the LGBT movement. It would be appropriate to include that in the report.

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

Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – This law was used against those organisations not because they are LGBT organisations but for an entirely different reason.

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

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Tofani, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.1.1, to delete the following words: “and gender identity”.

      I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 15.

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – We are back to the previous question. There is no definition, at an international level, of gender identity. There might be many types of sexual activity, even among minorities, and some people might use that as reference. Gender identity is mentioned in the Council of Europe documents, but there is no definition. Once again, we cannot mention something if it has not been defined.

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

Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – There are a variety of definitions. I remind Mr Volontè about the Yogyakarta Principles and United Nations declarations. In the Yogyakarta Principles, United Nations experts stated what gender identity is. I can hand it to you if you have difficulty finding such documents.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 15 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 18, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Tofani, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.1.2, to delete the following words: “and gender identity”.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 18.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – I reiterate what I have said. I explain to my colleague, who is such an expert in this area – perhaps more so than I am – that the principles that he mentioned were written not by the United Nations but by 30 professors who were in Indonesia. The United Nations has no internationally recognised definition, and none of the conventions or universal declarations includes such a definition.

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

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* – I repeat that the Commissioner for Human Rights of this very Organisation provided a definition of gender identity back in 2009, which I quoted in the debate. I will not repeat it, but there is an accepted definition of gender identity in this Organisation provided by the Commissioner for Human Rights. Even if Mr Volontè does not accept other definitions, he might at least accept the Council of Europe’s definition. That should convince him, and all of us, that it exists. Please vote against the amendment.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The Committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 18 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Ms Kapetanović, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.1.2, to insert the following paragraph:

“recognise that member States may grant exemptions to religious institutions and organisations when such institutions and organisations are either engaging in religious activities or when legal requirements conflict with tenets of religious belief and doctrine, or would require such institutions and organisations to forfeit any portion of their religious autonomy, such exemptions being compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights”.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 11.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – I do not want to keep repeating myself, but if colleagues continue to insist that definitions exist when they do not exist, they should produce one. It would be a shame, particularly for religious institutions, if we voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr Biedroń has tabled a sub-amendment to Amendment 11, which reads as follows: In amendment 11, after the words ‘of their religious autonomy’, replace the words ‘such exemptions being compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights’ with the following words: ‘and if such exemptions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights’.

I call Mr Biedroń to support the sub-amendment.

Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – The sub-amendment clarifies the citation from Resolution 1728.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – I think that the definition that we mentioned is the original one. If my colleague wants to redefine it, he is free to do so, but we would be voting against the definition that we approved two years ago, so I am against.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 11, as amended?

I call Mr Gunnarsson.

Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – I do not think that the amendment fits in this report. The matter has already been dealt with in the 2010 report, where it was appropriate. It is not appropriate in this report.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 11, as amended, is rejected.

We come to Amendment 19, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Tofani, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 6.1.3.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 19.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – As I said earlier, the paragraph should be deleted. It talks of intrusion by the legislature in all aspects of individuals’ private lives. All people, heterosexual or otherwise, have a right to privacy, which is an essential human right and should be respected by the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 19? I call Mr Biedroń.

Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – The amendment would put some citizens of the Council of Europe in category A, who would be protected on these grounds, and LGBT people in category B, who would not be protected. The amendment makes no sense. It creates two categories of people.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 19 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 22, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Tofani, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.1.4, to delete the words “and gender identity”.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 22.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – Like Amendment 24, Amendment 22 is about a definition. We are still awaiting the context in the debate. We have not had that. We have had reference to documents that refer to the words, but not the content. We need to know what is covered by these words and the principles involved. We have at some point to decide what is meant by gender identity. I would like to know what the rapporteur means by gender identity. Then we can see whether there is agreement on it. There is no universal declaration. There is no internationally recognised convention that refers to gender identity. I would like to have satisfaction on that point before I leave the Chamber. What is the new international definition of gender identity? I declare my ignorance – I do not know.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 22?

Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – I refer Mr Volontè to Article 4 of the Istanbul Convention on the prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity. We accepted that document. We worked on that. You have the range of documents of the European Court of Human Rights on gender identity. No one has a problem except you on that. I do not see the point.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 22 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 24, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Tofani, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.1.5, to delete the words “and gender identity”.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 24.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – Mr Biedroń, I obviously have a problem. I just asked whether the convention has been ratified and the word “gender” has been added through parliamentary ratification stipulating what that actually means. You have not said what gender identity means for you. We want a commonly accepted definition, in the absence of which I shall have to vote against the proposal, but obviously that is a problem for you.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 24?

Mr HAUGLI (Norway) – This is not a question of definition. This is a group of people and we should not play with words. If we pass a resolution that refers only to sexual orientation and not gender identity, we will draw a line, saying some people are worthy of protection and some are not. It is not playing with words. It is important that you vote against the amendment.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 24 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 26, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Tofani, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.1.6, after the word “LGBT”, to insert the following word: “, religious”.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 26.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – Does anyone object to me speaking in this Chamber? I would prefer, in the consultations that governments have to engage in, when it comes to enacting anti-discrimination legislation, with LGBT groups and human rights organisations, that religious organisations be included. Taking on board what Mr Biedroń said, there is no religion that has a god that does not agree with people’s sexual orientation.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 24?

Mr HAUGLI (Norway) – This is about human rights and the rights of one particular group of people. I do not see why religious groups should have the privilege to participate in that discussion when other groups do not have that. Why should not humanist groups or other organised groups participate? Political parties can participate. This is about human rights for LGBTs and we should not add the word “religious”.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 26 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 16, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt, Mr Tofani and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 6.1.7.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 16.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – The intent is positive. I think you can see I am respectful vis-à-vis the rapporteur, but there is a risk of introducing legislation that would criminalise those who have affirmed certain things that are construed as hate speech. Again, that is not well defined at domestic level, let alone internationally, so I think that we are opening a door and it could be dangerous.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 16? I call Mr Gunnarsson.

Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – We have our own movement against hate speech and I think the amendment would be a huge blow to that. It would not respect our campaign.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 16 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 17, tabled by Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Agramunt, Mr Volontè, Mr Tofani and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 6.1.8 with the following paragraph:

“introduce guidelines for law-enforcement officials to ensure that any alleged hate motive associated with a crime is effectively investigated;”

I call Mr Badea to support Amendment 17.

Mr BADEA (Romania)* – We want to introduce greater clarity to the text. Rather than have paragraph 6.1.8 as drafted, we would like to introduce guidelines for law-enforcement officials to ensure that any alleged hate motive associated with a crime is effectively investigated.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 17? I call Ms Andersen.

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – We are at the core of our different views now. This is about recognising that there are crimes based on these prejudices. That is why we should include the proposal in the draft resolution. We have to face the truth. It happens in every country, so please recognise that and vote against the amendment.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 17 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 20, tabled by Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Agramunt, Mr Volontè, Mr Tofani and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2, to replace the words “homophobia and transphobia” with the following words: “encitement to harassment or violence on grounds of sexual orientation”.

