AA13CR32

AS (2013) CR 32

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-second sitting

Wednesday 2 October 2013 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

(Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.00 a.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Credentials of the Delegation of Iceland

      THE PRESIDENT – I remind you that, at the part-session in June, the Assembly decided that the voting rights of the Icelandic delegation should be suspended with effect from the beginning of this part- session, until such time as the composition of the delegation was brought into conformity with Rule 6.2.a by the inclusion, as a very minimum, of one member of the under-represented sex as a representative. This suspension took effect on Monday.

      Iceland has now submitted credentials for a delegation which now conforms with this Rule, set out in Document. 13311 Addendum. If these credentials are not contested, they will be ratified.

      The credentials are ratified.

I welcome our new colleagues and I am pleased to announce that the voting rights of the delegation of Iceland are now reinstated.

2. National security and access to information

THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the debate on the report entitled “National security and access to information” (Document 13293) presented by Mr Díaz Tejera on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee.

We will aim to finish this debate at 12.00 p.m. I will therefore interrupt the list of speakers in this debate at about 11.30 a.m. for replies and voting.

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

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – The report is not about what competences the state should have in accessing information about citizens, but about the right of citizens to access information themselves and how sometimes, above all after 11 September, everyone turned silent, citing state secrecy – a crucial term – and accepted the situation. The term national security became a principle for which citizens had to sacrifice their right of access to information.

The general rule established in the report is based on two pillars. The first is the culture of human rights established by our predecessors in this bastion of human rights, the Council of Europe. I think, for example, of the Swiss parliamentarian Dick Marty, who did a lot of hard work, including on the CIA flights conducted by the United States that took prisoners to Guantanamo. The report does not dwell on the past, however, but is more interested in the future. We cannot just ignore the past, but the best way to respect it is to take it on board.

The second pillar is the importance of talking to experts in the state and the private sector. I think, for example, of the Open Society Justice Initiative and the meeting in Copenhagen, in which I and a colleague took part, at which we discussed the principles of national security and access to information. This meeting, which brought together experts from various continents, led to the text approved on 12 June in Tshwane in South Africa outlining the established principles.

The first pillar, then, is our cultural tradition and the work of our predecessors on human rights and the rule of law over more than 60 years, and the second pillar is the importance of speaking to professionals, experts and non-governmental organisations with many years’ experience in the field. We held hearings in Paris in which they took part, and most of the principles they raised are taken up in paragraph 8 of the resolution.

The report proposes the general rule that citizens should have access to information and that the law should predetermine when a document should be classified and declassified. It states that this law should be interpreted by a national independent authority. We heard from those with experience of such questions, including a magistrate from the Supreme Court of Spain. It would be wrong if this independent body always said yes to the government, but it would also be wrong if it always said no; it would have to come to reasoned decisions. The general rule should be access, and exceptions should be in line with principles predetermined in law.

      There are various amendments. The vast majority, eight of them, have been wholly accepted. I am grateful for the work done by the secretariat, and I thank Mr Franken for being so reasonable and willing to compromise. In some cases there was no agreement, not because his proposals were not sensible – they always are. Some 73 have not been accepted, and we suggest that those go into a different report.

      At the moment, we are just talking about the right of citizens to gain access to information. In the future, we may think about the powers that the State has to gain access to private information about citizens, which is a different matter. I am grateful to all of you. Thank you very much, President.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Díaz Tejera. You have five minutes and 40 seconds remaining. I call Mr Franken to present the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. You have three minutes.

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – Madam President, dear colleagues, I had the honour to write an opinion on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media about the report that we are discussing today. Yesterday, the committee had an interesting hearing on the alleged Prism program and earlier examples of intrusions by national security services into privacy and personal data – so about issues concerning surveillance and privacy.

Today’s report is about access to national security information held by public authorities and business enterprises. It is interesting and valuable, but the draft includes some formulations that need to be clarified or revised. For instance, let us imagine that Edward Snowden, who is a private person in Russia now, asks the Russian FSB or – as we have a Spanish rapporteur – the Spanish Centro Nacional de Inteligencia to have access to their databases. Let us even imagine that he still works for national security companies, because if documents were freely accessible they would also be accessible to national security services of other countries. Would the authorities in Russia, Spain and other member States be convinced by the draft resolution before us today and provide him with their documents? It is clear that some amendments are required.

My committee and I are very much convinced that access to information is not only important but also a human right under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights has recognised a right of the public to receive information of public concern. That right may include the right to access information held by public authorities or private entities. This is the scope of Amendment 5.

National security is a reason under Article 10 of the Convention to restrict access to information. However, that exception must not be interpreted and applied in an overbroad manner. Therefore, my committee proposes in Amendment 4 to introduce a definition of what “national security” is and which rules should apply for access to national security information by public authorities.

Finally, Amendment 9 proposes deleting paragraphs 8.5.1 and 8.5.2 of the draft resolution. As much as we are all for promoting public debate, it is unlikely that the European Court of Human Rights would accept the idea that public debate should override national security.

With these and a few less controversial amendments, the resolution may actually help to convince States to open up their national security information. On behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, I hence support the report by my colleague Arcadio Díaz Tejera.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Franken. In the debate, I call first Mr Kalmár on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party. You have three minutes.

      Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – Thank you, Madam President. Dear colleagues, first, on behalf of the EPP, I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Díaz Tejera, and his team on dealing so seriously with this important and sensitive issue. The EPP welcomes the rapporteur’s emphasis on the important role of the Council of Europe in starting, years ago, the work to regulate access to information at international level. Usually, the main question raised is on how to harmonise or solve the apparent contradictions between the principle of transparency, the level of freedom to access information and the principles of democracy on one side, and the needs of national security on the other. Often those contradictions are supported by security reasons, but there are cases when certain governments restrict democratic rights for security reasons that are not well founded. That raises tensions in society. We hope that the adoption in June this year of the global principles on national security and the right to information will overcome and regulate the problems so that no government can follow such a practice.

      As a general rule, we agree that all information held by public authorities should be freely accessible. Naturally in our world, where there is a continuous fight against terrorism and a strong demand on the other hand for public security and privacy, there must be exceptions. Those are well discussed in the report. I hope that regulation will make impossible another phenomenon that happens from time to time in different intelligence services; namely, that due to lack of transparency and satisfactory supervision, members of staff act independently, illegally using the information that they work with.

      The EPP suggests the adoption of this document. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kalmár. I call Mr Flynn on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr FLYNN (United Kingdom) – It is a great pleasure to support this splendid report. We all realise that secrecy is essential at certain times – in war situations – but in the United Kingdom we have found that public and parliamentary opinion has turned against the war plans of government because of unnecessary secrecy. The United Kingdom went to war in Iraq in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. If we had had openness and information, we would not have joined Bush’s war in Iraq. We stayed in Afghanistan allegedly to defend Britain from a terrorist threat to Britain from the Taliban – a non-existent terrorist threat. We are now told that the war drums are beating and that we should prepare ourselves for an attack from non-existent long-range missiles from Iran carrying non-existent Iranian weapons.

On 29 August, the House of Commons took an amazing decision. For the first time in centuries, parliament voted against a prime minister who wanted to take Britain into a warlike action, in Syria. It has made a profound change, not just in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. Much of the reason for that is, again, the lack of trust in what leaders are telling us. We in Britain will not go to war without full information.

An extraordinary document has just been published under freedom of information, thanks to a request from the Guardian newspaper. The document says the public are averse to seeing the tragedy of the fallen returning from Afghanistan. That stopped the war in Vietnam. When the Americans saw the body bags coming home, public opinion changed, and it meant they could no longer tolerate war. We now know from a document published just two weeks ago that the government had a deliberate policy of making sure there was little publicity when the coffins of the fallen soldiers were brought home. Once they were brought through the village of Wootton Bassett and the public assembled there paid tribute. We heard the sobbing of the relatives; we felt the grief of the families who had suffered a wound of grief that would never heal. That was bad for government and it is bad for war planning.

We must insist on full transparency. We must know the truth from government. The alternative is to have governments who want to embark on war, who want to play little Napoleons for themselves, who want to roll out the Churchillian rhetoric and strut on the world stage and write their own bloody page in history. We say to the arms manufacturers, who have an interest in this, that full transparency will reduce bloodshed and take us on the paths of peacekeeping and diplomacy.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you. I call Mr Xuclà on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* - Democracy is about deliberation. For democracy to be authentic we have to be able to discuss, and deliberate on, matters, and for that it is essential to have access to relevant information. The liberal group welcomes Mr Díaz Tejera’s balanced, in-depth report.

The legislation on transparency of, and access to, information being adopted in different parliaments is very important for democracy. We must also distinguish between different sorts of information. There is public information relevant for taking decisions, but governments do not only hold a lot of information that should be made public. Some governments have information that breaches our privacy. In the name of security the state invades our privacy. We know now that millions of calls, messages and e-mails are known to certain state organs on the pretext of security. If there is a cause for the Liberal group it is the defence of privacy. That is our banner. Democrats like the president of Brazil evoke the need to regulate internet privacy and the invasive attitude of the secret services.

Finally, this breach of privacy has only been possible through collaboration between the state and private companies. Some companies manage a lot of information about our lives and are far more powerful than some states. Google is the third most important enterprise in the world and it has lots of information about our lives, which has been central to the recent spying cases.

I congratulate the rapporteur, whose report contributes to this debate on privacy.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Villumsen on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – I thank the rapporteur. This is a very important subject, and the report is good and relevant.

The right to access information is crucial in securing democracy and fighting corruption. The Assembly must focus on that, but this report also points to an important current debate about the activities of secret services. When we speak on the phone to the people we love, the US intelligence service may be listening in, and not because we have done anything criminal or because our national police are investigating us. The US intelligence service follows our activities on the phone, on e-mail and in our interactions with others on social media sites. We have even seen that the institutions of the European Union are being tapped by the US intelligence service. This is simply not acceptable. This is a clear violation of the right to privacy, and it has extended all the limits. On behalf of the UEL I state that what the US is doing is simply not okay.

We must remember that we would not be having this debate on surveillance without the brave actions of the American whistle blower, Edward Snowden. We must protect whistle blowers. I send a clear message to Mr Snowden from this Assembly: we appreciate your efforts and we condemn the US witch-hunt that is now being conducted.

It is the US government that is violating human rights, not Mr Snowden. This is why this report is so important and that is why this Assembly should endorse it.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Díaz Tejera, you will be able to reply at the end of the debate, and you can also comment now, but you do not wish to do so, so I call Ms Szél. You have three minutes.

Ms SZÉL (Hungary) – Transparency through the publication of data in the general interest is the most important weapon in the fight against corruption. Without the trial of publicity the state becomes an alienated machinery, which functions unpredictably and is increasingly dangerous, because a state where there is a lack of transparency harms constitutional rights and privileges. With regard to this, I believe that the following three interconnected steps are of crucial importance: expanding active freedom of information; putting in place a criminal law guarantee on active freedom of information; and having full transparency in respect of the business interests of corporations and major decision-makers. Yet we can only speak of active information freedom when the handler of the public information is obligated to publish information even without a corresponding information request.

Nowadays the primary area of active information freedom is online. The body handling public information - even without a corresponding request - makes all public information accessible online under unified guidance and information can be thematically searched without any registration being necessary. However, the implementation of that has faced serious difficulties throughout Europe.

