AA13CR31

AS (2013) CR 31

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-first sitting

Tuesday 1 October 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.

Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – On a point of order. I find it rather unacceptable that when a session is due to start at 3.30 p.m. it does not start at that time. In my business I would have found that to be rude. I recognise that you have said that I should raise a point of order. I hope that you will give me a serious and reasonable answer to my point of order.

THE PRESIDENT* – We all have a heavy workload and the committees have been meeting – they have hardly had time to finish – so I feel that it is reasonable to allow colleagues the time to get down here from their committees. It is only courtesy. Now they are drifting in, so we will be able to start. I do not know whether I have replied precisely to your point of order. If you want to raise another point of order, you are welcome.

Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – I am most grateful to you, sir. It would be simple to ensure that the timing fitted in with committee meetings. It is not a difficult task to perform.

THE PRESIDENT* – As far as possible, we try to take account of the constraints upon us all. It is not easy for people – Committee Chairs, for instance – to get through their work and fit in with the timings laid down, as you can see from the fact that many people are missing, but I take your point of order and am very sorry. As always in the Chamber, I was here on time, but as it was deserted, I thought it would be courteous to give members time to arrive.

1. Election of a Judge to the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRESIDENT* – I must remind you that the ballot has now reopened for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights for Romania. The list of candidates can be found in Document 13305. The polls will close at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s Chair. I urge members to vote so that we have a high turnout.

The result of the election will, if possible, be announced at the end of this afternoon’s session. Ms Guzowska and Mr Haupert, you were appointed tellers.

2. Changes in the Membership of Committees

THE PRESIDENT* – Our next item of business is to consider additional changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in the document Commissions (2013) 07 Addendum III.

Are the proposed changes agreed to?

They are agreed to.

3. Children’s Right to Physical Integrity

THE PRESIDENT* – The first item of business this afternoon is the debate on the important report entitled “Children’s right to physical integrity” (Document 13297) presented by Ms Rupprecht on behalf of the Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Committee.

May I remind colleagues that the speaking time is limited to three minutes?

In order to finish by 5.40 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.15 p.m. for replies and voting.

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

Ms RUPPRECHT (Germany)* - I welcome the opportunity to debate the physical integrity of children, which is a fundamental human right. As an activist fighting for children’s rights and as the first rapporteur for children, I have dealt with the protection and promotion of children’s rights for many years, here and in the Bundestag. Unfortunately, I will not be a member of the new Bundestag, having not stood for election this time. I have done my utmost to raise awareness of the rights of children, which are human rights, and their violation. Violations of children’s right to physical integrity are often based on good intentions – on religious, cultural, cosmetic or aesthetic grounds, or because they are deemed to be modern. People think such interference relatively harmless, not knowing the consequences or about recent medical developments.

My report deals primarily with the female genital mutilation (FGM) of little girls, which we do not support anywhere, and the circumcision of young boys. It also deals with intersex children, to whom a sex cannot be assigned at birth, who undergo medical treatment, as well as other interventions, such as piercings, tattoos and implants. We have all fought against FGM, which is acknowledged to be a violation of human rights, but unfortunately, in many parts of the world, including ours, not enough is done to combat it. The circumcision of young boys is considered unproblematic, but we do not talk about its far-reaching consequences for the boys. We do not talk to parents about other ways of meeting the necessary symbolic standards. There is no public debate, including about the consequences for adults circumcised in their youth.

A small proportion of children are intersex. For hundreds of years, they have undergone up to 30 operations shortly after birth so that others can assign a sex – it is easier to assign them to the female sex, because of the operations required – but we do not know what happens to those children or whether they might rather remain intersex, that being their nature. The operations are carried out without their consent, as we know from talking to them, and the life before them is not straightforward.

Our Committee also heard from many experts about the circumcision of young boys and the genital mutilation of young girls and from representatives of Muslim and Jewish communities.

In any public or private decision, the well-being of children must be centre stage. That is the crux of the matter, but unfortunately people often neglect it in favour of justifications for intervention. The best interest of the child is the guiding principle of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We speak out against blatant violations, such as child abuse, which we know is not acceptable, but what about other cases, such as those involving traditions that we pass on without stopping to think? Obviously, almost all parents do not mean to harm their children and will think it in their child’s best interests, but that belief is not always well-founded. You cannot always argue that the child can live with the consequences.

The report deals with the rights of parents to educate and exercise freedom of religion, but it also talks about the rights of the child to self-determination and physical integrity, and between those rights there is a tension. Within that field of tension, however, we need to take a decision based on the interests of the child.

      There are religious considerations. For instance, some communities do not agree with blood transfusions. That is often raised as an example. A blood transfusion might be necessary for the survival of that child, even though the tenets of the religion forbid it. Again, that is a point that we discuss openly, but what about those traditions that have been here for centuries? We tend to tread very cautiously with them. I can understand that, but at the same time we have to ask the question: are these interventions really not irreversible? We believe that they can be irreversible and will affect the life of that child, and later that adult, all the way to the grave. Therefore, we are talking about the short-term and long-term consequences for children. That is what we need to think about when we take decisions on this subject. That holds true not only for circumcision but for sexual assignment for intersex children.

      I refer you to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and specifically Article 12, which says that, in any decisions that refer to children, they must be involved. Children have their own subjective rights and need to be aware of them. Parents have the duty and responsibility of care. Many constitutions state that parents have the right to educate their children, bring them up and care for them, but parents do not have the right to treat their children as though they were objects. It is a sensitive issue. As members of parliament, we need to talk about this in our respective parliamentary bodies. Any action that affects a child or young person should be undertaken only if it is with their agreement. We are talking about influencing their lives, after all. That needs to be addressed beyond this Parliamentary Assembly; in fact, the ombudsmen of Scandinavian countries met yesterday – I do not know whether you read the press this morning – and issued a statement on circumcision of young boys. It is important for us to raise awareness, and to make sure that there are no violations of human rights: that is the unambiguous statement that was made so recently by Scandinavian ombudsmen working on this issue.

      There is another point that I would like to clarify. We are not talking about religious freedom or other rights being limited in any way. Obviously parents have the right to transmit values to their children. In fact, it is their duty; you will not let your child go into the world without some framework, structures and references. At the same time, parents must respect the individual rights of their child, particularly their physical integrity.

      Ladies and gentlemen, we need some time to discuss these matters. My report is to serve as a premise for a dialogue here. We are not saying, “Here and now we must do this and that”. You should not draw up legislation if that legislation is not premised on your hearts, souls and feelings; it has to be inspired by what you believe. That is why we need, first and foremost, a debate throughout the whole of Europe. All the countries represented in this Parliamentary Assembly have come to an agreement. Human rights, democracy and the rule of law constitute the foundation of our existence. If that is our basis, the rights of children – as human beings – cannot be restricted. Therefore, colleagues, I ask you please to take into account all the various actions that have an impact on children, and to support my report. By doing that, you would take a major step in the right direction. We are talking not about conflict but about dialogue, democracy and an exchange of views. That is the kind of discussion that I hope for. I hope that we will come to some common solutions, and that is the hope of my report as well. Thank you very much.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Rupprecht. You will have a little more than two minutes to respond. It is a very short time in the light of the work that you have produced and the high quality of the report you have presented. I officially thank you for what you have done. You have been a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for 13 years – to this day, practically, as you came here first on 25 September 2000. The quality of your reports and your investment in this Assembly is remarkable. I will have the opportunity to say that again, as it is not your last session here – but were that to be the case I would very warmly thank you for all that you have contributed with great knowledge, and for your manner of tackling subject matters, which shows how sensitive you are to these problems that concern our society. Personally, I congratulate and thank you.

      In the debate, I call first Ms Nikolaeva on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Ms NIKOLAEVA (Russian Federation)* - Distinguished colleagues, Mr President, on behalf of the European Democrat Group I congratulate Ms Rupprecht on this courageous report. She is talking about issues which cannot leave anyone indifferent. The rapporteur has been careful to reflect the rights of parents such as religious rights, while realising that the rights of the child are paramount. As she says, we need to care much better for children’s rights in all cases, whether in the private or public sector. That includes the Council of Europe. All the aspects of physical integrity for children require us to be constantly vigilant and to analyse the situation.

      We stress that children’s right to physical integrity is our joint duty. From both the report and the resolution, it is clear that the whole expert community, law makers and the family must work together to implement those rights. We also need to take into account existing religious traditions in members of this Organisation. Defending children’s rights is one of the priorities on the Council of Europe’s agenda, especially since the 2011 strategy for 2012-15 was adopted. The Council of Europe supports member States to improve their standards and combat all forms of violence against children, particularly vulnerable children. The Council of Europe has become the place where member States are able to develop their national plans to defend children’s rights. The number of countries that have adopted their own strategy is growing significantly.

      Children’s rights must always be the cornerstone of human rights, and practices must be adopted that counter things that are obviously cruel. When defending children’s rights, the Council of Europe must make sure that that message gets through to all member States.

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

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Nikolaeva. I call Mr Jónasson on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – Mr President, I support the resolution recommended by the rapporteur, Ms Rupprecht, and the committee. The Council of Europe has been instrumental in defining the rights of children and in recent years calling for increased awareness of these rights. An important landmark in that respect is the Lanzarote Convention from 2007, the Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. I quote a UN global study on violence against children published in 2006: “no violence against children is justifiable and all forms of violence” against children “are preventable”. That is why the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has responded to the call of its Commissioner for Human Rights to see the rights of children as a political priority. The resolutions and the recommendation that we are discussing now should be seen in that context. Despite the legislation and policy measures taken by the Council of Europe and the member States to protect children from physical, sexual and mental violence, an important category is missing: the physical integrity of children. What this means has been explained by the rapporteur, Ms Rupprecht.

      Some of the practices mentioned in the text are rooted in traditions and religious beliefs, but it is important to be absolutely clear that these recommendations are not directed against certain cultures or religious beliefs. It is a positive approach in two ways. Firstly, it clearly defines the practices that must be tackled in order to defend children and prevent violation of their physical integrity. The starting point is the child and the rights of children. In other words the resolution is for, and not against. Secondly, it calls for an open intercultural and interreligious dialogue in society in order to reach a widespread consensus on ways of protecting children - or, as I would put it, respecting the human rights of children.

      There is, however, condemnation to be found in the text, but here a subtle but important distinction is made between the practices referred to, by singling out an obviously extremely harmful practice. The resolution calls for member states to publicly condemn the most harmful practices such as female genital mutilation and pass legislation banning them, thus providing public authorities with mechanisms to prevent and effectively fight these practices.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mrs Kyriakides on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mrs KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) - On behalf of the EPP, I would like to congratulate Ms Rupprecht on the preparation of an excellent but extremely difficult report, “Children’s right to physical integrity”. The issues raised in this report have been the subject of much discussion in different societies, in parliaments and in the media.

As general rapporteur for the rights of the child at the Council of Europe, I would like to state in the clearest and most emphatic manner that upholding the rights of children as defined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is of paramount importance and we cannot accept a watering down of these rights. If we start to do this - if we start to allow for adult variations of the interpretation of children’s rights - we are in danger of allowing violations under certain premises. Our decisions always need to be child-centred, having at heart the best interests of the child.

The physical integrity of children is unquestionably to be protected at all costs. We have seen how the attitudes and beliefs in societies over years have changed. Corporal physical punishment and harsh conditions, which were considered in the past to be a teaching method for children, are now being recognised as having severe psycho-emotional effects on the development of children.

The report deals with many difficult issues: male circumcision, female genital mutilation and sex-determining operations on intersex children. The obvious way would be to state that we as a parliamentary Assembly condemn every type of violation of a child’s physical integrity that is carried out without the informed consent of the child. However, I firmly believe that we need to be extremely careful about respecting religious, parental and societal beliefs so that we do not endanger the health of children by pushing these practices even further underground.

There is no doubt that we need to take a clear stand and firm position where female genital mutilation is concerned. It is a direct violation of the sexual lives of women. This is an unacceptable violation of the sexual lives and rights of girls and women. It is an unacceptable violation of rights. It has been described as torture, and it permanently mutilates the body of young girls.

In the case of male circumcision, the position taken in the report is different. This report is trying to open the discussion. It is trying to start a dialogue with all involved so the children’s best interests are respected and at least the latest state of medical art is used until we raise awareness of the importance of child participation in decision-making. We need to raise awareness of these practices that have been happening for years and that violate the physical integrity of the child. They need to be looked at carefully and discussed openly through dialogue.

This is about the rights of children to their physical integrity, the right of informed decision, and the right to be seen as an individual, not just an extension of the adult world.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Schennach on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* - The President of this Assembly movingly described the excellent qualities of the rapporteur. Dear Marlene, I would like to do the same on behalf of our group. You have left your signature – your mark – on this institution for many years to come. I have learned how much courage and commitment you have shown in unstintingly defending children’s rights. That you are devoting your last report to such a sensitive issue yet again shows your courage, which I hear you have also proven in the Bundestag.

This is a very difficult and fraught issue and your report focuses on two topics that are often swept under the carpet. One is the physical integrity of children. Without a child having any say in it, their sex can be assigned when there is some doubt about that, and many people are now saying, “We insist that we are not he or she; we are in between.” Grave damage can be done to people’s mental and psychological development when the wrong sex is assigned.

Fortunately, female genital mutilation is condemned throughout the world, but it is justified through religious and cultural arguments. We are also talking about physical damage to boys. Pain is still pain, and injury is still injury, whatever kind of legitimacy is adduced. As Ms Rupprecht has said time and again in this Assembly, children’s rights are quite separate from the rights of parents and of society. Every child has their own rights. They have a right not to experience pain and not to have their physical integrity impinged upon.

We cannot just respect tradition. I come from a Catholic country and we had the tradition of the Holy Inquisition - it was called Holy. There was also the burning of witches. We can break from tradition. We have to do so. For the sake of children’s welfare, we must all set a clear signal to ask about things that should be questioned, because every person later in life can decide whether they want to be circumcised or have plastic surgery or reassign their gender. They can decide later.

This is a very courageous and sensitive report which demonstrates that, and it is a great tribute to the rapporteur’s work. This is not an easy subject in Germany. I thank you on behalf of my group for your courage.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Acketoft on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – Colleagues, first let me thank Ms Rupprecht for covering this very important topic and congratulate her on her well-balanced report which I hope will be approved in its entirety – and also be put into practice. I also congratulate Ms Rupprecht on the wonderful speech she made. It was very strong, very clear and nobody can be in any doubt about where your heart lies. Thank you.

As the report states, many legislative and policy measures have been taken by our member States to improve the protection and well-being of children. However, still only 23 countries have a total ban on corporal punishment. In the majority of countries, it is still considered a domestic matter if parents use violence as a parenting tool, just as violence against women used to be. Let us call it management by fear, or parenting by fear.

The report looks at another area of physical abuse: abuse inflicted on children in the name of faith, whether for reasons of religion, tradition or culture. We are talking about parents or guardians who believe that the best way to bring up their children is in a certain faith and that that faith requires an operation that is not justified for medical reasons. I admit that I would have expected my colleagues to talk against the report and say that if we approved it, with its recommendations on considering an explicit inclusion of children’s rights to physical integrity, as well as the right to participation in any decision concerning them, we would be infringing the parents’ right to freedom of religion.

Yesterday, as the rapporteur said, the Nordic children’s ombudsmen jointly stated that circumcision on non-medical grounds and without the consent of the child is in breach of fundamental ethical and medical principles. As we have already heard from colleagues, children have human rights, and those rights go above the rights of parents. The freedom of religion is also about the freedom of non-religion, or choosing one’s religion later in life. As a liberal, I have no problem whatsoever with what an adult chooses to do to their own body, because that is up to them, but we are set here as guardians of every single child on earth. In that case, why should we then allow religion, tradition or culture to be used as excuses for violating a child’s right to physical integrity?

I congratulate the rapporteur again and urge you all to vote in favour of the report and then to go back to your national parliaments and make this work properly.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Acketoft. Ms Rupprecht, do you wish to respond now –you do not have many minutes left – or at the end of the debate? You will respond at the end. I call Mr Ghiletchi.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I thank the rapporteur, Ms Rupprecht, for bringing to our attention some of the issues our community is dealing with in relation to children’s physical integrity. She has proved a good fighter and a good defender of children’s well-being, so I join Mr Mignon in thanking her for her activities in the Assembly and wishing her well in her future activities.

Our first duty as an institution that promotes human rights must be to uphold the rights of children, who are the most innocent of us. Discouraging practices such as female genital mutilation and coerced plastic surgery must be a priority for the Assembly. It is also important to define clearly the medical and sanitary conditions necessary for procedures such as male circumcision. However, I cannot support the intention to significantly discourage male circumcision. The fact that there are so many voices on the effects and risks of male circumcision tells us that there is no clear evidence that it is harmful to babies in the long term. It can have some tangible medical benefits, and the report stressed that most of the disadvantages linked to male circumcision stem from a lack of professionalism and of a sterile environment. Both conditions could be enforced as prerequisites for male circumcision. Waiting for boys to reach the age when they can make the decision themselves might not be the wisest choice.