I call Mr Badea to support Amendment 20.

Mr BADEA (Romania)* – Perhaps I can make a comment for the attention of the previous speaker. This kind of thing does not happen in my country.

We would like the words, “encitement to harassment or violence on grounds of sexual orientation” to replace the wording in the text.

THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr Biedroń wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the committee, as follows:

In Amendment 20, to insert the words “and gender identity” after the words “sexual orientation”.

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 Biedroń to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – Since my colleagues do not like the words “homophobia” and “transphobia”, I want to help them. I want to add the words “sexual orientation” as the report is on sexual orientation as well as gender identity.

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

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – I do not think I need to explain my reasoning. I would like some explanation from the other side.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr BADEA (Romania)* – I am against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour, as the oral sub-amendment was tabled on behalf of the committee.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 20, as amended?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 21, tabled by Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Agramunt, Mr Volontè, Mr Tofani and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2.1, to replace the words “homophobic and transphobic” with the following word: “such”.

      I call Mr Badea to support the amendment.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – We simply want to replace the words “homophobic and transphobic” in paragraph 6.2.1 with the word “such”.

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

      Mr MICHEL (France)* – I am against the amendment, but if Mr Volontè looks at the second part of paragraph 6.2.1, he will see that it refers to gender identity, so he must be in favour of it.

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

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 21 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 23, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt, Mr Tofani and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2.2, to replace the words “homophobia and transphobia” with the following words: “incitement to harassment or violence on any grounds”.

      I call Mr Volontè to support the amendment.

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – Apparently an oral sub-amendment to Amendment 23 has been proposed, but I do not know what it is. The amendment would swap “homophobia and transphobia”, which may require a legal definition, with “incitement to harassment or violence on any grounds”, which is easier to identify than those two undefined terms.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr Biedroń wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in Amendment 23, to delete the word “any” and at the end to insert the words “of sexual orientation and gender identity”.

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

      However, do 10 or more members object to the oral amendment being debated? That is not the case.

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

      Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – The report is about discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and the word “any” does not cover that, so I propose to replace it with the words, “sexual orientation and gender identity”.

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

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – I am the mover of the amendment, so I should have been able to submit my opinion on the oral sub-amendment, which, of course, I am against. There is no point in repeating what I have said – colleagues will be tired of it – but there is no legal definition. It could be said that tomorrow the sun will not rise but set, but that does not change the definition.

      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 23, as amended? I call Mr Volontè.

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – I just want to point out that I am against it.

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

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 25, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt, Mr Tofani and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2.3, to replace the words “support or set up projects against homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools” with the following words: “ensure that projects against bullying in schools do not discriminate on any grounds”.

      I call Mr Volontè to support the amendment.

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – The amendment focuses on the report’s proposal for projects against homophobic and transphobic bullying. Such projects should be against all types of bullying, not just that of undefined groups.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – As this is Mr Volontè’s final session, we are in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 27, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2.4, to replace the words “homophobia, transphobia” with the following words: “incitement to harassment or violence on any grounds”.

      I call Mr Volontè to support the amendment.

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – I do not need to go through my reasons again. I had hoped that the legal expert would help me with the definition, but he has not co-operated. We want a more telling legal definition of the crimes and offences.

      MR PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Andersen.

      Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – This paragraph is about training officials to be able to recognise and deal with something that is not always recognised. Even this Assembly does not recognise it, so special training is needed to see it, recognise it and deal with it. We should vote against the amendment.

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

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 27 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 29, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2.5, to replace the words “homophobic and transphobic violence” with the following words: “violence on any grounds”.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 29.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – Our colleague Ms Andersen – I hold her in great esteem – mentioned that you should train teachers so that they know these things happen, but there is no definition for them. I hope that a definition will be forthcoming. Telling teachers to intervene against things is a problem if you have not defined them.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 29 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 28, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraphs 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6.

      If this amendment is adopted, Amendment 6 falls.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 28.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – Just mentioning specific judgments by the European Court of Human Rights and asking for implementation is, from a legal point of view – which is what we have been working on in the last few years – out of place in a specific resolution such as this. It is not that countries should not be implementing these rulings, but picking out certain rulings and putting them in the report is not the normal way we do things.

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

Mr HAUGLI (Norway) – Paragraph 7 mentions all the most severe attacks on the human rights of LGBT people. Those examples provide the evidence for the rest of the report. If the sub-paragraphs are taken out, the report will lose a lot of its value, so please reject the amendment.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 28 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 6, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 7.5 with the following paragraph:

“the Russian Council of the Federation to reject the law on so-called ‘Propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships among minors’;”

I call Mr Haugli to support Amendment 6.

Mr HAUGLI (Norway) – The amendment simply brings the report up to date. There have been developments since the draft resolution was presented and we are simply stating that it is no longer a question of not pursuing the proceedings with the law: it actually needs to be revoked now.

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

      We know the opinion of the committee, because the amendment was tabled on its behalf.

      The vote is open.

       We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Gunnarsson, Mr Biedroń, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Saar and Ms Čigāne, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.6, to insert the following paragraph:

“the authorities of Georgia to carry out a prompt investigation into the large scale attacks by the violent counter-demonstrators against the participants of the rally against Homophobia on May 17 2013, and hold accountable those who incited and committed violent acts, as well as those who had the duty to prevent such crimes and did not act appropriately.”

      I call Mr Gunnarsson to support Amendment 1.

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – This amendment is about what happened in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, on 17 May, and we ask the authorities in Georgia to carry out a prompt investigation and find out who is guilty of the attacks that happened. It is a recent event that should be included in the report.

       THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Ms Maghradze wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment as follows:

      In Amendment 1, to replace the words “large-scale attacks” with the word “attack”: and to delete the words “as well as those who had the duty to prevent such crimes and did not act appropriately”.

      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 Ms Maghradze to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms MAGHRADZE (Georgia) – I propose the changes because the attack was not “large-scale”: it was a single event. Two days later the same place was used for a big demonstration by LGBT activists and there were no incidents. We also want to take out the second half of the sentence because the authorities are investigating whom to hold accountable and for what, so we should predetermine the outcome of the investigation.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? I call Ms Taktakishvili.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – It was a large-scale attack, because 30 people demonstrating for LGBT rights were attacked by an aggressive mass. As a result, 25 people were injured and treated in hospital, and they could have been killed. I am strongly against the oral sub-amendment. The Commissioner for Human Rights for this Organisation has said that the measures taken by the government were insufficient. The authorities have a duty to hold accountable those who incited and committed violent acts.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – Ms Taktakishvili is also one of the supporters of Amendment 1, although we have different opinions on the sub-amendment. I could live with it. It is not perfect, but it is enough that we mention what happened on 17 May. For the sake of compromise I am willing to accept it.

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

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee did not have time to consider the sub-amendment, so we do not have an opinion.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 1, as amended? That is not the case

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee did not have time to consider the sub-amendment, so we do not have an opinion.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 30, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 8.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 30.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – Paragraph 8 talks about several obligations that it would be incumbent on parliamentarians to meet as they go about their business. Do we expect all parliamentarians to have the same view and opinions on issues of gender identity, which we still have not defined today, or on homophobia?