This is possible because those who break the laws of active information freedom do not face any sanctions. There must be criminal law consequences if someone does not fulfil their obligations to disclose information, or if someone gravely breaks laws regarding the publication of their business relations.

Additionally, through disciplinary sanctions or other efficient methods, we must enforce the personal responsibility of those not fulfilling publication requirements, even in the case of smaller violations. Only through full information freedom is transparency and open government possible.

Yet, in my opinion information freedom can be narrowly limited in a democratic society, perhaps for reasons of national security. A lack of freedom of information and the resulting corruption diminishes the moral order of all societies. When invisible and unauthorised advantages become the norm, citizens will rightly think that nothing is what it seems.

      Furthermore, corruption costs a lot. There are unpaid taxes and extra charges, so communal investment is painfully missing from education, health care, public order and environmental protection, which detracts from the quality of life of future generations.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Szél. I now call Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Access to public information is the basic principle of a democratic society. It is only in those countries with governments that care about the opinion of the people who vote for them that the State takes care of one of their main rights: the right to know about the activities of all institutions and to access information on how citizens’ taxes are spent so that governments and public services can be held to account. There can be some limited exceptions: first, real security reasons; and secondly, private information. In relation to private information, all politicians and public officials should understand that they will be more supervised because the money they spend is paid to them by citizens.

What information should be public and what should be private? For example, some countries have a traditional obligation to disclose information on members of governments and parliaments, leaders of local councils and communities and so on, but in developing democracies officials often mix private and public affairs. A Ukrainian journalist cannot get financial disclosures for more than half of Ukrainian MPs, despite the fact that such information is meant to be public. Ukrainian society cannot get the full information on President Yanukovych’s expenses, because the relevant State bodies refuse all requests, citing so-called security reasons. But what kind of security reasons could there be for refusing to disclose information on the cost of preparing the president’s bathroom? There is only one reason: society must not know the real cost of the extremely luxurious life of a president in a poor country. That is only a small example.

I can understand why each bureaucrat does not want to share such information with the public; it is the state of mind of officials. A similar situation to the one we have in Ukraine existed in Poland 12 years ago. Access to information occurs only at the lowest local level and is very sporadic. The common problem in Ukraine and Poland is the absence of institutions that supervise the execution of the law on public access to information and can impose real sanctions for ignoring the law. Courts in Ukraine cannot be taken into consideration, which indicates that they are not interested in disclosing their expenses. Current statistics show that in 90% of all rulings the courts take the side of officials, not citizens.

Therefore, our role is to take the question of executing the law on access to information. That solution is very timely and will help our countries to make governments and parliaments more open and responsible, because the only source of power in all our countries is the people. That is the basic constitutional principle of Council of Europe member States and people have a right to know more.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Ariev. I call Mr Biedroń.

(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.)

Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – I congratulate Mr Díaz Tejera on his excellent and interesting report. The relationship between access to public information and national security is one of the most important problems concerning human rights in today’s world. Recent disclosures by Edward Snowden indicate how important it is to control the operation of the secret services and how dreadful their work can become when that does not happen.

In Poland, as Mr Ariev stressed, we have substantial experience of using freedom of information laws to control the secret services. There are a few specialised non-governmental organisations that systematically request relevant information on national security. In the beginning they usually get refusals, but after some litigation they usually manage to get important information, such as statistics on wire-tapping and surveillance. As a result, they can exert pressure to stop potential abuses. That would not be possible without independent courts and freedom of information laws.

Recently the Open Society Justice Initiative decided to prepare a catalogue of principles concerning the relationship between national security and access to public information. Its intensive work, in co-operation with numerous NGOs, universities and experts, resulted in the adoption of the global principles on national security and freedom of information, the so-called Tshwane principles. It is a document of the utmost importance. I think that the role of the international community should be to promote those principles, so I thank the authors of the report for doing so.

However, our work should not stop there. Edward Snowden’s disclosures clearly indicate that more transparency is just one of the solutions. We should intensively start to work not only on access to public information, but on a general global convention on protecting the right to privacy vis-à-vis the operation of secret services and national security agents. They cannot be controlled by transparency measures alone. There should be strict limits regarding the invasion of privacy. Frank La Rue, the UN’s special rapporteur on freedom of expression, recently proposed undertaking work on such a convention. I think that the Parliamentary Assembly should be involved in that process by providing expert knowledge and sharing the European experience.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Biedroń. I do not see Ms Khidasheli, so I call Ms Fort.

Ms FORT (France)* - Access to information allows citizens to participate positively in society. As the Inter-Parliamentary Union said recently, information is the oxygen of democracy, but I believe that the demand for information, which is legitimate on the part of the public, should not lead to a no-holds-barred attitude and complete transparency in every case. Providing too much information can be dangerous, leading citizens to judge those who govern them not on real political factors, but on restricted details that are hyped in the media and are far less essential. By leading us to believe that “liquid democracy” or “internet democracy” could eventually replace representative democracy, certain social or information sites are endangering democracy wherever it is fragile. We should be careful, because although information can be used pragmatically, which can be the oxygen of democracy, information disseminated willy-nilly can endanger our values and security.

The question of the necessary balance between freedom of information, which is part of democracy, and the preservation of national security arises all the time, because our world is changing and new dangers threaten our democracies. I believe that the publication of confidential documents and diplomatic telegrams, which sometimes give an account of conversations in which people spoke freely because they thought they were confidential, is concerning. The absence of pragmatism, which some internet users have, should lead us to ask whether we have the right to publish everything in the name of human rights. We need to be cautious, because the protection of sensitive data has become a requirement as terrorists are becoming increasingly organised. Giving full access to all information would give them a valuable weapon. In the name of transparency in public life, we are increasingly seeing the publication of personal or financial information that can be used by those trying to undermine democracy. Extremist parties across Europe understand that well.

We must also be cautious about the daunting spread of cybercrime, because mafia networks will stop at nothing. Law enforcement agencies must be able to work without someone looking over their shoulder. As the report suggests, some States, even some in our Assembly, deprive their citizens of legitimate access to information, and that often goes hand in hand with restricting freedom of speech. We should fight against that, but we should not disarm our democracies, in the name of fundamental rights, against those who wish to destroy them. Let us be cautious.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Fort. I call Mr Nikolaides.

      Mr NIKOLAIDES (Cyprus) – This issue is very controversial and merits our attention not only because it has recently come to the forefront of international media attention – I am referring to the public’s explicit right to know if chemical weapons were used or not in Syria, and to Edward Snowden’s plight after leaking US surveillance information – but because the right to information is a basic component of pluralistic and open democracies, which we all support.

      We must ask ourselves a fundamental question: how much are citizens entitled to know about the way they are governed? Are all of our governments fully committed to public scrutiny and openness? The answer of course is negative, although, rhetorically speaking, governments are elected on the basis of convincing pledges with regard to accountability, transparency and respect for human rights. There are, of course, as there always have been, exceptions to the rule. There are undeniable cases where disclosure of information can undermine the protection of public interest. However, under this banner, governments have for years manoeuvred in secrecy, particularly in the fields of public security, defence and military affairs, thereby upholding a culture of so-called confidentiality that is reminiscent of the Cold War.

      The problem is that withholding information has spread to a number of other sectors, such as economic policy, the privacy and personal integrity of individuals, and suspicion of terrorism charges. Moreover, information may also be withheld if it is judged that disclosure may harm the commercial interests of third parties, the integrity of court proceedings, internal legal advice, or the effectiveness of inspections, investigations and audits. It is clear that institutions may, in certain cases, hope to exclude civil society from the decision-making process, or even bypass public interest assessments during important treaty negotiations. Governments and heads of States are elected by the people to govern and make hard decisions, whenever wanted, on behalf of the people. One could argue that governments will take these decisions and choose to withhold information in some cases. This, however, should not be done arbitrarily or randomly, but in a calculated and proportionate fashion that guarantees the public good. Citizens need to be sure that the governments they have chosen will act in good faith and secure their collective and individual interests. Of course, all governments are eventually judged and held accountable for their actions and omissions. As parliamentarians, we should strive to establish checks and balances through the relevant legal framework to make sure that exceptions invoked by governments are well-founded, legitimate and open to appeal and judicial review.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much. I call Ms Djurović.

      Ms DJUROVIĆ (Serbia) – Let me congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report and on the way he has approached this sensitive issue. It is a major challenge to establish the principles that can be applied in consolidated democracies and in transitional and developing societies afflicted with human rights violations and high corruption rates. The right of citizens to have access to information and the state’s duty to protect national security are often in conflict. Nevertheless, experience teaches us that the best way to protect the legitimate interests of national security is to keep the public informed of government policies and activities, including on national security protection. On the other hand, a certain level of secrecy needs to be maintained in situations where the disclosure of particular information to the public could jeopardise the functioning of the state. Reaching the right balance between these two interests is a challenge that every democratic government needs to face.

      First, we need to define principles or adopt legislation that will regulate data secrecy and define which data should be classified as secret. We need a procedure for determining secrecy and conditions that allow access to data. Serbia has adopted laws on data secrecy, personal data protection and free access to information that is of public importance, in order to regulate these issues.

      Parliamentary and judicial regulatory and oversight bodies play a key role in maintaining a system of control and balance in the security sector. There are no binding, set standards for European Union countries on this issue, but candidate countries are required to meet certain standards. In a previous Serbia Progress Report, the European Commission stated that parliamentary oversight of the work of the security services was limited. Today, we can say that the situation has changed considerably. The Security Services Control Committee of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, in the course of only one year after its formation, has undertaken all necessary steps to fulfil the requirements and standards that the European Union expects us to meet. The committee has performed direct oversight of the legality of operating procedures applied by all security and intelligence agencies in Serbia. These agencies have recognised the need to increase transparency in their work, as well as to accept parliamentary verification procedures.

      In conclusion, I would like to underline the importance of maintaining regional dialogue and the exchange of high quality intelligence information. That is important not only for strengthening co-operation between intelligence agencies, but for the promotion of trust, security and the rule of law.

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

Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation)* – We agree with the rapporteur’s conclusion that the world’s eyes have been opened to the reality of monitoring and control over the world’s information spaces. We should stress the leading role of the United Nations in establishing norms and standards under which states should be allowed use modern technology.

May I call members’ attention to Russia’s initiative and the joint declaration by the President of Russia and the President of the United States of America on 17 June 2013? There are many obstacles, for example, the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents 2009; the Global Principles on National Security and how they interact with laws, which mean limitations on the neutrality of the internet and so on; and the 1981 recommendations of the Council of Ministers on access to information that is contained in state institutions. Of course, that is an old text and somewhat obsolete. Thirty years is a long time and of course Russia was a different country then to what it is now, and the situation is changing all the time in a far-reaching way. We look at the level of openness in our state institutions in relation to their level of political responsibility in the process of democratic change. The extent to which access to information is available is how we can assess the openness of a society. I support the report, which has been put together in a professional way. It will certainly improve the situation.