I deeply regret that Ms Rupprecht did not oppose Amendment 1 in our committee. Paragraph 7.4 was very well written. Without the balance between the rights of the child and the religious freedom of parents, the resolution loses one of its most important pillars. That balance is needed in a modern, multicultural society. Living in such diverse communities, we ought to inform the people of the risks and benefits of all medical procedures. I thank the rapporteur once again for showing both sides of the coin. However, in debatable situations, and with procedures that do not seem clearly to affect children’s long-term health, parents should be allowed to decide what to do, thus giving them the opportunity to imprint a part of their belief system on their children’s lives.

In conclusion, I ask Ms Rupprecht to reject Amendment 1 and keep the resolution balanced, as was the intention from the beginning. Otherwise, I will have difficulty supporting this well-intended draft resolution.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi. The next speaker is Ms Blondin.

Ms BLONDIN (France)* – Thank you, Marlene, for this excellent and difficult report, which you are bequeathing to us so that the debate on children’s right to physical integrity can be set up in our parliaments. I will focus on female genital mutilation and ancient customary practices. More than 120 million women and young girls are the victims of such practices on the African continent alone, which is a third of the female population. The practice also exists in Indonesia, Malaysian and Yemen. I reiterate that no religion imposes such mutilation. Excision is the most frequent practice.

In France, the authorities estimate that at least 20 000 women and 10 000 young girls have been mutilated or threatened with mutilation. Our legal response has evolved considerably since the first cases were discovered in the 1970s. There have been more than 20 trials against parents whose children died following excision and against the people who conducted the excisions. Those cases were judged in the correctionnel courts until 1983. The French Cour de Cassation, the highest court, established that removal of the clitoris was a mutilation under the French criminal code. Sanctions have evolved, with penalties of up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of €150 000. We have extended the time bar for such mutilations to 20 years, and professional secrecy can be removed with regard to this violence. Our criminal code also provides sanctions in relation to minors of foreign nationality habitually residing in France who are victims of acts of sexual mutilation abroad.

In 2014 the march on Paris to campaign against excision will be sponsored by the Minister for Women’s Rights, Mrs Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, whom we had the honour and pleasure of hearing in this Chamber during our part-session in June. I agree with the rapporteur on the need to go further in this Organisation in order to better harmonise our practices in this field. It is a question of having a unified approach. In our member States the law should provide sanctions in relation to mutilations performed abroad upon young girls habitually residing in their territories. That firmness should go side by side with better co-operation in prevention and education with the authorities in the countries of origin.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Blondin. The next speaker is Ms Fort.

Ms FORT (France)* – The rapporteur reminded us, convincingly and passionately, that female genital mutilation constitutes an unbearable breach of a child’s right to physical integrity and argued that the matter should be the subject of special attention at international level. As my colleague, Ms Blondin, said, 130 million women and young girls are the victims of such mutilations, and it is estimated that in France 65 000 women or young girls have been mutilated or threatened with mutilation, and most of them hail from the African continent. It is said that these practices pertain to tradition.

France has adopted restrictive legislation, and the perpetrators of mutilations can be prosecuted whatever their nationality or wherever the act has been committed if the victim is French or resides in France. To mutilate a young girl can lead to imprisonment for up to 20 years. Despite many trials and sentences, such practices still exist. The wounds cause grave psychological suffering, because girls are not able to have a normal life as women without reparative surgery, so we are also faced with the issue of alienation. This is why we have to sanction the mothers and fathers of these young girls and tell them that a tradition with such grave consequences on the physical and psychological health of a child is an intolerable breach of human dignity. As was stated in the information brochure distributed in France, we have to respect customs but above all respect the law.

      Madam Rapporteur, you wanted to put to the forefront breaches of the physical integrity of children, which have not often been mentioned in conventions. You could have added incest, which is another form of a breach of physical integrity and is just as abominable. We know that this is a taboo subject in many societies, as is the case with all domestic violence. This is why it is important for the Assembly to address inter-family violence and reflect on how such acts are incorporated in the criminal legislation of member States. I am the author of French legislation that, on 6 February 2010, included incest committed on minors in the criminal code. The French Constitutional Council, however, censored the inclusion of the new article in the criminal code, saying that members of a family should be designated more specifically, whereas many member States of the Council of Europe are developing their family law.

Even the very notion of family has evolved. The question is to know where the family stops, and thus from when can one be faced with aggression that can be characterised as constituting incest. This is an important question in France, where more than 2 million adults may have been victims of incest in their childhood. How many victims are there in the 47 member States of the Council of Europe? Of course, authors of incestuous acts are often prosecuted for rape or sexual aggression, but if there is a case where a child is defenceless it is surely when violence hails from within the family environment. The introduction of the specific notion of incest into criminal law should be an objective, because the victims of such odious acts expect to be recognised.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Fort. The next speaker is Mr Drăghici from Romania. I do not see him, so I call Ms Anttila from Finland.

      Ms ANTTILA (Finland) – I thank the rapporteur for her excellent report. Children are the best and the most important thing we have, and we have the main responsibility for their life as a child. The report reminds us to fully take into account children’s rights to physical integrity. When preparing and adopting its new strategy for the rights of the child from 2015, we particularly need to take into consideration the fight against all forms of violence against children and the promotion of child participation in decisions concerning them.

      We can all accept these targets. I would like to remind colleagues of the threat posed by the internet, where too many people are trying to have contact with children for many different reasons. All of these people are not fair and honest – they can have sexual targets or other harmful thoughts in mind. I hope that the Council of Europe, when preparing the next strategy on children’s rights, will take the problem of the internet seriously. There have been too many examples of serious crimes in the past few years and we must stop this development. It is our task and responsibility to do so. As politicians, we have the main responsibility to introduce legislation that considers all potential risks in our society. We must protect the most valuable we have: our children. They are our future.

      The family is the most important part of our society. We must remember that in our decision-making, and make decisions that offer families the fullest possibility of taking care of their children.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Anttila. I call Mr Sidyakin.

      Mr SIDYAKIN (Russian Federation) – I thank the rapporteur for her substantial work.

      Russia pays a lot of attention to co-operation in the field of the protection of children’s rights. From 1 December, the Council of Europe convention on the protection of children will come into force. In the theory of these rights, there is no general opinion on whether a person has the right to possession, use and disposal of their own body for non-material benefit. For example, the police officer code of ethics in Russia forbids tattoos and piercing. There is another good example. In 2004, the story “Skin” by Shelley Jackson, a writer from New York, was printed in the form of words on the bodies of nearly 3 000 volunteers. There are many sides to the concept of physical integrity.

      To what degree are parents and children responsible for the body of a minor? Everyone is aware of the facts when children bring an action against their parents for not buying them the new iPhone or Playstation. Let me ask this: is the choice of hairstyle of a child an attempt at its physical integrity? We are therefore afraid that the draft resolution will place a new bomb by which to blast traditional family values. It is impossible to say that a decision made by parents on behalf of their children is an a priori attempt on their physical integrity. In the draft resolution, the ancient traditions of the circumcision of boys in Islam and Judaism are called into question. Russia is a multinational and multi-religious country that is far from the intention to take legislative measures to limit the freedom of religious rituals in, for example, some Caucasian republics. Several thousand babies are circumcised in Russia every year. In the United States, the figure exceeds 20%.

      In conclusion, we completely support measures on the protection of the rights of children, but the concept of physical integrity has to have more of a legal basis in member States of the Assembly. The European standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms can serve as a tool both for a ban and for permission to use a body for purposes that do not contradict the law. The right of children to physical integrity needs to be discussed in a way that takes into consideration national and cultural features of the education of children.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sidyakin. I now call Ms Virolainen, from Finland.

      Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – Violence and children are words that do not fit in the same sentence, but it is violence that children are subjected to when parents insist on the circumcision of their sons and the genital mutilation of their daughters. And for what? Is it because some parents believe that these painful procedures are to their children’s benefit? Religious or cultural reasons can never be a justification for violence, and are certainly not in the best interest of the child.

Female genital mutilation is not only extremely painful; it involves serious health risks and can even lead to death. In many cases, young girls are deceived into the procedure by their mothers, grandmothers or other women close to them, and this also causes mental trauma. Circumcision is usually performed on baby boys. What gives us adults the right to perform such a medically unnecessary procedure on completely helpless and defenceless human beings? Parenthood comes with a responsibility to protect children. The procedures that I have mentioned violate the human rights of children and should not be possible on the basis of a simple decision taken by parents. Let me stress the importance of prevention. By keeping parents and professionals informed of a child’s rights and best interests, we can prevent unnecessary harm. If parents do not comply, the authorities must intervene.

If we are to stop this abuse, we must ensure that child protection authorities have the proper means and tools to help children and their families. One possibility is to create working structures involving several professionals. In Finland, we have introduced the Norwegian folio model to help parents going through a difficult divorce to avoid hurting their children. Such an approach could also work in other processes that involve the best interests of the child.

      I fully agree with the rapporteur that the raising of awareness is the first step towards eliminating violations of children’s physical integrity. How many times have we in this Assembly reminded ourselves and others that human rights are the same for everyone, regardless of size, sex or colour? Children do not have mini human rights; our children have the same rights as us all. Thank you for your attention.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Varolainen. I call Ms Szél.

      Ms SZÉL (Hungary) – I thank the rapporteur for her excellent report and for bringing forward this important issue. Ever-changing and increasingly diverse family patterns and growing parental demands and expectations result in many challenges, especially in relation to the values and principles of child-rearing traditions and culture. Parents definitely need more information and support to improve their parenting capacities and practices, and to increase their understanding of the subject.

      Children as young as three can, if given the chance, already be sure about their body’s integrity, and when something feels unpleasant or wrong, they can say so. We need not only to give them an age at which it is appropriate, as much as possible, for them to say what happens to their body, but to encourage and empower them. They need to feel that their body is their own, and that they have the final say in questions relating to it.

      A child’s physical integrity is closely related to corporal punishment, and humiliating and degrading discipline: the right not to be hit is also a child’s right. In many countries in the Council of Europe, there is still no or not enough high-quality education, or even any acknowledgment of issues such as reproductive health. Such issues seem to be dangerous for many politicians, policy makers, professionals and parents, as do those of education, the exercise of children’s rights and human rights overall.

      Female genital mutilation is, without doubt, the most brutal form of the oppression of women. It is one of the acts most damaging to the basic human rights of women, mostly because the effects last for a lifetime. I agree with the report, especially paragraphs 46 and 47. It is crucial that every country should criminalise such an act, not only in their own territory, but in relation to their citizens travelling abroad to take part in FGM. Yet criminalisation is not sufficient, because illegal operations carry higher risks, so we should raise awareness, primarily in immigrant Muslim communities. Moreover, international protection is necessary for those fleeing a country because of FGM.

      The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child both contain legally binding obligations on the elimination of harmful practices affecting girls under 18 that are based on gender stereotypes and prejudices grounded in patriarchy. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on the Rights of the Child decided to elaborate a joint general recommendation or comment on harmful practices in 2011. The new document, which also clarifies the obligations of State parties in relation to harmful practices concerning boys’ rights, and the widespread consultation may serve as a guide for members of the Council of Europe, which, as a party to both conventions, has to introduce its own policies and practices.

      I fully agree with the initiation of a public debate, including in the media, and with asking children, parents and professionals working with children about interventions respecting the physical integrity of children and related human rights standards. Madam Rapporteur, please note that those committees have already seen your wonderful report and that they will work with it.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Szél. I remind members that the vote to elect a judge to the European Court of Human Rights is still in progress, but will close at 5 p.m. If you have not yet voted, you may still do so behind the President’s chair. I call Ms Clune.

      Ms CLUNE (Ireland) – I thank the rapporteur for preparing the report which, as she said, is the beginning of a dialogue with member States on the very important and sometimes very tragic issue of the violation of the physical integrity of children. Children are innocent and vulnerable. They are brought into the world by adults, and they need to be protected from adults who attempt to violate their human right to physical integrity and, in many cases, inflict lifelong, irreparable damage.

The World Health Organisation has adopted resolutions urging member States to establish clear national policies, to end traditional practices harmful to women and children and, significantly, to support countries concerned with information and guidance. Those important resolutions follow the same theme as the report.

      Female genital mutilation, as well as the treatment of intersex children and circumcision, is a very difficult issue that can have very serious repercussions for children. Female genital mutilation is sometimes called female circumcision, but it is a much wider and more difficult issue than that: it is performed as a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood for children aged between four and 14 for cultural or social reasons. It takes many forms, such as removing the glans clitoris and the labia, opening the vagina and, in some cases, breaking the perineum. It can be, and in many cases is, very dangerous and can lead to death. It can cause haemorrhaging, wounds to neighbouring organs such as the urethra and the rectum, infections and damage to the reproductive organs. It is a serious procedure that can have severe long-term repercussions for girls and young women.

      I am glad to report that my country introduced legislation two years ago to ban FGM. We reached that point following representations from migrant women living in Ireland. Non-governmental organisations were active in ensuring that this barbaric practice, which is also widespread, as many speakers have said, was banned in my country. The legislation introduced a provision under which anyone taking a girl abroad for FGM to be performed will be subject to prosecution in Ireland. I want to get to a point at which legislation is introduced in all countries to ensure that what I call this barbaric practice is stopped.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Clune. I call Ms Bonet Perot.

      Ms BONET PEROT (Andorra)* – I thank Ms Rupprecht. Ever since I have known her on becoming a member of the Council of Europe, I have seen her defend the interests and rights of children with all the strength and enthusiasm that she has transmitted to us all. We are discussing the violations of the physical integrity of children, which are related to modifications of their psychological integrity, because the consequences last throughout life; the two cannot be separated from each other. In such practices, the interests of the child never prevail: it is always about the interests of the adult who decides on the child’s behalf.

We have talked about the Convention on the Rights of the Child, about which the rapporteur also commented. I want to talk about member States’ constitutions, which, as a basic legal norm, all follow the defence of our legislation and of our citizens, and which contain constitutional protections for children and the fundamental rights of boys and girls that prevail over the rights of others. That is reflected in our different constitutions, because children cannot know how to request the constitutional protection to which they are entitled. The rights of children are innate and universal. All human beings have rights when they come into this world. However, when people are very young, they cannot protect themselves against such practices. Our various norms underscore the importance of protecting children because of their vulnerability. They are subjects who begin their life defenceless. Special attention is required from family, the state and society. Without that, children cannot develop their personalities fully and harmoniously. When an intervention is performed on a child’s body involuntarily, it is difficult for their personality to develop properly throughout their life.

      These practices are not purely medical, but are carried out for religious reasons. There is freedom of religion and the right to transmit religious beliefs, but there should be no physical modification of a child’s body. A child will be branded or marked for the rest of his or her life. Many of these practices have psychological consequences which children cannot make a decision about for themselves. When there is a conflict of interests between a parent and a child, our constitutions establish that the higher interests of the child must always prevail.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Bonet Perot. I call Mr Kolman.

      Mr KOLMAN (Croatia) – I congratulate and thank Ms Rupprecht, the author of this important report for the Council of Europe.

      Taking care of our offspring is the essence of humanity. The long, complicated and exhausting protection of our children’s well-being, which ends only when we have left this world, is what makes us human. It is one of the differences between us and all other forms of life.

Bearing that in mind, it is only right that an institution as sophisticated as the Council of Europe should take more of an interest in the right of children to physical integrity. This is particularly important given that, unfortunately, the physical integrity and well-being of children sometimes fall victim to customs and traditions that date back hundreds or even thousands of years, or to the trends and fashions of modern society. In both cases, we must be able to say, “No, this cannot be allowed.” We need to take the firm position that the physical integrity of children must be protected equally in all parts of the world. Equally, we need to be aware that it can be threatened in all parts of the world.

Some time ago, we agreed that the performance of surgery by untrained people in a non-sterile environment with inappropriate tools and without anaesthetic does not meet the required standards. And yet, thousands upon thousands of young males all over the world are subjected to exactly that practice. They are subjected to pain and to possible infections and long-term problems. In extreme cases, the consequence is the death of the child. That is a problem.

An even greater problem is the disturbing practice of female genital mutilation. That gruesome custom is still widespread. It has absolutely no health benefits – quite the contrary. It is not supported by any religious scripts. Even if it was, that would make no difference in my eyes. It is a pure human rights violation. As Ms Rupprecht rightly suggests, the legislation in this area should be extraterritorial to prevent parents or guardians from having procedures performed on girls outside their country of residence.

The issue of sex-determining operations also needs to be further evaluated and discussed. The rapporteur is right to say in her conclusions that we cannot take for granted the making of such far-reaching decisions, which often involve complicated multiple surgery and hormonal treatments.

      In conclusion, it is nice to have customs and traditions, and we are bound to respect them, be they our own or those of others. However, the customs and traditions of the Council of Europe are human rights and their protection. That is why we are all here. The report sheds light on an area in which the human rights of the most vulnerable among us are still very much in danger. The report deserves our support and the issues that it highlights deserve our attention and our action.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kolman. I do not see Ms Kapetanović, so I call Mr Don Davies, Observer from Canada.

Mr Don DAVIES (Canada) – The rapporteur has done an exceptional job of bringing to light an important element of children’s rights: the question of parental choices that place the health and safety of their children at risk. Such practices can rightly be considered to be a form of violence against children. I am encouraged that the rapporteur has made that courageous link.