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

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – Mr Volontè seems to have forgotten one of our most important responsibilities. As parliamentarians, we must have regard for human rights. How can we take care of people’s human rights if we do not know them, if we do not talk to them, if we do not recognise them, or if we are not in contact with the most vulnerable people who need our protection? Of course we have to urge parliamentarians to contact and talk to those who need it.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 30 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13223, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      That brings us to our consideration of the amendments to the draft recommendation. The Chairperson of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination wishes to propose to the Assembly that Rule 33.11 be applied to Amendment 9 to the draft recommendation because it was unanimously approved by the committee. Is that so Ms Acketoft?

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      The following amendment has been adopted:

      Amendment 9, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 5.1, to insert the following paragraph: “devote special attention to the issue of legislation on so-called homosexual propaganda and ensure that Council of Europe member States respect the recommendations expressed by the Venice Commission in its Opinion on this matter.”

      We come to Amendment 31, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2, to replace the words “a serious problem” with the following words: “a problem in some places”.

      I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 31.

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) – I do not want to repeat the reasoning I produced when talking about the draft resolution. The text uses the words “serious problem”; I think it would be best to leave the original wording.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 31 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 32, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3, to delete the words “and at the clear setback in this area due to the introduction of laws and draft laws on the prohibition of so-called homosexual propaganda”.

      I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 32.

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) – I have already told you the reasons why I am suggesting changes to a number of statements. We should delete the wording after LGBT. I do not want to dwell on that point any further.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 32 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 33, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 5.2, to delete the words “including its religious dimension”.

      I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 33.

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) – When talking about the introduction new measures with a view to combating violence and homophobic attitudes, we mentioned religious authorities, but we now want to obligate them and mainstream non-discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. It is difficult to find one’s bearings in such a debate.

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

      Ms BLANCO (Spain)* – I ask the Assembly to vote against the amendment. Some religions have too often over the years during totalitarian eras incited people to oral aggression and even violence.

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

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 33 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 34, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 5.2, to insert the following paragraph: “recognise that member States may grant exemptions to religious institutions and organisations when such institutions and organisations are either engaging in religious activities or when legal requirements conflict with tenets of religious belief and doctrine, or would require such institutions and organisations to forfeit any portion of their religious autonomy, such exemptions being compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights;”

      I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 34.

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – I am trying to look at this from the rational and legal point of view, setting aside the content. Rather than talking about incitement to violence, we should work against it. My objection is to general wording. It is fine to have no definition in a text and to be more general, but from a legal point of view, we need to comply with how the Assembly has always worked.

THE PRESIDENT* – I understand that Mr Biedroń has tabled a sub-amendment as follows:

In Amendment 11, after the words “of their religious autonomy”, replace the words “such exemptions being compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights” with the following words:

“and if such exemptions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights”.

      I call Mr Biedroń to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – This is different wording from that used in Resolution 1728. The sub-amendment clears up the text that refers to the original.

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

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) – I am against the views of Mr Biedroń.

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

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does any wish to speak against Amendment 34, as amended? I call Mr Gunnarsson.

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – I use the same arguments that I have used in respect of the resolution. The matter is dealt with in the 2010 resolution. The amendment simply does not fit.

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

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 34, as amended, is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 35, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 5.3, to replace the words “homophobia and transphobia, with a particular emphasis on prevention in schools and sports” with the following words: “incitement to harassment or violence on the grounds of sexual orientation”.

      I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 35.

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) – As I was saying earlier, we are using such generic wording. I no longer know what to say. Nobody is able to give me any definition. This is a battle of terminology, but it is difficult if we do not define our terms. The majority might be 50 to 20, but legally, nobody is in a position to define what we are talking about.

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

      Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – I needed to stretch my legs, and to offer a bit of friendly advice to Mr Volontè. He says he does know what to say. In those circumstances, my advice is to say nothing.

      THE PRESIDENT* – That was an explanation of your vote, Lord Tomlinson, but I deduce that you are opposed.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – We are in favour of Lord Tomlinson but against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Has everyone got that right with the double negatives? The committee is against the amendment.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 35 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 36, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Mr Nessa, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 5.4, to replace the words “homophobia, transphobia” with the following words: “incitement to harassment or violence on any ground”.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 36.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) – As previously, I think it is best from a legal point of view to be precise if we want the text to have any lasting legal effect in our own countries.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I am looking towards Lord Tomlinson, but I do not see anyone standing.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – Against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 36 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Agramunt and Ms Kapetanović, which is, in the draft recommendation, to delete paragraph 5.6.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 10.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) – This is the last amendment. Here, too, we suggest a deletion, in this case of paragraph 5.6. We are not calling into question what the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights has done, but we do not think reference to it is absolutely essential. The Council of Europe has responsibility for human rights. I have been looking at the statistics, and I am certainly prepared to discuss them – perhaps with Lord Tomlinson outside.

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

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – We have discussed over and over again points on which Mr Volontè does not recognise the problem that exists. When we want to gather information and data, he wants to vote it down. Please, be reasonable.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – Against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 10 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13223, as amended.

The vote is open.

3. Post-monitoring dialogue with “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “Post-monitoring dialogue with ‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’”, Document 13227, presented by Mr Walter on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

      We will aim to finish this debate at 8 p.m. I will therefore interrupt the list of speakers in this debate at about 7.50 p.m. for replies and voting. I remind members that they have four minutes in which to speak.

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

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – No rapporteur can predict the outcome of an investigation. We embark on our projects with an open mind and objective intentions. Our assessments are based on facts and information as we read them, but they are only as reliable as the support and co-operation we receive. I therefore want to start by thanking everyone who was involved in the process of this inquiry – the secretariat for providing political expertise and practical support, the Monitoring Committee for its instructive feedback at various stages of the process, and, of course, the Macedonian authorities and the Macedonian delegation for their continuous co-operation over the past two years, without which I would not have been able to carry out my work. I am especially grateful because reports of this nature can be challenging, and I am mindful that not all my conclusions will be enthusiastically received. However, I hope to assure the Assembly that the report is intended as a constructive dialogue between the Council of Europe and Macedonia. It is designed to help, not hinder, the process of reform that Macedonia has begun, on which the country’s eventual accession to the European Union and NATO will depend and which I hope everyone here wants to see.

The key message of the draft resolution is address the issues that remain unresolved since the monitoring procedure ended in 2000. They include the integration of minority communities, education, reform of the judiciary, freedom of expression and the media, corruption, asylum and decentralisation. It is important to note, first, that there has been good progress across most of those areas. Since Macedonia joined the Council of Europe in 1995, we have seen improvements in the justice system. Positive steps have been taken in the fight against corruption and the protection of minorities. The progress should not be underestimated, but as the report demonstrates, significant challenges remain.