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

Mr BENEYTO (Spain)* – I congratulate our colleagues, Mr Arcadio Díaz Tejera, and Mr Hans Franken, on their work on a topical and extremely complex issue. It is difficult to establish lines of balance between free access to information – which, naturally, we all want – and possible abuses and consequences that could be counterproductive. As we advance towards a more transparent and open society, with greater freedom of access, especially through online media and increasingly global means of communication, there are greater reservations about complete openness. A balance therefore has to be established. We were glad to find that in the report, because its importance must be underscored.

      The first step to be taken relates to the fact that some Council of Europe countries have not subscribed to the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents, and that is underlined in the report. The Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information were recently drafted, following various private initiatives, but there is a question about how far those principles relate to matters that are necessary to record.

      I would point out that the legislation on transparency in Spain – it is now before Congress, and I hope that as many political groups as possible will support it – marks a genuine advance towards having practical access to information, with very few exceptions. The report also supports the principle of free access, but with a few exceptions.

      There are, however, some problems. To what extent can access be given to information held by private companies? That is a tricky topic, which involves the issue of influence, as we have seen in the cases of Google and many other companies. There are problems about how much access to give to such information, how to classify and declassify it – no doubt, that should be done by a body that is independent of national parliaments – and how much protection to give to whistle blowers. We should try to protect the information released by whistle blowers, rather than allow free access to information, although that may sometimes be very tricky. The report is open to criticism for giving too much detail about two cases: that of the European Central Bank and its president, and that of the United States.

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

      Mr HANSON (Estonia) – I, too, congratulate Mr Díaz Tejera on bringing this important issue before the Assembly, and Mr Franken on his valuable contribution. In my opinion, a delicate balance between national security and access to information has been found, so I support both the draft resolution and the draft recommendation.

      Human rights are a very important dimension of an issue as complex as national security. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone has the right to receive and impart information and ideas, without interference by public authorities. The convention also states that the exercise of such freedoms may sometimes be subject to restrictions, but those restrictions should be set out in law, should be precise, clear and accessible by the public and, last but not least, should have a legitimate aim and allow for effective remedies. The interests of national security can be a valid reason for restricting public access to information, but only when such reasons are well defined, transparent and legal. In that context, the European Court of Human Rights deserves praise, encouragement and, if needed, additional resources in its continuing, case by case, to develop a human right to information.

      The key word in this debate is “informed”. In a democratic society, restrictions on access to information are legitimate only if they are based on informed consent, rather than blind trust in the government. The level of public scrutiny of the legal basis of any kind of restriction must be adequate. In other words, citizens or their elected representatives should decide what is wrong and what is right. That includes having an active role in the formulation of national security policies, and oversight of the activities of secret services.

      Special attention should be paid to the creation of an enabling environment in which the executive respects, protects and ensures openness, in contrast to the culture of secrecy that too often prevails in our bureaucracies.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Hanson. I call Sir Edward Leigh.

      Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – I agree with everyone who has spoken about the need for balance. Of course, there must be transparency, but we have already heard attacks on the United States in this debate. My wife was outside the department store Harrods when it was blown up by the IRA, and I was on public transport in London on 7/7. If I had to choose between my daughters or my wife being blown up by terrorists who despise and loathe everything we stand for in this place and protecting some secrets held by the intelligence services of the United States or the United Kingdom, I know what my choice would be.

The fact is that the intelligence services do not do their work for fun; they do it to protect us and our freedoms, and without them, those freedoms would be in grave peril. The problem with WikiLeaks is that it just releases loads of information simply because that information is marked “secret”. That puts at risk and endangers the very lives of agents, the courageous people whose whole lives are devoted to the protection of our freedoms.

      A year and two weeks ago – luckily, not two weeks ago – I was sitting with my daughter in the Westgate centre in Nairobi, and we have seen the results of terrorist acts in Kenya. I mention Kenya because we must protect the rights of whistle blowers when they reveal corruption and wrongdoing. For years, the Kenyan Government under President Moi made the life of John Githongo misery, because he revealed corruption; he did not reveal anything related to national security. Under the new government, he has returned to Kenya to carry on his work.

I am pleading for balance: we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Global Principles are absolutely right on that balance. We must preserve the right of our national governments and security services to keep secrets, so preserving our right to take part in this sort of debate. So long as there is that balance, I will support the report.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Sir Edward. I call Mr Recordon.

      Mr RECORDON (Switzerland) – Thank you, Mr President. I thank the rapporteurs for the excellent report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and for the very helpful contribution of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media; several amendments have been acknowledged as helpful by most of those concerned.

      As has been said, we face a particularly difficult problem, which in some ways is quite diffuse. We first have to ask what we mean by access to information. That is not just about information being available, but about our being able to check its veracity and to process it without being overcome by its volume. We must think about the whole question of national security. It is not a question of national security overriding everything else. We must have the necessary means to fight against the forces that commit unbearable acts against individuals and against society in general and democratic societies in particular. We must pay attention to both sides of the argument and must be careful about the excesses on both sides.

The report is very balanced. It sets out clearly that we need to have a legal basis and effective checks and balances. Transparency is a third means of providing effective monitoring. It is very helpful. Mr Manning, Mr Snowden and Mr Assange could be accused of acting in an excessive manner, but I think that they have done more good than harm. Like previous speakers and on behalf of my group, I welcome what Mr Snowden has done and support the actions of whistle blowers in general. We in this Assembly are well placed to know where abuses of power by the state can lead and just how dangerous they are for human rights.

We need to be attentive to maintaining a balance between the private and res publica. Sometimes secrets need to be protected, but that must be done only in exceptional circumstances. Let us base our actions on that rule and keep to the principles that are emphasised in this helpful report.

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

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I congratulate Mr Díaz Tejera. Yesterday, I took part in the meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in which we struggled to create the report in the best possible form to defend whistle blowers.

      One of the most important sentences in the draft resolution is paragraph 8.7: “A person who discloses wrongdoings in the public interest (whistle-blower) should be protected from any type of retaliation, provided he or she acted in good faith and followed applicable procedures.” That is absolutely correct. That point is at the core of the Snowden case.

      Yesterday, Mr Naryshkin from the Russian Duma was here. I wanted to pose a question to him, but unfortunately that was not possible because colleagues from the Nordic countries asked a lot of questions about LGBT people. It is important to point out that Russia is defending human rights by providing asylum to Mr Snowden. It is thus providing an excellent model for all countries in Europe of how to protect human rights. If Mr Snowden were given back to the US, he would face torture, he would be taken to Guantanamo and he would be sentenced to at least 40 years’ imprisonment. That situation is horrible.

The NSA scandal clearly shows that Europe must defend itself. Some European countries – I am sorry to say it, dear colleagues – are taking part in this surveillance. Citizens and organisations such as the European Union and the Council of Europe – your office – have been surveilled by the US secret services. That includes every kind of conversation and communication.

That situation can no longer be tolerated. That is why it is important to adopt the resolution and Amendment 2, which states: “The Assembly is worried about recent disclosures on massive surveillance of communications by secret services and resolves to follow up this important issue in due course.” The European Parliament’s civil liberties committee is investigating the matter. Let us work with it to find out what happened. We must defend European citizens from such activities by the US or any other country around the world.

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

Mr PINTADO (Spain)* – I associate myself with those who have congratulated the rapporteurs, my Spanish colleague Mr Díaz Tejera and Mr Franken.

It is not easy to harmonise national security and access to information. A key word that has emerged from recent contributions is “balance”. When discussing the actions of our governments and secret services and the theme of transparency in our legislation, we often say that evil things are going on all the time. However, for the security of their citizens, governments have to adopt measures that sometimes clash with certain rights.

What is the relationship between the citizen and the information that we are discussing? What do citizens think about the use of this information? Given the situations that have been experienced in some parts of the world, it is logical that some citizens seem to prefer to have less protection for information that could provide more wherewithal to governments, rather than having greater transparency.

The report adopts a very balanced position. A moment ago, Mr Beneyto said that the Council of Europe has been a pioneer in this area through the convention and the debate on access to information. Some countries still have not signed up to the convention and we have not made much progress, but we are in the middle of a process. Through that process, citizens the world over can tackle the theme of transparency, but with the necessary security and legal instruments on the use of sensitive information. This is a guarantee for the future of our democracies. We need better governance of this matter by our governments.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Pintado. I do not see Mr Belyakov, so I call Mr Shlegel.

Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I thank the rapporteur for this interesting report.

Over the past 10 years, the Internet’s penetration of society has gone ahead at an unprecedented pace. A great amount of information, including personal information, is available. There needs to be a balance between, on the one hand, national security and the need to protect society against international terrorism and, on the other hand, human rights.

The United States – acting within its rights, as it sees it – has violated people’s right to privacy of correspondence. The exchange of information between the European Union and the United States is one-sided. We must wonder whether the US is overstepping the mark and whether we are taking adequate steps.

The point is that Edward Snowden was not granted asylum by any European country – France, Finland and Norway all give asylum to terrorists, but no one would give asylum to Snowden, and yet he deserves the Nobel prize a lot more than Barack Obama does, for example.

      We need to establish a system in which the needs of society will come ahead of the needs of so-called national security; not only must we have access to our personal information held by the state, but we must be able to defend that information. The media are calling for a balance between, on the one hand, the need for national security and, on the other, basic human rights. When the State interferes with personal correspondence, or information exchanges within a company, obviously that is illegal, but we need to work out the extent to which it is acceptable in terms of violation of human rights, because there needs to be a clear understanding that it can only take place in cases of national security – not just when it suits the current government in a current situation. We need to make progress and work on the next report, which can go into that aspect in more detail.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Shlegel. I now call Mr Casey, Observer from Canada.

      Mr CASEY (Canada) – The debate is timely for Canada, because of a couple of developments late last week. First, in a speech to the Canadian Bar Association, the former chief of staff to the current prime minister called for more access to federal government records and for greater enforcement of the law prohibiting the destruction of government documents. Secondly, the next day, Access Info Europe and the Centre for Law and Democracy issued a report that ranked Canada 56th of the 95 countries surveyed for the quality of their access-to-information laws. The aspect of our laws that scored lowest was with respect to exceptions and refusals – we were in the bottom 20% of the countries surveyed. In Canada, the exemption of national security has been invoked with greater frequency in the past 10 years and, as an observer to Council of Europe proceedings, therefore, my country has as much to learn from as to contribute to this debate.

      The basic principle in democratic societies is that, following a free and open election, those who form the government should be given some latitude in how they govern. Elected governments have a right to govern within a legally prescribed period, following which they are obligated to go back to the people to seek a new mandate. Having a mandate to govern, however, is not the full expression of democracy and accountability. Governments continue to remain accountable to the individuals for whom they govern, and accountability requires openness and transparency in how governments function and in the decisions that they make.

      Access to information is central to accountability and transparency and is a sign of a healthy democratic society. A government whose first instinct is to obstruct, to conceal and to place barriers in the way of its people to access information is a government that abuses the fundamental principles of democracy. When a government unreasonably withholds information from its people, claiming national security interests routinely and without justification, there needs to be a rethink about access-to-information laws. We need to re-evaluate the exemptions afforded by legislation to governments.

      That said, are there legitimate circumstances in which citizens can be refused information held in the control of their government? Clearly, there are. The challenge lies in finding the balance between a real and meaningful approach to open government and the right to access information, and the right of governments to withhold information from the people.