It is unacceptable that children continue to be subjected to the procedures that are highlighted in the rapporteur’s report. It is deeply troubling that children must endure surgical interventions that have no medical value or purpose, and all without their consent. I will focus on concrete measures that can be taken to discourage and prevent medically unnecessary procedures on children. I will use the experience of my country, Canada, to illustrate one way in which the problem may be addressed.

There is a consensus among the medical community in Canada that there are few or no physical or health benefits from male circumcision and that there can never be any physical or health benefit from female genital mutilation. It is recognised that both practices cause pain and can lead to long-term health consequences.

Female genital mutilation is a criminal offence in Canada. Since 1997, our criminal code has made it clear that a medical practitioner or other person who carries out the operation is guilty of aggravated assault. If a parent actively participates in the procedure by, for example, holding the child or if they request or encourage a health practitioner or other person to perform the procedure, the parent may also be charged with aggravated assault as a party to the offence. Our criminal code also makes it a crime to remove a child under 18 years of age from Canada for the purpose of performing the FGM procedure.

Our medical community has contributed significantly to addressing the problem through education. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada encourages medical schools to draw FGM to the attention of medical students through the curriculum and to provide information on how to treat patients who have had the procedure. More needs to be done, however, with respect to male circumcision. Its policy statement informs doctors that they have an obligation to report to the child welfare authorities any indication that a child has undergone the procedure or been assaulted.

The Canadian framework for protecting children from harmful non-medical surgical interventions is the result of collaboration between child protection authorities and the administration of justice, both of which are provincial responsibilities, and federal law makers who are responsible for developing the criminal law.

Even when there are challenges to implementing effective policies, much can be done when there is the will to do it. Our children are our most vulnerable citizens. Protecting their physical integrity – surely one of the most fundamental of human rights – is one of the most important duties that we owe them. Colleagues, by adopting and implementing the report in its entirety, we can help to achieve that goal.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Davies. I call Ms Mattila.

Ms MATTILA (Finland) – This excellent report touches on many important and sensitive issues.

In the case of circumcision, we are faced with structures within which the interests of the child are used to justify the interference in physical integrity. The direct result of that is violence. Such structures are difficult to change, even if we flatly condemn them. The current public debate is not sufficient because an official condemnation will not reveal the power structures behind the problem, nor will it change them. However, we must flatly condemn both the circumcision of boys and the genital mutilation of girls, even when faced with the problem that such practices are hidden. They are hidden because it involves parenthood, which is a strong institution. I am not here to break the institution, but to change it. Some people seem to think that circumcision is beneficial to the individual, otherwise I cannot understand it.

      The report deals with another strong structure, namely professional ethics. The report proposes the possibility of interference by social and health care professionals. However, if such a practice is to be introduced, it must be supported by our societies. It must be conducted logically and systematically.

I emphasise again that our structures must be changed on many levels, and we can start with our own words. Let us forget words such as “honour killings” or “honour violence” – murder and the use of force have nothing to do with honour. Circumcision is still justified by family honour, so can we call it honour violence?

      To reiterate the words of the rapporteur: a child is not a mini-adult, but a future adult. That is why the report is so important and valuable. With the help of the report, we can build a better world for the future.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Ms Graham.

      Ms GRAHAM (Norway) – Our rapporteur started her report with “On Children” by Khalil Gibran, and that serves as an important reminder. We do not own our children; our children are themselves individuals, individuals with their own human rights, and they have a right to physical integrity. The quote reminds us, as parents and adults, that our main task is to ensure a safe and secure environment in which children can grow up to become responsible, thinking and productive members of society.

      As parents we want the best for our children. We want not only to keep them safe from harm, but, least of all, to cause them harm. However, our good intentions as parents are not necessarily harmless. Since 1987, corporal punishment, whether by teachers, parents or others, has been illegal in Norway – that is not such a long time ago, but hitting children is not only illegal today, it is not at all accepted by society. Corporal punishment was seen as for the benefit of the child; now we know it is not.

      That shows how our perception of good intentions changes over time, and yet change does not come automatically. We need the political leadership to take legislative measures, and we need parents who are aware and who dare to stand up to established cultural and religious practices. It is difficult to understand how a mother who has suffered female genital mutilation herself can allow it to be done to her daughter. Female genital mutilation is a clear violation of girls’ right to physical integrity and of their human rights.

      Norway may have had a law against female genital mutilation since 1996, but we still face challenges. The law is in the process of being incorporated into the general criminal code and sentences will be increased. The government has an action plan against forced marriage and female genital mutilation, and awareness-building on all levels, from families to the authorities, is an important component.

We have also just heard the rapporteur quote the Nordic ombudsmen’s recent statement on the circumcision of young boys. They found the practice to be in violation of Article 12 of the UN Resolution on the Rights of the Child, and I agree with them.

Violation of children’s physical integrity may be done in good faith, but that does not make it right. I fully agree with our rapporteur that it is time for us to look at children’s physical integrity and rights. I support her draft resolution and recommendation.

      To return to “On Children”. Khalil Gibran also said: “You may give them your love, but not your thoughts, For they have their own thoughts.” Children must be allowed to develop and mature so that they can voice those thoughts. They deserve to be heard, not least when it comes to their physical integrity.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Graham. The next speaker is Mr Geraint Davies.

      Mr Geraint DAVIES (United Kingdom) – The right of women and, in particular, young girls to be free from genital mutilation is fundamental and must be non-negotiable. Any suggestion that there is a balance to be struck between the rights of the child to be preserved from genital mutilation and the rights and religious freedoms of parents and families is intrinsically wrong – as well as racist and sexist. It is in direct conflict with the principles of the Council of Europe – democracy, human rights and the rule of law – which is why we are all here today. Therefore, the rule of law in countries such as the UK, where such mutilation is a criminal offence, must be enforced with rigour and determination. The simple fact, however, is that it is not – certainly in the UK, where action is half-hearted and ineffective.

The Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health state that “systematic eradication…in the UK will require practising communities to abandon the practice themselves.” What if they do not? Should we stand back as countless girls have their clitoris cut? Of course not. The 2001 UK census found that 20 000 girls under the age of 15 could be at high risk of being cut. Twelve years on, no one knows how many girls are at high risk. Apparently, the count is due next year, in 2014, but that shows shameful indifference by the government to this fundamental infringement of girls’ human rights – their right to be free from mutilation through a process of barbaric and obscene physical violence.

      What is the UK government doing? It is sending out 40 000 leaflets and posters – two per girl at high risk in 2011 – and developing a best practice guide. It is spending only £100 000 over two years on front-line organisations, which is only £10 per potential victim. There has been no successful prosecution in the UK for female genital mutilation – not one – and yet in France there have been more than 100.

      Those who practise, promote or are complicit in this vile crime must be identified and punished, whether committed at home or abroad. David Cameron, however, appears more interested in withdrawing from the Convention on Human Rights than in standing up for the rights of girls in the UK to protect them from genital mutilation. It is not that we do not have the evidence: the BBC has filmed groups of girls bearing witness, and we have a process of witness-free prosecution in cases of conventional domestic violence, whereby police no longer rely on victim statements, but on a recording of the victim’s phone call, or the photos of a bruised face and a crime scene, which can be enough to secure conviction.

      Let us do the same in cases of female genital mutilation – take a leaf out of France’s book, and stop turning a blind eye in all our communities to this brutality against girls. We have a duty of care to them – a duty on which we are failing to deliver.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Davies. I now call Ms Memecan.

      Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – Dear colleagues, my main objection to the report is that it depicts a gloomy picture about male circumcision, against which there is no convincing medical or scientific evidence. I am completely astonished to see that the rapporteur is acting as if new evidence has emerged and she has been tasked with disseminating it. Many medical opinions recommend male circumcision, rather than otherwise, and we should certainly provide the best medical services for male circumcision, but, in doing so, science and modern medicine should be the guide. In the report, however, male circumcision is listed next to the totally unacceptable issue of female genital mutilation.

Moreover, the report, while emphasising the protection of children, unfortunately engages in unnecessary and offensive questioning of people’s religious practices. Male circumcision is a practice of millions of Muslims and Jews that is thousands of years old. Christians or atheists may have difficulty in understanding it, but it is ridiculous to suggest alternatives or the elimination of the practice, which would be unthinkable and socially and culturally unacceptable for Jews and Muslims alike.

The report dares to question the practice. That is not only irresponsible, but dangerously provocative. Colleagues, are we starting a new practice of questioning each other’s religious beliefs and practices? Where will we draw the line? Comparing and targeting religious practices is a slippery slope that we must avoid by all means, but the report does just that. It not only provokes but paves the way for further questioning of various religious practices, which is completely beyond our expertise. That will inevitably cast a shadow on the Institution’s credibility and irreparably harm the values that it seeks to promote.

      The rapporteur’s reckless effort to drag her extreme perspective into mainstream European politics after failing to do so in the German Bundestag represents a threat to the values and guiding principles of the Council of Europe. I congratulate the German Bundestag on acting responsibly by rejecting such efforts and halting a provocative initiative. Colleagues, I urge you to support my amendment to the text in order to eliminate the hidden risks behind this seemingly progressive report and the problems that it will entail for all people of faith in Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – It is now nearly 5.00 p.m. Does any member still wish to vote in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights?

      The ballot for electing a judge to the European Court of Human Rights is now closed.

      The counting of votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers, Ms Guzowska and Mr Haupert. I invite them to go at once to meet behind the President’s chair.

      The results of the election will be announced, if possible, later in this session.

      In the debate, I call Ms Erkal Kara.

Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – Distinguished colleagues, the protection of children’s physical integrity is an extremely important subject. However, the report adopts a narrow point of view which is biased against the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons.

The rapporteur should take into consideration the effect that the report will have on the sensibilities of those of her fellow citizens who are of foreign origin, and she should not ignore the scientific research that contradicts her draft resolution. Many medical and health organisations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organisation, have demonstrated the advantages of circumcision, among which they cite preventing infections, protecting against AIDS and the transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases and protecting against cancer of the penis. Moreover, when circumcision is practised under proper sanitary conditions, it has no long-term or short-term side-effects on the health and well-being of boys or men. On the contrary, in certain cases, the circumcision of babies is medically recommended by specialists as a treatment.

How can we ask a baby’s opinion? We cannot, just as we cannot ask whether a baby wants to be baptised. I remind you of the United Nations declaration against religious discrimination, which says that parents have the right to bring up their children according to their own religious convictions. Moreover, circumcision is practised in several countries as part of religion and being accepted by society. Circumcision of young boys is an important practice for millions of Muslims and Jews who live in Europe.

Paragraph 7.7 of the draft resolution could engender an approach that might lead to a ban on the circumcision of boys, which would then be considered a crime. Such a consequence would send people underground, into the realm of the illegal, with operations carried out under unacceptable sanitary conditions. Furthermore, that would set off a political and discriminatory debate which would add to the problems of integration for immigrants to Europe, and as you know, xenophobia in Europe is on the rise.

I consider that a matter that involves health and religion and is largely accepted by many societies should not become hostage to politics, and I invite our Assembly to amend paragraph 7.7 or reject the draft resolution.

THE PRESIDENT – I do not see Mr Leyden, so I call Ms Kazakova.

Ms KAZAKOVA (Russian Federation)* – I thank Ms Rupprecht for preparing such a full and thorough report. The enviable tenacity with which we in the Council of Europe keep debating the inviolability of children’s physical and mental health shows yet again our caring attitude to the most vulnerable category of citizens, children.

The adoption of the resolution and recommendation will have an influence, but unfortunately it will not relieve the urgency of the issue of the safety of children. Does it not seem that in considering the physical integrity of the child, we should continue our work by broadening the issue? As well as looking carefully at phenomena such as intersexuality and medical intervention, which is mentioned in the report, we should also look carefully at casual teenage violence, the system of unjust punishment in families and parental cruelty to foster and adoptive children, all of which does just as much harm to the physical integrity of the child.

The report mentions the need for children to participate in decisions involving their physical integrity. As well as raising awareness among parents and specialists involved in such issues, it is important to educate children on their legal and cultural rights. I also underline that the law in Russia protecting children from information concerning suicidal propensities, pornography and drug taking, which has been criticised unjustifiably in the Council of Europe, protects children from any violation of their physical integrity. Our national strategy on childhood and the interests of the child is designed to increase access to social services for families based on international standards for the rights of the child and the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers on the rights of the child and social services, which should be child-friendly and family-friendly.

I believe that the issue is wider than the aspects that we are discussing in the report. The important thing when we defend children’s rights and interests is that we work together and not remain indifferent, independently of nationality, age or social status. I conclude with the words of a Russian author, Leonid Leonov: “All the children of the world cry in the same language.” We need to reduce children’s tears to a minimum.

      THE PRESIDENT – I do not see Ms El Ouafi, so the next speaker is Ms Al-Astal from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Ms AL-ASTAL (Palestine) – I thank the rapporteur for an excellent and important report, which focuses on important issues concerning children’s health and physical and mental well-being, particularly children’s right to physical integrity.

      I personally support all the report’s recommendations and conclusions, especially the public condemnation of harmful procedures such as female genital mutilation and the recommendation that public authorities be provided with mechanisms for preventing and fighting such practices. Female genital mutilation, carried out on girls aged between one and 15 years, has no health benefit whatsoever and has severe physical and psychological consequences for girls and women later on. Among the immediate complications are severe bleeding, infection problems and sometimes even the death of a mutilated girl, and there are long-term effects and chronic complications, including loss of libido. The health consequences continue throughout the woman’s life. This must be considered domestic violence and a human rights violation against small girls who will become women.

      Concerning the physical integrity of children, we must differentiate between male circumcision, which may have certain medical benefits for boys and men, and female genital mutilation, which evidently has no medical or health benefit whatever, but is a procedure intended to control the sexual behaviour of girls and women throughout their lives.

      We need to raise awareness and mobilise public opinion against female genital mutilation, particularly in communities where the practice remains widespread. Also, families and parents should be provided with information that helps them understand the risks of these operations and raises their awareness of a child’s rights to physical integrity as a fundamental human right, and helps them to refuse a harmful religious and cultural practice concerning their children. Their children have the right to live safely, because they are the backbone of the future for their society.

      Thank you for your attention.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Al-Astal.

The next speaker is Ms Gastélum Bajo, Observer from Mexico.

Ms GASTÉLUM BAJO (Mexico)* - Thank you, President. I commend the rapporteur, Ms Rupprecht, on her excellent report. She recognises the importance of the physical integrity of boys and girls. This is a necessary step and all our countries must promote human rights, using all methods at our disposal.

The right to integrity is a fundamental right, premised on the right to life. The human being, because of his or her being, has the right to maintain his or her integrity. Various legislative and political measures have been adopted by the member States of the Council of Europe, with a view to protecting boys and girls against physical, psychological and sexual violence. Nevertheless, unfortunately, these problems still arise in various contexts; for example, FGM, circumcision of young boys for religious reasons and medical interventions during early infancy of intersex children, and coercion exacted on children regarding plastic surgery, and so on. These are the most common violations of their physical integrity.

We support the work done by the Council of Europe, which is there to promote the rights of young boys and young girls, and has been promoting them in particular since 2006. We need this new strategy to ensure that children’s rights are properly implemented. We, too, are active in this field. Mexico has applauded the signing and ratification of the International Labour Organisation Convention to this effect. Similarly, we have also supported the Lanzarote Convention, mentioned earlier, because we believe that it is fundamentally important to promote the physical integrity of our young boys and young girls.

There is still a lot of work to be done. We need to carry on working, to ensure that we come up with tangible measures that will help promote the physical integrity of our children. That is the right way to make sure that we become agents of change, so that we can take care of these violations and counter them effectively.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Gastélum Bajo.

I do not see Ms Yatim from Morocco.

That concludes the list of speakers. I now call Ms Rupprecht, the rapporteur, to reply. You have about two minutes left.

Ms RUPPRECHT (Germany)* - Thank you, President. I thank all speakers for supporting this report.

I should like to pick up on two points. Once again, let me make it clear that we are not talking about restricting religious freedom here. Take a look in particular at the last paragraph of article 9 of the Council of Europe Convention, which talks about freedom of religion and freedom of opinion. People have the right to exercise their religion, but at the same time this must not impinge upon the health and the rights of others – and “others” includes children. That is precisely why we need to address this matter.

Are all these things that we do for cultural, religious or other reasons – other practices – always suitable for children and do they protect the health of our children? Please, I urge you to become active in this area. I have been here for 13 years. I would be so happy if we sent out a clear message, saying that we all agree about the importance of protecting children, and of course protecting human rights – the right to religion, education, and so on – but we need to look carefully at what we do in terms of our actions and always ensure that the best interests of the child have primacy. Unfortunately, I do not have time to touch on all the other points that I wanted to raise at this juncture.

I find it courageous that you want to initiate debates in your countries and take measures. It is wonderful that we have now instituted this dialogue. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you.

I now call the chairperson of the committee, Ms Maury Pasquier. You have two minutes.