It is a matter of some regret that the name issue continues to delay the opening of accession negotiations with both the European Union and NATO. I hope that Greece will adopt a more flexible approach to the issue and that Macedonia’s neighbours will work constructively to reach a mutually acceptable solution. We must remember that the name issue affects Macedonia in more ways than one, and if we want to promote good neighbourly relations and contribute to the overall stability of the region, it must be resolved. That said, I need to emphasise that the name issue is not the focus of the report that I present to you today, nor do I attempt to offer a solution.

Within Macedonia, sometimes deteriorating inter-communal relations have been a cause for concern. We must remember that Macedonia is a complex multicultural and multi-ethnic society. The Ohrid framework agreement was instrumental in contributing to a climate of peace and stability after 2001. It provided for a number of mechanisms that encouraged greater proportional representation of non-majority communities in public institutions, including those of ethnic Albanians who represent some 25% of the 2 million inhabitants.

Unfortunately, relations between the Macedonian and Albanian communities have, even in recent years, suffered a series of setbacks. Now more than ever, concerted action is needed to rebuild trust and confidence. The authorities must step up their efforts to implement the Ohrid agreement in an open and inclusive way, so as to strengthen equality, increase cultural rights, and create the conditions needed to bring community relations back on track so as to secure peaceful co-existence and a sense of national solidarity.

      The inter-ethnic dimension, though distinct, ties into broader questions of democratic competence. To that end, this resolution aims to highlight the progress made in many areas by Macedonia to meet Council of Europe standards, which should be praised and supported. However, the development of a cohesive society and efficient public institutions has been hampered in part by the polarisation of public life, which remains highly divided along political and ethnic lines. I therefore call on the main parties to initiate an inclusive dialogue with all segments of society as a means of strengthening representation across the system. I am also convinced that decentralisation is a powerful tool to further allow all communities, including the smallest ones, not only to live peacefully together, but collectively to make a positive contribution to the building of a democratic State.

      Democracy has, of course, been very much in the spotlight of late, and as I pointed out in the resolution and in previous presentations on my report, there are still a number of concerns related to the functioning of democratic institutions, as well as ongoing questions about media freedom, corruption and the justice system. I reiterate that the serious incidents that took place in the parliament on 24 December last year on the adoption of the 2013 budget are unacceptable. It is the responsibility of parliamentarians to debate and scrutinise matters of national interest – a feature of any healthy democracy. Equally, all parliamentarians, whatever their political colour, have a duty to ensure first and foremost that democracy is properly exercised, and that parliament can perform its role unimpeded. I therefore welcome the 1 March agreement that provides for an inquiry into those events, and I note there is promise of progress following the setting-up of the commission and the agreement on the candidature for the chair of the commission for this inquiry. I hope that all parties will now move forward constructively to ensure that such an incident does not occur again.

      Macedonia faces multi-level challenges that require a multi-level approach. The authorities must now accelerate efforts to strengthen the process of reform and comply with all Council of Europe standards. The country should be reassured, however, that it is not alone. We want the Council of Europe to invest resources and expertise to help consolidate democracy, bring to an end the post-monitoring phase, and help Macedonia along its chosen path to European Union membership. In light of that, the proposed resolution contains a number of issues that the authorities must address, and I shall mention a few of them.

      We expect the Macedonian authorities to revise their electoral code and comply with the recommendations adopted two weeks ago by the Venice Commission. That would be an important step to restoring confidence in the electoral system. We also expect the Macedonian authorities to further ensure that conditions are met for the creation of a non-selective justice system, and to reinforce training programmes for judges and prosecutors. The situation of the media needs to be improved. A free media is fundamental to democracy. We welcome the adoption of the defamation law, but more work must be done to ensure the media is independent, sustainable, and meets high journalistic standards.

As I mentioned earlier, public life remains sharply divided along ethnic, but also political, lines. Efforts to de-politicise public life will be challenging, but they are essential. The proper functioning of public institutions, at national and local level, is a prerequisite for ensuring that all citizens, whatever their political or ethnic background, have equal access to services, jobs and opportunities. We expect the Macedonian Parliament to put its lustration law into full compliance with Council of Europe standards, and eventually to comply with the decision of the constitutional court in light of the opinion of the Venice Commission. Lustration laws might be legitimate, but they should not be perceived as a political tool.

Our message should be clear and unequivocal: we want to support Macedonia and back its European aspiration. We need to support it not only with words, but with action and commitment. We want the Council of Europe to engage in a renewed partnership and send out a positive message to the Macedonian authorities and people that Macedonia is part of Europe. We want to do everything we can to support Macedonia in its complex diversity. For that reason, I would like the Assembly also to support the recommendation submitted today, which requests the opening of an office in Skopje to support and strengthen a renewed partnership. I emphasise that the office would be a contact point for the Macedonian authorities to access the resources and expertise of the Council of Europe, and it would not be there to check on the performance of the country’s democratically elected parliament and government. It would exist in a constructive spirit of partnership with Macedonia’s friends and supporters. I commend this resolution and recommendation to the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, rapporteur. You have three minutes remaining in the debate. I now give the floor to Mr Xuclà, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – On behalf of ALDE and in my own name, I must say that Macedonia is Macedonia and its name is Macedonia. I hope that we will not engage in interminable discussions about the name of the country because its name is not its problem. Its problems are set out in the report by Mr Walter, whom I congratulate on a brilliant report on post-monitoring dialogue with Macedonia.

Post-monitoring dialogue must continue, and some aspects of the situation indicate that we need more reform in Macedonia. There is also the issue of Macedonia’s accession to the European Union. Just last week, my colleague, the rapporteur on Macedonia, said that Macedonia’s accession to the European Union is under threat, and mentioned some specific reasons for why that is the case. The European Council, which meets today and tomorrow for the first time in a long time, is not referring to possible Macedonian membership at all. That gives us cause to reflect and indicates that there are some problems when it comes to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

The United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of speech and of the press, Mr Frank La Rue, recently indicated in a written report that he is concerned about the health of the press, and Ms Mijatović also expressed those concerns last week and felt that the arrest of a journalist in Skopje for an article written a number of years ago was really an attack on the freedom of journalists.

      There are also some problems with the functioning of democracy. One of the candidates in elections in the central district of Skopje – Mr Zernovski, a former colleague of ours – ended up going through three successive elections because of irregularities. There were false ballots and documents that had not been appropriately verified. Representatives of the European Union and the OSCE were very concerned about that. There is also the issue of ethnic and religious co-existence. If we put all this together – the functioning of democracy, freedom of the press and the irregularities I have mentioned – it becomes clear how essential it is for the Government and Parliament of Macedonia to implement a number of measures to correct the situation.

      There are no amendments about opening the office in Skopje, although that question was raised when the Monitoring Committee had a debate in Tallinn. The non-opening of the office is a poor sign. The Council of Europe should have permanent representation in Macedonia to ensure that the post-monitoring dialogue can continue in a fruitful way and we can bring it to a close shortly.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call the Earl of Dundee, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – I congratulate my good friend and United Kingdom colleague, Robert Walter, on providing us with this useful and timely report. I would like to talk about two issues. First, for national solidarity in this case, that kind of team work should work best. Secondly, there is the context of Macedonia’s current European Union candidature and future membership.