The report and the resolution before you strike that balance between respecting legitimate national security concerns, while incorporating the global principles to emphasise transparency and to safeguard against abuse by public officials. Both committees and their rapporteurs are to be commended for their leadership in calling for the adoption of the global principles in modernising legislation and practice. That call should be endorsed by all democracies.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Casey. The next speaker is Mr Palacios.

      Mr PALACIOS (Spain) – Thank you, Mr President, and good morning, everyone. It is an honour for me to address the Parliamentary Assembly for the first time. I do so with due respect and greet all members here. It is a source of satisfaction to speak, and it gives me the opportunity to congratulate Mr Díaz Tejera and Mr Franken on the very good work that they have done on such an important and timely issue.

      Unfortunately, today more than ever, we need to reconcile access to information with national security, because there remains a need for citizens to exercise their fundamental right to freedom of expression and to have access to information held by the State. Given that the exercise of such rights is essential to all democratic societies, or to ones that claim to be such, it is right to check when one can restrict the right to information, and it is right to do so nowadays, when there is a greater disconnection between citizens and their government and political class.

In all countries of the world, therefore, we need to put an end to the most serious violations of human rights and freedoms committed by the State or its agents – forced disappearances, abductions, torture, rendition – and which can remain unpunished, because of the principle of national security. Hence it is right for restrictions on freedom of expression and on access to information to be limited only to those aspects that have been laid down in law – in advance, clearly and precisely – so that citizens know beforehand what the rules of the game are and what is legal and what is not.

Such a ruling must only be applied in situations that pose a serious threat to legitimate interests pertaining to national security. This is the case in Spain where, as Mr Beneyto said, the Spanish Parliament is debating at this very moment a law on transparency that picks up all those principles. It is sad that, at this stage of the 21st century, we have to talk about such issues, which should already have been resolved, and that we have to adopt reports such as this one. Regrettably, we still need to do so, because in many countries these fundamental rights are still being violated. I therefore congratulate the rapporteur on the report, and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Tzakri.

Ms TZAKRI (Greece) – Dear colleagues, the denial of access to information has often become the cornerstone of state corruption and one of the most important obstacles to business and the economy. In Greece, until 2010, it was a common practice to label almost every document of public authorities as sensitive information and to deny its publication. This attitude created huge problems, not only in the war on corruption, but also in its effect on the proper function of government concerns.

Today, I am very proud to say, as an under-secretary in the Greek Ministry of the Interior, that from 2010 we members of the government gave battle against this unacceptable practice of the public authorities in general – a battle we won. With zero cost, we created and implemented a pioneering programme of publication of almost all non-sensitive state documents on a specific government site. The programme is called “diavgeia”, which means transparency, and has been a huge step forward for our democracy and a great blow against corruption. Most of all, however, it boosted our citizens’ confidence in state affairs. Everyone can now access from their homes almost all the information of and about the actions of the public authorities

The report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights stresses wider issues of the management of access to information held by public authorities. The global principles on national security and the right to information could be important in boosting transparency and democratic oversight of certain procedures involving public authorities. This road map to transparency, if all member States accepted it, would create a whole new landscape for politics, security and the relationship between citizens and public authorities.

We must redeem relationships of good faith between our citizens and the State. Democracy is not about policy experts or politicians; it is about citizens’ participation in State affairs and the legitimisation of State authority.

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

Mr JAKAVONIS (Lithuania)* – I thank the rapporteurs for their excellent work. We must pool our efforts with the international experts in the Council of Europe who have examined the right to information and national security this year and considered practices and standards in the area. Attention has been drawn to the fact that restrictions on access to information should be bound by democratic values based on the rule of law and should serve legitimate ends. I stress that sometimes, in the public interest, full access to information is impossible, but if information is available about serious infringements of human rights, that information should be divulged.

I am pleased that the Council of Europe has started to discuss this topical and burning issue. It involves all sorts of different factors concerning national security and our approach to information, and it affects the economy as well as scientific discoveries. Commercial espionage also takes place. National security services throughout the world, not just in Europe, face this issue, and it affects individuals via the Internet. When the word “hacker” appeared, people did not know what it meant. It is said that Russia looks to its own and that everything there is local, but the issue could affect any country.

We must consider the balance between the rights of the individual and national security in an age of terrorism, smuggling and trafficking. In Lithuania, for example, in 2010, more than 100 000 phone calls were tapped. In Poland, the figure for 2012 was 1.6 million, meaning that 40 out of every 1 000 in the population had their phone tapped. In the UK, the number is 38 people per 1 000, which gives us pause for thought. It is excellent that the Assembly is beginning to discuss these issues, but the report should be just the beginning of our work in this area.

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

Mr ALEKSANDROV (Russian Federation)* – The problem that we are discussing is as old as the world itself. It has been much debated in the special committee in NATO, and by specialists and academics. It is a complex and important problem for the world and for democracy. A bomb has suddenly gone off with Snowden’s announcement that one of the world’s democratic countries is eavesdropping and carrying out surveillance of everyone and everything, not so much for reasons of national security as for political, economic and other interests. A tremor has run through the world, especially in civil society, which is particularly concerned by the situation, and in the world’s secret services, as their cover is under threat. Various countries are concerned.

      We must keep our priorities in order. Historically, it used to be said that the ends justified the means. It depends on the ends and on the means. It has been said many times that the means can destroy the world, and such attempts have been known in the history of our planet. Of course we need security, but it must be in professional and honest hands. Only weak, unprofessional secret services will keep demanding from their parliaments more money and more powers to use in partly abusive ways.

      As I see it, our position should be clear. In the debate between human rights and security, it must be individuals and their rights under the law that prevail. We cannot save people by destroying them; we cannot serve them by killing them. It is also obvious that the activities of secret services must be improved to make them more professional and ensure that they employ ethical, educated people. We will debate this issue many more times. We must have special hearings and improve parliamentary control of the secret services and their work.

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

Mr SASI (Finland) – I congratulate Mr Díaz Tejera on an excellent report. We must remember that the report is on public access to information held by public authorities, not authorities’ access to private information. They are two sides of the same coin, but we must remember the focus of the report.

It is important to emphasise that the main rule that should be followed is full access to information held by public authorities. That rule has been the law in Finland and Sweden for more than 300 years, so it is quite an old principle. However, I sometimes feel that it is not the main rule in the European Union. We see how politics is made: people use leaks to advocate their own political purposes.

It is fair that there should be full access to information. However, as the report states, for every rule, there must be an exception, and national security is a fully understandable exception to full access to information. However, the report also states that there must be clear rules around that exception: it must be provided for in law, there must be a legitimate purpose and it must be necessary for a democratic society. In addition, it is important, when we make exceptions, that we interpret the rules narrowly and that authorities trying to keep information secret must demonstrate a burden of proof that it is necessary. It is also important that information is kept secret for as short a time as possible, and that time must be reviewed periodically.

Paragraph 8.5 is important. In a way, it gives an exception to an exception, saying that in certain cases, secret information should be given to the public in order to advocate public debate and participation in political debate. However, it is also important to have very strong reasons for placing the public interest above the secrecy interests of the authorities. That is for people in a democratic society to weigh up, and then we can find quite a fair balance.

      Finally, it is important that secret services are controlled carefully and well, and that an outside body controls them. It is important that, when information is kept secret, an outside body is involved that estimates the limits and knows the reasons why information is kept secret. In that way, we can find a fair balance between the political debate and the secrecy interest. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Mr Taliadouros, you have three minutes.

      Mr TALIADOUROS (Greece) – Thank you, President. Ladies and gentlemen, knowledge is power and in our modern-day democracies access to information is the key to making sure that this power is in the hands of the people. In fact, access to information has become the most essential component of effective public scrutiny. It enables individuals to make conscious decisions on political and social matters. It is a fundamental right with deep political implications.

In the rule of law, limitations to fundamental rights must be prescribed by law and be necessary in a democratic society. Given that it is an aspect of the right to free speech, access to information may be subject to the limitations set forth in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As a matter of fact, it is often necessary to keep some information from the public, notably when disclosure is likely to threaten national security. National security is linked with the survival of the State and the well-being of the population.

When the disclosure of information functionally threatens some critical infrastructure for the defence, intelligence and diplomacy of a country, then a case should be made for secrecy. None the less, national security should not be confused with the credibility of government officials and public institutions. Nor should it constitute grounds for impunity or secrecy in order to protect them. In particular, the following principles are very important.

First, limitations to the rule of free access to information should be interpreted restrictively. Secondly, rules on the procedure for the classification and declassification of information and the designation of persons authorised to perform this task should be clear and publicly accessible. Thirdly, requests for access to information should be dealt with in a reasonable time. Decisions to refuse access should be duly motivated, open to appeal before an independent body and ultimately subject to judicial review.

Bearing in mind these considerations, I believe that we will manage to strike a fair balance between the need for sufficient access to information and the protection of national security. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you.

The last speaker is Ms Clune. I apologise to the others.

Ms CLUNE (Ireland) – Thank you, President. The Prism scandal has been a wake-up call for us all and is probably one reason why we are having this discussion today. I am sure we will have many more.

In the wake of the Prism scandal, European Union Commissioner Reding said that we must advance to stricter European Union data protection laws and she is moving in that direction. We need to join forces across Europe and we are beginning to see signs of that happening now. Rules are on the table and the Commissioner wants to put these in place before the European Union elections next May, which is quite a short time. We must ensure that companies offering products or services to European citizens have to abide by European Union rules, even if they are headquartered outside the European Union, whether in the United States, India, Asia, or wherever.

There is a difference between European Union and US data protection laws. In the US, data can be processed unless it is strictly prohibited, but in the European Union personal data cannot be processed unless it is specifically authorised. That is the clear difference. Personal data need to be protected; it is a fundamental right and I do not believe that there is any room for negotiation in this area.

The Safe Harbor data agreement between the European Union and the US, which has been highlighted, was in operation between 1998 and 2000. It has been stated that that could have been a loophole, as it allows data transfer from European Union to US companies. It is self-regulated and an unsupervised code of conduct operates in that regard. We all know that if areas are not regulated or supervised, or are not policed, that can lead to abuse.

However, there is a balance between personal data and the freedom and security that we all need. Our security forces need to be supported. There is widespread support for the principle of data collection to prevent terrorism. Our national and international security forces must be supported in this way. This debate should not come out as anti-US in any way. In fact, we regularly turn to them for support in the fight against terrorism. It should be noted that, on a worldwide basis, we rely on the US. Let us be honest about it. That needs to be said.

      At the same time, there should be awareness and transparency in respect of the right to private information and what data is being collected by individuals. Certainly, I support the principle of freedom of information, which is important.

THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Belyakov on a point of order.

Mr BELYAKOV (Russian Federation)* - Sorry, President, there was a misunderstanding. I was on the list to speak, so I should be most grateful if I could.

THE PRESIDENT* – You were not in your seat when I called your name and the debate continued with the following speakers. But I did call your name. I am sorry.

I must now interrupt the list of speakers. I am sorry about those who could not take the floor, but you know that if you have not been able to speak you may provide, within 24 hours, a typed copy of your speech to the Table Office in Room 1083 for publication in the Official Report.

I call Mr Díaz Tejera to reply.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* - Thank you, President. I thank the 40 members who were involved in this debate and all those who intervened and those who participated in the drafting, because they contributed to our teamwork here in the Assembly.