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* - Thank you, President and dear colleagues. First, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development I thank our rapporteur, Ms Rupprecht, because she has placed at the service of the defence of children, and of our Assembly, not only her heart and her competence, but all her knowledge and involvement. I am most grateful to her for that.

Committee debates on this delicate report were always calm and respected all points of view, contrary to what certain interventions in this Chamber might lead one to think. Far from being an attack on any particular religion, the report is consistent because it sets the highest interest of the child at the centre of our concerns. Of course, there was reproach for certain points not being broached in this report, but it was not possible to talk about all the practices that harm the development of children. So, as you can see under paragraph 2 in the draft resolution, our report concentrated upon inter alia female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons and interventions on intersex children, as well as the coercion of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery.

Is circumcision genuinely a medical advantage? I invite you to read paragraphs 18 to 24 in the report and cease to consider that surgical intervention is always needed and riskless. It is far from being the case.

We are involved today in promoting the right of children to their physical integrity. This right has to be set in its proper position, in the child’s best interests and with the participation of the child in the decisions concerning it. It is in that spirit that I invite you to vote for this resolution, which was largely supported by the committee.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you.

The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has presented a draft resolution, to which seven amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

I understand that Ms Maury Pasquier wishes to propose to the Assembly that amendment 2, which was unanimously approved by the Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

Is that so Ms Maury Pasquier?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – Yes .

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

The following amendment has been adopted:

Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 7.5.3 with the following paragraph:

“undertake further research to increase knowledge about the specific situation of intersex people, ensure that no-one is subjected to unnecessary medical or surgical treatment that is cosmetic rather than vital for health during infancy or childhood, guarantee bodily integrity, autonomy and self-determination to persons concerned, and provide families with intersex children with adequate counselling and support.”

The remaining amendments will be taken in the order taken set out in the Organisation of Debates.

We come now to Amendment 5, tabled by Ms Memecan, Mr Dişli, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Ghiletchi and Mr Hajiyev, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, second sentence, to delete the words “the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons”.

I call Ms Memecan to support Amendment 5.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – The paragraph lists male circumcision next to female genital mutilation and early childhood medical interventions. There is clear evidence that the last two are harmful, whereas there is no such evidence for male circumcision, so I would like it taken out of the paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anybody wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Rupprecht.

Ms RUPPRECHT (Germany)* – There will be people listening who could tell us about the consequences. I am against deleting the reference to male circumcision. Article 24(3) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says that States Parties shall take all suitable measures to abolish all harmful practices, and this is harmful, if it is irreversible, lasting and has consequences. The American Paediatric Surgical Association has submitted an opinion and 38 professors from Europe, America and Canada have said the same.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 4, tabled by Ms Memecan, Mr Dişli, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Hajiyev, Ms Kapetanović, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 7.4.

I call Ms Memecan to support the Amendment 4.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – The paragraph invites a scientific debate on religious values, which is very dangerous, inappropriate and provocative. We should refrain from scientific debates about traditional or religious practices that are not harmful.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anybody wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Rupprecht.

Ms RUPPRECHT (Germany)* – If we agreed to amendment 4, we would contradict other texts of the Assembly stating that religious dialogue is necessary if we are to live together in peace. The Assembly has welcomed Resolution 1962, so it would be logical to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Geraint Davies, Mr Benton, Lord Anderson, Mr Liddell-Grainger, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Crausby and Mr Connarty, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.4, to replace the words: “where the limits with regard to violations of the physical integrity of children are to be drawn according to human rights standards, and at striking a balance between the rights and the best interest of the child and the rights and religious freedoms of parents and families;” with the following words:

“the rights of children to protection against violations of their physical integrity according to human rights standards;”.

      I call Mr Geraint Davies to support Amendment 1.

      Mr Geraint DAVIES (United Kingdom) – The amendment states that there is not a balance between the rights and best interests of the children, particularly in respect of female mutilation, and the rights and religious freedoms of parents and families. It obviously acknowledges that there should be an open debate, so it only affects the last part of the paragraph.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anybody wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call Mr Ghiletchi.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I want to keep the original paragraph because it keeps that balance. I ask Ms Rupprecht to reject the amendment. If needed, we could move an oral sub-amendment to mention that we are talking about male circumcision. If we neglect parents’ opinions, how can we talk on behalf of children? It is very important for us and the fate of the resolution that we keep paragraph 7.4 as it was written.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come now to Amendment 6, tabled by Ms Memecan, Mr Dişli, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Ghiletchi and Mr Hajiyev, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.5.2, to delete the words “such as the non-medically justified circumcision of young boys”.

      I call Ms Memecan to support Amendment 6.

      Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – The paragraph calls for sanitary and other conditions to be ensured when necessary and states that male circumcision is not medically justified, which is not true. It has been recommended by many American paediatricians and by the World Health Organisation, so it is wrong to say that it is not medically justified. It is medically justified and recommended.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anybody wish to speak against the amendment?

      Ms RUPPRECHT (Germany)* – The member refers to the statement from the American Academy of Paediatrics, but that was revised in April, and it came to the contrary conclusion. The WHO submitted an opinion about male circumcision, but only in the case of sexually active adult men in order to prevent AIDS. However, that led to men being less cautious and to more being infected, because they thought they were protected. There is no recommendation, however, to do this to children.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      We come now to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Memecan, Mr Dişli, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Hajiyev and Ms Kapetanović, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 7.6.

      I call Ms Memecan to support Amendment 3.

      Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – Again, the paragraph invites a scientific debate on religious and traditional values and practices, which I find extremely dangerous and provocative. We should refrain from such a debate, so I would like the paragraph removed.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anybody wish to speak against the amendment?

      Ms RUPPRECHT (Germany)* – The paragraph uses the word “interdisciplinary” – in other words, all sorts of different professions are to be taken into account. It is not about questioning religion, but about a dialogue on practices, and such a dialogue should be promoted. If we delete the paragraph, it would run counter to all the findings of paediatrics. In every relevant Council of Europe document, we have said that not even religious education is free from the law. The rights and practices of religion must be included and examined thoroughly.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      We come now to Amendment 7, tabled by Ms Memecan, Mr Dişli, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Ghiletchi and Mr Hajiyev, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.7, to delete the words “and to adopt specific legal provisions to ensure that certain operations and practices will not be carried out before a child is old enough to be consulted”.

      I call Ms Memecan to support Amendment 7.

      Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – This is even more dangerous than the other ones, as it tries to criminalise male circumcision. It would be criminal to circumcise all the boys of Jewish and Muslim families, so we will have to travel to other countries that do not have these kind of laws. We will have started circumcision tourism, just as there is abortion tourism. I do not think we want that, so we should take out the part of the paragraph on adopting legal provisions.

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

      I call Ms Rupprecht.

      Ms RUPPRECHT (Germany)* - This paragraph, based on Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, just asks that children be consulted where things affect them. They should be asked about what they want. It does not in any way restrict the right of parents to religious education and upbringing of their children, but that is not boundless: it stops where the fundamental rights of the child to physical integrity kick in. I recommend rejecting the amendment. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13297, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13297.

      The vote is open.

4. The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (June 2012 - September 2013)

      THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (June 2012 - September 2013) (Document 13304) presented by Mr Herkel on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

      In order to finish by 8 p.m. I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.30 p.m. to allow time for replies and the votes.

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

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, I thank the many people in the Council of Europe who contribute to monitoring, in the Parliamentary Assembly and in our other branches. This huge compendium is about the work done during the last year and some months more; it is not possible to do it alone and it needs the contribution of many people. I thank the Secretariat, all the monitoring rapporteurs we have, the members of the committee, and of course the representatives of the countries concerned. Monitoring is not an easy task, and it is not easy at all to be under monitoring, but I still have the strong opinion that monitoring is beneficial for the countries involved. You have development and better democracy; you have a better life for the future.

      I should mention the other branches. We rely on the findings of the Venice Commission, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, the European Court of Human Rights and so on. The annual report is from one side an overview of the committee’s activities. It is about the countries still under monitoring in a strict sense and the countries under post-monitoring, but it is not only about them. The progress report is also about all other countries – 33 countries subject to the different monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe. Therefore, in the explanatory memorandum, you will all find something said about your country – probably not so much on the basis of the findings of the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee, but on the findings of ECRI, the Commissioner for Human Rights, GRECO and so on.

      I must apologise a little to the people who might have thought that it was possible to change the explanatory memorandum at a late stage, but that is never the case in our Assembly. All the findings in the explanatory memorandum are dated 13 September. We were obliged to make it public, and it is based on our and the Council of Europe’s activities during the last year and three months. Therefore if some new information is not included, please accept that we had to finish the memorandum earlier. At some point we will announce very clearly when it will be updated and reach its final stage, probably next year and if there is a necessity.

      There is an important chapter about the proposals with regard to the development of the monitoring procedure made by different delegations. It was initiated by the President of the Assembly, and we are thankful for those ideas. One of the proposals in my resolution is to make up a working group within the Monitoring Committee, to reflect on future possibilities and address practical problems that we saw in our work.

      Last but not least, I emphasise the fact that I have a recommendation as well as the resolution. The recommendation is that we should put in place the following solution to our work and co-operation with the Committee of Ministers: from now on, we should systematically put all future Assembly monitoring reports on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers. We have discussed for a long time how our reports, which are high quality, could be more influential, and how to co-operate better with the Committee of Ministers. We discussed that in the Bureau and the Monitoring Committee. Please be realistic, however. The only way is to do this strongly by the rules and to have the Parliamentary Assembly adopt the recommendation to send monitoring reports to the Committee of Ministers. The first advantage would be to have better co-operation. The second would be to have more visibility. The third is that it would no longer be possible to say what was said a year ago when we had a report with a similar recommendation to send it to the Committee of Ministers: that that is some kind of unequal treatment. Now, all the reports would be treated in a similar manner.

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

      The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. You have six and a half minutes – basically seven minutes – remaining. I call Mr Villumsen on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – I thank the rapporteur.

Monitoring the respect of human rights in member States is crucial to this Assembly, so this report deals with a very important issue, but, to be frank, the report does not do this in a very satisfying way. Several Assembly reports and resolutions are summarised and combined with findings in member States which are not under monitoring. Furthermore, it makes proposals for the future at a time when other organs of the Council of Europe are evaluating their monitoring mechanisms. All in all, this makes the whole of the resolution and recommendation incomplete. Some content is not balanced and some of the conclusions are even premature. From reading this report, it is clear that the debate on how to secure a monitoring that favours human rights and not political sympathy will continue after today.

During the last Session we saw how Hungary avoided monitoring, although there were clear facts of the violation of fundamental rights in the report. This shows the problem we are dealing with.

On behalf of the Unified European Left I would like to stress the need for this Assembly to leave political affiliation aside and to insist on respect of human rights, no matter if the country is in or outside the European Union and no matter what political affiliation the government of the country has. Unfortunately, this has not so far always been the case.

The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Mr Allavena on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr ALLAVENA (Monaco)* – On behalf of the EPP, I congratulate the rapporteur on the work he has done, as this truly is an exceptional report. It is varied, precise, detailed and objective in its analysis and leads to very clear conclusions which respond to what Mr Jean-Claude Mignon said: it is time to do some stock-taking about these procedures. I will base what I say on my twofold experience acquired during the monitoring and post-monitoring of my country in 2004 and my involvement in the work of the Committee for the last few months.

It is clear that not everything is perfect. Developments are perfectly fine, but advocating, as some have done, doing away with the procedure and totally changing its spirit by giving up the country-by-country approach is nonsensical, as is clearly demonstrated in the report. I have often heard it said that non-interruption or the reopening of a procedure was experienced as a humiliating scrutiny. That is not the purpose of the procedure, but that is often how it is perceived. The procedure should be a dialogue and exchange – an assistance – but the good will of certain countries is required.

If no supplementary means are given to the rapporteurs so as to allow them to visit more frequently with closer follow-up, it will be difficult to change the negative image. Yet that would allow a response to those who deem the procedure to be too lengthy. If we were to give this rather informal present method a more formal framework with more specific objectives and more planning, we would improve things.

The best acceptance will come through greater equity. Your report, Mr Henkel, highlights the fact that many countries often represented as models of democracy or respect for human rights refuse to sign particular texts. They face no monitoring process, but in other countries the refusal to sign justifies procedures being pursued. Two weights - two measures - is not a good situation and in the name of equity we should have different proceedings when the cases are different and perhaps give them different names. We cannot put in the same category countries that are gravely trespassing against human rights and democracy and others where not everything is perfect and they can do better but the situation is not dramatically bad.

All this is taken on board implicitly or formally in the report. It also addresses suggestions for closer exchanges between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. The purpose is clearly not to renounce the prerogatives of the Assembly, but rather to build bridges between the two structures for greater effectiveness, greater understanding, and greater acceptance of the procedures.

To be frank I must say that paragraph 3 of the recommendation has been the subject of discussions within the EPP group and views were divided although basically we were favourable.

For all the reasons I have mentioned, I think the Assembly should wholeheartedly approve Mr Herkel’s report.

5. Election of a Judge to the European Court of Human RIghts

The PRESIDENT* - Before I call the next speaker, let me communicate the results concerning the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights for Romania. The results were as follows: 151 voting, with two blank ballots, so 149 votes, and the absolute majority required was 75. Ms Iulia Antoanella Motoc got 132 votes, Mr Tudor Panțîru got 10 votes, and Mr Florin Streteanu got seven votes. So Ms Motoc having obtained the absolute majority of the votes cast is elected judge for the European Court of Human Rights. Her mandate of nine years starts from 17 December 2013 or at the latest three months from her election date. Congratulations, Ms Motoc.

6. The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (June 2012 – September 2013)

The PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Schennach on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* - On behalf of my political group, I, too, would like to commend Mr Herkel on his report. He expresses very well the activities of the Monitoring Committee and I agree with what the previous speaker said: monitoring is a very important instrument for the Council of Europe. We sometimes need to be a little more honest, however, because post-monitoring can be too long and too extensive. We need to prevent that. If there is no success after, let us say, four years in the post-monitoring process, we have to revert to the monitoring exercise proper. We are not talking about dividing our community into two classes here in the Council of Europe – some who would be involved in monitoring exercises and others who are visited. Our recommendation is that we should all be involved in the monitoring process. That is an important message.

The report raises another important issue: the opening of a procedure and the serious reservations that Europe might have, for instance, with regard to Hungary and the failure there.

The report demonstrates that there are serious problems in all member States. Important conventions are not being ratified or are not being signed. That is true across the board in all member States. They are all subject to ongoing monitoring. What about the integration of the Roma community? It is an absolute disgrace, both legally and with regard to social policy and so on. What about the situation with refugees and asylum seekers? Member States are guilty of human rights violations and are denying those rights. What about the rights of national minorities and the difficulties they face in exercising linguistic freedom? What about the situation of migrants? We have insufficient enforcement of these texts, which is really poor. How many member States have still not signed or ratified conventions? In our struggle against racism, intolerance and discrimination, the report tells us that what we need is permanent monitoring. We should agree to be subject to that.

I also refer delegates to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the fight against money laundering and human trafficking. The report picks up on all those points. It goes to show that this must be a communal monitoring exercise for all member States. The important message is that we should not have one category for countries that are subject to monitoring and another for countries that conduct it.

There is also the issue of frozen conflicts, even after 20 years, so we must address that. The committee did so in Tallinn, which I think was an important action on our part, and I pay tribute to our Chair for that. I believe that it has led to at least some movement, because frozen conflicts are very harmful for the people affected. I thank the rapporteur.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schennach. The next speaker is Ms Reps, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – I congratulate the rapporteur and thank Mr Herkel for his work in the difficult job of chairing the Monitoring Committee. Many aspects of this interesting and detailed report have been covered by previous speakers, so I will spare delegates and not repeat the points about the importance of monitoring all countries. That is why we have a progress report. The debates that we have had in the Assembly on this subject indicate that we need to look in detail at all countries to find out what the status is, what things are like at the moment, how many conventions and obligations have been signed and where the problems lie.

      I will concentrate my remarks on the aspect that will get some attention today as a result of the amendment and the vote: the future of monitoring. How much attention would we like the Parliamentary Assembly to pay to monitoring and what substance at the Council of Europe level would we like to have in future? There are voices – we heard one earlier today – that say that monitoring needs to be readdressed and looked at differently. The progress report’s draft resolution offers us a further way, a way that liberals wholeheartedly support: involving the Committee of Ministers in a more substantive way.

Yes, some monitoring reports have been forwarded to the Committee of Ministers. The Committee of Ministers has even been involved in some of the discussions. Some rapporteurs have been invited to the Committee of Ministers, but it is not on an equal footing. Some have been, but some have not. Therefore, the progress report also proposes putting all monitoring reports on an equal footing in future, so they would all go to the Committee of Ministers for discussion. It would definitely give the rapporteurs further standing, because they would have direct contact with the Committee of Ministers to discuss the fulfilment, successes and perhaps problems at the level of ambassadors and ministers.