      Central to prospects for proper change, as we learn, is the 2001 Ohrid framework agreement. Its purpose is to facilitate Macedonia’s journey towards democracy, human rights and the rule of law. As we have heard today, some progress has already been made. That reflects developments consistent with the Ohrid framework. Further progress is likely to derive from dedicated partnership and team work. As recommended by the rapporteur, this partnership should now include that between the Macedonian authorities and the Council of Europe, with its Venice Commission or European Commission for Democracy through Law. As also urged by the rapporteur, a Council of Europe office must be set up in Skopje as soon as possible. That will much assist the partners in their joint endeavours. And, both within and outside the country, it will help to co-ordinate actions that have to be taken.

      It goes without saying that properly focused team work along these lines will in itself engender and precipitate another partnership. This is between Macedonia and the European Union. As we know, next Monday, on 1 July, Croatia becomes that institution’s 28th member. All of us welcome that a great deal. Following the necessary steps leading to its qualification, as outlined, we also much look forward to Macedonia’s future membership of the European Union.

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

      Mr DRAGASAKIS (Greece)* – The report sets out the reality of the country as it stands today. It draws attention to some significant problems with respect to minority rights, combating corruption and various other issues. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.

      The report also speaks to the issue of the name of “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and asks Greece to show some understanding in this regard. However, as far as that issue is concerned, the UEL has had a very resolute and constant position – not just now, but at the beginning of the crisis 20 years ago – on the situation in the Balkans and the integration of all countries in the area, including “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, into European institutions. We believe that outstanding bilateral problems should be resolved in a serene manner. That is how we perceive the present situation.

      I am Greek parliamentarian, so let me stress some of the changes in Greece’s position. It is true that not all political forces in Greece were in favour of a resolution that would be acceptable to all, but Greece’s position has evolved and is now in favour of a dual name as a way of resolving this outstanding issue – a name that would include two terms that could then be used under all circumstances and in all cases. There has been a lot of nationalistic tension in the Balkans on all sides. That is why we wish to underscore the point that in order to resolve outstanding bilateral problems we need to come up with a pragmatic and implementable solution. I think that is a position that can be supported.

      In the name of the UEL, I would like us to invite “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and its representatives to co-operate more closely with the Council of Europe, in order to deal with the problems that have been identified in the report. As a Greek parliamentarian, I can assure the people of “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” that they have good and close friends in Greece, because Greek society is very interested in stability in the Balkans, with flourishing bilateral relations among all countries in the region, in order to overcome the crisis that is threatening not just Greece, but the region as a whole. I am in favour of a policy based on more mutual confidence and trust, and of course the sensitivities of “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” must be respected in order to achieve a solution.

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

      Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Walter, for this thoughtful and detailed report. He was so succinct in setting out the main problems and recommendations in his introductory speech that everything that follows is just a repetition of his very well-made points.

      Personally, I definitely subscribe to the statement in the report that Macedonia faces multi-level challenges in securing political stability and social cohesion. Macedonia faces a very complex situation. As we just heard, it has an unresolved name issue with Greece. Macedonia still struggles to maintain peaceful co-existence between its majority Macedonian and minority Albanian communities, and its democratic institutions are not fully consolidated, as exemplified by the events of December 2012 in the Macedonian Parliament. I fully agree with the rapporteur that Macedonia needs all support that the international community – including, of course, the Council of Europe – can give it.

Potential accession to the European Union is indeed helping to keep Macedonia focused on its very necessary reforms. Unfortunately, as the rapporteur pointed out, the unresolved issue with its neighbour Greece over its name does not allow the country to move ahead with the accession negotiations. I therefore fully subscribe to the rapporteur’s statement expressing hope that Greece will adopt a more flexible approach towards the negotiations over the naming issue. In addition, I subscribe to the statement by the rapporteur that a very good use could be made of a permanent Council of Europe office in Skopje.

The report mentions the Ohrid Agreement, which was signed in 2001 after inter-ethnic conflict. The report says that the agreement has delivered overall stability and led to substantial reforms. This is a commendable development, and we can only hope that the agreement will continue to have a positive effect in future.

The report, however, notes several serious shortcomings, which previous speakers have mentioned. As with the elections in 2009, for instance, the 2011 elections saw substantial pressures on public sector workers to vote for the ruling party, thus substantially blurring the line between the incumbent ruling party and the State. We have also seen the biased treatment of media outlets, which, as the rapporteur has pointed out, are heavily dependent on public funding for advertising and indeed their sustenance.

In conclusion, if Macedonia is left waiting to start accession negotiations with the European Union and indeed for any signal from NATO regarding the possibility of its joining, the momentum for reform might really weaken. That might be a dangerous development for the country and the region as a whole.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Ivanovski, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr IVANOVSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – I am honoured that I can deliver the position of the Socialist Group as well as that of the Macedonian opposition on the latest post-monitoring report on the Republic of Macedonia. Macedonia is a small country but with serious, continuous and numerous problems. Beside the two best-known political issues relevant to the international public as well as to this forum – the dispute with Greece over our name, and the inter-ethnic relations within the country – Macedonia is faced with profound difficulties and challenges with regard to the basic standards and principles of democracy. My country still remains significantly divided by ethnic, economic, social, cultural and, especially, party lines. The government’s policy of constant confrontation, exclusion and pressure applied to anyone opposing it creates instability, uncertainty and serious political, economic and social tensions.

Macedonia has extremely poor freedom of media and is in continuous free-fall in international rankings on this issue. It is placed 116th out of 179 on the Reporters Without Borders list – unfortunately, next to Venezuela. The Macedonian media are heavily politically and financially dependent on the ruling party and the government, while pro-opposition media and journalists either have been closed down or are faced with threats from State agencies and court charges. State, public and local institutions are severely politicised, with membership of the ruling party made a primary criterion for employment. The interests of the party, rather than those of the State or its citizens, are crucial in the decision making process, resulting in unacceptable personal, economic and party discrimination of citizens. Discrimination can be seen in the lustration process, which has become a tool for political revenge.

The Macedonian judiciary is not independent or sufficiently credible. It suffers from pressure and influence exercised by the ruling party and the economic structures in the country, creating a selective and biased legal system. Problems with the functioning of the rule of law are immense for the Macedonian State and the level of organised crime and corruption remains high, often characterised by respected agencies and foreign State bodies as governmental crime and corruption.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe must not forget the events of 24 December last year in the Macedonian Parliament – the unprecedented brutal physical removal of opposition MPs and journalists from the plenary session hall by the police. At that point Macedonia experienced the suspension of its constitutional system, parliamentary democracy and basic human rights and principles. Furthermore, there has been an absence of political dialogue for some time. The Council of Europe is expected to help Macedonian democracy, through the Venice Commission, by supporting reform to its electoral code. That should be done promptly and thoroughly in order for us to have free and fair elections, and in order to prevent the involvement of governmental and State institutions in the ruling party’s election campaign.