This report is contrary to the American position, but we Europeans owe a lot to the Americans and to the Russians – we can think of Nazism, for example. Although I was appointed rapporteur two years ago, I asked Dick Marty if he wanted to deal with the matter, because he had worked on this subject, and I thought it logical to respect the work-line of the Council of Europe and respect the work of our forebears. He said that he could not do it, so I tried to pick this up.

Over the years we have been listening to things. This report provides a more certain legal framework for public officers who work in the general interest in the field of intelligence and security. Security is among the material conditions that make it possible for us to exercise our freedoms. Our highest value is freedom. We all admire those who see to the security and material conditions that make it possible for us to exercise our freedom.

Transparency and rights are not absolute values. On the contrary, when they clash with others we have to assess which is most worthy of protection. Transparency is not an unlimited value. On the contrary, the magic word in a parliamentary democracy is “limit”. Who has to establish limits? On whom do we depend? On the will of a dictator – a caudillo – or on the caprice of a human being? No. We want to depend on the will of the law. Yesterday, Voltaire was quoted. It is the law that establishes the limits. Who interprets the law? An independent national authority. It could be a magistrate, a supreme court or a parliamentary authority elected by qualified majority. We must reaffirm the work of those who drafted Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in Rome in 1950 and update this protection in the face of new challenges and problems.

      We are not concerned today with electronic espionage, to which many have referred, or the efforts of intelligence services to spy on millions of people – these things are of concern, which is why the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has agreed to produce a report on them, but today’s subject is the right of access to information under Article 10 and the limits that authorities may sometimes impose on access and transparency. Those exceptions must require a legitimate reason and be in line with democracy and the general interest, and there must be an authority responsible for deciding on them.

      Eight of the 11 amendments have been accepted. We think the others should be included in another report. As Professor Franken said, they make apposite points, but ones that should be included in the next report. On paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2, of course a public debate might create problems, but the greater fear is that there be no public debate. I therefore invite members to support this report, which is the result of teamwork, and to vote for the recommendation. Were we members of intelligence services or governments, we would set the matter in a different context, but as parliamentarians, our job is to reaffirm our work on human rights, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. To provide a check and balance, parliamentarians must do their job, not that of the intelligence services or public officers. I therefore ask you to respect this piece of teamwork and vote for our draft resolution, which has taken two years to produce.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Díaz Tejera. Mr Chope, as Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, do you wish to intervene?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The rapporteur referred to teamwork. The report is notable for the close working between the two Committees, and I would like to express my appreciation for the contribution to the amendments of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. Amendment 6, adopted unanimously by our committee, shows the importance of narrowing the exceptions from the rule of free access to information other than in cases of national security. In my opinion, the need to tighten these exceptions and promote the overriding public interest, as set out in paragraph 8.5 of the draft resolution, are more important than ever.

      One example, which comes out in the explanatory memorandum and paragraphs 25 to 29 of the report, are the efforts of the European Central Bank to prevent the publication of documents clearly showing that Greece used cross-currency swaps with Goldman Sachs to disguise its true level of public debt prior to entering the eurozone. We all know the consequences of that for Greece, the eurozone and the whole of Europe. Although Mrs Merkel has now declared that Germany made a big mistake in conniving in this circumvention of the rules, the EU General Court has ruled against disclosure, despite Article 225 of the Lisbon Treaty guaranteeing a right of access to such documents. That shows the continuing challenge and is now the subject of an appeal to the European Court of Justice that has already been delayed for more than six months. It will be interesting to see the outcome of that appeal. It will give us some guidance for the future interaction between the European Court of Justice and our own European Court of Human Rights.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

      The Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee has presented a draft resolution to which 11 amendments and three sub-amendments have been tabled; and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

They have been organised in the order in which they relate to the report. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

I understand that Mr Chope wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments which were unanimously approved by the committee should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.11: Amendments 3, 6, 8 and 2.

Is that so, Mr Chope?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Yes.

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

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 3, insert the following paragraph:

"Recalling the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Assembly strongly confirms that the systematic violation of human rights undermines true national security and may jeopardise international peace and security. A State responsible for such violation shall not invoke national security as a justification."

Amendment 6, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.2, delete the following words:

"such as the protection of international relations, health and safety or the environment, or on privacy interests".

Amendment 8, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 8.4, add the following sentence:

"Public archives containing secret information should periodically review whether the legitimacy of secrecy still exists on national security grounds."

Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Ms Arpine Hovhannisyan, Mr Philippe Mahoux, Mr Kimmo Sasi, which is in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9, insert the following paragraph:

"The Assembly is worried about recent disclosures on massive surveillance of communications by secret services and resolves to follow up this important issue in due course."

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

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5, insert the following paragraph:

"Public authorities may access private information, communication or personal data on grounds of national security only, where this has been prescribed by law, an overriding requirement of the need for such access is established and the concrete measure is necessary in a democratic society in order to protect the existence of the nation or its territorial integrity or political independence against force or threat of force. Public authorities must not delegate this power to private persons or companies contracted to work for the protection of national security otherwise. Measures applied in this context must be open to administrative or judicial review."

I call Mr Franken to support Amendment 4.

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – If there was free access to national security information, the security services of other States would have the same free access. In the name of balance, therefore, it is important to reaffirm the requirement set by the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, the amendment would help to avoid too broad a definition of national security.

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

I call Mr Sasi

Mr SASI (Finland) – The amendment begins: “Public authorities may access private information”, but that is not the focus of the report. The focus is access to information held by public authorities, not private people. It is not a surveillance report, so the amendment should be discussed on a separate occasion.

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

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.1, after the words "should be freely accessible", insert the following words:

"by the public, where such information is of public concern, or by an individual who has the right to receive information such as personal data".

I call Mr Franken to support Amendment 5.

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – Public authorities hold information on citizens’ private life, which is protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, meaning that not all the information held by public authorities should be available freely or publicly. It has to be balanced with people’s privacy. I think, for example, of health records.

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

I call Mr Sasi.

Mr SASI (Finland) – The main rule must remain that in the text. As a general rule, all information held by public authorities should be freely accessible. In this context, there should be no limit to this rule. The amendment, which mentions “public concern”, is vague and would place an unnecessary limitation on the right of access to information. To my mind, that would be very bad.

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

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 7, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 8.3, add the following sentence:

“The neutrality of the internet requires that public authorities, internet providers and others abstain from using invasive wiretapping technologies, such as deep packet inspection, or from otherwise interfering with the data traffic of internet users.”

      I call Mr Franken to support Amendment 7.

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – Network neutrality is mentioned in paragraph 8.3. It is necessary to explain the concept through an additional sentence at the end of the paragraph.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 7, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in Amendment 7, replace the words “at the end of paragraph 8.3, add the following sentence” with the following words:

“before paragraph 9, insert the following paragraph”.

      I call Mr Díaz Tejera to support Sub-Amendment 1.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) – We are in favour.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 7, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Unanimously in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 9, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraphs 8.5.1 and 8.5.2.

      I call Mr Franken to support Amendment 9.

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – The list of examples in paragraphs 8.5.1 and 8.5.2 go far outside the principles that guide the report. They are also rather imprecise and abstract, and would not be covered by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The amendment is important for the credibility of the whole resolution.

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

      I call Mr Sasi.

      Mr SASI (Finland) – Thank you, Mr President. We accept national security interests, but we want limitations to that. Paragraph 8.5 says that overriding public interest is the main test, and then we try to describe what the main test means – that it is to promote political debate and public debate. In certain situations we need to be able to discuss that secret information in society, and these are very good examples.

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

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 10, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8.7, insert the following paragraph:

“Recalling Recommendation (2000) 7 of the Committee of Ministers, the Assembly reiterates that the following measures should not be applied if their purpose is to circumvent the right of journalists not to disclose information identifying a source: (i) interception orders or actions concerning communication or correspondence of journalists or their employers, (ii) surveillance orders or actions concerning journalists, their contacts or their employers, or (iii) search or seizure orders or actions concerning the private or business premises, belongings or correspondence of journalists or their employers or personal data related to their professional work.”

I call Mr Franken to support Amendment 10.

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – Interception, search and surveillance measures applied on the grounds of national security might compromise the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is therefore useful to recall that here.

THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 10, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in Amendment 10, replace the words “after paragraph 8.7” with the following words:

“before paragraph 9”.

Mr Díaz Tejera indicates his support for Sub-Amendment 1.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is in favour.

The vote is open.

      Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 10, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Unanimously in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 10, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 11, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.8, second sentence, replace the words "an independent body" by the following words:

“a national authority”.

I call Mr Franken to support Amendment 11.

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights uses the legal term “national authority”. “Independent body” is not clear, and not in conformity with the Convention.

THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 11, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in Amendment 11, before the words “national authority”, insert the following word:

“independent”.

Mr Díaz Tejera indicates his support for Sub-Amendment 1.

Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment?

I call Mr Beneyto.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – Both are linked. Why should we negate the possibility of having an international independent body? Why should it necessarily be a national authority? The previous formulation – that of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights – was better, so that the text just said “independent body”.

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

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

      Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Unanimously in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 11, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Ariev, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Ryabikin, Mr Gulyás and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 8.8, insert the following words:

“In no way should there be any restrictions on the information pertaining to financial statements of state officials, persons holding positions and civil servants, as well as pertaining to spending made by state officials or public institutions, persons holding positions and civil servants in the execution of their functions.”

      I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 1.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Dear colleagues, my amendment does not touch the global problem, but it is important for democracy among the young, because information about financial statements of State authorities is strictly closed, with the so-called explanation of security reasons. If you are in favour of transparency, I call on you to support the amendment.

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

      I call Mr Sasi.

      Mr SASI (Finland) – Thank you, Mr President. I fully agree with what is written in the amendment. However, it concerns the accountability of civil servants. It is not within the scope of this text, which is about access to information by public authorities and limitation for national security interests. I am against the amendment, but only because it is outside the focus.

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

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 3293, as amended.

      The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 13293, as amended, is adopted, with 140 votes for, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13293.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 13293 is adopted, with 130 votes for, 2 against and 0 abstentions.

3. Address by Mr Serzh Sargsyan, President of Armenia

      The PRESIDENT* - We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Serzh Sargsyan, President of Armenia. After his address, Mr Sargsyan has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

I welcome you on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We are delighted to have you here with us, along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, who Chairs the Committee of Ministers, and, of course, the ambassador as well, and your whole team here today.

As I said to you this morning in my office, we are very happy to welcome you to this house of democracy, of which you are very much a part. We appreciate your country’s current chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, which will continue for another few weeks, and we are very attentive to the message you have been sending out. Some of my colleagues want to ask you questions, and we look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Mr Sargsyan, you have the floor.

      Mr SARGSYAN (President of Armenia) – I welcome this opportunity to address the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, our Organisation which represents 800 million Europeans. It is a great honour and responsibility for my country to hold the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers for the first time ever. During our six-month chairmanship we have aspired to make a contribution to strengthening the European value system as a means of confirming that Europe is a family of nations committed to common values, not just a geographical continent.

      A few days ago Armenia celebrated the 22nd anniversary of her independence. The 22-year long path of building a free and democratic state has not been easy, with Azerbaijan constantly uttering war threats and instigating an arms race and Turkey closing the shortest route connecting Armenia with the world for so many years contrary to all international rules and norms. That has forced us to exert superhuman effort in developing a modern state.