      Finally, I ask all delegates to support the report as it is presented to you, not the amendments.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Reps. I call Mr Binley to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – I congratulate Mr Herkel on a difficult but well-constructed and comprehensive report. The European Democrat Group supports Amendment 10, which would delete paragraph 3 of the draft recommendation. It is supported by 39 Assembly members, and not only from the EDG, but from other groups. We support it because we question the actions of paragraph 3. We wonder whether it might not be taking a precipitous step that would give away powers that the Assembly holds dear and carries out well and that are an important part of its work. We wonder whether we will diminish the role of this Assembly by passing responsibility to the Committee of Ministers.

Let me explain why we might believe that – I am not saying that we will; I am saying that we might. I think that we need to be careful. The Committee of Ministers can be a grasping body. It likes to gather powers to itself. I fear that if we say that all our reports should go to the Committee of Ministers, we would almost be handing over a responsibility that should lie firmly with this body. I repeat that I am not sure that that will happen, but I fear that it might. If that possibility exists, we should think very carefully about it.

I am more than happy to support ways of ensuring that our decisions are more effectively and speedily enacted. I think that we are right to ask for that, and I think that on special occasions it is right and proper to use the powers of the Committee of Ministers, but I seriously wonder whether giving all reports, and indeed almost giving the impression that we are handing over a responsibility to it, is potentially dangerous.

We all know that responsibility for a given function is important. I want the responsibility to monitor to remain with this body. I do not want this body to become a sub-agency to the Committee of Ministers. That is not what we are about and not what we should be about. I urge a little caution and ask that paragraph 3 of the draft recommendation be removed for further thought.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Binley. For the general debate, I call Ms Čigāne.

Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – I, too, congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent work. Members of the Assembly are often immersed in domestic politics and sometimes forget about what is going on in the Assembly once they return home. The report serves as an excellent handbook, and it shows that no country in the Council of Europe is without problems. All countries have some issues that need to be resolved, so I thank Mr Herkel for pointing them out in such a succinct and comprehensive manner. That aspect of the report is very valuable because it points out that there is an equality principle among member States.

      I would like to oppose the view expressed by Mr Binley. Draft recommendation 3 is valuable to the monitoring efforts of the Council. Today we are in a situation where many competing organisations want to develop their own monitoring mechanisms. We are interested in strengthening our own monitoring mechanisms, which have worked well and have been thorough – we have a good methodology. Therefore, the reference to the Committee of Ministers in relation to all monitoring reports is a useful mechanism for strengthening our own procedures. I would therefore like the Assembly to reject Amendment 10 and adhere to the original recommendation of the rapporteur.

      The report shows that not only is the thematic monitoring of different aspects useful, but that a country-based approach is also useful. Countries are different and they truly benefit from the monitoring of the functioning of their democratic institutions. Contrary to what Mr Naryshkin said earlier today, the Assembly should not move away from country-specific monitoring. The report testifies to that.

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

      Mr BENEYTO (Spain)* – I congratulate the rapporteur most warmly, because he has done a thorough job. As previous speakers have said, the report is extremely comprehensive. He has put together what is virtually a handbook that details everything we do to assess compliance with the principles of the Council of Europe.

I would like to flag up three issues. Although it is logical for the report to try to deal equally and fairly with all countries under monitoring, as well as other Member States of the Council of Europe, we must be clear why some countries are under monitoring and others are engaged in post-monitoring dialogue. There tends to be confusion about the difference between the two, and about other countries that have not ratified certain conventions. We are talking about two separate sets of circumstances. In trying to achieve this balance, we need to be alive to the fact that the report does not necessarily reflect its title. It goes far beyond that – it is much more ambitious.

We need to pinpoint those cases in which monitoring has been effective, and the extent to which monitoring reports have helped member States in specific cases to improve matters in important areas such as: the independence of the judiciary; the fight against corruption and organised crime; the rights of minorities and refugees; freedom of expression and freedom of the media; the freedom of political parties and the functioning of the parliamentary system, and the issue of political corruption. I am all for the Committee of Ministers dealing with countries every time there is a monitoring report. There should also be a debate.

At the very least, the report should be made available to all bodies of the Council of Europe, because we need other parts of the Organisation to be involved in its work. We also need to establish channels of communication with other international organisations, such as the European Union and the United Nations, to ensure that monitoring reports are more effective in practice.

      Finally, we lack knowledge about what happens in the monitoring process. Hearings are useful, but we need to raise awareness in our own countries too.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Ivanovski is not present, so I give the floor to Mr Zourabian.

      Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – I read the draft resolution carefully and, with due respect to you, Mr Herkel, I am astonished at how inadequate the report is on Armenia.

The Armenian electoral system has been turned into a machine of falsifications, bribing and intimidating voters and electoral commissions, and ensuring that no change of power can happen through elections and that tens of thousands of people pour on to the streets to protest falsification after each presidential election, as happened in 2003, 2008 and 2013. Television is censored and under strict presidential control. The reform of digitalisation, instead of increasing the number of broadcast frequencies to ensure pluralism, has led to even further restrictions and closures of television channels.

The death of 10 people after the bloody 1 March 2008 killings of protestors by government security forces has never been properly investigated, and nobody has ever been charged for this crime. Police brutality against peaceful political activists continues. When police fail to quell protests, the government sends criminal gangs to track down, attack and injure activists when they are alone. The last month has seen a dozen such attacks. Activists protesting against transportation price hikes, unlawful construction or Serge Sargsyan’s secretive and unruly diplomatic decisions were severely beaten by government-controlled gangsters. So far, none of those cases has been solved. One of the activists, Tigran Arakelyan, is still in jail on the basis of fabricated police testimony, and is considered to be a political prisoner by all Armenian human rights organisations and the mass media.

The report is silent on every issue that is important to defending democracy in Armenia. This shows that the monitoring procedure for Armenia is simply not functional. The electoral observation missions have been ineffective in detecting massive bribing and the intimidation of voters and members of electoral commissions, because such things do not happen in the electoral precincts, but outside them. For years, we have not seen the co-rapporteurs in Armenia, and nor are they available to contact. I am the representative of the biggest opposition group, the Armenian National Congress, which has been the main target of the regime’s operations since 2008. I have been in the Parliamentary Assembly for one year already, but, despite all my efforts, I have failed to discuss a single issue with them. I will vote against the resolution, as it is inadequate in everything it says – or, rather, does not say – about Armenia.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much. I call Mr Seyidov.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – We can speak in favour of the report or we can speak against the report, but it is much more important to take into account the fact that we should change the monitoring procedure completely. The procedure does not reflect the reality that exists in the Council of Europe and in Europe as a whole. For a long time, different countries under monitoring have tried their best to implement recommendations, but again and again the Monitoring Committee opened new cases and asked new questions and so on. How is this possible in the Council of Europe, where we are all equal? What kind of division exists in this Organisation between the countries that are being monitored or are in the post-monitoring process, and those doing the observing and those not involved in monitoring? Human rights and European values are very important for all member States. Those values are universal: if human rights and our values are universal, how can it be possible to implement them in only some Council of Europe countries, while they are only spoken about in relation to other countries?

That is why we should do our best to change the monitoring procedure that currently exists in this Organisation. That would help us be more objective in all our efforts to change the situation in certain countries. It is much more important to do that within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe than to refer such issues to the Committee of Ministers. I completely agree that we should take on responsibility for this matter. We are members of parliament and are elected by the people, so we should have the responsibility to change the situation. We should not refer the issues to the Committee of Ministers, which is responsible for many things; it would not be good to give it a job that we could do.

Dear friends, I therefore ask you to vote for the amendment to the draft recommendation prepared by Mr Herkel. I hope that the Assembly will have the courage to change the current process.

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

      Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – I congratulate the rapporteur. The monitoring procedure is a crucial part of the Parliamentary Assembly’s work, but the fundamentals on which it is based are outdated. When it was established, its role was to monitor new members or those in parts of Europe without democratic standards, but 23 years after the fall of communism, most countries have reached our general standards. At the same time, there are countries that are not being monitored, for example Greece, which do not fulfil all the criteria or have not even ratified the fundamental standards of the Council of Europe.

      Every country in Europe has challenges that they should face and that should be monitored here. That is why we should monitor issues and cases, rather than countries. I propose that all countries of the Council of Europe are monitored on the same issues. For example, it would be right to monitor human rights and the rise of neo-fascism in all member States. If that was done, countries would not be divided into three groups – those not being monitored, those under post-monitoring and those in the monitoring procedure – and it would create fewer frustrations. If we monitor issues and subjects, all countries will be in the same process, and they will gain comparative knowledge that can then be used in their legislation and practices.

My clear proposal is to change the basis of the monitoring procedure from a country-by-country to an issue-by-issue approach. I hope that we can have that debate over the next period. Why not change the monitoring rules?

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Nikoloski. I call Ms Guzenina-Richardson.

Ms GUZENINA-RICHARDSON (Finland) – Mr President, here at the Council of Europe, we should all be treated as equals. All members are bound to respect human rights and the principles of democracy and the rule of law, and that should be clear to us all. The monitoring mechanism was initiated by Tarja Halonen, the former President of the Republic of Finland, so we are proud of it. It was established to support new Council of Europe member States in their efforts to comply with their commitments.

      Today, any member State may be subject to monitoring, which is how it should remain. The credibility of the Council of Europe depends on the actions of its member States. It is important that we monitor respect for membership commitments, and we must further improve the standard of our reports, recommendations and follow-up. If we want our Organisation to remain the principal human rights watchdog in Europe, each member State must be ready to address its own deficiencies. The Finnish delegation therefore welcomes a discussion about strengthening the monitoring procedure in relation to the core values of the Council of Europe.

      There are, however, some worrying signs. Most of the countries currently being monitored have been involved in the procedure for a long time, which raises concerns about the efficiency of current modalities and mechanisms, and we need to do something about that. The aim of monitoring is to promote internal, democratic reform in the countries concerned, and the monitoring process should be based on a constructive and mutually respectful approach, with clearly defined procedures, rules and terms. We need to keep the mechanism and to improve it.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Guzenina-Richardson. I call Ms Zimmermann.

      Ms ZIMMERMANN (France)* – Mr President, Mr Rapporteur, the Council of Europe was established so that European values – human rights, the rule of law and democracy – could never again be simply trampled underfoot. That was the message of the founding fathers in the aftermath of the war. Unfortunately, we are now forced to realise that not all member States honour their obligations and commitments, and some abide by only a few of them.

It is good that the rapporteur has provided a detailed analysis of the situation in all member States, but in the light of several reports that we have recently debated, I believe that some member States have forgotten the raison d’être of their membership of the Council of Europe, which they freely joined. The values defended by this Organisation are not an option: if a country joins the Organisation, it has to do all in its power to defend our founding values, because otherwise it is not worthy to be a member of this European family.

      That is why the Monitoring Committee’s role is essential to the credibility and relevance of the Council of Europe’s work. That work sends an important message to civil society and the defenders of human rights in the countries concerned. Impartiality, objectivity and firmness must underpin the work of the committee, because there cannot be any compromise when it comes to principles.

We also need to reflect on the values that particularly deserve protection. From that angle, women’s rights should be taken on board to a greater extent. Discrimination against minorities, the LGBT – lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender – community and civil society also involve women, but women are very often the subject of specific forms of victimisation or discrimination because of the fact that they are women. The Monitoring Committee’s work does not take that sufficiently into account. Can we talk about the rule of law if women are not really represented in institutions, parliaments or governments? Can we talk about social rights if women are not financially independent or do not have access to employment? Can we talk about human rights if women are not free to control their own bodies and minds, or if they are the victims of the customs of another age? During conflicts or ethnic clashes, women are often the first victims, particularly when rape is used as a means of waging war. The European values that we hold high will not and cannot exist if the rights of women are not respected. The Monitoring Committee’s work must take on board that demand.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Zimmermann. I call Mr Recordon.

Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – Dear colleagues, I found some of the statements made today rather difficult to stomach. I got the impression that I was participating in an international meeting of nationalists. When I hear support for Amendment 10 against the Committee of Ministers being seized more frequently on monitoring, I get the impression that those who fear being closely examined are attempting to hide from the light of projectors that dispel the darkness. Let us reject that amendment. There has to be more effectiveness and the Ministers need to take these issues more seriously. There is no risk of dilution. The recommendation before us is appropriate.

      Members have defended equality of treatment. However, there must be equal treatment of equal situations, but different treatment of different situations. The latter is just as important as the former.

Of course, all is not well with the monitoring procedure. I support the idea that it should be reformed and improved. I note that my own country of Switzerland, which is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its accession to the Council of Europe, is still subjected to reports that indicate that it is not fully meeting its convention obligations. To be mentioned eight times is serious. I wonder whether we should have a differentiated monitoring procedure or post-monitoring procedure. That should not be thematic, because that would risk total dilution. Such a procedure would be available to the older member States of the Council of Europe that are proceeding too slowly towards the ideal. There is even a regression in human rights, as we can see from the way in which the Roma are treated in many countries, including my own.

The big difficulty is that such a procedure would require additional resources. However, it is something that we cannot ignore.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Recordon. I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin.

      Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – I thank Mr Herkel for an excellent report.

The proposal in paragraph 3 of the draft recommendation to treat all countries the same is excellent. I do not understand my colleagues who say that we cannot work together. The Assembly and the Committee of Ministers are different branches of the same tree. We should work together and get added value out of doing so. It is obvious that some colleagues want to undermine and weaken the monitoring process. I want to strengthen it and make it more consistent. If we do not do our job, the European Union will take over.

I understand fully that countries that are under monitoring want to get out of it as soon as possible, but it is in the hands of the politicians in those countries to fulfil the commitments and obligations that they signed up to when they entered the Council of Europe. You do not have to do it to please the Council of Europe or the rapporteurs; you have to do it for your own citizens and your own country. Countries that are under monitoring should not see the rapporteurs as being against them. We are for you; we are friends; we want the best for you. You should see monitoring as the opportunity to get expert advice. The best part is that you get it for free, so use it.

In this report, all 47 countries are under monitoring. That is good because no country is perfect. I do not usually talk about my own country of Sweden, but I will do so today. Sweden has been criticised by GRECO for many years because it has no law on party financing, but just an agreement between the parties. When I observe an election, I feel ashamed to ask other countries what law they have on party financing when we do not have one in Sweden. I tell you now that we will have such a law. I hope that it will be functioning before the European Parliament elections next year. Sweden has also been criticised by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance for treating people without residence papers differently in respect of medical treatment. We will change that. From 1 July this year, such people will get the same treatment.

We can never take democracy for granted; we must defend it and struggle for it every day. That goes for all member States.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin. I call Ms Khidasheli.

Ms KHIDASHELI (Georgia) – I thank Mr Herkel for this wonderful report.

I could not agree more with Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin and other colleagues from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe who have spoken about the benefits of the monitoring procedure. My country has been under monitoring for more than a decade. I may not agree with or like every paragraph in the report, but I am a strong believer in the positive effects of monitoring, because it always helps in the building of democracy, the rule of law and institutions in our countries. I agree with Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin that it provides free expert advice. I do not understand why people are speaking against it. There is always room for improvement, but that does not mean that we should undermine the whole process.

Having said that, my country does not agree with every paragraph of the report. We are always looking for more precise and accurate information. I was very disappointed to read paragraph 13 of the draft resolution in which our rapporteurs failed to mention the changes that have occurred in my country since the parliamentary elections of October 2012. It is always useful to receive criticism and to argue, but it is also important to mention it when a country meets the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. We should not be afraid to articulate it when a country does something positive. I will not list everything that has been done, because there is not enough time, but I will mention a couple of things.

Somehow, it was not noticed by the rapporteurs that there is no torture in Georgian prisons any more. That matter was often mentioned in our monitoring reports. Serious changes have been brought to the penitentiary system through legislation and the work of the new administration. It was also not noticed in the report that there is no longer a media monopoly in Georgia. Again, that point was always mentioned in our reports.

I find it very strange that paragraph 14 of the draft resolution states that the Assembly is concerned about the lack of independence in the judiciary. The judiciary does need many years of hard work to become perfect, but we must remember that we are talking about a country in which the conviction rate used to be 99.9%. That means that in 99.9% of cases, the judiciary coincided with the requests of the prosecutors. The state is now losing cases in court and prosecutors are being denied appeals. Those things are normal for many countries that are represented in this Assembly, but they did not used to be exercised in Georgia. If those issues were mentioned, there would be more acceptance and understanding of the criticisms in the report.

Finally, I am surprised that paragraph 14 of the draft resolution does not mention the Russian Federation’s constant violation of its obligations under various resolutions of this Assembly, including in the monitoring reports, with regard to the non-occupation policy and the rights of internally displaced persons in Georgia.

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

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I am really sad that Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin is no longer in the Chamber, because she comes from a country where the police made a list of Roma people in order to handle them in a special way. It is strange that double standards still operate in the Council of Europe so heavily. It is unacceptable.

That is what happened with Hungary.

      During the past three years, there have been many changes in the Hungarian legal system. The Monitoring Committee, prompted by Swedish colleagues, tried to teach Hungary how to be democratic, but do you know what happened? You dignified ladies and gentlemen made a report on Hungary – surveyed everything, consulted, worked a lot, used wonderful experts and made a wonderful report – but do you know what happened in the Assembly? The most recent Assembly totally refused your report. Thank you, therefore, for your expertise and your friendship, and for this help with opening the Hungarian people’s eyes.