I see the Council of Europe as a partner and friend of the Republic of .Macedonia. Friends and supporters talk directly and openly about problems and challenges; they do not hide them. The report is objective and impartial and notes most of Macedonia’s problems, difficulties and expectations, which ought to be obligations and commitments for Macedonian political actors, primarily the government.

The rapporteur, Mr Walter, has done a good and important job for Macedonia and the Council of Europe, and I am grateful for that. I fully support his proposal to reopen the Council of Europe office in Skopje, which would have the task of pursuing the country’s democratic progress, following political developments and working jointly with the Macedonian authorities on the clear and complete fulfilment of Macedonia’s obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe. I expect his continued presence in the country in order to evaluate the implementation of the recommendations in the report.

      In the end, we can and must help the Macedonian citizens who want democracy, full integration with the European Union and NATO and an economically and socially developed country that respects human rights, the rule of law, freedom and equality.

      Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – It is my pleasure as head of the Macedonian delegation to support the report on the post-monitoring dialogue with Macedonia. The report reflects the real situation and the state of relations both within our country and with our neighbours. That is why I congratulate the rapporteur, Robert Walter, on his report. I hope that we will work together in the near future and present a report with a proposal for closing the post-monitoring dialogue.

I support the report because it clearly says: "The Assembly believes that the efforts made by the Macedonian authorities to secure the implementation of the 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement, pursue reforms in the field of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and proceed with the European integration agenda should be fully supported by the Council of Europe and its member States." I also support it because it says that serious reforms are being made regarding the rule of law, putting in place merit-based recruitment in public administration, fighting corruption, decriminalising defamation and implementing the Ohrid framework agreement, thus making good relations between all the ethnic communities in Macedonia.

I also welcome the rapporteur’s idea of reinforcing the presence of the Council of Europe in Macedonia, and I ask all parties not to misuse this idea. As the rapporteur said, it would mean an Info Point in Macedonia, and I support and welcome that. It would not mean that Macedonia was heading backwards; rather, it would mean increased co-operation that should, hopefully, lead to the closing of the post-monitoring dialogue.

Macedonia faces its biggest challenge in its 22 years of independence in its relations with our neighbour, Greece. As you are well aware, Greece is vetoing Macedonia’s membership of NATO and the European Union, asking the country to change both its name and that of the identity of the majority of the its population. There is no other example in history of a country asking its neighbour to change the primary self-identification of every person living there, but that is what Greece is doing. Greece still practises the credo, left behind long ago, that the strongest can do what they want and the weaker do what they have to.

We think the opposite: in Europe we should be friends and co-operate. Some 2 million people in Macedonia want the country to be a member of NATO and the European Union, but Greece does not want that. That is why I applaud and support the clear approach of the rapporteur, who uses “Macedonia” and “Macedonian” in the report and says clearly in paragraph 2: "The Assembly regrets that the name issue continues to delay the opening of accession negotiations with the European Union, as repeatedly recommended by the European Commission since 2009, as well as the attempts of ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), despite the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 5 December 2011. The Assembly hopes that Greece will adopt a more flexible approach to this issue.”

I know that many of you support our struggle for self-identification. I ask you to speak to your parliaments about Macedonia and Macedonians. Tell your fellow MPs what Greece is doing, because if we allow Greece to take this approach, your country may be next. If Greece uses its veto to blackmail Macedonia, tomorrow the same approach might be taken with Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, or others.

Dear Greek friends, we know that tomorrow, at the European Union summit, you will again veto the opening of European Union-Macedonia negotiations. It will be the fifth year that you have vetoed European Commission proposals, having done so since 2009, but make no mistake: Macedonia will survive, as will Macedonians, and we will continue our reforms, so that our people have better lives and are happier. Make no mistake: we will fulfil our founding fathers’ dreams of freedom, and of a democratic, free Macedonia that is part of Europe and part of Euro-Atlantic integration.

Ms MEHMETI DEVAJA (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Robert Walter, for this thorough report that covers a long period and a number of events. Macedonia welcomes the report, the draft resolution and the recommendations, and I am confident that the authorities and institutions of our country will take these findings as guidelines in undertaking serious, proactive work towards the consolidation of our democracy and the reformation of State institutions.

Macedonia is a young democracy with complexities of a specific nature. Only 10 years ago, it was engulfed in an ethnic conflict that threatened to burst into an all-out civil war. In 10 years, however, it has succeeded in overcoming the conflict and stabilising its institutions. It continues to make efforts to accommodate the diversity that is found among its ethnic groups, and it has become a candidate country for European Union membership. Those achievements deserve credit and recognition, as the report rightly says.

However, the last couple of years have indeed been challenging for the country and its people. The lingering integration process seems to have moved political elites to turn inwards, rather than look outwards. Some have argued that the country is going backwards, rather than moving forward, and there may be truth in such claims. It is for those reasons that we need the hand of our allies, so that we can continue on the right track. In that regard, I fully support what Mr Walter referred to as a renewed partnership between the Republic of Macedonia and the Council of Europe.

The report, the draft resolution and the recommendations cover all four key challenges for Macedonia – the implementation of the Ohrid framework agreement, and what the government needs to do, while calling on all political stakeholders to refrain from using divisive nationalistic rhetoric; pursuit of the decentralisation process; presenting and debating the results of the implementation status of the Ohrid framework agreement; and inspiring new, inclusive policies on accommodating diversity, including through the promotion and use of various languages at national level.

The report deals with the name issue and what more needs to be done by both Macedonia and Greece; the restoring of a functional political dialogue in parliament in the aftermath of the events of 24 December; and of course, further reform and democratisation of institutions such as the judiciary and the media. It portrays the current state of affairs in Macedonia in a realistic fashion. As a delegation, we will look at its findings seriously and work with all institutions to address all the points raised, in order to close the post-monitoring dialogue in due course.

In conclusion, Macedonia has changed a lot. The European perspective has had a huge transformative effect on the country and its people. That is why this process must gain a new dynamic and continue. We are engaged in replacing the old values of division and intolerance with new values of integration and respect for diversity. We want to substitute modern Europe and Europeanism for romantic Balkans nationalism, but to succeed in that, we need our friends and allies. Most of all, we need our next-door neighbours.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I, too, compliment the rapporteur on the report, which sets out the situation clearly and dispassionately. I also thank Ms Mehmeti Devaja, because she has shown how different the voices coming out of Macedonia can be. Mr Nikoloski, you will not get very far taking the tone that you do, because that will just consolidate the various positions; Mr Dragasakis spoke very differently. Greece has to show generosity on the name issue. Macedonia and Greece both have enough to worry about without fighting over a name. Obstinacy will not get you anywhere.

Macedonia has been able to prevent civil war, but it has wasted opportunities in the past few years. A poisonous nationalism has led to tension and clashes, and that racism in a multi-ethnic State has done so much damage. It is a shame that a country that has been so clever in so many ways has fallen into that trap. That is exactly what happened in December 2012. It is a catastrophe for the parliamentary system and democracy when the police have to remove MPs from a parliament. That is why I thank those from Macedonia who today spoke in favour of compromise, and who are concerned about the situation, because that is what we need to hear. We need to re-establish the independence of the media in Macedonia.