      Operating in this unique and complex set of circumstances, successive Armenian Governments and the Armenian people have remained focused on the pursuit of substantial reforms in all areas of public life in our country. The declaration of independence was the realisation of a dream held by my people for centuries and over generations. Accession to the Council of Europe restored our historic and cultural belonging to the European family of nations. Our society has always aspired to have a state system anchored in European values such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law. We view our membership of the Council of Europe and our co-operation with other European organisations as an important means of consolidating democracy and carrying out effective reforms in Armenia.

      The results of our joint efforts are visible and irreversible. Armenia today is a country of free speech and a free press. We safeguard the freedom of assembly. Civil society is vibrant and aware of its rights, and asserts and upholds them. These and numerous other achievements are essential for our future.

      Armenia completed three major electoral cycles in the last 18 months. As a result of the May 2012 parliamentary election all the significant political players in Armenia gained seats in the parliament, making it a stronger and more viable political organ. The 2013 presidential election was conducted in a competitive environment. The Yerevan city council election was held in May. The Council of Europe had observation missions at all three elections. The first two were observed by the Assembly, while the Yerevan city council election was observed by the Council of Europe’s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. Delegations were able to observe the elections and produced reports containing relevant recommendations. I value these reports as representing the candid opinions of partners interested in Armenia’s future.

      We have followed up on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly and other international partners regarding the organisation of free and fair elections. They are being rigorously considered and acted upon by a taskforce created specifically for improving the electoral process. A broad public consultation will be held in the next few days, focusing on the legal amendments proposed under the relevant recommendations, and with the participation of all stakeholders and the support of the international community.

      We face a number of serious challenges, including unemployment, poverty and corruption. Our government is implementing comprehensive programmes to address them.

The rule of law is another important priority. Equality before the law is a sine qua non for our economic and political advancement. The ultimate objectives are human dignity and fundamental human rights and freedoms. The State, in turn, is bound by fundamental human and civic rights and freedoms, as that is the directly applicable law. These provisions, as enshrined in our constitution, predetermine the behaviour of individuals and State authorities in an effort to strengthen the rule of law and civil society.

Virtually all democratic constitutions enshrine the substance of the rule of law, but what matters more is its practical implementation, because for those in authority, being limited by law then becomes a rule of life. In young democracies, in particular, that requires a consistent and structured effort. It requires an independent judiciary and the impartial administration of justice. In that context, I believe that the conference held in July, under the auspices of Armenia’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe, on the rule of law and the scope of discretion of powers generated strong interest because it continued the process initiated under the UK’s chairmanship.

Our country has embarked on a new stage of systemic reforms in these areas. Long-term programmes are being implemented, all centred on safeguarding human rights and freedoms and creating an environment of tolerance, pluralism, non-discrimination, justice and mutual trust in the country.

Consolidating democracy and strengthening respect for human rights are our next priorities, and they are connected directly to the rule of law. Notable achievements in this field include a number of major amendments to the judicial code to improve transparency and fairness in the selection of judicial candidates. We remain focused on legal aspects of the appointment of judges, with a view to safeguarding their complete independence. The penitentiary institutions are being modernised and a probation service will be created. We have developed and started implementing the Armenia 2012-16 strategic programme of legal and judicial reforms, which I am sure will produce a judicial and legal system consistent with the standards of a modern democratic State. In that context, I attach much importance to the full implementation of the 2012-14 Armenia and Council of Europe action plan, which contains a number of important initiatives in this field.

We have had success, but we shall not stop there. I have undertaken a process of reforming the constitution of the Republic of Armenia with a view to further strengthening the safeguards for the rule of law and respect for human rights and freedoms, achieving an appropriate balance of powers and improving the effectiveness of public administration. We would be grateful if the Council of Europe, along with others, supported that process through the Venice Commission.

The European Union is one of Armenia’s most important partners. Wide-scale reforms in relation to human rights, democracy and the rule of law make up the core of our relationship. The Eastern Partnership instrument, created under the EU’s Eastern Partnership and in co-operation with the Council of Europe, is an important initiative. It covers a variety of activities in the participating States relating to electoral standards, judicial reform, good governance, corruption and the fight against cybercrime.

There has recently been much talk of the civilizational choice of the countries participating in the European Union’s Eastern Partnership. We have always stated that we are not prepared to view that matter in such a dimension. Armenia aims to continue its comprehensive and mutually beneficial partnership with the European Union. From the outset of the Eastern Partnership initiative, and even before, we have stated, and will continue to state, that we aspire to have the closest and widest possible relationship with the European Union, and that policy will continue. Armenia has a close allied relationship with Russia. Armenia has not built a new relationship at the expense of the relationship with her strategic ally, just as we would refuse to build a relationship with any partner that was aimed against any other partner. We will continue to match the relationships and interests with our key partners.

Peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue under the aegis of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs has been our priority, and it will remain so until we achieve a comprehensive settlement. We value the efforts of all those who support regional stability, but we also know that we must rely primarily on our own strength in order to contain the opponent in the event of possible negative developments and in order to maintain peace, especially as the leader of our neighbouring State continues to make public statements threatening war, declaring Armenians to be “Enemy No. 1” and boasting about disproportionate increases in military spending and the build-up of arms.

None the less, I believe that the people of Azerbaijan, or at least a significant number of them, do not share that mindset, because anyone in Azerbaijan who tries to recall candid memories of the past once shared with the Armenian people is publicly admonished, or threatened with having an ear cut off and being expelled from the country. Therefore, the actual mood of the people of Azerbaijan is not voiced. Whatever is heard is that which is demanded by the propaganda machine, hence the ineffectiveness of any attempt at confidence-building measures.

I am sure that our peoples will have a better future than the one contemplated by some leaders who preach hatred and war. As I have stated publicly on other occasions, I do not consider the people of Azerbaijan to be the enemies of the Armenian people. We are capable of respectfully resolving our disagreements and peacefully coexisting as neighbours.

Two day ago, my people mourned at the funeral of Sos Sargsyan, National Artist of the Republic of Armenia and one of the most gifted Armenian actors. The master’s last public statement was an open letter to the intellectuals of Azerbaijan, an appeal for peace, justice and reasonableness. The great intellectual wrote: “Are you really going to unleash a war, my dear neighbours? Nothing will come of it but innocent victims. Why? It is very simple: Karabakh for you is a territory, but for us it is a sacred fatherland.”

Indeed, we regularly appeal for sobriety, and claim firmly that the zealous incitement of xenophobia, unyielding threats of the use of force and the arms race will not do any good. Peace and co-operation are the only feasible means of building a prosperous future for the peoples of the region.

This is an axiom that requires no proof. International experience shows that democratic societies are best placed to resolve conflicts peacefully. In the past two decades, democratic institutions have been forged and continuously developed in Nagorno-Karabakh. According to well-known international organisations such as Freedom House, the level of democracy in Nagorno-Karabakh is noticeably better than that in some of its neighbours. Karabakh has been, is, and will remain a part of Europe. Its society is a part of the European family, regardless of its political status. Therefore, I believe that the Council of Europe could, regardless of status, initiate direct contacts with Karabakh in the relevant areas of its functions, especially as the Council of Europe has similar experience in other conflict zones.

      As Armenians, we have been destined to become advocates in the fight against genocide. Genocide is not only a heinous crime against mankind, but a striking manifestation of fascism and intolerance and a grave encroachment on the right to life. People who have survived such tragedies have a distinct mission to prevent their recurrence. The best way to prevent atrocious crimes against mankind is to discuss those terrible pages of history and to assess the past in light of universal values.

Fighting against the preconditions that give rise to such heinous crimes is, in my opinion, of equal importance. Armenia is taking practical steps to mobilise the efforts of the international community for the prevention of the crimes of genocide, as well as combating their root causes. For years, Armenia has initiated various resolutions on the prevention of genocide in different international forums. Time and again, we have helped the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt resolutions on the prevention of genocide. The aim of these resolutions is to keep the international community focused on the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and to remind the international community of the commitments made by States to eliminate crimes against humanity.

      Armenia has declared the fight against intolerance, and propaganda inciting discrimination and hatred, as priorities for the term of the Armenian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. We consider it shameful that such practices still exist in the modern era, and that in some countries they are even encouraged at state level. We have to be determined to eradicate such practices in any corner of the world.

      Our societies are undergoing major transformations and face numerous challenges. What are our values in the 21st century? Which values are more prevalent today than others? Why do extremists and political currents and practices gain momentum? Why is social cohesion weakening? Why did the Council of Europe have to initiate a youth campaign against online hate speech? These and other questions are hard to answer in a few sentences. These practices are reprehensible. In an era of modern information technology, they can spread momentarily among millions of people. Swift and adequate responses are needed. It is our duty to strengthen bridges between nations, citizens, societies and religions, so that future generations inherit a much more peaceful and safer planet.

      We remain focused on Syria. We are deeply concerned about the events happening there, which are causing the deaths of innocent civilians. There is a community of several thousands of Armenians who are an integral part of the Syrian people. Armenia unequivocally welcomes the Russian-American understanding on a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Syria, as well as the UN Security Council resolution adopted a few days ago.

      We all have a duty to unite our efforts for the future. We need especially to engage the young generations in building our future. They are young, courageous and full of energy. Our societies will have a brighter future if we feed them the right ideas and educate them with true values that must be enriched by freedom and democracy and free from prejudice. As a unique Organisation setting and spreading standards of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, the Council of Europe has a crucial mission in this process. Its role in accomplishing our common objectives must be maximised.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr Sargsyan, for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you.

I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues should be asking questions and not making speeches. The first question is from Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – Armenia had a final agreement with the Eastern Partnership and an association agreement with the European Union, but at the last minute changed its mind and joined the Russian customs union. Russia is putting a lot of pressure not only on Armenia but on Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Azerbaijan. In the case of Armenia, I understand that the pressure concerns security in Armenia and the support of Russia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. My question is this: did Armenia receive a so-called offer it could not refuse from Russia?

      Mr SARGSYAN* – First, Armenia remains on track. The customs union is not the customs union of Russia; it is the customs union of several countries. From the very beginning of the negotiations we always told our European colleagues in the European Commission that our policy is one of matching interests, not conflicting interests. Our colleagues have agreed with us and said that the Eastern Partnership is not aimed against any third party, State or organisation. The Eastern Partnership can always supplement activities of other organisations, meaning that our interests could be complementary in this area.

      We still stand ready to sign an association agreement with the European Union. Unfortunately, after stating our intention to join the customs union, our European Commission colleagues said that there was a direct conflict between the customs union and the free trade agreement, as well as different rules. We suggested that we should therefore sign the association agreement, which mainly relates to political reforms. We have said that we are ready and committed to carrying out those reforms, and we are continuing that process.

      As to pressure, it would be redundant to speak of any. I can tell you frankly – I would not say anything publicly but the truth – that no official from the Russian Federation or the customs union has uttered even half a word about the need for Armenia’s accession. We were the ones expressing that desire, because we face a simple reality: for more than 20 years, we have been in a military-security system of countries that now form a customs union. We cannot isolate ourselves from the geo-economic area in which we have operated for more than two decades.