What is going on in Europe? What kind of work is being done within the framework of the Monitoring Committee? How, for example, can you mention special situations, such as particular groups in Europe, and only deal with Roma and LGBT people? You are not dealing with the fate of indigenous peoples of Europe, the traditional national minorities – communities who are the base element of European culture. Your play is a dirty play. You are not defending democracy; you are just figures who are somehow, by someone, moved with the aim of destroying the national culture in Europe.

You have to learn from this. You have to avoid such double standards. You have to defend European values by dealing with the fate of the Hungarian communities who were detached by the unjust Treaty of Trianon in 1920 – 3.5 million Hungarians live outside their country, under oppression in Serbia, Ukraine, Romania and Slovakia, but you did not mention a word about them in your report. What you are doing is a shame for democracy.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Gaudi Nagy, I do not want to comment on what you have said; we have various opinions in the Chamber about what you have said, which is all very respectable, but I appeal to you to moderate your speech and to respect the speakers who have spoken before you, as we have respect for you. I now call Mr Mota Amaral.

      Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Herkel’s report contains an interesting assessment of the monitoring procedure of our Assembly over the past two years. I thank and congratulate him most warmly. In his capacity as chairman and long-time member of the committee, Mr Herkel is well aware of the successes and difficulties – I do not call them failures – of the monitoring procedure.

      From the beginning, monitoring was established as an instrument of support and help for the new member countries of the Council of Europe. We wanted to support the new member countries in the historic task of implementing human rights and democratic institutions in their societies, which had been deprived of them by totalitarian regimes, but the transition is not easy or without hardship. The continued dialogue of the rapporteurs of our Assembly with the authorities of the countries under monitoring, though sometimes apparently frustrating, leads to progress. The involvement and commitment of the national parliamentarians of the countries concerned, who are members of our Assembly, has been proved to be fundamental to the effectiveness of monitoring.

For such reasons, the Assembly must preserve and maintain a living and clearly identifiable parliamentary monitoring procedure, and not meld it with the responsibilities of other organs of the Council of Europe. Discussion of extending the monitoring procedure to all the member countries of the Council of Europe has been raised as a possibility, and was mentioned by the Speaker of the Russian Duma this morning. He simply voiced a common protest by the vast majority of the member countries of our Organisation. I remember the Council of Europe when it was only a 15-member Organisation, when I first came here in the late 1970s, but the problem raised is now under consideration, and I anticipate my personal position.

      In front of us we have an issue of enormous difficulty concerning the monitoring procedure and the existing rules, as happened recently with Hungary. What should have been a factual appreciation evolved into a partisan political fight. One lesson to be learned in my opinion is that in an Organisation that is a Parliamentary Assembly, but not a parliament, the influence of political groups must be tempered by other institutions and considerations. With an open mind for the future of the monitoring procedure, we should give a positive look at the proposal in this area, which commands the value of our work, of the Assembly and the Council of Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Ms Kanelli is the next speaker.

      Ms KANELLI (Greece) – We lost an opportunity with this report. It could and should have been a chance to change not only the monitoring procedure, but the way in which we want the Council of Europe to proceed into the 21st century, based on human rights. Do we want to continue with an idea that human rights can be the target of any country at any time, based on market interests? This should not be the diplomacy of human rights – which we should either accept or not – and I do not want to see that, even though it is like that.

      Can you recall how people vote in what I think is a dreadful and non-cultural Eurovision song contest? Do we want the Council of Europe to be turned into something like that? After every monitoring, we have different alliances and interests on the impact of elections, and we lose the idea of human rights. We can accept that we all belong to a tree, but in every tree – as everyone who lives off the land knows – there is the matter of who takes care of the tree, how well it is fed and watered, with no fruit maturing at the same time.

In the Council of Europe, we want to be monitoring items, not countries. We should be looking at women or children, for example, in all countries, not in groups of countries. Let us not target nations, minorities or legislation, because in that way we would have to end up making decisions in this great continent, which is a melting pot of civilisations and different forms of political support. Europe has to decide about 9 May – is it an anti-fascist, anti-Nazi victory, or is it Europe day and we can dance in Vienna, accepting everything else? If we answer this and we decide what 9 May means for this Council and the European people, then we can talk about monitoring.

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

      Mr WACH (Poland) – I am sorry, but I disagree with the previous speaker, although her speech was very emotional. This is a yearly report. It is a formal procedure, and it is very difficult to imagine it in drastically different form. Subject by subject, we inspect the 33 countries that are not subject to monitoring and post-monitoring procedure. The 14 countries under those procedures are followed more closely due to the problems that they have. This report, which does not cover all of history, just activities over one year, is very good and important, and reaches to the core of our activities in the Council of Europe. It is extensive and thorough, covering all aspects of our monitoring activities.

      What is specific in this year’s report? There are three things. First, it was prepared after some opinions were presented criticising the current form of monitoring for member States that are under the strict monitoring or post-monitoring procedures. We hear such voices here. It is a real debate, because there are two different views of monitoring, but it is about the future, because the report concerns the activities of the past year. Until now, the opinion has prevailed that such monitoring is important, is carried out with high professionalism, good will and objectivity and should be continued. That opinion should be supported by the Assembly. Whether monitoring should continue unchanged is addressed in paragraph 24, but without any revolutionary changes.

      Another characteristic of the report that I would like to underline is its close inspection of the 33 remaining States that are not subject to the strict monitoring procedure. That is done subject by subject, and it is done properly. Thirdly and most importantly, the report proposes much closer co-operation with the Committee of Ministers on monitoring and the follow-up to monitoring. Follow-up is addressed in paragraph 11 and in the recommendations. The recommendations seem to be the key issue in this debate. I support them, especially recommendation 3. I do not share the doubts and fears expressed by Mr Binley on behalf of the European Democratic Group. Rather, we should accept the recommendations in full.

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

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation)* – The monitoring procedure has always been a hallmark of the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is what distinguishes us from other European organisations. The monitoring procedure has incited the newer member States of the Council of Europe to rise to its high standards, but like any other procedure, it needs to be reviewed, to be developed and to evolve, and that has not happened over the past few years. Previously, the system incited and stimulated countries to rise to the lofty standards of this Organisation, but it has been turned into a procedure used to draw dividing lines within the continent.

The reproach is levelled that the obligations imposed are increasing compared with what was required when member States joined, in contrast with individual thematic situations that are perceived to be gross violations of the human rights standards of the Council of Europe, including in older member States that joined before 1997. For instance, in Estonia, the country represented by Mr Herkel, there are some 100 000 non-citizens – in Latvia, there are 300 000 – whose rights are being undermined and violated. There is gross violation of the Council of Europe convention on regional minority languages, as well as of other international texts, but nothing is stated about that. We do not even use the term “non-citizen”.

What about the draft recommendation? It seems to me that we must be very cautious about co-operation with the Committee of Ministers. Why should the Committee of Ministers review all the resolutions of the Monitoring Committee? Why do we need such a recommendation? It would double the monitoring procedure instrument. We would be mixing up two different things. We cannot agree to that, so we cannot support the proposal included in paragraph 3 of the recommendations. I appeal to all of you to think hard about the future of the monitoring procedure and vote against the recommendation.

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

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – Mr Herkel, I too congratulate you on what you have achieved. You have described the work that we do in the Monitoring Committee, which is one of the most useful things done here in the committees of the Parliamentary Assembly.

I will not hesitate to self-criticise in discussing the work of the committee. In the resolution, we welcome the start of work on the 33 countries that have not been under monitoring or post-monitoring procedures. It is extremely good that we should scrutinise the democratic standards of all the States under monitoring and post-monitoring, but we are far from having genuine instruments to scrutinise the building blocks of our systems, such as political parties, functional institutions and the electoral code. That is why I invite all of you, in the spirit of exercising greater scrutiny over democracy, to consider those issues as well.

In paragraph 4, we celebrate the advances being made in the dialogue on the war between Russia and Georgia. It might be worded a little too optimistically. The situation is serious: two member States of this Organisation declared war on one another on 8 August 2008, and the situation has been extremely tense since then. That is why I draw colleagues’ attention to our Tallinn seminar on frozen conflicts, which was extremely useful. It gave us insight into the views of the parties concerned and hints at what we might do in our multilateral organisations during the year to reduce the distance between the parties involved in the three major frozen conflicts.

I also draw your attention to the situation of countries in the post-monitoring phase, and the political debate under way in those countries. Many opposition parties want to maintain the post-monitoring dialogue as a stick to beat the Government with, but as soon as they find themselves in office, they want the process discontinued. That may be true of the countries currently in post-monitoring.

In conclusion, I congratulate Mr Herkel, because this report contains valuable information for each and every one of the member States of the Parliamentary Assembly. To an extent, we should be ashamed of the fact that we have failed to ratify many Council of Europe Conventions ourselves. So we should go back home, lobby our governments, and make sure that we get down to ratifying the outstanding Council of Europe Conventions.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call Mr Pushkov.

Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) - Thank you, President. I shall not discuss the resolution so much as the issue of double monitoring, which is clear to everybody. I want to remind people of one thing, which is sometimes forgotten. The Cold War is over – it finished 20 years ago and more – but I have a feeling that in some quarters it is still being fought. That is not the right way.

A couple of years ago, our delegation from the State Duma visited Sweden. We had a wonderful dinner with Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin and I got the best impressions during our visits to Stockholm and our exchange of opinions at that dinner. This exchange of opinions shows that we belong to the same continent and to a greater Europe, and that we are quite capable of exchanging opinions without entering into a conflict, but unfortunately, when I come to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I feel that we are opposed to one another. I do not think that that is a good result after the 20 years that have elapsed since the Cold War.

Monitoring has become a divisive issue by itself – some speakers mentioned it – and instead of uniting us it leads to the creation of coalitions and fighting. It is subverting the authority of this institution and not making it greater. What has happened in the past three years? Why did the Monitoring Committee suggest bringing this issue to the Committee of Ministers today? Has something dramatic happened? Do we have to take new measures in respect of the so-called violators – the bad guys – of Europe? I do not see any special reason for this. The only reason that I see for this suggestion being put forward is that it is being done in reaction to the fact that it was advanced a year ago – targeting only Russia at that point – but did not get the support of the Parliamentary Assembly. So now the same suggestion is made in a wider form, with people saying, “Let us now put under double monitoring all the countries under this procedure, not only Russia.”

I understand the resilience of the authors of this suggestion, but it does not serve the Parliamentary Assembly well. Today, Mr Naryshkin spoke about the necessity to end the divisive lines in Europe, not to perpetuate them. I sometimes have the feeling that those countries speaking most for this double monitoring are not under monitoring themselves and that it is probably being considered as a means to keep them outside the monitoring procedures. That is not fair and it is entrenching the double standards that we should be fighting against. Ideals do not sustain double standards; ideals are always against double standards.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Mr Sasi, you have the floor.

Mr SASI (Finland) – Thank you, President.

Functioning democracy is a nice thing. That is the best way to try to avoid revolution in any country. We want to have smooth development in all countries. The purpose of monitoring is not to be an adversarial process, but to try to help countries improve democracy – and all our countries are lacking in our democratic systems, in one way or another.

I congratulate Mr Herkel on an excellent report. I understand that many people are unhappy when their country is mentioned and criticised, but, as I have said, the purpose is to help these countries. The report is balanced and fair, and it covers all the important things fairly.

It is good that the report contains a list of positive developments, because it is good to praise countries. However, some countries are not on that list. Unfortunately, there is a long list of concerns – it is too long. It is also good that all 33 countries not under monitoring are covered in the report and that the problems in these countries are clearly mentioned. If their problems must be addressed by this Assembly, we can have targeted reports on problems in specific countries.

The process works quite well. However, when a country has been working for a long time, there should be clearer conditions to close the monitoring process. If certain conditions are fulfilled, a country should be able to get out of the process. I note as rapporteur for Montenegro that we have five items on the agenda and when the country fulfils the requirements it can get out. That is the proper way to proceed.

Do we need any post-monitoring? Should we not be able to close the monitoring process and then go to a normal process? As the rapporteur says, if there is post-monitoring there should be a clear vision that the country can exit it within two or three years.

How can we improve the process? The recommendation in paragraph 3 is central – it means equality. All reports on countries under monitoring will be sent to the Ministers – it is about equality between all the countries – so the process will be strengthened with the Ministers also going through our reports, and it means that we continue our own work. It is strengthening the process, not weakening it as Mr Binley mentioned in his intervention, with which I strongly disagree.

We want to have an effective process and paragraph 3 will help in this sense, equalising all the countries.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call Mr Japaridze.

Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – Thank you, President, for this unique opportunity to talk on this important subject. I commend you and your colleagues highly, Mr Herkel, on this good, substantive report. The majority of our delegation read it thoroughly and made our comments. I fully agree with the assessment of my colleague, Ms Khidasheli.

It is a work in progress as you admitted, Mr Herkel. Why? We who are monitored by the Council of Europe are also a work in progress, regarding democracy in general, the quality of democratic institutions and the quality of the rule of law and the system of justice. Mr Herkel, it is not only we politicians – members of this distinguished Assembly – and experts who will read your report. The citizens of Georgia, for example, are expecting this report, including those who now live in sensitive areas where barbed fences are erected and people are divided and houses lost. That is why your report is a positive thing – although there will be nuance, because a lot of different developments are taking place in our countries.

Each country, including Georgia, has its own risks – internal and external – challenges, accomplishments and drawbacks. This should be noted in your report. We talked about that during the committee session. That is why we tabled amendments to this report, not only for the sake of making them, but to make your report perfect and to make countries such as Georgia perfect regarding democracy and democratic institutions.

I urge this distinguished Assembly to take into account our comments and amendments, to make this report more perfect and proper.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Japaridze. I now call Ms Kyriakides.

Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – The annual progress report of the Monitoring Committee is a useful tool for assessing members States’ compliance with the monitoring and post-monitoring dialogue procedure and provides a useful overview of compliance with their statutory obligations by the remaining 33 member States not subject to specific monitoring. I realise that, given the continuous changes in member States’ compliance, it might not be feasible to update the report fully, but I feel compelled to refer to some important changes to the situation in my country, Cyprus, which I have brought to the rapporteur’s attention.

In relation to the June 2013 report by Moneyval, the House of Representatives passed numerous laws rectifying structural weaknesses in the Cypriot banking system, satisfying Cyprus’s international lenders and meeting the need for a robust and coherent legal framework, thus addressing all the recommendations in the report. On the other issues in the report relating to Cyprus, I can inform the Assembly that despite the unprecedented financial crisis, in the past few months we have taken measures to address problems with prison overcrowding, parole and prison health care.

Last but not least, the President of the House of Representatives last week stated that it would rapidly proceed to adopt the necessary legislation, either on its own initiative or on the basis of government bills, to ensure that Cyprus fully complied with all the relevant GRECO recommendations on transparency in the financing of political parties. Most importantly, however, I wish to reiterate my strong commitment, as head of the Cypriot delegation and a Cypriot parliamentarian, to fully supporting and pursuing all the reforms necessary to ensure that my country is governed by the rule of law and is sensitive to the need to respect the human rights of all people.

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

Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I thank Mr Herkel and all the staff of the Monitoring Committee for their excellent work. I can only image how hard it was to produce a report in which all 47 countries could easily have found things there were not true, and the fact that only 10 amendments have been tabled shows that it presents an accurate picture of each country.

The part of the report dealing with Ukraine is very honest. Both government and opposition members in the Ukrainian delegation would agree that by working together we have made more progress in the past half a year than at any time in the previous 20 years. We have reformed our anti-corruption laws and our financial regulatory system to bring them into line with the standards of the European Union and the Council of Europe. Despite the fact that we have enhanced the rule of law, however, there remains one unsolved problem in Ukraine, on which Mr Herkel and the Monitoring Committee have adopted a very honest position – the question of Timoshenko and of double standards in Ukraine’s judicial system. Without addressing that, we cannot say that our country has met all the obligations we committed to meeting when we became a member of the Council of Europe.

That is the next step for our country. In two months, we will take the first step towards becoming a member of a big family of countries by signing an association agreement and a free trade agreement. For my country, the choice is not for the opposition or the majority, but for the 95% of the population represented in the Ukrainian Parliament. Without solving the Timoshenko problem, however, it will be hard to say that we have an honest and transparent judicial system, which is the most important thing. It is not just a question of Timoshenko, however, but a question of reforming our prosecutorial and judicial system. In the two months before the Vilnius summit, we will fulfil all these tasks, and next year we will have a new plan for Ukraine and the democratic union of the countries of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Sobolev. I call Mr Stroe.

Mr STROE (Romania) – I congratulate the rapporteur on a very good report. Dear colleagues, as you know, the activity of the Monitoring Committee is an essential part of the Assembly’s work and thus remains at the heart of its responsibilities. We should remain committed to improving the monitoring activity and offer our full support for its methods and rules. How can we enhance its activity? Its reports are an invaluable source of information on and analysis of the countries under the monitoring or post-monitoring dialogue procedure, and we should ensure that they are followed up appropriately. The Assembly should therefore seek more active co-operation with the other bodies of the Council of Europe, especially the Committee of Ministers, and we should continue to seek alternatives to formal recommendations when bringing our findings for debate to the Committee of Ministers, where co-operation projects are being explored. The findings of the monitoring procedure should be used to develop assistance and co-operation activities with the countries concerned in order to help to overcome monitoring fatigue, because a direct link with co-operation projects would render the monitoring activities more meaningful.