I would like to say something to the President of the Assembly and Mr Herkel, the chair of the Monitoring Committee. Mr President, you want a reform of monitoring; I am an active member of the Monitoring Committee, and I do not know of anyone who is insisting on monitoring reform at the moment. What we want is reform of post-monitoring. Macedonia is in post-monitoring. We have had post-monitoring for 30 years, and time and again, we have seen the same situation that we see today. If we reformed post-monitoring, we would be much more effective. If a country has had four years of post-monitoring and a report like this comes before the Assembly, we should automatically send that country back into monitoring. If that happened, it would put pressure on countries under monitoring to carry out reforms in those four years. We should discuss that. After 13 years, post-monitoring is no longer that; it becomes missed opportunities for the country, and for the Council of Europe. I back everybody who has said that the Council of Europe should open an office in Macedonia, because it definitely needs our support.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – I congratulate Mr Walter on the report, which thoroughly examines how Macedonia has complied with the obligations of membership of the Council of Europe. The regional co-operation programmes in eastern Europe are helping to drive the desire for European integration in countries in the western Balkans. After 15 years of parliamentary co-operation in south-east Europe, the speakers of the parliaments of the States that participate in the south-east Europe co-operation process decided only a few weeks ago in Ohrid, under the Macedonian presidency of the regional co-operation platform, to introduce a parliamentary assembly for the south-east Europe co-operation process. They took that initiative to encourage closer co-operation between the legislative bodies of the 12 member States in order to guarantee a satisfactory exchange of good practice on the harmonisation of national legislation in the context of European Union agreements.

      The time has come to put an end to demarcation lines in Europe. We must ensure that young people in the western Balkans are offered a European future. We and the decision makers in the region must act decisively to consolidate democratic values and the rule of law, because those are an absolute prerequisite for creating an environment conducive to investment, which will bring jobs in its wake and improve the standard of living in the region. We hope that, as part of Europe, a spirit of co-operation and understanding will permeate the region, and the rights of all national minorities will be respected, including the right of every citizen to retain their own national identity through access to education and the courts in their mother tongue, and the right to religious freedom.

As a member of the Romanian delegation, I express a measure of support for the efforts that Macedonia has made to align with the standards of the Council of Europe in the areas of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I also support efforts to pursue the wider objective of increasing dialogue with the European Union.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur for his high-quality work. Macedonia is a pivotal country for peace and stability in the Balkans. We attach great importance to the security, stability and prosperity of the Republic of Macedonia, and to the preservation of its territorial integrity. Macedonia can be seen as a unique model for peaceful co-existence in the region, given its multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multicultural social fabric. The 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement should be fully implemented. Within that framework, the full integration European and Euro-Atlantic institutions would provide additional support for the Macedonian reform process.

Elections constitute a litmus test by which to evaluate a country’s democratic credentials. The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights monitored municipal elections in the Republic of Macedonia in April 2013, and it described the two rounds of voting for the elections – held on 24 March and 7 April 2013 – as well administered and highly competitive. That is an important step towards the consolidation of democracy in Macedonia. However, the observers also highlighted some procedural irregularities. I am sure that Macedonia will take the necessary measures to overcome those problems in co-operation with the OSCE and the Council of Europe.

Macedonia is host to numerous historical monuments. Turkey attaches importance to protecting and preserving them according to their original functions. They once belonged to the Ottoman "waqfs", which can be translated as “foundations”, and the restitution of the waqf properties expropriated during the communist era has remained an open issue. Despite the denationalisation process after the regime change in 1991, the Muslim religious community of the Republic of Macedonia has not been able to regain ownership of several waqf properties. The community is entitled to inherit these properties under the Restitution Act of 1998, but the process is running very slowly. I call on the Macedonian authorities to take the necessary measures for facilitating the restitution of the waqf properties.

Mr MARIAS (Greece)* – I believe that it was necessary for Mr Walter to use the name “FYROM” because he spoke as a rapporteur and not as a parliamentarian. The State of Skopje is undergoing a number of difficulties, as we can see from the report, and there are domestic contradictions and partisan opposition. We know that the State of Skopje is a multicultural and multi-ethnic mosaic and that, rather than finding a way to co-exist peacefully, there is constant tension among the groups. The international community was terribly shocked by the events of December 2012, especially 24 December, when the police in Skopje entered the parliament hall and threw deputies out to make it possible for the majority to vote in a budget. That was not acceptable, and we do not want such domestic problems to be exported to Greece or elsewhere. Attempts are being made to disorient the international community. The leaders of Skopje are causing problems for their citizens, as set out in detail in Mr Walter’s report.

The main lever used to export such domestic problems is the falsification of history and the appropriation of the name of Macedonia. For those who do not know, Macedonia is a geographical region that covers the territories of several countries. Skopje is monopolising the term “Macedonia” to stand forward as a nation State, even though Macedonia covers a much larger region. A substantial part of the geographical region of Macedonia belongs to Greece, and 2.5 million Greek citizens live in Greek Macedonia. The Greek people oppose all attempts to falsify history and illegally to appropriate the name of Macedonia. The authorities pretend to be the sole inheritors of a historic legacy in order to advance their irredentist cause. They claim to have a right of self-determination, but they must not exercise it in such a way as to undermine the interests of neighbouring countries, particularly Greece. Before negotiations can begin regarding the accession of the Skopje State to NATO and the European Union, the name issue must be resolved. The Hague criteria must be met, and Skopje must respect the principles of good neighbourliness. For all the reasons that I have mentioned, I believe that paragraph 2 does not fully respect the historic reality, but blames Greece without foundation for delays in the opening of accession negotiations. That is why I will vote against the resolution.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I thank Mr Walter for this enlightening report. It is very big, so I will ask just a few questions. As my colleague from Macedonia pointed out, the country has taken a giant leap from the wrath of war to a situation based on the rule of law. Now it is seeking membership of the European Union. That is an ambitious goal and it is worth congratulating it on that. However, Macedonia must take a few more steps to fulfil the membership requirements. I am worried about corruption, and this is not exclusive to Macedonia but concerns other countries as well. Corruption is not only a bad habit, it is a strong culture and it cannot be fought only by talking or by making laws. The laws must also be respected and the culture must change, but it takes time.

Corruption is tied to many aspects of society – to governance and business – and it is a grave violation of fundamental principles, such as the rule of law. In the end, it hurts our citizens and is a deterrent to a sustainable economy. European Union candidates must ensure that their economy is in a state that can be subjected to public scrutiny.

We must be able to demand reliable criteria and tests for the economy. The economic crisis is in the end a crisis of democracy. The so-called grey economy turns black when we talk about human trafficking. The report states that Macedonia is a source and transit country for trafficking. Do we really not have global tools for intervening in this offensive phenomenon? Let us therefore send a strong message from this debate that human trafficking cannot be allowed in any form.