If time permitted, I could give you a much longer account of Armenia’s economic interests, but I repeat my reassurance that we will continue to co-operate closely with the European Union, which is what we want.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr President. The next question is from Lord Prescott on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord PRESCOTT (United Kingdom) – Mr President, you will recall our four years of negotiations, with me as the rapporteur for this Assembly, relating to democracy, human rights and changes of law to create a better situation in Armenia. Thanks to your co-operation, that was achieved. However, are you aware that 29 people in your prisons are conscientious objectors who refuse to serve in your armed forces, which is clearly in breach of Council of Europe principles? Will you release them and offer them an alternative civilian activity?

Mr SARGSYAN* – Lord Prescott, I again thank you publicly for your co-operation. We did, indeed, negotiate effectively, and Armenia has benefited from that. You will certainly know that to achieve European standards for freedom of conscience, we carried out an immense amount of work and, showing political will, introduced legal amendments. We have already changed the legislation on alternative forms of service. People who do not want to serve in the army, because of their conscience, will be exempted from criminal liability under our procedures. There is a political will, legislative reform has been implemented and the process is under way.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr President. The next question is from Ms Guţu on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – What have been Armenia’s expectations for the Eastern Partnership summit that will take place in Vilnius at the end of November since you became a member of the customs union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan? Will Armenia wish to sign an association agreement with the European Union?

Mr SARGSYAN* – We will take part in the Vilnius summit and, in the run-up to it, our expectation is that changes will be made to the negotiating document.

      We stand fully ready to sign the association agreement, but there are two facets – the association agreement and the deep and comprehensive free trade area. Since our European colleagues have told us that the DCFTA contradicts the customs union treaties, we anticipate that we will sign only the association agreement. The association agreement and reforms to be taken under it are the nexus of our relationship with the European Union. The main document is the association agreement, and we want to make use of its provisions. We are benefiting from the talks with the European Union on reforming our country. We would like to be in Vilnius and would like to sign the association agreement.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr President. The next question is from Mr David Davies on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr David DAVIES (United Kingdom) – Mr President, your country has obviously received a large number of Syrians, including those of Armenian extraction, as a result of the conflict in Syria. Are you satisfied with their current living conditions? May I press you on whether you would be willing to support talks that involve all parties – I stress, all parties – now taking part in that conflict?

Mr SARGSYAN* – We support the talks and the formula for the agreement that has been reached. As for the living conditions and general plight of our sisters and brothers who have fled Syria, I can tell you that I have not been satisfied about the living conditions of some Armenian citizens for quite a while, because there is poverty and unemployment in my country. Despite that, we are doing our best to ensure that, as far as possible, Armenians fleeing from Syria feel at ease. We have provided housing to some and support to others. A special school has been opened in Yerevan, using the Syrian school curriculum, so that when the children return to Syria, they can continue their education in Syrian schools, because we believe that the situation in Syria will return to normal. We have launched a process with international organisations committed to supporting refugees from Syrian. Ethnic Armenians are no exception: we will do our best to ensure that our sisters and brothers coming from Syria feel protected in Armenia.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr President. The next question is from Mr Papadimoulis on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece)* – My question is clear: do you want to maintain the status quo on Nagorno-Karabakh or are you prepared to look for a political compromise? In relation to bilateral relations with Turkey, are you in discussions with that country or planning to take any initiatives to reduce tension between your two countries?

Mr SARGSYAN* – As you know, the OSCE Minsk Group is dealing with the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. We have been negotiating for more than 20 years. From the outset, it was clear to us that the problem could be resolved only on the basis of compromise and mutual concessions. Without mutual concessions, there can be no solution.

In 2007, after lengthy talks, the OSCE Minsk Group proposed to us and the other parties a document that later became known as the Madrid Principles. The document proposes resolution of the conflict on the basis of three fundamental principles: the non-use of force or threats of force, the right of peoples to self-determination and the territorial integrity of states. After we received the document, we declared that it would be possible to resolve the conflict on the basis of those principles. After a pause, the Azerbaijanis also declared that they were ready to resolve the conflict on that basis.

From 2008, after my first presidential election, I became directly engaged in the talks with the President of Azerbaijan. We held talks for more than three years with the mediation of the former Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev. In the summer of 2011, some people believed that the parties were ready to sign an agreement on the fundamental principles. We travelled to Kazan in Russia to have a meeting to sum up the talks and sign a document. On the eve of that event, I made a statement to this Organisation and I said that I strongly doubted whether our counterparts were ready to sign a document. The international community believed differently. Unfortunately, I turned out to be right. In Kazan, instead of signing the document, the Azerbaijanis came up with 10 new amendments, which we naturally could not accept.

From that time on, the Azerbaijanis have created artificial obstacles to the peace talks and have escalated the situation by elevating the tone of their threats and building up their arms. Their goal, which they do not hide, is to solve the issue by force. They are thereby refusing to accept two of the three principles proposed by the co-chairs of the Minsk Group: the non-use of force or threats of force and the right of peoples to self-determination.

We maintain our opinion that the issue has to be solved on the basis of mutual concessions. The three principles have to be applied concurrently. We are ready to reach a solution on the basis of mutual concessions because we want peace and stability. We want the resources that are being spent on an arms race in the region to be redirected towards the prosperity of our peoples.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next question is from Ms Postanjyan.

Ms POSTANJYAN (Armenia)* – It is obvious that you are here not because of the will of the Armenian people, but as a result of an organised crime – the theft of the vote of the Armenian people on 18 February. You therefore cannot represent the will and authority of the Armenian people. I will therefore ask a question on a different topic.

Have you recently been in a casino in Europe? You are known to the public as a gambler. Have you lost €70 million? Who paid for the money that you lost? If that was not the amount of your loss in a casino, what was it?

      Mr SARGSYAN* – I am deeply convinced, Ms Postanjyan, that I do represent the Armenian people. I am proud to do so. Unfortunately, your candidate was not able to display the kind of qualities that one needs to present to the Armenian people in a presidential election.

Your statement about a casino is another product of your imagination. I have never been in any casino in Europe. I do not gamble in casinos. Unfortunately, I could not afford €70 million. If I could, I would donate some of it to you so that you could be happier with your life and not have so much evilness in you.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Ivanovski.

Mr IVANOVSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – According to the reports of our Assembly, Armenia has made limited progress in its democratic development. The judiciary lacks independence, the administration continues to be pressured by the ruling party and the levels of crime and corruption are not decreasing. Serious concerns also remain over elections. Voters report pressure and intimidation, and public resources have been misused in the ruling party’s campaign. What serious and concrete improvements will be made to democratic standards, particularly with respect to elections, to fulfil Armenia’s obligations as part of the Council of Europe, and when will that happen?

      Mr SARGSYAN* – I am sorry; I do not know which country or faction you represent, but I see that you are hostile to Armenia. I invite you to read carefully all the reports on Armenia. I advise you first to read the reports of the international observation missions, which clearly state that Armenia has made progress. You should take the time and effort to go through those reports. I respect your right to express your opinion. I hope that your country has a greatly improving democracy, although I do not know which country you represent. If you are so deeply concerned about the level of democracy in Armenia, I am sure that you are a dozen times more concerned about the democratic processes in your country.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Fournier.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – My question echoes that of Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin. Armenia has said that it wants to join the customs union that was set up by Russia. That rapprochement has led to question marks being raised in the European Union, because at the beginning of 2013, your country said that it wanted to strengthen its links to the European Union and that it would sign a protocol to the partnership and co-operation agreement. This situation seems to be jeopardising the European free trade agreement that your country had been planning to sign at the Eastern Partnership summit at the end of November. What plans do you have for relations between your country and the European Union?

      Mr SARGSYAN* – As I said earlier, we will continue to develop our relationship with the European Union. We will go to Vilnius. We are talking to our colleagues in the European Union about what kind of document we may be able to sign.

Let me reiterate, the policy is one of complementarity. From the very beginning of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership talks, we agreed with our European colleagues that our relationship with the Union would not be promoted at the expense of any existing relationship with our allies – our relationship with the European Union would complement our relationship with other organisations. For more than three years, that was the mutual understanding. I regret that our colleagues in the European Union deemed a free trade agreement incompatible with our accession to the customs union. The association agreement is about not only a free trade area, but, primarily and fundamentally, political reform. I declare that we will continue such reforms, and that we stand ready to sign that part of the association agreement in Vilnius.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA Spain) – How many times, Mr President, have I spoken with your wonderful diplomatic representation in Madrid, and how often have they given me the same answer that you have given us this morning about the four UN Security Council resolutions and the two adopted here in the Council of Europe? With complete respect and affection, therefore, what can we do to help you in this conflict? What initiatives could you take tomorrow? Otherwise we will continue for ever and a day talking about such initiatives. That is my question, thank you.

      Mr SARGSYAN – In brief, on the four UN Security Council resolutions, this is the question that Azerbaijanis do not like to answer: why four resolutions? All four resolutions primarily required termination of warfare, stabilisation of the situation and then resolution of the issues. That is the reason: Azerbaijan never complied with the core requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions, which were about discontinuing the fighting. After each successive resolution, the Azerbaijanis would unleash or prepare a new attack and, as a result, they would lose more land, and then a resolution would be adopted by the Security Council. Eventually, the Security Council saw that Azerbaijan was not willing to stop the fighting, which is why it stopped adopting resolutions. Armenia diligently complied with those components of the Security Council resolutions that were relevant to Armenia: for Armenia to use its influence with the population of Nagorno-Karabakh to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. That is the situation.

What could the international community and you here in particular do? Each one of our states, by joining the Council of Europe, has assumed commitments. In 2001, we and Azerbaijan assumed the obligation to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by peaceful means. As you can see, we remain steady in declaring that the conflict must be resolved peacefully, but almost daily the leadership of Azerbaijan – at least weekly at the level of the president – is claiming that the conflict must be solved by military means.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should ask Azerbaijan if it is really committed to its obligations. If not, there must be a decision; if yes, it should comply with its obligations. Most importantly, we should reach a conclusion, which should be that the conflict has to be resolved by peaceful means. I do not say that because Azerbaijan is building up more arms or has a greater population than Armenia, nor because we are afraid of losing a possible war. We are afraid of war and do not want to fight – we are not afraid of fighting, but we do not want a war. War will not solve the problem. We cannot engage in war forever – even the Hundred Years’ War ended one day – and, eventually, we will have to find a peaceful solution.

Through the co-chairs, the international community has conveyed to us that any solution has to be anchored in three fundamental principles. First, peacefully, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have to be able to determine how they continue their lives; they have to decide if they are part of Azerbaijan, independent or part of Armenia. That is for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to determine, just as other peoples have decided their futures. Also, we agree that Azerbaijan should strive for its territorial integrity, but we do not have any territorial claims on Azerbaijan. Those are the three principles on which any solution of the conflict must be solved.

First and foremost, confidence must be built, and such confidence will be built when we – I refer primarily to the leadership of Azerbaijan – stop uttering threats. If the top leader utters threats, the bulk of society will repeat such threats, which is why no talks will succeed among the PACE delegates, among intellectuals or at any level. You should help to build an atmosphere of confidence. You should demand that we all honour our commitments.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – Mr Sargsyan, you mentioned territorial integrity and claims. Azerbaijan has had 20% of its territory occupied by Armenia, including seven regions that never belonged to Nagorno-Karabakh. At the same time, you have territorial claims on Turkey and Georgia, and you are playing games with European integration and the customs union. Do you think that such policies have a future?