The Assembly still lacks a systematic approach to developments in the 33 member States not subject to monitoring or post-monitoring procedure dialogue. In that regard, our reports could benefit from the better use and interpretation of the results of conventional mechanisms. I welcome the adoption of Resolution 1936 on the harmonisation of the regulatory and para-regulatory provisions of monitoring and post-monitoring dialogue procedures as a step towards making our monitoring mechanisms more effective when it comes to member States’ observance of Council of Europe core values.

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

Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – The current monitoring procedure is an attack on the dignity of certain countries, especially given the violations of human rights in countries not subject to it. Why are there not monitors in those countries? It is absurd and a gross violation of human rights that there are non-citizens in the Baltic States in the 21st century. We have swept under the carpet the fact that the rapporteur lives in a country with non-citizens. We have a dividing line between those subject to monitoring and those not subject to it. That does not really advance the purpose of the Parliamentary Assembly, which is to get us to work together on outstanding issues. This procedure needs to be changed and monitoring should be done thematically, therefore covering all countries where there may be problems. Whether the countries were in the Soviet Union or not, or in the Warsaw Pact or not, should not be the criterion.

The report includes some theses that do not really correspond to reality, with reference to the Russian Federation in particular. It criticises a number of laws that were commented on by the Speaker of our parliament, yet they are in line with international standards. We have the moral right to adopt them, and they have been adopted to deal with certain challenges that our society is confronting. To raise this in a report on monitoring is not right. It should not be supported, especially the draft recommendation. We need to move away from the monitoring format that prevails. The countries of the so-called old Europe keep saying, “You have to do this”, but we are all here on an equal footing and that tone is simply insulting and degrading.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Shlegel. The next speaker is Mr Kandelaki.

Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – Thank you, President. Many colleagues who want democracy to succeed and prevail in all of Europe have stressed today how important it is to maintain a rigorous monitoring procedure. Essentially, it is the most important mechanism of this Organisation. Let me join their voices, adding that we must not allow this procedure to be undermined. We constantly witness attempts at that; it is an existential problem for the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly. Maintaining the same standards for all member States is essential, in the context that this body remains relevant and that its usefulness is not questioned by the taxpayers who fund it.

It is an open secret that the credibility of this body has been somewhat damaged by its inability to hold the Russian Federation fully accountable to the commitments and obligations that are undertaken by joining this Organisation and abandoning other spheres of influence, and for ignoring resolutions adopted in the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian war, the Russian invasion of Georgia and the ethnic cleansing committed there. Therefore, I support the resolution wholeheartedly, not least because, apart from stressing the relevance of the monitoring procedure, it mentions my core concern: the democratic backsliding that Georgia is currently undergoing. Specifically there is the prosecution of the leaders of today’s main opposition party, the United National Movement, formerly in government, as well as the pressure on the judiciary in Georgia, which is expressed in attacks on individual judges or blackmailing – for example, of the assistant of the chairman of the Tbilisi city court by representatives of Georgia’s secret service.

The leader of the Georgian opposition, secretary-general of the United National Movement and former Prime Minister, is in jail, but he is not convicted: he is in pre-trial detention. No one has been able to explain the need to keep this man in pre-trial detention during the election period. There are massive questions. The concentration of Mr Ivanishvili’s government on score-settling and retribution is such that 12 000 of our activists have been regularly questioned, many of them 10 or 15 times. In Martvili municipality, Mr Levan Topuria was even questioned 32 times. No one can explain why that was needed. It is incredibly important that the monitoring procedure maintains the same standards towards all countries, and even in the same countries if governments change and disregard the views of rapporteurs.

Let me conclude by voicing concerns over the Georgian public broadcaster, which has de facto merged with the Prime Minister’s private channel. TV9 is owned by the Prime Minister, and 30 journalists and producers have migrated from it to the public broadcaster, which was renowned for its balance, and two top-rated political talk-shows have been shut down, with journalists expelled from the public broadcaster and banned from the building. We cannot remain silent. I call for your support for this important report.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Kandelaki. The next speaker is Ms Memecan.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – Mr President, dear colleagues, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Andres Herkel, and the secretariat of the Monitoring Committee for presenting a most comprehensive report about the state of democracy in Europe, including the member States that are not under monitoring. I especially express my gratitude to President Mignon, who has been a keen supporter of ongoing efforts to reform the Assembly’s monitoring process.

Let me make it clear outright: the Parliamentary Assembly must monitor the member States. There is no doubt about that. The question is how. It is no secret that monitoring has become an exclusively punitive tool on certain member States. If the ultimate goal of the so-called monitoring is to identify and eliminate various problems that are not considered to be in line with Council of Europe standards, it must be co-operative, inclusive and objective. Monitoring as such requires the co-operation and ownership of the national delegations and the parliaments. Member States must regard the monitoring process as a collaborative effort rather than a form of disciplinary action that makes some happy and others completely disappointed.

The countries under monitoring and post-monitoring procedures are in my view best placed to comment on the efficiency and weaknesses of the procedure. Therefore, I propose the following non-exhaustive points, hoping that they will be taken into account in our joint effort to have a more efficient and useful monitoring system. The Assembly must develop a set of fair, objective and measureable criteria to assess member States’ performance and relieve the sense of disappointment and resentment in countries under the Assembly’s monitoring. The Assembly’s monitoring activities should concentrate on a clearly defined framework and set of relevant issues, and the context should not be left to the discretion of each rapporteur. Monitoring reports should include a checklist, to keep track of past recommendations and acknowledge the progress of monitored countries in those specific areas. The recommendations must be based on the Council of Europe’s binding acquis such as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Member States under monitoring and post-monitoring procedures should not be asked or expected to implement commitments that are yet to be implemented by non-monitored member States. Finally and most importantly, an ad hoc committee should be established to work on the proposals.

There is no doubt that a new and improved monitoring process will reflect positively on the Assembly’s global impact and its core values and principles. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Memecan. I cannot see Mr Hancock, so I call Ms Taktakishvili.

Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – Thank you, Mr President. First, I thank the rapporteur for this excellent report. Today’s discussion shows how important it is for the committee to maintain its relevance in the context of enormous problems in some member countries relating to the core values of this Organisation.

My colleague asked why members should be treated in different ways. Yes, countries should be treated in different ways because they are different countries. We have countries where journalists are assassinated; we have countries where political opponents are put in jail; we have countries where the authorities permit themselves to do anything, without any control by the judiciary and without allowing the media to speak loudly about the problems.

Yes, much time has passed since the accession of the post-Soviet countries to this Assembly. Yes, we are also surprised that the problems remain. Sometimes they even get worse. Mr Pushkov has reminded us that the cold war has ended, but unfortunately the Russian Federation day by day proves that Russia has not renounced its cold war-related ambitions. It sees its neighbours where democracy is enhanced as a threat. It sees the western, European-wide values as a threat, and in exchange it proposes to keep to the Eurasian values it has created, which are the opposite of the meaning of this Assembly. This is hate, discrimination, bullying of neighbours. That is why the monitoring procedure is relevant. It is true that it is not perfect. That is why we need to change it and make it stronger, not weaker.

      I also want to draw the Assembly’s attention to the deteriorating situation in my country of Georgia. The Russian army occupies one fifth of our territory, and more than 300 000 persons are being deported from their houses and now the Russian Federation is moving even deeper into the heart of Georgia, expelling new families from their houses. In Drani village in the heart of Georgia, new iron curtains, as it were, are being created, and the Russian army is responsible.

The Monitoring Committee should once again concentrate on the problems and propose the solution. The solution is to strengthen the monitoring by allowing the Committee of Ministers to have repeated scrutiny of member States.

      I ask you to support not only the report but the position of the Committee, which has examined the amendments. We must enhance the values of human rights and democracy in all the member States of the Council of Europe.

      The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Mr Hancock.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – First, may I apologise for not being present earlier? These things happen, however.

      I am delighted, even at this late hour, to be given an opportunity to speak on this important report. Mr Herkel has done his work on the monitoring of Europe to the best of his ability and we should accept it and be grateful for his efforts on our behalf, but I have some very strong reservations about the report and the implications for the Council of Europe that would follow on from the report being accepted, if, indeed, it is.

      It is vitally important that we make sure we do not relinquish our responsibilities to do this job. We should not look to share. We should not look to see other people coming in to partner us. We should be very cautious of the role of the Committee of Ministers because if we take this line we embark upon a very slippery slope, as this will inevitably lead to the Committee of Ministers believing it has the right of veto over us and the right to direct our Assembly’s monitoring activities. This report opens the door to that catastrophe.

      We need to fundamentally change the way in which we monitor and we need to rearrange the way we deal with these matters in the Committee. Anyone who has served on the Monitoring Committee for any length of time will have very strong reservations. There is undoubtedly a need to change what goes on there – the way in which reports are dealt with, the way in which amendments are tabled, the way in which votes are carried out on the amendments on some occasions. There is an awful lot that needs to be done, and this report has tackled some of those issues but has not in any way really got to the fundamental changes that need to be made.

We made some changes to ensure rapporteurs did not stay for indefinite lengths of time. That was a step in the right direction, but I would like to see that time period be even shorter. I would like the way in which countries put under monitoring are selected to be examined, too, and to ensure there is consistency in the reporting on them, because there is certainly a degree of inconsistency in the reports. Double standards prevail and are alive and well in the monitoring done here by the Council of Europe.

I hope Members can see that some of the amendments are supportable and should be supported, but most of all they should be very wary of not supporting the final amendment because it offers the Assembly the right to keep control of something they should be cherishing, rather than wanting to give up.

      The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I do not see Mr Leyden.

      That concludes the list of speakers, so I call Mr Herkel, the rapporteur, to reply.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I will respond mainly to those who disagreed with me - I apologise to those who supported me for that.

I shall start with Mr Binley and Mr Hancock, who made similar arguments. I admire the British style of rhetoric, but I do not agree with your arguments. Some of them seem to be quite strange. You said we are handing over our responsibility by sending some reports to the Committee of Ministers. That is a strange argument. We are sending our findings to another branch of power which must know about our findings. Yes, it will sometimes be difficult to have the concrete steps for this, but we cannot have this kind of diplomatic silence about very serious problems like political prisoners and oppression of the media.

      Mr Zourabian of Armenia made very critical remarks about how Armenia is dealt with in this and other reports. All I can say to him is that I would like to facilitate your meeting with the Armenian rapporteurs. My findings are based on the findings of the rapporteurs, of course, and previous reports adopted in the Committee.

      Mr Seyidov talked about whether we are all equal. In some way Mrs Taktakishvili answered you. We are not equal in every sense. Yes, we have equal possibilities to build up a democratic society and equal rights, but that does not mean countries where journalists are oppressed or a presidential candidate is imprisoned on the eve of the presidential elections are equal with those countries that do not have such problems.

      Ms Khidasheli talked about her country, saying many of the positive things are not reflected in this report. Several other Georgian speakers put different points of view, which is a good sign. It was probably the most active delegation in this debate. I can assure you that Georgia always was one of the central topics in the Monitoring Committee. We had the war reports, we had the country reports and now the next report is under preparation and several amendments are also about Georgia.

      Mr Slutsky, and somebody else too, I think, said the involvement of the Committee of Ministers will lead to the duplication of the work. Again, I cannot agree. It is not duplication when the parliamentary body sends its findings to the executive body; that is simply the balance between the powers and how the different branches function in the democratic world.

      Mr Sasi made the point that it is necessary to have clearer conditions for closing monitoring and asked what the criteria are. I agree. That is probably one of the points we should discuss when creating the special working group in the Monitoring Committee in order to address some of the problems we have. That is mostly about the speakers.

I want to make one more point very clearly before we vote. Voting in favour of Amendment 10 means voting against the whole idea of the recommendation. The recommendation will have no purpose without paragraph 3. Please do not destroy it. I call on everybody to vote against Amendment 10.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Herkel. Does the vice-chairperson of the committee wish to speak? That is not the case.

The debate is closed.

The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution to which 12 amendments have been tabled; and a draft recommendation to which one amendment has been tabled.

I understand that the vice-chairperson wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the Monitoring Committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. Those are Amendments 12 and 13 to the draft resolution.

Is that so, Ms Christoffersen?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT* – Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 12, tabled by Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Orobets, Mr Villumsen, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin and Mr Leyden, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14, after the words, “in the Russian Federation, with regard to a number of recently adopted laws restricting basic freedoms (the law on the criminalisation of defamation, on the Internet, on assemblies, on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and on propaganda of homosexuality to minors), as well as serious concerns about politically motivated justice, reinforced by recent judgments against Mr Alexei Navalny and the late Mr Sergei Magnitsky”, to insert the following words: “and the non-implementation of the resolutions on the consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia (Resolutions 1633, 1647 and 1683).”.

Amendment 13, tabled by Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Gulyás, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Orobets, Ms Čigāne and Mr Leyden, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 20.4, after the words “the former Minister of Health”, to insert the following words: “and the Minister of Defence”.

The remaining amendments will be taken in the order set out in the Organisation of Debates. I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Fetisov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Gorbunov, Mr Shamkov, Mr Tarlo and Mr Slutsky, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, to replace the words “de facto authorities of the breakaway regions” with the following words: “authorities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia”.

I call Mr Fetisov to support Amendment 4.

Mr FETISOV (Russian Federation)* – I would like to stress once again that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are sovereign states and that they wish to co-operate with the international community on that basis, so please support the amendment.

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

Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – This is clearly something that the Assembly does not agree with, because it contradicts numerous documents adopted by the Assembly, and by all member States, with the exception of the Russian Federation, which is the occupying power. Therefore, the amendment should not be adopted.

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

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Fetisov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Gorbunov, Mr Shamkov, Mr Tarlo and Mr Slutsky, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, to replace the words “de facto authorities in Sukhumi and Tskhinvali” with the following words: “authorities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia”.

I call Mr Fetisov to support Amendment 5.

Mr FETISOV (Russian Federation)* - The amendment stems from our belief that it is very important to underscore the fact that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are sovereign and independent States. We believe that to refer to them as “de facto authorities” is unacceptable.

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

Ms KHIDASHELI (Georgia) – This has already been mentioned in relation to Amendment 4. This Assembly, along with all other international organisations, has accepted Abkhazia and South Ossetia as breakaway occupied territories, not independent states, which is why the amendment should be rejected and the provision proposed by the committee left as it is.

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

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Japaridze, Mr Berdzenishvili, Mr Chikovani, Ms Khidasheli and Ms Maghradze, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, after the words “following a presidential pardon;” to insert the following words: “in Georgia, the peaceful constitutional transfer of power and the emergence of a genuine pluralistic and democratic framework following the 2012 parliamentary elections, a mark of the substantial progress made in the implementation of legal reforms and policies cutting across judiciary, criminal law, labor law and human rights, including the new strategy of friendly settlements launched by the Government to relieve the European Court of Human Rights from the caseload coming from Georgia.”.

I call Mr Japaridze to support Amendment 1.

Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – We discussed this amendment in our committee session, and Mr Herkel suggested that it was an acceptable addition.

THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr Herkel wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, which is to delete from “the 2012 parliamentary elections” to the end of the amendment.

      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 Herkel to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The aim of the sub-amendment relates to style, because amendment 1 has very long sentences. I decided to propose shortening Mr Japaridze’s proposal, but I think that its essence would be maintained.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – It is acceptable.

THE PRESIDENT* – The opinion of the committee is clear as it has proposed the oral sub-amendment.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 1, as amended? I call Mr Shlegel.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* - I do not have much time, but I wish to make two points. First, I believe that Amendment 1 does not correspond to reality, because what it says is not quite right. Secondly, one member of the Parliamentary Assembly was not admitted on the occasion of the monitoring, which gives some sense of how much democratisation there really is.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The Monitoring Committee is in favour, and the vote is open.

We come now to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Fetisov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Gorbunov, Mr Shamkov, Mr Tarlo, Ms Memecan, Mr Dişli and Mr Slutsky, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 13, to add the following words: “in the Russian Federation, the reduction of electoral threshold from 7% to 5%, the liberalization of political parties' registration procedure and the reduction of the number of their members required for registration, as well as the reduction of required signatures for presidential candidates from 2 million to 100 000 and exemption from collecting voter signatures during elections at other levels.”

I call Mr Fetisov to support Amendment 6.

Mr FETISOV (Russian Federation)* – In paragraph 13, it is important to note the positive changes in Russian Federation electoral law – the improvements that have occurred after 2011: the reduction of the electoral threshold, the liberalisation of registration procedures for political parties and a reduction in the number of people who have to provide signatures. The law was enacted in 2011 and should be mentioned.

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

In Amendment 6 delete from “registration procedure” to the end of the Amendment.

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 therefore call Mr Herkel to support his oral sub-amendment.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – This is equal treatment: we shorten the Georgian sentence and we also shorten the Russian sentence, but I still believe that the essence remains.

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

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – In my contribution I tried to explain that when amendments are moved in the committee sometimes, for the best of reasons, people try to change the substance of it. Here we have a country that has gone a long way to improve its system, and we should respond to that movement by properly and accurately recording it in detail. This was a very close vote in the committee, but most members believe that if we are not going to have double standards and treat countries such as Russia differently, we should vote for this amendment and put it in, in full.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of Mr Fetisov?

Mr FETISOV (Russian Federation)* – We did not look at the situation in the Monitoring Committee. The more concrete information that is included, the better sense we have of what is happening in a given country. This really expresses the difference: the reduction in the number of signatures required from 2 million to 100 000 and the fact that signatures are not required at all in regional elections and elections at other levels. Out of respect for the Russian Federation, the sub-amendment should be rejected.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against the Amendment 6, as amended? That is not the case.

I take it that the committee is in favour.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

We come now to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Japaridze, Mr Berdzenishvili, Mr Chikovani, Ms Khidasheli and Ms Maghradze, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14, to replace the words “and a number of arrests of leading members of the opposition and, more generally, the independence of the judiciary and the administration of justice” with the following words: “against the background of a big number of law-suits which have been filed against former governmental officials”.

If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 11 falls.

I call Mr Japaridze to support Amendment 2.

Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – The amendment speaks for itself.

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

Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – I strongly urge members to vote against the amendment, because it means that some people are willing to delete the fact that the opposition leaders have been arrested in my country. There are problems with the independence of the judiciary. The secretary general of my party is now in prison, in a controversial and illegal pre-trial detention, and this has happened ahead of the presidential election. Deleting this and replacing it with a milder wording would encourage further arrests of opposition leaders in my country.

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

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 11, tabled by Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Gulyás, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Orobets, Ms Čigāne and Mr Leyden, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14, after the words “in Georgia, with regard to the difficult cohabitation and a number of arrests of leading members of the opposition and, more generally, the independence of the judiciary”, to replace the words “and the administration of justice” with the following words: “, and the selective application of justice, including the massive interrogations and the controversial pre-trial detention of the leading members of the opposition.”

I call Mr Kandelaki to support Amendment 11.

Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – The amendment is somewhat technical. It simply restates something that is already known: the fact that there are controversial pre-trial detentions and the fact that there are massive interrogations. As I said in my speech, 12 000 people have been regularly questioned. The amendment would just be a restatement of those facts.

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

Ms KHIDASHELI (Georgia) – We are against the amendment, as it gives a conclusion to something that has not happened yet. All the court trials are in the future. Putting this wording in the document would make a decision before any court trial has concluded. I strongly suggest that members do not vote for something that was presented as a fact, but is actually not a fact because the court has so far not made a judgment. Nothing is known and I think it is for effect.

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

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 11 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Fetisov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Gorbunov, Mr Shamkov, Mr Tarlo and Mr Slutsky, which is, in the draft resolution, in paragraph 14, to delete the words “as well as serious concerns about politically motivated justice, reinforced by recent judgments against Mr Alexei Navalny and the late Mr Sergei Magnitsky”.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Fetisov to support Amendment 7.

      Mr FETISOV (Russian Federation)* – Mr President, we are worried about putting in examples about what is happening in countries that are under monitoring or that are opposed to monitoring. Paragraph 14 is general, so it is just not appropriate to include something about politically motived justice.

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

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – This Organisation and many institutions that represent the democratic world have given their opinion loud and clear that the cases of Mr Magnitsky and Mr Khodorkovsky are politically motivated, and the draft resolution simply restates that consensus.

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

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      We come now to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Fetisov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Gorbunov, Mr Shamkov, Mr Tarlo and Mr Slutsky, which is, in the draft resolution, in paragraph 17, after the words “non-Estonians” to insert the following words: “and non-citizens,”.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Fetisov to support Amendment 8.

      Mr FETISOV (Russian Federation)* – Mr President, there is a minority that simply does not have rights. We are discussing the fate of thousands of people – about 100 000 people – who have no status and are stateless, and this is happening in the centre of Europe. The amendment relates not to Russians, but to Russian speakers. I am sorry to take more time, but I have to make my position clear, as I did not have time to do so earlier. We are worried about Armenians, Georgians, Belarusians and people who, because of their destiny, have ended up in Estonia, not just about Russians. This got through because the chair interfered by saying, “You are talking about my country, Estonia.” The Russian Federation’s position is supported by the whole world. Those 100 000 people await our decision today. We have to come down on the right side, because this is their last chance. Those people just do not exist: they have no status.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I think I made it clear that everybody has 30 seconds to support or object to an amendment, so you need to stick to your speaking time, Mr Fetisov. I call Mr Herkel to speak against the amendment.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – On a point of order. I never used the argument against the amendment that it was because it is my country. It was Ms Reps who spoke against it. The amendment does not add any value. It should explain that citizenship and national belonging do not coincide, but are from other sources. The existing text is more exact. I never used the argument that it was about my country. That is rather an excuse. Please be correct, Fetisov.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Herkel. No, I will not give you the floor, Mr Fetisov. Mr Herkel has replied, and I take it that he was speaking against the amendment. What is the opinion of the committee, Ms Christoffersen?

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Japaridze, Mr Berdzenishvili, Mr Chikovani, Ms Khidasheli and Ms Maghradze, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 20.4, after the words: “Georgia to ensure”, to insert the following words: “in the future as well”, and after the words “are conducted transparently”, to insert the following words: “in accordance with the rule of law”.

      I call Mr Japaridze to support Amendment 3.

      Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – The amendment speaks for itself.

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

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – Mr President, I urge colleagues to oppose the amendment, because it would basically endorse any future arrests of opposition members. Such an intention is openly stated in Georgia, and the amendment suggests that opposition representatives in Georgia will be prosecuted in future. I am not sure that esteemed colleagues would wish to endorse that.

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

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Fetisov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Gorbunov, Mr Shamkov, Mr Tarlo and Mr Slutsky, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 22.4, to insert the following paragraph:

“Estonia and Latvia to undertake measures to eliminate statelessness, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe”.

      I call Mr Fetisov to support Amendment 9.

      Mr FETISOV (Russian Federation)* – The Council of Europe and other organisations have criticised Estonia and Latvia for discrimination against national minorities. There are still hundreds of thousands of people in those two countries who are stateless.

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

      Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – I ask the Assembly not to support the amendment because it appears to be factually incorrect. No recommendation has been made in such words by any European Commissioner: we searched far and wide, but could not find any.

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

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13304, as amended. I remind members that a simple resolution is required.

The vote is open.

The Monitoring Committee has also presented a draft recommendation, to which one amendment has been tabled. I remind members – I am speaking on the authority of Mr Herkel – that if Amendment 10 is carried, there will be no draft recommendation. According to the rules, the Assembly must have a message to put across to the Committee of Ministers. If Amendment 10 is carried, we will not be saying anything to the Committee of Ministers, so we will have no recommendation. I hope that that is clear.

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Mr Vaksdal, Ms Woldseth, Mr Shlegel, Mr David Davies, Mr Binley, the Earl of Dundee, Baroness Eccles, Mr Liddell-Grainger, Mr Harutyunyan, Mr Seyidov, Mr Huseynli, Mr Timchenko, Ms Kazakova, Mr Morozov, Mr Gattarov, Mr Pushkov, Ms Nikolaeva, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Tarlo, Mr Shamkov, Ms Burykina, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Arshba, Mr Sergey Kalashnikov, Mr Kivalov, Mr Chope, Ms Memecan, Mr Dişli, Mr Slutsky, Mr Petrenco, Mr Hunko, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Gutiérrez, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Guzenina-Richardson and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft recommendation, to delete paragraph 3.

I call Mr Aligrudić to support Amendment 10.

      Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – Mr Herkel has no right to say that paragraph 3 of the draft recommendation is only about sending our findings to the Committee of Ministers. No, it is not. If the Committee of Ministers has on its agenda everything that we say in our monitoring reports, it means that our findings are not a matter for us or our colleagues and it diminishes the position of parliament. Monitoring must be thematic and should not be done in this way. Please vote against paragraph 3 and in favour of Amendment 10.

Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – On a point of order, Mr President. You have just made a statement to the effect that if paragraph 3 of the recommendation is lost, the other two paragraphs will not stand. Is that the correct understanding of what you have said?

THE PRESIDENT* – Paragraph 24.1.a of our Rules of Procedure states: “A recommendation is a proposal by the Assembly addressed to the Committee of Ministers, the implementation of which is beyond the competence of the Assembly, but within that of governments.” Paragraphs 1 and 2 make no formal proposal to the Committee of Ministers. The text of the recommendation would therefore no longer have any meaning without paragraph 3.

The first paragraph states: “The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe refers to its Resolution…on the progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure, in which it resolves to pursue a more general reflection on ways to enhance the efficiency and the impact of the Assembly monitoring procedures with regard to all Council of Europe member States.” The second paragraph states: “Enhanced co-operation and increased synergy between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers may largely contribute to improving coherence and strategies in the area of monitoring the obligations and commitments entered into by all members upon accession to the Council of Europe, thus strengthening and improving the procedure. The Assembly commends the remarkable work carried out by the Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms, and the acquis they have established over the years.” Those paragraphs do not comply with the criteria in rule 24.1.a. The third paragraph begins, “The Assembly calls on”. If we do not call on the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, we have no recommendation.

I will not be voting on the text, but it is my duty to remind you of the Rules of Procedure.

Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – If there is no recommendation because of the lapsing of paragraph 3, there is no point in having the whole recommendation in the first place. Is that what you are telling me? If that is the case, what is the point of paragraphs 1 and 2?

THE PRESIDENT* – Paragraphs 1 and 2 lead into and explain paragraph 3. To a certain extent, they recite what has already been said. I am not the draftsman of the draft recommendation. It is my role to tell you what the rules say, without taking a position for or against Amendment 10. I speak on the authority of Mr Herkel. I do not know whether he would like to take the floor. However, I cannot allow too many people to speak because we would go over our speaking time. I could have a copy of the rules brought to you, Mr Binley. That could be done straight away. We have the advantage of having English and French copies, so you could read the text of the rules.

We return to the amendment. Mr Aligrudić spoke in favour of the amendment. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Herkel.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I will argue against Mr Aligrudić. If we transmit our findings to the Committee of Ministers, it in no way means that they have no value for us or that we are handing over our responsibilities. Indeed, they would have additional value. I call on everybody to vote against the amendment.

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

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

This is complicated because Amendment 10 causes the recommendation to fall. Mr Herkel, would you nevertheless like me to put the draft recommendation to the vote? There is not much point.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I do not have the rules before me, but the recommendation now has no sense.

THE PRESIDENT* – I agree, but I was duty bound to ask you and the chair of the committee. I do not think that there is any point in putting the draft recommendation to the vote given that Amendment 10 has been passed. The resolution was adopted, but the recommendation was not.

7. Next public business

THE PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday morning.

The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 8.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Election of a Judge to the European Court of Human Rights

2. Changes in membership of Committees

3. Children’s right to Physical Integrity

Presentation of report (Doc. 13297) by Ms Rupprecht, on behalf of the Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Committee

Speakers: Ms Nikolaeva, Mr Jónasson, Mrs Kyriakides, Mr Schennach, Ms Acketoft, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Blondin, Ms Fort, Ms Anttila, Mr Sidyakin, Ms Virolainen, Ms Szél, Ms Clune, Ms Bonet Perot, Mr Kolman, Mr Don Davies, Ms Mattila, Ms Graham, Mr Geraint Davies, Ms Memecan, Ms Erkal Kara, Ms Kazakova, Ms Al-Astal, Ms Gastélum Bajo, Ms Maury Pasquier.

Amendment 2 adopted.

Amendment 1 adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 13297, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation contained in Document 13297 adopted.

4. The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (June 2012 – September 2013)

Presentation of report, Doc. 13304, by Mr Herkel on behalf of the Monitoring Committee

Speakers: Mr Villumsen, Mr Allavena, Mr Schennach

5. Election of a Judge to the European Court of Human Rights

6. The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (June 2012 – September 2013)

Speakers: Ms Reps, Mr Binley, Ms Čigāne, Mr Beneyto, Mr Zourabian, Mr Seyidov, Mr Nikoloski, Ms Guzezina-Richardson, Ms Zimmermann, Mr Recordon, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Khidasheli, Mr Gaudi Nagy, Mr Mota Amaral, Ms Kanelli, Mr Wach, Mr Slutsky, Mr Xuclà, Mr Pushkov, Mr Sasi, Mr Japaridze, Ms Kyriakides, Mr Sobolev, Mr Stroe, Mr Shlegel, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Memecan, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Hancock.

Amendments 12 and 13 adopted.

Amendment 1, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 6, as amended, adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 13304, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 10 adopted.

7. Next public business

Appendix I

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

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Karin ANDERSEN*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Khadija ARIB/Tineke Strik

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Silvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Tinatin Khidasheli

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA/Oerd Bylykbashi

Anna Maria BERNINI/Giuseppe Galati

Teresa BERTUZZI*

Robert BIEDROŃ*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO*

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET/Jacques Legendre

Mladen BOJANIĆ

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ/Nermina Kapetanović

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN/László Koszorús

Gerold BÜCHEL*

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA

Sylvia CANEL*

Nunzia CATALFO*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Özlem CEKIC*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON*

Deirdre CLUNE

Agustín CONDE

Telmo CORREIA

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Jonny CROSIO*

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Milena DAMYANOVA

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER*

Roel DESEYN

Manlio DI STEFANO*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Jim DOBBIN*

Karl DONABAUER/Edgar Mayer

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Damian DRĂGHICI

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Joseph FENECH ADAMI

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV

Doris FIALA*

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON*

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO*

Karl GARÐARSON

Ruslan GATTAROV/Tamerlan Aguzarov

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Iwona Guzowska

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Marie-Louise Fort

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER

Gergely GULYÁS

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI*

Hamid HAMID*

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON/Ester Tuiksoo

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Naira Karapetyan

Håkon HAUGLI*

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER/Luc Recordon

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD

Joachim HÖRSTER

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN*

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV/Sahiba Gafarova

Vladimir ILIĆ*

Florin IORDACHE

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI/Zbigniew Girzyński

Denis JACQUAT/Frédéric Reiss

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE

Ramón JÁUREGUI*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ*

Antti KAIKKONEN/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA/Ivan Račan

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Deniza KARADJOVA*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Maryvonne Blondin

Ulrika KARLSSON*

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK*

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Serhiy KLYUEV*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN*

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Dmitry KRYVITSKY/Yury Shamkov

Václav KUBATA*

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Christophe LÉONARD/Philippe Bies

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT/Nikolaj Villumsen

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI*

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE/ Geraint Davies

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV/Olga Kazakova

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Marie-Jo Zimmermann

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Vesna Marjanović

Jerzy MONTAG/Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES*

Igor MOROZOV/Anvar Makhmutov

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Lydia MUTSCH/Fernand Boden

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Marian NEACŞU

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Charles Kennedy

Michele NICOLETTI*

Brynjar NÍELSSON*

Elena NIKOLAEVA

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Mirosława NYKIEL/Grzegorz Czelej

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS

Sandra OSBORNE/Michael Connarty

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI*

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Foteini PIPILI

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT*

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV

Mailis REPS

Eva RICHTROVÁ*

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET/Pascale Crozon

Marlene RUPPRECHT

Pavlo RYABIKIN

Rovshan RZAYEV/Fazil Mustafa

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Boris SHPIGEL/Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Algis Kašėta

Ladislav SKOPAL*

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV

Christoph STRÄSSER

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ/Bernadett Szél

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Alexander Sidyakin

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON*

Mihai TUDOSE/Daniel Florea

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Liana Kanelli

Tomáš ÚLEHLA

Ilyas UMAKHANOV/Alexander Ter-Avanesov

Petrit VASILI

Volodymyr VECHERKO/Larysa Melnychuk

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Vladimir VORONIN*

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Katrin WERNER*

Karin S. WOLDSETH/Ingjerd Schou

Gisela WURM*

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Robert Shlegel

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Tina ACKETOFT

Christian BARILARO

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Eduard SHALSI

Spyridon TALIADOUROS

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Don DAVIES

Ernesto GÁNDARA CAMOU

Diva Hadamira GASTÉLUM BAJO

Javier LOZANO ALARCÓN

Miguel ROMO MEDINA

Partners for Democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Bernard SABELLA

Appendix II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Romania.

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Khadija ARIB/Tineke Strik

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Silvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Anne BRASSEUR

Agustín CONDE

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Hans FRANKEN

Sir Roger GALE

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Iwona Guzowska

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Mike HANCOCK

Alfred HEER/Luc Recordon

Božidar KALMETA/Ivan Račan

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides

Lone LOKLINDT/Nikolaj Villumsen

Epameinondas MARIAS

Pirkko MATTILA

José MENDES BOTA

Melita MULIĆ

Joseph O'REILLY

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Foteini PIPILI

Leonid SLUTSKY

Theodora TZAKRI

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Liana Kanelli

Johann WADEPHUL

Karin S. WOLDSETH/Ingjerd Schou