Having said that, I understand that in addition to the economy the report considers many other issues. Macedonia has had to go through an election in rather stormy circumstances but the country has made progress and worked hard to resolve the political crisis, as is stated on page 16. Social involvement is tested in an election and the result has an impact on the future.

The OFA has proven to be a functional tool but the report notes that there are still tensions between different nationalities. The States must strive towards improving co-existence. This includes better treatment of the media, which is highlighted in the report. A free press is part of an institutionalised modern society.

The PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers. Rapporteur, you have three minutes left to respond.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I thank all those who contributed to the debate. I say to my two Greek colleagues that the resolution, the title of the report and the recommendation all refer to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” but if you read one of the early footnotes in the report, you will see that it says, “The use of the term ‘Macedonia’ is for descriptive purposes and the convenience of the reader. It does not prejudge the position of the Assembly on the question of the name of the State and does not reflect the position of the Council of Europe.” Conscious of the fact that I had only 13 minutes, I felt that if I referred every time to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, I might overrun my time. However, paragraph 2 of the draft resolution states that, “The Assembly also invites ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ to pursue its dialogue under the auspices of the United Nations with a view to settling the name issue in the near future, and” – this is important – “to develop constructive relations with neighbouring countries, thus contributing to the overall stabilisation of the region.”

I say particularly to my colleagues from Macedonia that the support for the concept of a Council of Europe office in Macedonia is welcome and I thank them for that support. The Ohrid Framework Agreement was what it says – a framework. What we need is the political will of all parties and communities, while recognising the diversity within the country, to create national solidarity. I believe that that can be achieved. The Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe are here to help. I would like at the end of one of these debates to recommend that we bring to a conclusion the post-monitoring dialogue, because that will be key to a successful European Union and NATO accession.

THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Herkel to speak on behalf of the committee.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I thank Mr Walter and the secretariat of the committee for their professional and comprehensive work. I also thank the Macedonian delegation for their constructive approach. I wish you success in your bid for European Union and Euro-Atlantic integration. I am as convinced as Mr Walter that addressing the problems that are highlighted in the resolution will benefit the integration process. That is important.

I would like to comment on the important statement made by Mr Schennach. We must reflect on what the difference is between monitoring and post-monitoring. This is a huge paper and important problems still exist. If we speak about the necessity of reforming of the monitoring procedure, we should perhaps be more exact about what exactly the difference is between monitoring and post-monitoring. That is an issue that the Monitoring Committee will continue to discuss.

THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution, to which one amendment has been tabled and one oral sub-amendment has been proposed; and a draft recommendation.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Ivanovski, Mr Nikoloski, Mr Flego, Mr Aliu And Mr Stoilov, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 23, to add the following sentence:

“The Assembly encourages the rapporteur to pay frequent visits to the country in order to support and evaluate the process of fulfilment of obligations and commitments in the post-monitoring dialogue.”

I call Mr Ivanovski to support Amendment 1.

Mr IVANOVSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – The purpose of the amendment is to encourage the rapporteur, who has been thanked and congratulated on his good report, to continue his work on the ground in Skopje, to follow closely the implementation of the recommendations for which we are about to vote, and to evaluate the progress that the country makes on its path to the fulfilment of the obligations and commitments of the Council of Europe. The oral sub-amendment proposes to merge the last paragraph and the amendment.

The PRESIDENT* – Even before you said that, I was going to rule that the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. The oral sub-amendment is as follows:

In Amendment 1, instead of inserting the proposed new text at the end of paragraph 23 of the draft resolution, to insert it in place of the last sentence of paragraph 23.

Do members accept debate of the oral sub-amendment? I see no one is standing up. Therefore, the oral sub-amendment is admissible.

Mr Ivanovski has already spoken in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – It is in favour.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 1, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13227, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13227. A two-thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

4. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday morning.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 7.50 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Credentials of the Italian delegation

2. Tackling discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity

Presentation by Mr Haugli of report of the Equality and Non-Discrimination Committee in Doc. 13223 and Addendum

Statement by Ms Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, Minister of Women’s Rights of France

Speakers: Mr Michel (France), Ms Taktakishvili (Georgia), Ms Kazakova (Russian Federation), Ms Werner (Germany), Mr Volontè (Italy)

Reply to speakers from the political groups: Mr Haugli (Norway)

Speakers: Ms Kyriakidou (Cyprus), Ms Ohlsson (Sweden), Mr Mogens Jensen (Denmark), Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg), Mr Shlegel (Russian Federation), Ms Bilgehan (Turkey), Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Ms Woldseth (Norway), Mr Rouquet (France), Ms Andersen (Norway), Ms Giannakaki (Greece), Ms Blondin (France), Ms Blanco (Spain), Ms Christoffersen (Norway), Mr Biedroń (Poland), Ms Maghradze (Georgia), Ms Mattila (Finland), Mr Gunnarsson (Sweden), Ms Schembri (Malta)

Replies: Mr Haugli (Norway), Ms Acketoft (Sweden),

Amendments 3 to 5, 7, 8, 2, 20 as amended, 23 as amended, 25, 6, and 1 as amended adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13223, as amended, adopted

Amendments 9 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13223, as amended, adopted

3. Post-monitoring dialogue with “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

Presentation by Mr Walter of report of the Monitoring Committee in Doc. 13227

Speakers: Mr Xuclà (Spain), Earl of Dundee (United Kingdom), Mr Dragasakis (Greece), Ms Čigāne (Latvia), Mr Ivanovski (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),Mr Nikoloski (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Ms Mehmeti Devaja (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Mr Schennach (Austria), Mr Badea (Romania), Mr Dişli (Turkey), Mr Marias (Greece), Ms Mattila (Finland),

Replies: Mr Walter (United Kingdom), Mr Herkel (Estonia),

Amendment 1 as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13227, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13227 adopted

4. Next public business

Appendix

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON*

Paride ANDREOLI*

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

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/Guguli Maghradze

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIC*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Federico BRICOLO*

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL/Pieter Omtzigt

Gerold BÜCHEL

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON/Eric Voruz

Natalia BURYKINA /lga Kazakova

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*

Mikael CEDERBRATT*

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

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/László Koszorús

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER*

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 FILIPIOVA*

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*

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM/Tor Bremer

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER

Gergely GULYÁS*

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

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD*

Joachim HÖRSTER*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI*

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/Jouko Skinnari

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel

Ulrika KARLSSON*

Burhan KAYATÜRK

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK*

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*

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT

François LONCLE*

Jean-Louis LORRAIN*

George LOUKAIDES*

Younal LOUTFI*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Gennaro MALGIERI*

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/Joe Benton

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*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN*

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO/Oleh Pankevych

Boris SHPIGEL*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Ladislav SKOPAL*

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI*

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*

Giuseppe VALENTINO*

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Konstantinos Triantafyllos

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN/Riitta Myller

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN*

Tanja VRBAT*

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ/Predrag Sekulić

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*

Svetlana ZHUROVA*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

__

Observers

__

Partners for Democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Bernard SABELLA