      Mr SARGSYAN – The kind of policy you described does not have a future, but that kind of policy also has nothing in common with ours. We have never made any territorial claims on Turkey; if you can find a single speech or statement saying that, I would apologise to you, but you would be better collecting information. As to Georgia, you are breaking news to me, and that news is ridiculous – to us and to the Georgians. I do not know who you represent, but how could you possibly say that of two brotherly nations and try to incite a problem?

      All European organisations, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, have consistently supported States in the sovereign expression of their will. It is up to the Republic of Armenia whether it joins the customs union, the European Union or, perhaps, the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation. Why would we have to report to you?

      What do you mean by “playing games”? I am not an athlete. You may have done it in your youth, but we do not play games. We are engaged in politics and policy, and we pursue our politics in the best interests of our people. As for the claim that 20% of Azerbaijan’s territory is occupied, I ask you to update your knowledge of math. Then your attitude to Armenia should change. That is my request of you.

      One of the four UN resolutions mentioned earlier states that Armenia was not related to the warfare in Nagorno-Karabakh. The UN Security Council set up a special fact-finding commission that looked into it. Today, we believe that the Republic of Armenia and its armed forces are the guarantors of the security of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. I declare here that if Azerbaijan were to unleash war against Nagorno-Karabakh, the Republic of Armenia would defend Nagorno-Karabakh with its full capacity. One should not unleash a war and then complain about occupation. Now Azerbaijan is threatening us with another war. I am sure that if that were to happen, after a few months, Azerbaijanis would be complaining that not 20% but 25% or 30% of their territory was occupied. Warfare should not be unleashed in the first place.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Ryabikin.

      Mr RYABIKIN (Ukraine)* – President, as we understand from what you said, a political settlement for Nagorno-Karabakh has been rather delayed and long drawn out, yet at the same time, the victims of the situation are those who live in Nagorno-Karabakh, of different ethnicities, who have been forced to abandon the area and are unable to return to their homes. What humanitarian initiatives have you planned for those people?

      Mr SARGSYAN* – I think that all the people who left their homes due to the conflicts have the full right to return to their settlements – we support that – but the question is: to where can those people actually return? To what kind of country or territory would they return? Do they not need to know the status of the country in which they would be settling? Would it not incite further fighting? Do you think, if that territory is Nagorno-Karabakh proper, that the Government in Nagorno-Karabakh would be able to station a police officer or soldier next to every returning family?

Basically, what I mean is that a political solution is required. The conflict must be settled and resolved fully in order for those people finally and permanently to return to their homes. Otherwise, if they were to return today, due to the policies of Azerbaijan, there would be more fighting and new conflicts, and they would again have to leave the areas where they settled. Would that be logical? By the way, the Madrid Principles document addressed issues relating to refugees, among other things. A comprehensive solution is required, including to the problem of the return of people who had to leave their permanent residence due to the fighting.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Ghiletchi.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Mr President, foreign affairs and external relations are very important for every country. Given that Armenia faces some challenges in that regard, which I believe most members of this Assembly regret, and with the best thoughts in my mind, what can you say about your relations with Turkey?

Mr SARGSYAN* – Unfortunately, the effort that we have exerted to initiate a relationship with Turkey has yielded no positive outcome, because the Turks are not ready to initiate a relationship with Armenia. You know that we engaged in lengthy talks that ended with the signing of protocols on creating diplomatic relations and normalising relations, but the Turkish leadership subsequently refused to ratify those documents. I will not dwell on the reasons here, because they know them better, but I want to share my impression, which is that the Turks have no intention to ratify those documents in the foreseeable future. We are not the reason for the absence of a relationship. We believe that every country should be responsible about the documents that it signs. Unfortunately, in this particular case, we have not seen that responsibility, so there is no relationship today. The Turkish Government has tried through different channels to communicate proposals, but I believe that those proposals are mostly intended to calm the international community. If the Turks genuinely wanted to do something, they could ratify the protocols. We would then engage with them and normalise relations. We would discuss any issue of interest.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Japaridze.

Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – Mr President, there are many problems for security, stability and prosperity, especially in our part of the world. We in our region are interconnected and intertwined, in the sense that we cannot change our geography. Despite all the problems and conflicts, my question is this: is there any prospect of regional co-operation?

Mr SARGSYAN* – One of the main ideas or objectives of the Eastern Partnership, as you know, was to promote regional co-operation. I know that you of all people are very well aware of our relationship with Georgia, and you will know of our efforts. We have a brilliant relationship, with numerous joint projects. The latest example is the implementation of integrated customs and border control points. Regional co-operation will be inevitable, but any co-operation implies the presence of interested parties. If one party is not interested, we cannot co-operate, as hard as we may try. Co-operation is a two-way street. It cannot be a one-way street. We are ready to engage in any co-operation.

In terms of this co-operation, we suggested to Turkey that we normalise relations. Of course we are not going to change our geographical location. We are going to remain where we are and live side by side with the simple reality in mind that we have to engage constructively. We have to be able to relate, engage and build a relationship. However, with parties that are not interested, and parties boasting about their attempts to isolate a neighbour, it is hard to conceive of any form of co-operation.

      We will maintain our good relationship with Georgia and we hope that, in any event, the day will come that others will join us.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The last question is from Mr Zingeris.

      Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – Thank you, President. I am from Vilnius in Lithuania. I have spent 20 years in parliamentary activity. Previously, I was in the democratic movement. In 1989, I remember that we avoided Soviet captivity and Armenia declared independence. With respect, there is a question for your country and for you about internal consultations. Which type of internal consultations do you have with opposition members before making a statement and what is the possibility for a referendum in your country, before deciding not to join the pact joined by Ukraine and Moldova?

      How broad is the consensus in Armenian society about the crucial decision of the 28 November meeting in Vilnius and on your signature, sir? Thank you very much for your contribution.

      Mr SARGSYAN* – This question has regularly been discussed with the political actors. If I were to tell you that all the opposition political forces have been deeply consulted, I would not be telling the truth, but the Armenian constitution reserves the power for the President to carry out foreign policy and allows the President to sign international treaties. All international treaties will have to come to the Armenian Parliament, where all the political forces are represented. If the Parliament of Armenia refused to ratify these documents signed by the President of Armenia, one could look for other options and give up on certain policies.

      I hope that accession to the customs union will also be in the interests of the different political forces, because it is in the interests of our people. We are tied to the member States of the customs union by thousands of threads. One third of our exports is destined for the Russian Federation, and these exports are predominantly agricultural produce and processed goods. You might imagine, if the technical regulations were not met, how hard it would be for us to export agricultural produce.

      The signing of the association agreement in Vilnius represents the opinion of the majority of our society. We are doing opinion polls now and I do not think that there will be a need for a referendum as things stand, but it is possible that at some point in future, if the political forces demand it, there may be one. Let me assure you that our surveys show that our decision reflects the interests and the wish of the majority of the Armenian people.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, President.

      I am sorry, colleagues, but we have to interrupt the list of questions to Mr Sargsyan, because it is already 1.14 p.m. and I am sure that you all wish to have your lunch. You are invited to a reception at the exit of the Chamber directly behind me, kindly offered by Armenia.

I thank you again for your address, President, and for the answers given to questions.

4. Next public business

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

The sitting is closed.

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

CONTENTS

1. Credentials of the delegation of Iceland

2. National security and access to information

Presentation of report, Doc. 13293, by Mr Díaz Tejera, on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee

Presentation of opinion, Doc. 13315, by Mr Franken, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media

Speakers: Mr Kalmar, Mr Flynn, Mr Xuclà, Mr Villumsen, Ms Szél, Mr Ariev, Mr Biedroń, Ms Fort, Mr Nikolaides, Ms Djurović, Mr Beneyto, Mr Hanson, Sir Edward Leigh, Mr Recordon, Mr Gaudi Nagy, Mr Pintado, Mr Shlegel, Mr Casey, Mr Palacios, Ms Tzakri, Mr Jakavonis, Mr Aleksandrov, Mr Sasi, Mr Taliadouros, Ms Clune, Mr Chope.

Amendments 3, 6, 8 and 2 adopted.

Amendments 7, 10 and 11, as amended, adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 13293, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation contained in Document 13293 adopted.

3. Address by Mr Serzh Sargsyan, President of Armenia

Questions: Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Lord Prescott, Ms Guţu, Mr David Davies, Mr Papadimoulis, Ms Postanjyan, Mr Ivanovski, Mr Fournier, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Seyidov, Mr Ryabikin, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Japaridze, Mr Zingeris.

4. Next public business

Appendix

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Karin ANDERSEN/Ingjerd Schou

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE*

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT/Pierre-Yves Le Borgn'

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Silvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO

Levan BERDZENISHVILI*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Giuseppe Galati

Teresa BERTUZZI*

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Marie-Louise Fort

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Olga BORZOVA/Anvar Makhmutov

Mladen BOSIĆ/Nermina Kapetanović

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN/Bernadett Szél

Gerold BÜCHEL*

André BUGNON/Maximilian Reimann

Natalia BURYKINA

Sylvia CANEL*

Nunzia CATALFO*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Özlem CEKIC*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Otto CHALOUPKA/Pavel Lebeda

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON/Edward Leigh

Deirdre CLUNE

Agustín CONDE

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO/Ferdinando Aiello

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/Paul Flynn

Karl DONABAUER

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS/Liana Kanelli

Damian DRĂGHICI

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES/Cheryl Gillan

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Eric Voruz

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Jean-Pierre Michel

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO

Erich Georg FRITZ*

Martin FRONC

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO*

Karl GARÐARSON

Ruslan GATTAROV*

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/ Edgar Mayer

Sylvi GRAHAM

Patrick De GROOTE/Sabine Vermeulen

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON/Riitta Myller

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI/Marek Borowski

Hamid HAMID

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER/Luc Recordon

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL/Maret Maripuu

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD*

Joachim HÖRSTER

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN/Zaruhi Postanjyan

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

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/Miroslav Krejča

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Nicos Nicolaides

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT/Pascale Crozon

Igor LEBEDEV*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Christophe LÉONARD*

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/Joe Benton

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV/Tamerlan Aguzarov

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Marie-Jo Zimmermann

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES/Carmen Quintanilla

Igor MOROZOV/Anton Belyakov

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/André Schneider

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Pavlo RYABIKIN

Rovshan RZAYEV*

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

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO*

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Mihai TUDOSE/Daniel Florea

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Spyridon Taliadouros

Tomáš ÚLEHLA*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV/Alexander Ter-Avanesov

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN/Marjolein Faber-Van De Klashorst

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Katrin WERNER/Annette Groth

Karin S. WOLDSETH

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

Christian BARILARO

Maria GIANNAKAKI

David DAVIES

Akif Çağatay KILIÇ

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Ernesto GÁNDARA CAMOU

Diva Hadamira GASTÉLUM BAJO

Grant MITCHELL

Michel RIVARD

Miguel ROMO MEDINA

Bev SHIPLEY

Partners for Democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Fouzia EL BAYED

Nezha EL OUAFI

Omar HEJIRA

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM