AA13CR04

AS (2013) CR 04

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Fourth sitting

Tuesday 28 January 2014 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open. I remind members that speeches this afternoon are limited to three minutes.

1. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights (Reminder)

      THE PRESIDENT* – I must remind you that the vote is in progress to elect a judge to the European Court of Human Rights. The poll will close at 5 p.m.

      The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Document 13360.

      Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

      At 5 p.m., the tellers, Ms Ingebjørg Godskesen and Mr Petras Gražulis, will come to the area behind the President’s chair.

      We hope to announce the result before the end of today’s sitting.

2. Appointment of committees

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is further changes to committee membership set out in Commissions (2014) 01 Addendum 4.

      Are these proposals approved?

      The proposed candidatures are approved.

3. Communication from Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. After his address, Mr Jagland has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      Mr Jagland, I welcome you to this Assembly. It is the first time that I can do so as President. We have already had an opportunity this morning to have a wide-ranging exchange of views. I greatly appreciated our open, concrete and constructive discussion, and I look forward to continue doing that to strengthen our future co-operation.

      In my inauguration speech yesterday, I said that, by working together, we will break down the barriers between the different entities of the Council of Europe – we know that they exist – and strengthen the impact of our actions. To strengthen co-operation, we need information and co-ordination, especially when we work on sensitive and burning issues in our member States. We are therefore interested to hear more about your activities.

      I know that you regularly provide us with information in the Bureau and the Standing Committee, but now we, as an Assembly, have an opportunity to listen to you, especially about your involvement in Ukraine, which is one of the most difficult topics we must deal with. The co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee have also worked closely with all the parties in Ukraine to try to find a solution to the crisis, and I congratulate them. We will debate that issue later this week.

      We also want to hear your views on the reform of the Council of Europe, especially on reform of the monitoring mechanisms.

      I think we have enough to discuss. Mr Jagland, you have the floor.

      Mr JAGLAND (Secretary General of the Council of Europe) – Madam President, I begin by congratulating you. I am indeed looking forward to working and co-operating with you. I fully agree with your opening words. Thank you for them.

      I will start with some good news: the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence requires only two more ratifications to enter into force. I hope that that will happen at the ministerial meeting in Vienna in May.

      I thank the Parliamentary Assembly, particularly Mr Mendes Bota and his network, for its enormous and important work on drafting the convention and promoting it in member States. It is a very good example of how the Parliamentary Assembly can contribute to the general work of the Council of Europe as a whole.

      I want to discuss some of my worries, but I will return to a brighter perspective. It worries me that Europe is at risk of disintegrating. There are real tensions within the European Union; tensions between the European Union and other major powers; tensions within our own member countries, particularly with regard to social unrest and growing extremism; and tensions within our own Organisation. That means that the European Convention on Human Rights is more important than ever before, because it constitutes the legal basis that holds Europe together. That has been the case since the war until now, and it will be even more important in the future.

      That is why it has been so important to start reforming the Organisation, because four or five years ago it was bogged down with severe economic problems as a result of rapidly growing staff costs and the fact that the Court was so overburdened by applications from member States that we had to transfer more and more money to it from the budget. That could not go on. Had it done so, it would have eaten up more of the budget and the Organisation would have been killed. We had to stop it. I took the view immediately that the transfer of money to the Court had to be stopped and that instead we should emphasise reform of the Court, and that is what we did. The Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton conferences were very important in that respect and now the Court works much better and the backlog is going down.

      That is not enough, however, because the Court’s problems did not come from the Court itself; they came from the member States that were sending so many applications to it. Therefore, we have to refocus the work of the Council of Europe on assisting member States in getting their legislation and judicial practices to conform to the Convention.

      We had to launch major reform programmes in a number of member States. We implemented a broad reform programme in Ukraine, particularly with regard to the judiciary. One may ask, given what is happening now, whether that was in vain. No, it was not in vain. Whoever takes over power in Ukraine and whatever happens, they will have to return to the reform agenda, including further reforms to the judiciary, the implementation of an electoral law that all political forces can accept, and the relaunch of the process of rewriting the constitution and redistributing power.

      The Council of Europe has played a major role in the current situation. On the controversial laws adopted by the parliament on 16 January, for example, I met the prime minister last week and told him to send us the laws so that we could go through them and suggest our recommendations and those of world-recognised experts. He said yes and the following day those experts arrived in Strasbourg and sat down with our people. Yesterday we recommended that the laws be cancelled and today the Parliament of Ukraine did so. Further work has to be done and I believe that the Council of Europe will be enormously important in that process, which I hope will start in the State bodies and according to the framework of the rule of law.

      Returning to the reform process, we have, as I have said, completed the first stage and the second has started. I discussed it the last time I reported to the Parliamentary Assembly. It is about improving the monitoring system, providing assistance and putting all member States on an equal footing. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the focus was on emerging democracies, which was, of course, justifiable; but now I think we have to shift our emphasis towards monitoring and assisting all member States.

      That is what I announced the last time I spoke here. In the meantime, we have analysed and cross-examined the reports of the monitoring bodies and, on that basis, have identified three challenges for each and every member State. We have entered into a dialogue with them, so that they can respond and so that we can ask them how they want to remedy the shortcomings and what kind of assistance they need from the Council of Europe. We do not want to make public that overview of each member State – one could call it a matrix – because we do not want to shame and blame or assign rankings. We need a solid platform on which to conduct a concrete dialogue with each member State on how to remedy the shortcomings.

      As I said at the outset, I think this is the only way we can get the Court to survive. Member States have to take responsibility for human rights domestically by putting in place legislation and mechanisms to deal with human rights issues. It is only the most important human rights issues that should come to the Court, if necessary, and not all the small cases, which should be dealt with at home.

      The information we have collected will allow me to write an annual report – which the Committee of Ministers will discuss, for the first time, at its May meeting in Vienna – about the state of human rights, rule of law and democracy in Europe, in which I will identify the main trends and challenges. More importantly, I will also be able to identify shortcomings in our own Organisation and how member States are dealing with the major trends. I intend to formulate ambitious and far-reaching recommendations on how to fill any voids and reinforce our capacity to set standards and to detect and resolve problems. The Parliamentary Assembly will get the opportunity to discuss the report in April, and I believe that the follow-up to it may be of great historic importance to the Organisation. It may bring the Council of Europe into a new, historical era, moving from the one following the fall of the Berlin Wall into the real pan-European era.

      I do not want to go into the content of the report, because it is not ready, but I can say that we have to address many country-specific problems. In addition, we face many common problems in our member states: increasing intolerance, racism and extremism; minorities being put under increasing pressure; new social problems appearing; and trans-national crime, including money laundering, violence against women and child abuse. What I can also see is present in most member States: an underlying protest against authorities and against privileged groups, which have often created their own parallel societies. In some countries we can refer to them as oligarchs, whereas in other countries we talk about nouveau riche money makers who have taken too big a slice of the social pie and refused to share. I associate myself very much with what the Pope has said about this. There is a danger of the winner taking all and those at the bottom of society lagging more and more behind. That is a real threat to our societies. We also face a structural problem in many of our societies and in how our political bodies are set up: those lagging behind are seldom represented in our political parties and State bodies. So the structure of our societies goes in the wrong direction also for political reasons. We should recall the old lesson that although greed may bring happiness to an individual, it is not sufficient to build a society.

      The social charter of the Council of Europe is therefore becoming more important than ever. It is a priority for me to expand its relevance, but we face at least two problems in doing so. One is the discrepancy between the social standards in the fundamental rights set out by the European Union and the standards in our social charter, so there is room for forum shopping and we have to overcome that. The other problem is that not all of our member States have ratified the revised charter, and only 13 had ratified the protocol on collective complaint. That is why we are planning a high-level meeting between the European Union and the Council of Europe in Turin when Italy takes over the presidency of the European Union. That will allow us to discuss how to overcome the differences in the standards we have and to expand the relevance of the social standards in general.

      Dear parliamentarians, today is the international day for the protection of private data, which relates to one of our core issues: how to secure a global Internet while also securing privacy on the Internet. This is about two human rights: freedom of expression – the freedom to spread information and opinions on the Internet; and guaranteeing private data. Those things are not easy to combine, and two interlinked questions are involved here. If private data are not safe, we can foresee nation States taking the data of their population back home and creating their own system, which will mean disintegration of the Internet. That would be a very sad thing for freedom of expression. I have been appointed to a global panel to make recommendations on how we can secure better governance of the Internet in the future. We will make recommendations to the upcoming summit in Brazil, which the President of Brazil has called for and which the President of France has said that France wishes to co-sponsor. I think that others will come on board because this is an incredibly important issue for the world: finding a better way of governing the Internet which gives it more legitimacy and moving from a situation where the United States governs the Internet to one where other States are given a say in what is going on.

      The second problem we face relates to the protection of data and the revision of an important existing convention, the only one in the world in this area: Budapest convention 108. We are in the process of modernising and revising the convention. I can tell you that the Russian Federation has newly agreed to the European Union’s participation in the revision of the convention, and the European Commission has prompted the United States to join the convention. Joining our convention and expanding it is probably a better way to get global rules in this area, given it is open to countries outside the Council of Europe family, than the cumbersome process of achieving a United Nations convention. We need global rules on how to protect private data that apply to everybody. It is not sufficient to say, “You should not spy on friends.” That is a tribal approach to a global problem and we need to have rules that apply to everyone on the globe. The Council of Europe is in the forefront of creating such global rules.

      At the end, I will come back to where I started. Our statute says that the objective of the Council of Europe is to contribute to greater European unity. That is why EU accession to the convention is so important. Without it, two parallel systems will evolve in Europe – that is certain – which will create new tensions and not more unity on this continent. Therefore, my priority from day one was to establish good relations at the top level of the European Union. The first thing I did was to go to Brussels and do just that, because the relations were non-existent at the time. I had to build up trustful, solid relations with the European Union and now the political dialogue is regular at the highest level, as well as at many other levels. When the commissioners come to the European Parliament, they always come to my office. I have regular contact with President Barroso, not only when things happen, but on a more general basis. Even more importantly, the legal co-operation between our two organisations is expanding. We have an agreement in place between the European Commission and our 47 member States on how the European Union shall accede to the convention. That will now be sent to the respective bodies on both sides – to our Parliamentary Assembly and Committee of Ministers and to the European Parliament and European Council. Things have come a long way.

      I mentioned that the European Union is now participating in the revision of the Budapest Convention 108 on data protection. The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice – CEPEJ – is now processing data for the European Union, rather than it establishing its own mechanism. The European Union is also considering acceding to the GRECO Convention, which would be of enormous importance. As I said, we have also started the process of reconciling the standards in the European Social Charter and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.

      It is also important to mention that practical co-operation on the ground between our two organisations has gone beyond what anyone could have imagined just four years ago. I am going to give some figures – please do not faint. I am about to sign an agreement with the European Union for a seven-year co-operation programme that gives us €100 million for our work in member countries in eastern Europe, €120 million for south-eastern Europe and an additional sum for our work in neighbouring countries. It is really important for us, so we have done something big. We have built a partnership with one of the most powerful structures in Europe, and I have from the beginning put emphasis on building a solid relationship with the other major powers on this continent, because they have to co-operate, for which we are building a pan-European platform.

      EU accession to the convention would not be happening were we not able to build a trusting partnership. The reform of this Organisation has been essential, because accession would never happen if the organisation still had a huge bureaucracy and was bogged down economically. The European Union would not accede to an accord that was overloaded with applications and cases. Due to the reforms and the relationships we have built, however, we can be more positive that EU accession will happen.

      In conclusion, the continuation of reform and the European Union’s accession go hand in hand. We are only halfway in both processes and we must not stop now. It is about the future of Europe and what kind of Europe we want. I believe in a pan Europe, and the European Union is important in that respect. It will never stretch out to the entire continent, but the European Convention on Human Rights does just that. The convention and the mechanisms that we have set up to protect and expand it are pan-European. We have a unique opportunity to constitute the legal basis for a pan Europe, which is why we must make our role relevant. We cannot complain about other institutions; we have to do things here. It has been hard work to regain attention and relevance in member States, in the European Union and in other major players. It was hard to win them back, but they can easily be lost again. Let us keep this train on track. I trust that the Parliamentary Assembly will continue to play the constructive role that I referred to at the start.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Secretary General. You spoke about a pan Europe and we are a pan-European Parliamentary Assembly, so we are well prepared to ask you questions.

      The first question is from Mr Schennach, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I welcome you to our Assembly, Secretary General, and congratulate you on your work. This is an opportunity for you to provide some clarification on the importance of the Parliamentary Assembly to your work. Over the past few months, what discussions have taken place on children’s rights and physical integrity, and what were the responses?

      Mr JAGLAND – The matter is now being handled by the Committee of Ministers. The process is not finished and there is no legal standard for the time being. The European Court of Human Rights has made no judgment. No legislation has been passed in any member country to ban the circumcision of boys, for example, but legislation exists in some member countries concerning so-called physical integrity, such as the genital mutilation of girls. It is absolutely an issue, but that is its status at the moment.

      THE PRESIDENT – The next question is from Mr Agramunt, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Congratulations on your election, President, which we very much welcome.

      Secretary General, we are of course concerned with human rights, so are you planning any initiatives with the European Court of Human Rights? There is a huge backlog and it takes years for cases to come before the Court. Various instances have never even been tested, so are any initiatives underway to try to make the Court’s work more efficient?

      Mr JAGLAND – As I said in my speech, much has been done. The first thing I did was to go to Moscow to get the Russian Federation to ratify Protocol 14, which I had failed to achieve for several years. Protocol 14 is about the reform of the internal procedures in the Court, but that process could not start until the Russians had ratified it. The process started during the Swiss chairmanship at the Interlaken Conference and ended in Brighton. The Court’s procedures have been changed so that it can now take applications more quickly and can more easily decline clearly inadmissible applications. I thank the Court staff for the enormous reform work that they have done. The Court’s backlog is now coming down fast. It does not help if we are unable to stop the flow of applications from member States whose legislation does not conform to the European Convention on Human Rights. That is why we are focusing so much on reform programmes in other member States and assisting them in getting their legislation in compliance. We are moving in the right direction, but much more work has to be done and that is why it is important to continue the reforms. I spoke about how we need better follow-up on our organisation’s monitoring reports and applying them on the ground with real reforms.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Pushkov on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – I agree that the Council of Europe should be a pan-European organisation, but there is sometimes a feeling that the European Union countries have a special status in the Council of Europe. We can see it in the monitoring procedures and we can see it today with the Monitoring Committee and the debate on Ukraine, where the European Union’s point of view was reproduced. How can we make this organisation more equal and unified, rather than less equal and less unified?

      Mr JAGLAND – Thank you for the question. It is important that we try to get more cohesion in the organisation and try to put everyone on an equal footing. Reforming monitoring and follow-up to make all things equal will be important. It is also important to get the European Union to accede to the Convention. I come from a non-European Union country, but we have good relations with the European Union. On the continent, we regard the European Union as important, but we also believe that the non-European Union countries are important for the pan-European perspective. I will continue to build on this issue. It is extremely important to understand that we have, in many respects, a wider mandate than the European Union. It is important to get it right, as the Brits have said, on how the European Union acts internally. It does not make sense that 28 countries have all the power, because they have a majority. There are 47 countries, so the European Union cannot act as a bloc when it comes to crucial issues like human rights and the rule of law. We have to confront each other, State by State, without hiding behind a bloc.

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

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – I remind you that the ALDE group has observed the rise of hate crimes, despite all the conventions and standards that the Council of Europe has developed and despite the activities of the European Court of Human Rights. Do you think that the existing monitoring mechanisms of this organisation are sufficient to tackle the problem? Are any plans envisaged to improve the implementation of the recommendations made by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRI)?

      Mr JAGLAND – This issue is important, and we have taken it on. We also have the ECRI reports. The weakness in the reporting of the permanent monitoring bodies is that the reports often take four or five years, so they are not always relevant to the current situation in member countries. We will discuss that when my report is presented. There are other messages that we have to focus on as well. As you know, we have launched the No Hate Speech Movement on the Internet to mobilise young people. We have legal means at the national level and in the Convention, but it is equally important to mobilise people against hate crime when it appears on the Internet. We have discussed focusing on that with the ministerial meeting in Vienna and trying to involve young people in our activities.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Hunko on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr HUNKO (Germany)* – Secretary General, at the beginning of your address you talked about serious tensions, and recent developments in Ukraine are a clear expression of those tensions. The Council of Europe has an important role to play as a pan-European organisation. The tensions in Ukraine have been caused by the relationship between Russia and the European Union. If the tension continues to escalate, the situation will become serious indeed. What can be done in concrete terms to work against that? How can we ensure that a more balanced position is reached, rather than people just taking sides? This is all about geopolitical developments.

      Mr JAGLAND – First, we are not involved in a geopolitical battle – if there is one – between the European Union and the Russian Federation. We have no mandate to take part in that. It is important that we are seen as an impartial instrument, and we are seen like that in Ukraine. All the parties have recognised our expertise and advice. When I was in Kiev before Christmas, they accepted all the proposals of the three-person panel established to investigate what happened during the demonstrations. They accepted the Council of Europe as the representative of the international community on that panel, and now they are coming back to this idea and are discussing it in the National Assembly today.

      They accepted our recommendations on laws. I had a meeting with Catherine Ashton on Friday and spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov the same day. Both recognised that what we are presenting regarding the controversial legislation and the future reforms on electoral law and the constitution will be accepted and seen as an impartial contribution to solving the conflict in Ukraine. If we are not able to take part like that, we will be seen just as one of many other players. We are Convention-based, and that is our strength, which we can use in circumstances like those in Ukraine. In Die Welt today, it was said that the Council of Europe was one organisation that could really contribute to a national dialogue in Ukraine. It is not an accident that that was said.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. We now come to the speaker’s list. The first on my list is Mr Díaz Tejera.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – Secretary General, I agree with you that our specialities are the Convention, the Court and emerging democracies, but the Council of Europe and the European Parliament need to look at the disparities between north and south, and between consolidated and emerging democracies. These days, the European Parliament tends to replicate a lot of our activities. They have their own Commissioner for Human Rights and an Agency for Fundamental Rights; the only thing they have failed to copy so far is the European Court of Human Rights. Is it possible for us to have a conversation among equals? We are intelligent individuals. We should divide the labour, and there should not be so much duplication.

      Mr JAGLAND – Actually, that is what I have done. I have spoken several times with President Barroso and Vice-President Viviane Reding about this issue, and what they say is quite reassuring. They are not in the process of duplicating our instruments; on the contrary, as I said, they are using ours. For instance, the Commission, which has been working on a justice scoreboard, wants to use our data from CEPEJ (European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice), and the Committee of Ministers permitted them to do so. They want to accede to GRECO (Group of States against Corruption). They want to accede to the European Convention. They want to harmonise social standards. Of course, we will watch for any signs of duplication – you mentioned a couple – but it is up to us. We cannot sit on the sidelines and complain about what is happening. We have to be relevant, and when we are, we are useful. The European Parliament has also said that it wants to build on the Council of Europe’s standards and instruments. I call on you all to stand up and be proud of our institution, because we have so much to contribute. We have nothing to fear.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – For several years now, journalists’ rights have been systematically violated, including in the member States of our Organisation, with full impunity. One idea that has been floated is to create a small specialist unit that would report to the Secretary General. It would be tasked with defining and spearheading a strategy designed to monitor attacks on journalists in the member States, accompanied by a rapid response mechanism and a programme to combat impunity. What are your views on this proposal, and how do you think it might take shape?

      Mr JAGLAND – The Committee of Ministers discussed this in a so-called “thematic debate” not so long ago. They asked me to come up with a concrete action plan, and I have, so this is very much on the table at the Committee of Ministers, and we of course would like input from all of you. It is an extremely important issue and is connected to the most fundamental right in the Convention: the right to freedom of expression. Protecting journalists is therefore of enormous importance to us, and we are setting up in-house mechanisms to that end.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – Today is the anniversary of the taking prisoner of an Armenian soldier in Azerbaijan. The Red Cross is doing everything possible to get him home or to send him to a third country, but without any results. What is our Assembly doing, and what can we do to make sure that Azerbaijan respects its international obligations and does not keep Armenian soldiers hostage?

      Mr JAGLAND – It is difficult for me to comment on this case. What I can say is that we support the actions of the Red Cross on a humanitarian basis in all such cases – not only there but elsewhere. However, the resolution to the conflict is not in our hands. As you know, this is a matter for the so-called Minsk Group, and no party has asked us to contribute to the resolution of the political conflict in the area. But it is important that we have both member States in our family, and we are working with them.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Lately, we have seen a worrying tendency towards a division between old and new member States, especially concerning the Assembly’s monitoring procedures. Ultimately, if the problem is not solved to everyone’s satisfaction, I fear this growing discontent could undermine our aim of a Europe united in defending human rights. How do you think that you, Secretary General, and the Parliamentary Assembly can best join forces to avoid such tensions developing further?

      Mr JAGLAND – I take note of the fact that there is a process addressing this issue in the Parliamentary Assembly, which I welcome and appreciate. As I said, we also have a process on the intergovernmental side. My report will give us an opportunity to discuss this thoroughly and will clearly show that, yes, there are problems in specific member countries, but there are also problems in all member countries. The perception that all the problems are in one part of Europe and that the other part has no problems is no longer true, and we have to understand this when we are refining our monitoring system. We are not expanding monitoring, but we have to look into how it functions and is co-ordinated, including in-house. Of course, here, the work of the Parliamentary Assembly is of great importance.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) –You are the Secretary General of a respected political organisation – an honourable fact that is mentioned in your biography. Meanwhile, the tracks of your activities are being engraved forever on the biography of the Council of Europe. Nevertheless, I do not want it to be written into your and the Council of Europe’s biographies that Armenia – a member State of the Council of Europe, which is headed by you – continues to occupy the territories of another member State, Azerbaijan, and that you failed to take concrete steps to solve this problem. Do you realise the historical responsibility involved?

      Mr JAGLAND – This is one of the unresolved conflicts in Europe, and the Council of Europe has to relate to the process that has been set up to try to resolve it. If we try to enter into it, that would create much more confusion, rather than solutions. This is in the hands of the Minsk Group, and the Council of Europe has never been asked by any other parties to do anything in particular on this issue. It is a dilemma for us that we have such black holes in Europe where we cannot deploy instruments such as our monitoring bodies. That is a matter of fact. There are also black holes in Europe in which the Convention is not functioning. This is a great dilemma, but we cannot impose ourselves; we can only do such work if we are wanted by the parties themselves and the other major players in Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT – I cannot see Mr Binley, so I call Mr Villumsen from Denmark.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – I am very concerned about the propaganda regarding homosexuality laws that are being imposed and discussed in several countries inside and outside the European Union. I am very glad that people at all levels of the Council of Europe, including you, Secretary General, have spoken out against these laws, but I would like to hear your opinion about how we can continue the work against these discriminatory laws.

      Mr JAGLAND – Thank you for what you said; I have reacted strongly against this. It is very important that we act on the legal ground that we have in the Council of Europe. There are different kinds of legislation in Europe with different kinds of rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Some countries are much more “advanced” than others. What is important for us – this is the legal ground that we have – is that LGBT people have exactly the same rights under the Convention as all other citizens: namely, the rights to assembly and to freedom of expression. Those are the rights that we have to uphold with regard to these people, and that is what we are doing. We have the Convention and the recommendation from the Committee of Ministers in this regard.

      THE PRESIDENT – That brings to an end the questions to Mr Jagland. Thank you very much, Secretary General, for your communication and for the way you answered our questions. I wish we had more time for this, but unfortunately we do not. We will therefore continue the discussion in our next Bureau meeting and our next Standing Committee meeting. In the meantime, we can continue to work together. I thank you again for your address and for the answers given to questions.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      I must remind you that the vote is in progress to elect a judge to the European Court of Human Rights. The poll will close at 5 p.m.

      Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s Chair.

      (Mr Rouquet, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Brasseur.)

4. A strategy to prevent racism and intolerance in Europe and tackling racism in the police

(joint debate)

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now come to the joint debate on two reports from the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. The first is entitled “A Strategy to Prevent Racism and Intolerance in Europe” (Document 13385) presented by Jonas Gunnarson; the second is entitled “Tackling racism in the police” (Document 13384) presented by Mr David Davies.

      Speaking time is limited to three minutes. We will aim to finish this item by about 6.45 p.m. I will therefore interrupt the list of speakers at about 6.25 pm.

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

      Mr GUNNARSON (Sweden)* – Issues regarding racism and intolerance evoke emotions. Since this report was published on the websites of the Assembly and my home parliament, I have received many e-mails from citizens. Most of them complain about what they see as the perspective of parliamentarians, members of the government and the media on issues relating to asylum, religion, sexuality and gender identity. They call us the politically correct mafia.

      This report is not about immigration; it is about Europe’s inability to come to terms with negative attitudes towards various societal groups and how we should tackle the effects of these attitudes and their manifestations. Hatred is not only a problem for the victims but for society at large. It entirely affects a society’s social cohesion when large groups do not feel safe, and it even further erodes trust in public authorities, the rule of law, and, ultimately, democracy.

      Racism, intolerance and hatred are not new things for Europe; on the contrary, we have a long history of victimisation of different groups on the grounds of ethnicity, religion, sexuality and so on. However, over the past decade there has been an upsurge in these phenomena and their scope has been magnified. The economic crisis and its effect on the cohesion of our societies has triggered this development, which has also been amplified by the increasing use of social media. In the report, we suggest that we need to have a more strategic approach to racism and intolerance instead of a piece-by-piece or ad-hoc approach. With this approach, it follows that there is a need to ensure that the legal framework on hate speech and hate crimes includes the broadest possible range of motives, but also that the authorities in our respective countries are given the tools to be able to identify and deal with such crimes.

      The Council of Europe is already doing a lot of good things on combating racism and intolerance. The No Hate Speech Movement might be the most visible, but there are other measures – for example, different monitoring systems exist in the Council of Europe’s toolbox. We must use these resources as effectively as possible and in a more co-ordinated way. I sincerely hope that the Assembly agrees that we should ask the Committee of Ministers to instruct the Secretary General to elaborate a strategy against racism, hatred and intolerance. Since racism and intolerance is a collective European problem, it is of the utmost importance that the Council of Europe takes the lead on these issues.

      We, as parliamentarians, have to recognise our own responsibilities regarding these matters. Besides the daily legislative work that we are all engaged in, we also have to act when people are subjected to hatred in any form. When we, the citizens’ elected representatives, turn silent, it signals that we have given up, or that we agree when people spread hatred to others. Hatred is a political problem that needs political solutions.

      As I said at the beginning, people who stand up against racism and intolerance are the target of groups that wish to divide our societies. In a derogatory term, we are called politically correct or it is said that we have lost touch with reality. I claim that it is not a clash of values or a distance from reality. We have to show that a society without hatred and racism is possible and something to strive for. We have to fight the roots of hatred and do our best to create societies that can facilitate everyone’s right to feel secure and respected, regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, language, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

      I will end there and I hope for a constructive and interesting debate.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, rapporteur. You have seven and a half minutes left for your reply to the debate. I now give the floor to Mr Davies, who is the Rapporteur of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination and who will be presenting the report on tackling racism in the police.

      Mr D DAVIES (United Kingdom) – Unlike Mr Gunnarsson, I have never been accused of being part of the politically correct mafia. What is interesting about these reports is that they both have the support of a very wide range of politicians with all sorts of different political views. I would also like to say in passing how grateful I am for the support of the committee and the committee clerk – if I have the title correct – Elodie Fischer, who has done a superb job.

      The question I asked myself when taking on this report was: is racism in the police force a problem? The answer is that of course it is. Is it a widespread problem? Yes, it is widespread because it is a problem for police forces in all countries in Europe and, I suspect, the world. Is it a deeply rooted problem? I am not convinced that it is because I believe that the vast majority of police officers in European countries do a good and difficult job, often in very dangerous circumstances. It is very important to say that, because this report is about looking at problems and solutions, but we must remember at all times that there is a lot of good work as well.

      We saw this in the visits we made. I have worked as a special constable – as a police officer – in London. I was proud to take the committee to a station in central London where 40% of the officers come from visible ethnic minorities. It is a station with a very good working atmosphere and a good team spirit among all the officers of the different ethnic groups. We also visited the police training college in Brandenburg in Germany. This was a very moving experience because that college is actually built on the site of a concentration camp from the Nazi days. The very first thing that the lecturers do is take the students around the concentration camp and remind them that, in their name, police officers 40 or 50 years ago were responsible for some of the atrocities that took place. That leaves everyone with the impression that that must never happen again. We should credit the German Government with the way in which it has tackled those atrocities and is doing something to prevent that from happening again, by reminding police officers about the dangers of racism.

      We also visited Greece and I saw people being held in conditions that I found completely unacceptable: people who had committed paperwork infractions being held in detention centres that might have been adequate for six or eight people for a couple of days in the United Kingdom were being held there for a year. It was actually the police who drew our attention to this and who were angry about it, saying that they did not appreciate being expected to hold people in such conditions. Some of those being held there told us that the police were actually going out of their way to help them, supplying them with cigarettes and soft drinks. It is never a straightforward issue to go around attacking the police.

      Of course, there are problems. This report is about coming up with workable solutions. I want to be able to say to police officers that I have done the job myself and I do not want to come at them in a critical fashion. I happen to believe that tackling racism in the police is good for communities but it is good for police officers as well: it enables them to do their job better.

      I am probably running short of time but I will briefly summarise some points. I want to ensure that there are more ethnic minorities in every police force in Europe. There has been a huge stride forward in the United Kingdom but there is much further to go. It is important that police officers understand that it is to their advantage if they have more people from ethnic minorities. It enables them to get into those communities and do their job effectively. There is also an onus on minority communities to support the police and to encourage their young people to see the police as a fulfilling career. Diversity training is important but it needs to be done in the correct fashion. I have spoken to an officer who is married to an Asian Muslim who went into a room to do diversity training. People were told to stick their hands up if they were white and middle class and when they did so they were told that if they were white and middle class they were racist. That kind of diversity training simply turns people against the people giving it and defeats the whole object. It needs to be done in the correct fashion, but if it is done properly of course it is a good thing.

      It is important that police officers are aware, when they are stopping and searching people, that they are infringing their rights. There is a place for stop and search and I have conducted dozens of stop-searches myself. I have seen it done well; I have seen it done badly. It is good for a police officer to start by apologising for taking up somebody’s time, to call them “Sir” or “Madam” and, it should go without saying, not to single people out because of their ethnicity. That is why there is a case for keeping proper records of it.

      I had a very interesting discussion with officers in Germany about the use of ID numbers. I happen to think that ID numbers are important; it is there in the report. Every police officer should be identifiable, not necessarily by name but in a way that allows the authorities to go back and independently investigate any charges of malpractice against them. Police officers in Germany told me that it raises security concerns. My response to that is that one of the most dangerous places in Europe to be a police officer is Northern Ireland but we are still able to carry out the role of policing with officers wearing numbers, so it is perfectly possible to do this. I have also put in the report my support for more liaison officers as a way of getting people from minority communities involved in policing and realising that it is in their interests as well.

      This is not an attack on the police force. This is about a series of constructive suggestions that will enable the police to do their job more effectively and allow the public, whether they are minorities or not, to have confidence that the police are doing their job effectively. It is a win-win situation and I look forward to it having support from all members and political groups in this Chamber. I will be happy to take this forward and talk to police officers from anywhere in Europe and explain to them why I think this report could help them perform their role more effectively and gain them the support of the public.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Davies. You have six and a half minutes left for your reply to the debate. We now move to the general discussion. I will start the list of speakers. The first speaker is Ms Lundgren from Sweden, on behalf of the ALDE group.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – First, I congratulate the two rapporteurs on their very interesting reports. Both topics are very important for all of us in this Chamber. Yesterday we all remembered the Holocaust. We, the Council of Europe, are a reaction tool to ensure that this does not happen again. By safeguarding human rights, democracy and the rule of law in our countries, we are able to get rid of those threats from history – threats of intolerance and racism, and even holocausts.

There are crimes against humanity today – although not in our continent, I hope. However, we can be sure that if we are not careful such crimes could happen again, even here. We must do our utmost to honour our common values that we all signed up for.

      We must also have profound discussions about those values, because we can have different interpretations. We need to go further in making sure that the values are stable in our societies, rather than just being on paper. As has been said, in all our countries there are examples of racism and intolerance. I saw that for myself in a suburb of Stockholm before Christmas, although I also saw society’s reaction when many thousands gathered to stand up against racism and intolerance. That was an example of society saying, “No – not again. We have learned the lessons of history and such things will not happen again.” That can help deal with the everyday intolerance and racism that are all over Europe today. As the report mentions, there is a need for a more strategic approach. I hope that we can all make change happen, rather than changing ourselves.

      THE PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I give the floor to Ms Renner, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Ms RENNER (Germany)* – I thank David Davies on behalf of my group for his thorough and relevant report. I also thank Mr Gunnarsson for the first draft of a strategy to prevent racism and intolerance in Europe.

      Tackling racism in European societies and agencies such as the police is more topical than ever. We appreciate that we have only to look at the situation of the Roma in Hungary or at defenceless refugees in Greece faced with neo-Nazi attacks, not to mention the series of nine racist murders committed by the National Socialist Underground in Germany. That has raised questions about the State’s failure to investigate properly; the crimes have remained unsolved for 13 years.

      The report introduces the notion of institutional racism and states what needs to be done. I should like to make two additional proposals. First, one of the conclusions of the parliamentary NSU (National Socialist Underground) committee of inquiry on police investigation work was that the neo-Nazi network was able to act completely unnoticed for 10 years, murdering migrants and carrying out bombings. If investigations are ever carried out into violence committed against people of colour, migrants or refugees, it is important to clarify whether racism is a main motive. That recommendation is crucial for tackling racism in the police because racism is an everyday phenomenon among them and it could help tackle racist violence and terror. The NSU committee of inquiry also made a recommendation that drew on the United Kingdom’s Macpherson report following the murder of the teenager Stephen Lawrence. That can make a key contribution to clamping down on racism in Germany.

      We need some form of monitoring. We must consider an excellent study published by the Fundamental Rights Agency on racial discrimination and anti-Semitism. With such a study at our disposal, we and the police will have the facts, which we can use to discuss the matter more effectively.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I give the floor to Geraint Davies, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr G. DAVIES (United Kingdom) – When economic times are tough and temperatures are raised it is important that we do not just pay lip service to heightened racial intolerance – in particular among our police force, who are meant to protect the security of all with equality, not prejudice. Yet in Britain, 20 years after the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence and the Macpherson report, which found London’s police force to be institutionally racist, one of the report’s authors has said that the Metropolitan Police have not moved on when it comes to racism and that they remain institutionally racist.

      At the time of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, nine ethnic officers were in the most senior ranks; now, there are just six. Proportionately, more than twice as many ethnic officers resign as white officers, many of them citing racism. Some 14% of Britain’s population is ethnic, while 5% of the police are. In London, 55% of the population are ethnic, compared with only 10.5% of the police there. Some 126 officers left last year, and the situation is worst among the highest ranks. Black people face seven times the level of stop and search and three times the rate of arrest. Complaints about police racism end up being dismissed, with an e-mail denial from the officer concerned. More than 500 complaints about racism were made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which found that the Metropolitan Police were unwilling to treat such complaints seriously.

      In Germany, as in Britain, there is evidence of institutional police racism. Immigrant fingerprinting, like DNA, is now a potential source of discrimination. Training is needed. I welcome the report, but I fear that it may be seen as a whitewash. That is why my amendment proposes quotas and targets for ethnic officers at all ranks. The rapporteur David Davies, himself a special police officer, has argued that the National Black Police Association in Britain is itself racist as it bans white people and that more black people are on the DNA database because more are arrested and the process is colour blind. However, I used to be a Labour MP in London and black vicars and businessmen came to me saying that they had been forced to give their DNA against their will, as they were black people living in a white area where a black suspect was on the loose.

      If we are serious about change, we need quotas and targets, not just warm words. I urge members to support the amendment. We can have confidence in tackling racial intolerance only if those who police it are representative of those whom they police. Our duty is to ensure change and not just leave it to chance.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I remind members that only three minutes remain to vote for a judge in the European Court of Human Rights for Denmark. I give the floor to Ms Quintanilla, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms QUINTANILLA (Spain)* – I congratulate the rapporteurs on behalf of my group. They have drafted an excellent report. We see the situation across the member States of the Council of Europe. Racism and intolerance are of concern for absolutely all members of this Parliamentary Assembly because they constitute a violation of the human rights of those who are subject to them. That being the case, it is appropriate that we talk about equality in this Chamber today and do away with any kind of discrimination based on race or gender.

      This is the reality of our fellow citizens’ lives. We have made a lot of progress in recent years. We are living in an increasingly multicultural world, but we have got to do more to make sure we entirely do away with racism and intolerance in the lives of people living in Council of Europe member States. That is precisely why these two reports are so important. They can help us to carry out prevention. They can change people’s mindsets. They contain codes of ethics and they also set out the measures that need to be taken to see to it that our fellow citizens live alongside one another in peace and that we completely banish racism and intolerance from their lives.

      Mr Gunnarsson, it is important today more than ever before that we in this Parliamentary Assembly get to grips with the scourges of racism and intolerance that unfortunately exist, but at the same time it is important that we see the need for the police and security forces that work on behalf of all of us. That is why we in the EPP are indebted to you for this work which acknowledges the achievements of our police and security forces. We and the Council of Europe need to make sure our fellow citizens can live in peace and security.

      Once again, allow me to congratulate you because any manifestation of racism and intolerance must be eliminated by all of us.

      THE PRESIDENT* – It is now 5 p.m. The election for a judge for the Court of Human Rights is closed. I call on the two tellers who have been chosen to go straight away to the Table Office to help with the counting of the votes and we hope to announce the outcome at the end of today’s sitting, and if not, at the beginning of tomorrow’s.

      Let us continue. I give the floor to Mr Marias of Greece, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr MARIAS (Greece.)* – I congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mr Davies and Mr Gunnarsson, on preparing two excellent reports. Yesterday we commemorated the day of remembrance of the Shoah – the Holocaust – which was a day to remember the millions of victims exterminated in the crematoria and concentration camps of the Second World War.

      We all know that racism and intolerance is a cultural, political, economic and cultural phenomenon that runs through history. We know also that economic crises, ongoing recession and rising unemployment cause young people, deprived of the opportunity to work, to become more imbued with xenophobia, racism and intolerance. European countries that are subject to massive migratory inflows are also prone to rising intolerance, especially when the immigrants are clandestine.

      Our times resemble the European difficulties of the 1930s, and we must do everything we can to combat rising racism and intolerance and associated crimes with any measures available in a democracy. Our democratic regimes are duty bound to respond in a determined manner. Parliamentary democracy is not a perfect system of government, but we must do whatever we can to eradicate racist practices.

      I have in mind all the phenomena enumerated by Mr Davies in his report. He mentioned the extremist group Golden Dawn in Greece and its infiltration of the Greek police and the National Socialist Underground in Germany. Golden Dawn and the NSU acting under the cover of the police forces is unacceptable and we must combat them.

      People are calling out for member States of the Council of Europe to react in a resolute manner. We must take our responsibilities seriously before it is too late. We must do this in the political arena, institutionally and, first and foremost, through education – through a massive investment in the educational system – and the promotion of human rights.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Gunnarsson, you have the opportunity to respond to the statements made on behalf of the groups, or would you prefer to hear from the other speakers?

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden.) – I will wait.

      THE PRESIDENT* – In that case, we will move on.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain.)* – Spaniards are all equal before the law and any discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnicity or social background is outlawed. Article 14 of the constitution certainly says that and that is what everyone hopes to see. Is that what actually happens? Most of the time yes, but not always.

      I saw what happened with our police commissaries. In the struggle against Franco we had police forces in the Guardia Civil that were gradually absorbed into democracy. I have been reassured on this whole issue, because when we switched to democracy there was a genuine change in mentality. That has been my experience of the Guardia Civil, which used to be a paramilitary security force.

      Democracy, and parliamentary democracy in particular, has lost legitimacy because people are increasingly coming to mistrust their political representatives. That is why we see this insidious phenomenon whereby people accuse parliamentarians of being responsible for the financial crisis and for social and political crises. It is all too easy for these ideas to be communicated by the media.

      A few years ago it was the Jews and these days it is the Muslims or blacks or it is any kind of minority, including sexual minorities. Anybody who finds themselves in a minority by virtue of the colour of their skin finds themselves being made responsible for all the ills in society. That is why I congratulate our rapporteurs on flagging up these issues in their reports. They talk about the need for education to raise awareness and to eliminate stereotypes, such as those about gender and skin colour, and about whether someone is Catholic, Muslim, atheist or agnostic. There has to be a cultural shift, and it is incumbent on us all to behave that way.

      Anyone who holds public office, be they a politician or a police officer, is bound to abide by higher standards of behaviour. That is why we need to look at the tests conducted in our schools and to ensure that people who have violent or racist attitudes, or who engage in any kind of racist or hate speech, are not allowed to join the police. That is part and parcel of the fight against racism.

      Along with the reports, I think parliamentary democracy can make a contribution.

      Ms BLONDIN (France)* – The draft resolution that our colleague Mr Gunnarsson has presented to us is an important instrument to combat hate speech. I share his belief that we should highlight prevention and education. Mr Gunnarsson, your work in the Assembly will no doubt reach member States and blow the whistle on such phenomena, even if the situation is different in different countries. In France, for example, various opinion polls have shown that only 8% of French people believe in racial inequality. However, racism has not disappeared, but has changed into discrimination against societies and culture.

      At a time of financial, economic and social crisis, individualism, the phenomenon of people becoming self-centred and being interested in only one’s own peers, the tightening up of borders, the rejection of strangers and multiculturalism, and the increase in extreme positions are strengthening. That is facilitated by new technologies such as social networks, and we can see how effective they are and the damage they can do, particularly among young people. The Council of Europe must defend its values and objectives.

      Of course, words are good, but it is better to take action and to strengthen our legal framework. I shall refer to the speech given by Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a French minister, in this very place last year. She set up a plan of action for equality between women and men to combat discrimination. Combating discrimination means fighting against intolerance and rejection of the other, and against racism. It was said that the best barriers against all forms of prejudice, which lead to racism, such as anti-Semitism, are education, thinking and dialogue.

      The Council of Europe is recognised for its contribution in the fight against all kinds of discrimination. It is the duty of the Assembly to push back the surge of racism. That is a task for the long haul. It is when reason goes to sleep that monsters arise.

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – Unfortunately, racism and intolerance persist as a problem in European society. Considering our history, one would have thought that we had overcome both hate speech and hate crime as means to oppress and discriminate against minorities. The reports presented by Mr Gunnarsson and Mr Davies are therefore of great importance. I encourage all members to vote in favour of the two draft resolutions and the draft recommendation before us.

      The continuing difficult economic situation in Europe, coupled with a wide range of social problems, creates a breeding ground for more hate. When people who are desperately seeking work cannot find jobs, and when young people increasingly fear for their future, it is all too easy to look for simple solutions and someone to blame. Blaming people who have migrated to Europe, or to our countries from other places in Europe, is too easy, both for young people who are worried about having a place to study or a job in the future, and for adults who are struggling to make ends meet. Such mentality leads to hate and discrimination.

      In his report, Mr Gunnarsson focused on the importance of both legislation against hate speech and hate crimes, and prevention. Preventive work must build awareness and trust, not least through education. I support his call on Secretary General Jagland to elaborate a Council of Europe strategy against racism, hatred and intolerance in Europe.

      When looking to prevent hate speech and hate crimes, we should also focus on how we can strengthen Europe’s economy, and how we can give the citizens of Europe a more secure future and faith in tomorrow. The current economic difficulties in Europe are one reason why we have seen more and more people not only expressing themselves hatefully but supporting political groups and parties that do the same. As politicians, we are role models, and we must all work to keep the political debate void of racism and intolerance.

      Mr SIDYAKIN (Russian Federation)* – We still, of course, remember the terrible scourge of Nazism, xenophobia and the catastrophic war that resulted in the death and suffering of dozens of millions of people, all in the name of racial superiority.

      Today, we are concerned about the rise of neo-fascism, intolerance and racism in Europe. The Nuremburg trials were meant to bring an end to that, but that does not seem to have been the case. Unfortunately, xenophobia is appearing in electoral campaigns in western countries. People seem to have forgotten all the suffering caused by Nazi criminals, and neo-Nazis are even being shown as fighters for liberty – for example the Waffen-SS in Estonia and marches by neo-fascists in Riga. That is a scandal in the face of those who have laid down their lives to fight Nazism.

      Mr Gunnarsson’s proposal for the Secretary General to work more on prophylaxis through education is an appropriate one. The Duma suggested last year that schools should teach more about the Nuremburg trials and the millions of Jews, Poles, Ukrainians and others who were exterminated.

      What I do not like about the recommendations is that they make no reference to the rights of non-citizens in Latvia and Estonia. In Latvia, there are some 50 professions to which non-citizens do not have any access and they are not allowed to form political parties. Estonia has gone even further. Prisoners who do not know Estonian are treated differently from those who do. They do not have voting rights at any level; they are not even allowed to vote for deputies to the European Parliament.

      Every time we draw the Parliamentary Assembly’s attention to that, colleagues tell us that they do not have the right to monitor the defence of human rights in such countries, because they are member States of the European Union. You are all very happy to monitor human rights in countries outside the European Union, but when countries within the European Union are in flagrant violation of human rights, you close your eyes to it. It really is sad, deplorable and even scandalous that the subject has not been resolved.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – The warning signs in this report require us to take some concrete and urgent measures; otherwise, the day is only around the corner when intolerance, racism and xenophobia will be seen as a way of life in Europe. Extremist parties are managing to get into many European parliaments through the support given to them by voters. I agree that politicians, and our Assembly in particular, must combat racism and intolerance. The various institutions of the Council of Europe recommend the exclusion from national parliaments of discourse that promotes racism and intolerance.

      What about the reality? Just two years ago, as a member of the delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, I participated in a regular session in Baku. The President of Azerbaijan delivered a speech – in the building of the Parliament of Azerbaijan and in the presence of delegations from all European parliaments, including that of Armenia – that could only be considered as a masterpiece of intolerance and racism. He labelled all Armenian deputies present as fascists and profanators – this within the Azerbaijani Parliament – and accused the Armenian people of all sins possible. What happened? Did anyone other than the members of the Armenian delegation explain to Aliyev that it was not right for the president of a member State of the Council of Europe to deliver a speech that sounded like a medieval inquisition? No, certainly not.

      Dear rapporteur, you say that the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance suggests that speeches made in the spirit of racism should be criminalised. I fully support that proposal and would suggest, along the same lines, that a criminal case be brought against the President of Azerbaijan for all his speeches about Armenia or individual Armenians that are manifestations of racism, xenophobia and Armeniaphobia.

      Why is the assassin Ramil Safarov considered a hero in his country? It is as a result of the predominant anti-Armenian atmosphere in Azerbaijan. It is shameful. They teach their children from early childhood that Armenians are enemies. Azerbaijani textbooks contain explicit Armeniaphobia. An entire generation is being taught to hate Armenians. That is not acceptable. Even Azerbaijani journalists have written about it.        This report is a good opportunity to do something concrete to combat that situation. Let us not miss it.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – These reports go to the core of the purpose of the Council of Europe. We all know that racism and intolerance flourish – to a greater or lesser extent – in all Council of Europe member States. We do not need to go into details about where, when, how and who. The question is: what do we do about it?

      I fully support Mr Gunnarsson’s recommendation to design a strategy through an action plan focusing on prevention and raising awareness, as well as through legal advice to member countries on hate speech and hate-crime legislation. That could be a good follow-up to our own report, “Living together in the 21st century”. In addition, we as parliamentarians must act as role models and commit ourselves to put the question of anti-racism and tolerance on the political agenda in our own countries and parliaments.

      Lately there has been an ongoing discussion about our monitoring procedures. Some member countries want to end the country monitoring procedure and replace it with thematic monitoring of all 47 member States. I partially agree and partially disagree with that suggestion. I do not think that country monitoring should be replaced. All member countries have taken on an obligation to meet European standards with regard to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We should never compromise on that. At the same time, we all know that certain core issues relating to human rights, such as racism and intolerance, should continuously be followed and monitored in every country.

      In fact, we already have a system for monitoring those issues, namely the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, which does both country and thematic reports. ECRI has for some time been deeply concerned with the increasing use of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic elements in political discourse, including by mainstream political parties in several member States. However, ECRI’s reports are usually handled at government level and have been paid little attention by this Assembly and in our parliaments. As parliamentarians, we should change that.

      In 2014, ECRI will pay contact visits to Greece, Hungary, Norway and Poland, post reports on Germany and Belgium, and come to a conclusion on the implementation of priority recommendations in respect of Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Spain and Turkey. As part of our common action plan in the Council of Europe, we should also commit ourselves on a national level. In that respect, ECRI’s reports could be a good starting point.

      Ms FABER-VAN DE KLASHORST (Netherlands) – For decades the “red women” in the Netherlands struggled for equal rights for women. These rights are now laid down in law, and yet in actual practice they are gradually crumbling. The city of Utrecht, for instance, has opened two information desks in the Omar Al Faroek mosque: one for men and one for women. That is a form of apartheid. The municipality of Amsterdam registers polygamous marriages, but polygamy is a punishable offence in the Netherlands, so the law is not being enforced.

      Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe. Last year in Toulouse, jihadist Mohammed Merah shot down a rabbi and three children without warning, merely because they were Jewish. The increase in violence against Jews is so worrying that the Israeli Government is likely to adopt a plan to bring tens of thousands of French Jews to Israel soon. Apparently, Europe is not capable of granting European Jews a safe haven – or is it unwilling to do so?

      During the 1970s oil crisis, Europe secured its oil supplies by starting the Euro-Arab dialogue. One of the conditions imposed on Europe was recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Such recognition involved tacit acceptance of the PLO charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel. Moreover, Europe was compelled to open up its borders for non-western immigrants and their culture. Immigrants had to be granted equal rights to enjoy their own culture and religion. That is how Islam has gained a firm foothold in Europe.

      Ideological Islam is bound up with the Koran and Sharia Law, which does not grant equal rights to women, homosexuals or non-believers.

      Islam is the main source of intolerance in Europe. One of the reports opens the door to the infringement of freedom of expression and to the restriction of any form of criticism of Islam. That is why the report promotes the Euro-Arab dialogue and becomes part of it. Democracy is being abused to allow Islam to gain a firm foothold in Europe. By the means of many millions of oil dollars, the free western world is in the process of being Islamised. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr Erdoğan, makes one think when he says, “Democracy is like a train; when you reach your destination, you get off.” Meanwhile, the European elites continue to crawl before the Islamic countries and continue to feed the crocodile, hoping, as Sir Winston Churchill once put it, that it will eat them last. Acceptance of Islam means the end of the western, democratic, rule-of-law State.

      Finally, I thank the rapporteurs for their work in producing their reports.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Mine is yet another voice from the Netherlands. I thank Mr Gunnarsson and Mr Davies for their reports, as they have put a vulnerable element of our society on the agenda. Racism and intolerance are dangerous, especially if their existence is denied. They are everywhere in the Council of Europe and have always been with us, but I agree with the rapporteur that the economic crisis has fuelled racism and discrimination. Every citizen should look in the mirror and assess how to avoid racist behaviour, but politicians should do that more and do it better. The authorities have a large responsibility to prevent racism and discrimination, and ensure that everyone in society has equal rights. That implies not only education and awareness raising, which are important, but an active policy to prevent the exclusion of migrants – for example, in the labour market The full participation of migrants is an important tool for empowerment and integration, but any kind of discrimination should also be tackled, with people having accessible means of submitting complaints, and with the active prosecution of discrimination and racism.

      The other report is called “Tackling racism in the police”. If institutional racism remains within the authorities, we know that racism cannot be tackled adequately in society. Inquiries have brought to light the fact that not only the British police but the German police suffer from institutional racism. Last year, Amnesty International accused the Dutch police of racist profiling. These conclusions are serious, as all citizens need the guarantee that the police protect their rights, including the right to equal treatment. The police need to be aware that murders or other crimes could be motivated by racism, because if they are not, they fail to protect victims of racist crimes. Innocent migrants can also be prosecuted for or accused of crimes as a result of prejudices. Ethnic profiling increases that risk significantly. In the Netherlands, a database containing fingerprints is being established to cover all migrants. The police are allowed to use the database for policing tasks, even if they have no concrete suspect or indication that the perpetrator is a migrant. That implies that the data of migrants are searched more frequently than those of other citizens, and that fact alone creates the risk of stigmatisation and racism.

      I fully support the Council of Europe’s work in its struggle against racism and discrimination. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance report on the Netherlands concluded that the Dutch Government needs to do more, and that caused a lively debate. That is good, because it contributes to awareness of the fact that migrants suffer from discrimination and racism. Awareness alone is not enough; member States need to follow up ECRI’s recommendations. It is also up to us to make sure that our governments comply with them. We should fulfil the role of a human rights watchdog not only here in Strasbourg, but in our home countries.

      THE PRESIDENT* - Thank you, Ms Strik

5. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights (Result)

      THE PRESIDENT – I will now give the Assembly the result of the elections of the Danish judge to the European Court of Human Rights. There were 159 members who voted. There were two blank votes, so 157 votes were cast. The number required for an absolute majority is therefore 79. Mr Karsten Hagel-Sørensen got 26 votes. Ms Nina Holst-Christensen got 48 votes and Mr Jon Fridrik Kjølbro got 83 votes. So the last candidate, who obtained the absolute majority of the votes cast, is now elected to the Court, and the nine-year term of office will start three months after the election at the very latest.

6. A strategy to prevent racism and intolerance in Europe and tackling racism in the police (resumed debate)

      THE PRESIDENT – I shall now give the floor to Mr Kalmár.

      Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – First, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that in the last period the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has taken on and produced reports on very important European issues. The reports could be regarded as part of a series that build on each other. Now we speak about racism and intolerance, but later this week we will discuss migration and migrants and in April, I hope, we will talk about tradition and national minorities. Those issues are all related and the solutions should in all cases be based on tolerance and democracy. So I congratulate not only the rapporteurs, but the committee on this organised and planned work.

      In chapter 7, the rapporteur discusses the strengthening of the radical parties in Europe, citing the example of Golden Dawn in Greece. Mr Gunnarsson raises the right important question: why did the electorate vote for that party? It should be answered in a very open and honest way, because if it is not, the situation will get worse. I agree with Mr Díaz Tejera that we cannot let our nations lose their confidence in democratic institutions and in democracy. We must show that democratic tools can solve the problems of European societies. One main workshop where we can find these tools is the Council of Europe. If we fail, politics based on force may come back.

      I also fully agree with the proposed classification and registration of crimes. Unfortunately, in some Council of Europe countries a wrong understanding of personal rights means that ethnically motivated violence or crimes are not recorded as such. Without adequate information it is impossible to draw the right conclusions. I also wish, however, to speak about a positive experience. In 2005, in Hungary, the Equal Treatment Authority was founded. From 2009, the authority has built up the rapporteur network in the country. It assists, free of charge, people who are asking for help. On the basis of Hungarian governmental and European financial funds, the authority could start research on issues related to Roma, handicapped and retired people.

      Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – I, too, would like to thank both rapporteurs for their excellent contribution to the fight against racism and intolerance in Europe. I would like to discuss five important messages for parliamentarians in promoting tolerance and wiping out hate in Europe.

      First, I remind you that we parliamentarians have a duty to lead and not just follow the people. We must be bold and speak up when intolerant views are voiced. Last November, I spoke against hate speech at a conference in Prague. Following my statement, I started receiving hate mail. That clearly demonstrates the urgency of the problem and the need for our voices to be louder than the ones trying to silence us.

      Secondly, we have a responsibility, as legislators, to accept and implement efficient anti-racism laws.

Despite the progress, major steps are still required in many countries, and we must recognise the existence of institutional racism.

      Thirdly, we have a responsibility to tackle the root causes of hate. Integration policies should involve both migrants and their host communities. Critical views should be met with a constructive approach and rational arguments.

      My fourth message is that we all have a particular duty during election campaigns. Some candidates and political parties unfortunately present migrants and refugees as a threat to and a burden on society, which may increase negative reactions to immigrants among the public. I therefore call on political leaders to assume their responsibilities during migration debates and to combat xenophobic rhetoric. We cannot forget that the media also has a huge responsibility to use factually correct material with fair formulations.

      We also need new solutions for dealing with irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. The boat disaster near Lampedusa last year was a wake-up call to politicians across Europe that our fortress policies are not working and are not humane. Our human rights commitments oblige us to take care of the weak.

      Last, but not least, I want to remind everyone that no child is born a racist and that intolerant views stem from adults and public discourse. Only we can stop the atmosphere of hatred. Let us do it together.

      Mr TIMCHENKO (Russian Federation)* – The fact that this theme is topical is underscored by the fact that the reports before us are of a high quality, for which I thank the rapporteurs.

      In today’s world, everything has become so small. There is so much migration and mixing of races and ethnic groups that we have to learn to live together. Racism and intolerance are not just obstacles to the normal functioning of the State and of society; they make it impossible. People are racist usually because they are afraid of others. It is of concern that that fear may be exacerbated as the economic and social situation deteriorates in some countries.

      Can we talk about a single strategy to combat racism and intolerance? There is no definite answer. Many things can be and are being done to solve such problems in Europe, such as bringing up young generations with a spirit of tolerance for others and allowing each individual to have their own convictions while respecting those of others. Cases of racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance can be monitored and the legal and social reaction should be resolute. The analysis of the causes of racism and intolerance is also important.

      What does the situation look like in various countries, in particular Russia? The Russian Federation pays a lot of attention to combating racism, intolerance and discrimination. At the end of last year and the beginning of this one, we adopted several laws that give more responsibility to authorities in the regions to deal with ethnic conflicts and one law that makes people more liable when promoting hatred. It is not possible to solve the problem in the same manner in all countries, as each has specific conditions that must be taken into consideration. Russia was born and has been developing for centuries as a multi-ethnic State and in implementing a strategy to combat racism and intolerance we put a lot of stress on our domestic culture and the development of humanitarian approaches. A Russian philosopher once said that one must not attack others because they are different, that everyone should be able to breathe free in the great fatherland, to pray in his own way, to work in his own way and to contribute to culture and development. It is not a universal recipe, but it may be useful for many States.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia)* – I want to refocus the discussion from the eastern perspective of Georgia. I thank the rapporteurs and the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for putting the issue high on the Assembly’s agenda. We have a duty to discuss it as people are suffering and becoming daily victims of racist hatred and hate crimes in our countries.

      Georgia has been a victim several times. Georgian citizens have experienced ethnic cleansing twice in the past 20 years; first in the 1990s and then in 2008 following the Russian invasion. Unfortunately, it does not end there. In 2006, there was an orchestrated battle against people of Georgian origin in the Russian Federation and hundreds were forcibly deported and two people died. We are using all the minutes that the Assembly and the Council of Europe allow us, including tabling an inter-State complaint in the European Court of Human Rights, but the Court’s remedy is long term. It is therefore important to focus on what can be done at national level. The situation in Georgia has unfortunately deteriorated. Georgian citizens of Muslim origin are harassed because of their religious beliefs. African immigrants are being insulted and even injured. The police response to such crimes is irrelevant, because the attacks, such as the vandalising of a Hanukkah celebration, are categorised as minor acts of hooliganism. The report dealt well with what can be done in such situations.

      I want to mention the political dimension of the policies and the use of xenophobic rhetoric in politics. Unfortunately, such rhetoric is often used to demonise European values in the eastern countries of the Council of Europe. I once met an 11-year-old boy in parliament who told me that he did not want Georgia to join the European Union because he would be forced to marry another boy. The Russian Federation has used the law banning so-called LGBT propaganda not only to harass representatives of the LGBT community, but also to spread anti-European sentiments. That cannot be tolerated, and I welcome the launching of a strategy and comprehensive approach, including proper sanctions, to preventing acts of racism, xenophobia and intolerance.

      Mr GOZI (Italy)* – A spectre has returned to Europe and is stalking the continent. Colleagues have recalled what the Council of Europe has achieved since 1949, particularly when discussing the Holocaust yesterday, but we are seeing the re-emergence of racism and intolerance. As a result of the social and economic crisis, people are looking to lay the blame at someone’s door, which is fuelling the rise of racist and neo-Nazi populist parties. That is why we must redouble our efforts today, as we have in the past, and act more robustly to counter the phenomenon.

      The Gunnarsson report suggests that we try to map out a new Council of Europe strategy to combat racism. I firmly believe that the Committee of Ministers should forge ahead with that work, under the responsibility of the Secretary General. We must also look to counter the re-emergence of racist hate speech in many Council of Europe member States, including Italy. That re-emergence has come as a shock to many of us. In 2013, Cécile Kyenge, our Minister for Integration, was the victim of repeated insults and verbal attacks from Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament should be models of tolerance and not the instigators of hate. In Rome, a declaration was issued to remind politicians of their special responsibility in the fight against racism. We in this Chamber should support that declaration. A code of conduct should be adopted in all national Parliaments.

      The main response is the same as it always has been: education, education, education. We have to ensure that we have information. That is why we must mount awareness-raising campaigns in all our countries, along the lines of the No Hate Speech campaign, targeted specifically at young people and social networks. We should work to extend the No Hate Speech campaign beyond 2014 and build on that with other campaigns to stamp out all forms of hate speech and hatred to bring about a change, once and for all, in people’s mindsets. No one is born a racist, but more and more people on our continent are becoming racist. Let us work at a national level and in the Council of Europe and earmark resources for our schools, which are on the front line. That is where we can win the battle for our values – values that are non-negotiable.

      Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – I fully agree with Mr Gunnarsson that a strategy to counter racism and intolerance must focus primarily on prevention. That can be achieved effectively only if we eliminate the fundamental root causes that generate and propagate the phenomenon. We must first concentrate on the huge social and economic inequalities that characterise the world, Europe and its societies. Those inequalities have regretfully increased, rather than decreased, thereby exacerbating immigration from countries of origin and, subsequently, racism in host countries.

      Mass immigration is not only the result of poverty and the tragic social conditions that whole societies are experiencing because of the robbery of economic resources by national and multinational monopolies; it is also the result of unjust wars and foreign interventions that cause humanitarian crises and new migratory waves. Furthermore, in the main host countries of Europe – primarily, but not only, the ones on the southern border – harsh neo-liberal austerity policies have been imposed, creating the conditions for the marginalisation and impoverishment of large segments of the population. Those realities, coupled with social dumping and the brutal exploitation of immigrants by employers, have created the conditions for populist, racist and extreme right-wing groups to expand.

      There is also the more general disaffection towards national and European institutions that have been unable to redress the situation and find meaningful solutions to the problems. Consequently, a prevention strategy should aim to eliminate inequalities, poverty and social marginalisation, thereby ensuring social justice, equality and solidarity in practice. Additionally, we need a strategic approach to racism that emphasises prevention and focuses on full respect of the principles of international law and human rights, as well as the United Nations Charter. Moreover, as the rapporteur states, anti-discriminatory legislation needs to be enacted and monitored by us, as parliamentarians.

      Civil society also has a crucial role to play. It needs to be more proactive, through affirmative action and by holding States accountable for their actions and deficiencies. Human rights groups and independent authorities charged with fighting discrimination must be bolstered and given the legal and financial means to operate effectively. Stereotypes connecting minorities to poverty and crime need to be combatted through inclusive and multicultural education, as well as through trust-building between minority and majority communities. The media, including social media, also has a crucial role to play in combatting racism and intolerance and fostering a culture of tolerance and respect for diversity.

      Mr CASEY (Observer from Canada) – Canada is often touted as a model of inclusion, tolerance and respect for others. While acknowledging that, we need to remind ourselves that considerable work is still to be done to deal with historical wrongs against particular minorities. In 1982, Canada adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a landmark document that has, as one source of inspiration, the European Convention on Human Rights. While the charter has served Canada well in protecting minorities, whether racial, ethnic, religious or linguistic, some groups continue to face inequality.

      Aboriginal peoples in our country have been the victims of systemic discrimination, first by European colonisers, then by successive Canadian Governments of every political orientation. They continue to be subject to marginalisation, and many Aboriginal communities face poverty and social and economic inequality. Canada’s relationship with Aboriginals on policing does not have an entirely proud history. That was brought to the world’s attention in 1989 when a special commission of inquiry released its report into the arrest and prosecution of Donald Marshall, an Aboriginal man wrongly convicted of murder. The commission issued a scathing indictment of the criminal justice system in Mr Marshall’s home province. Racism was found to be a significant factor in his arrest and prosecution. Cases such as Mr. Marshall’s and the crisis involving the Mohawks of Kanesatake have led to important police reforms. One of those reforms is policing in Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal demand for policing has grown significantly and, with the support of our national and provincial Governments, more than 162 agreements have been signed by Aboriginal communities and all levels of government. In many of those agreements, the Aboriginal communities manage and administer their own police services, including the recruitment of police officers.

      In 2006, shortly after taking office, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood in our House of Commons and delivered a historic apology on behalf of all Canadians to the Aboriginal peoples. That apology was embraced by all political parties and was a moment of great unity in Canada. Canada’s challenge is to turn that apology into meaningful action. Much more work is needed to address all the problems confronting Aboriginal peoples and their relationship to Canada. Many Aboriginal communities live in severe poverty and are disproportionately over-represented in our prisons. Aboriginal policing policy is just one approach that recognises the inherent dignity of Aboriginals and seeks to respect Aboriginal culture. It is important to reform our criminal justice system and in particular sentencing and restorative justice. The resolution and the report before the Assembly appropriately recognise that member States are at different positions along the spectrum between racism and inclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to share a Canadian perspective.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Badea is not here, so we will move on to Ms Santerini.

      Ms SANTERINI (Italy)* – Racism and anti-Semitism have not vanished from Europe. Along with colleagues, I have to repeat that fact, and that is depressing when we are commemorating the end of the Holocaust. That is why I thank the rapporteurs for mooting a holistic strategy and for suggesting ways that institutions, politicians and political forces can go about eliminating racism.

      I would like to draw your attention to the question of prevention. It is important that we do something before these acts of racism or organised forms of xenophobia take place. Often, immigrants are used as scapegoats. Minorities, Jews and the Roma are being scapegoated. Forms of neo-racism are becoming widespread among young people in particular. We have not taken the right measures, and nor have we properly gauged the effects of neo-racism. It is a phenomenon that does not just proclaim a kind of hierarchy of race and suggest that certain races are inferior. Rather, since the Second World War we have seen certain hidden forms of racism that are partly couched in politically correct and reasonable terms, and which have come to trivialise certain simplistic ideas that are very easy to trot out but are no less dangerous for that. The Internet is a public space in which such language is being used, particularly among young people. This kind of racism is linked to many different forms of intolerance, such as Islamophobia and anti-Gypsyism. It is not based on race but is just as dangerous and insidious, because it is ambiguous and ends up taking the form of full-blown, open racism.

      We should pay particular attention to pinpointing and analysing these new manifestations of racism among young people. We need educational and cultural policies, and to analyse this “grey” form of racism, which appears benign but runs the risk of tipping over into extremist and violent racism. Importantly, the European identity is an inoculation against prejudice, and that is why Governments and others should do more. We could do better if we understood the kinds of changes that are afoot amongst our young people.

      Mr CHAOUKI (Italy)* – I, too, would like to thank our two rapporteurs. We cannot really talk about the fight against racism without talking about the general political context within which it is happening, particularly in Europe, where political movements and parties that are clearly racist and xenophobic are having their path eased for them and are increasingly being accepted. That shows that no law can stem this rather dangerous movement. We should have been investing far more in campaigns, including general cultural campaigns, and doing more in the way of prevention, rather than having this populist, knee-jerk reaction. We need clear campaigns.

      We are seeing an increase in racism, xenophobia and Islamophobic movements. Given the growth of these parties, we should be sounding the alarm bell. They are dangerous. As has been said, the Islamic presence goes back decades. There are some 20 million Muslims in Europe, and attempts are afoot to spread fear. This religion and other religious minorities are a fully fledged part of Europe and Europe’s cultural identity.

      I agree that we should be promoting implementation of the Convention on Cybercrime and its additional protocol, particularly as it relates to social networks. There is freedom of exchange on the social networks, but we need to put in place a certain number of limits in respect of, for example, the company that administers Facebook and the posting of toxic messages on the Internet.

      On racism in the police, promoting diversity within the police is a decisive step. We should be exchanging good practice. Including persons of diverse origin within police forces can only have a positive impact on the general dynamics within society in a number of countries. I have been to Lampedusa, so let me give this example. Two members of the Italian military, one of whom is from Eritrea, have done much to help integrate refugees there. Lampedusa is not just a place of death where a number of people have lost their lives. Mayor Nicolini stands for the spirit of the humanist tradition, welcoming others. We need to acknowledge the spirit the mayor represents and pay tribute to the efforts of Lampedusa and its citizens in recent months.

      Ms PIPILI (Greece)* – I want to refer in particular to the report by Mr Davies, which outlines the parliamentary work we need to do to make sure we tackle racism in the police. We need to get rid of this mentality and make sure that we penalise it. Mr Davies says in his draft resolution and report that politicians should stand up and speak out against all forms of racial discrimination. We believe that such public speaking out is necessary. We need also to make sure that we help police officers carry out inquiries and investigations where necessary, and to make sure that whoever is responsible for racial violence is punished.

      It is also important to send out the right signal to all potential victims. You have to prove to them that there will be sanctions – that there are serious consequences and there will be punishment. At the same time, we need to make sure that police officers who have done no wrong can find their place in society with dignity. After all, police officers are the guardians of our society. They are there to protect society – they are not the forces of repression.

      We know that today, the situation has much improved within police forces. This is thanks to the decisions taken by the Council of Europe, to rulings handed down by the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice, and to the efforts of non-governmental organisations. We would argue that this improvement is also very much due to the fact that police forces now include more officers with a higher level of education. Officers are assessed and monitored, and are well versed in the issues multicultural societies face. For example, nowadays the majority of the people in the Greek police come from rural areas. We also have young men and women officers who come from urban areas, including our city centres, and who have grown up with immigrant communities and have therefore met people from other creeds and with other beliefs. This mix is important.

      Mr Davies talks about violence, which unfortunately was to a great extent caused by the crisis. We know that the crisis has meant that many people in the Greek police force – people who are not very well paid – have unfortunately signed up to and adopted the wicked discourse of Golden Dawn. We need to wake up to the fact that today in Greece members of parliament – Golden Dawn MPs – have been arrested and are behind bars but sometimes have police officers on their side. It is difficult to do something effective to help to support the police force; we do not have many funds available for that. However, we could instead emphasise the importance of training police officers and making sure that we punish those who do not abide by European laws or, indeed, Greek laws. Congratulations on your report, Mr Davies; it is very balanced.

      (Mr Flego, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Rouquet.)

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan)* – I thank my colleagues, Mr Davies and Mr Gunnarson, for their interesting and incisive reports on tackling racism in the police and strategies to prevent racism and intolerance in Europe. Nowadays these issues are very important and significant in Europe.

      In the past few years Europe has been facing a number of challenges, with economic and financial crises affecting its political and democratic stability. One of those challenges is racism and racial discrimination, which affects all levels of society. No institution appears immune to racism. It is important to stress that the Assembly should address the issues of racism in law enforcement institutions. The best practices in Council of Europe member States must be identified and ways of preventing these phenomena must be found.

      Some minutes ago, we heard wrong information about the Azerbaijani people – namely, that racism is a feature of our character. I would like to give you the right information. Azerbaijani people are not all Azerbaijanis. Our society is multicultural. It is a country where the mosque, the church and the synagogue coexist in peace. Azerbaijan is home to many ethnic groups who have been living in our lands in harmony for hundreds of years. In Azerbaijan, Jewish, Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian, Armenian and other peoples enjoy equal rights. Today, the reality is that 20% of Azerbaijani territory is under Armenian occupation, rather than Armenia being under Azerbaijani occupation. Azerbaijan has 1 million refugees from the Armenia-occupied Azerbaijani lands. I would like to advise my colleague from Armenia, Ms Zohrabyan, to search Internet sites to find the interviews of Serzh Sargsyan in which he speaks in his own words about his participation in the Khojaly massacre, where hundreds of Azerbaijani people – women, children and old people – were killed because they were Azerbaijanis. This is racism.

      I want to stress again the importance of the issues we are discussing and what my colleagues have said about ways of resolving it. As members of national parliaments, we must do our best to gain attention for these issues for other legislators and societies.

      Mr KOLMAN (Croatia)* – I congratulate both rapporteurs. I am going to focus on the report on preventing racism and intolerance in Europe by our colleague Mr Gunnarson. Unfortunately, as we have heard, this is one of the key issues that we still need to deal with in Europe, within all Council of Europe member States and beyond.

      As the report correctly notes, several factors have made things worse in recent times. We have seen an economic crisis, which will always provide a breeding ground for intolerance, combined with the Internet and social networks, which despite being a symbol for and an environment of freedom, have also served as a tool for attacking the freedom of others. This is especially dangerous because young people use the Internet and social networks the most and can be exposed to or directly victimised by racism and intolerance. It is worth noting that although Council of Europe member States have strengthened their legal framework against hate crime and hate speech, these crimes, to quote the report, “have increased both in gravity in number.”

      This brings me to the point of my speech – prevention and, especially, education. It is obvious that the legal framework is not enough. It is also tragically obvious that many children in all the countries of Europe do not learn tolerance and respect for others in their homes – often quite the contrary. This is exactly the sort of task that the Council of Europe should tackle. Reports, resolutions and recommendations need to be transformed into programmes, projects and permanent campaigns that aim to reform our education system so that from a very early age – from kindergarten – our children are taught tolerance, respect for differences, living with differences, and using differences for the progress of individuals and society. Unless we manage to protect the freedom of others, our own freedom will be the first victim.

      Without proper education, criminalisation of hate speech can have the opposite effect to what is intended. Without proper understanding of what it is all about, the young could, and unfortunately often do, think that it is just another rule that asks to be broken. Under the relative anonymity provided by modern communications technology, or under the cover of night but even in broad daylight in the public and political arena, people are being violated because of their colour, religion, orientation and so on. Many of these sources of intolerance are mentioned in the report, but others are not – for instance, the issue of age: the old versus the young and vice versa, and the rich versus the poor and vice versa.

      We need to act swiftly, because while we debate here the real world is producing more and more victims of hate and intolerance. In the eternal debate on whether there can be freedom for enemies of freedom, I personally never had any doubts: no, there can be no freedom for the enemies of freedom and we can have no tolerance for intolerance.

      The PRESIDENT – I do not see Mr Jensen, so Mr Kandelaki has the Floor.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia)* – Let me once again focus your attention on Europe’s east – the countries of the eastern partnership that are trying to come closer to the European Union and build functioning, pluralistic democracies. It so happens that forces that are very much trying to resist this process are investing a lot in demonisation of Europe and the western way of life. In that context, organisations that use hate speech attack minorities and spread intolerance.

      That is the case in my own country. For the past year, since the Georgian Dream coalition of billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili came to power, Georgia has gone through a democratic backsliding. One visible and well-documented dimension of that has been the rise and empowerment of anti-western extremist groups and, as a consequence, a rise in violence against different sorts of minorities. In December 2012, slightly more than a year ago, the newly elected Georgian Parliament unconstitutionally overturned judicial decisions and released 190 individuals, many of whom had been convicted of violent crimes against minorities, and declared them so-called political prisoners even though they had not been recognised as such by any authoritative body. Since then, those people have regrouped into various organisations and have regularly engaged in violent attacks against different kinds of minorities.

      During this period, those groups, whose discourse very much resembles the discourse and activities of similar groups in Ukraine, Moldova and other countries where western ideas are under attack, have staged dozens of pogroms and attacks against minorities – and, alarmingly, they have enjoyed impunity. Even in cases of repeat offences, they have got away with token administrative fines. Most alarmingly, the leaders of these groups occasionally get endorsement from leaders of the current government, including the current and former prime ministers, and they have enjoyed unprecedented access to the government. A former prime minister endorsed one of the leaders of these groups and called on her to “become mainstream opposition.”

      The core of the Georgian Dream coalition – people who do not usually come here – have often practised xenophobic and hate speech. For example, the vice-speaker of the Georgian Parliament said: “If I’m forced to become a lesbian by the European Union I will resist.”

      Any government that flirts with groups such as this or tries to use them against political opponents – they have been used against democratic opposition in Georgia as well – must get a clear signal of warning. This document is one such sign, so I thank the authors.

      Mr CHITI (Italy)* – I, too, think it is right to have brought to the attention of the Assembly racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. I think we are seeing an increase in aggression and intolerance throughout Europe. The very difficult economic crisis and the austerity measures that have been adopted have created opportunities, but it is not only that: clearly, we are faced with anti-democratic political parties that are in positions of some importance in some countries. Their stand is clearly xenophobic and they seek to divide and instil fear. Some of them are of a clearly fascist or Nazi stamp.

      In Italy, as soon as the coloured minister, Ms Kyenge, was appointed, she was challenged on the basis not of her qualifications but her skin colour. There were two faults: first, she was black and, secondly, she was a woman. Mr Chaouki was quite right to say that some fear an Islamic invasion. Some 20 million Muslims live in Europe and there are those who, through their passivity, are not doing anything to contest these attitudes. Two Senegalese were assassinated recently in Florence, and we know what happened in Norway not that long ago. We are talking about migrants, Roma, people who are different because of their sexual orientation – all these people are being discriminated against. Last week in Rome there was a shameful form of provocation at the synagogue. The Israeli embassy organised an exhibition and pigs’ heads were placed in front of the entrance to this exhibition.

      We are talking about racism and anti-Semitism of a collective nature so I share the analysis of the rapporteur that we need united action. It is therefore important to work with the courts and the police. We need to promote cultural pluralism, not only with ethnic diversity within the police and judiciary but with information campaigns in schools and the media. We need to unite in this political battle. Democracy will not survive the absence of human rights and, above and beyond our differences, democratic forces should not underestimate the problem. We need to promote solidarity and tolerance.

      Mr MAYER (Austria)* – Honourable colleagues, I will speak about the report that deals with tackling racism in the police. I thank Mr Davies very much indeed. After all, he is someone who knows the field well. I, too, know it quite well so I speak from experience. It is true that unfortunately even within the police we have the problem of racism and xenophobia. One reason is that people from ethnic minorities or people from immigrant backgrounds find it more difficult to integrate into the police force. It is difficult because there are other problems and perhaps sometimes it is felt that they cause more problems than the so-called autochthonous population.

      We have to look at the issues at hand: migration, the influx of refugees, and so on. Some people have talked about the Islamicisation of our societies. In light of this, you have to remember that among the population at large very many people speak in a derogatory way about these people, as though they were second-class citizens; the same holds true, unfortunately, within the police. This is what we are witnessing. Unfortunately, very often illegal migrants are involved in drug trafficking, human trafficking, gambling and prostitution – very serious crimes. Of course, the situation is very difficult and the police cannot do much about these types of crimes. That leads to stress; stress generates violence and more violence, and that is unfortunately what we are witnessing right now.

      Therefore, we need to rethink the way in which we approach these matters – in our culture, in the way that we approach “the other”, so to speak. It is good that the Council of Europe has addressed the issue. I am grateful that Mr Davies has decided to tackle this issue, to look at the way in which we can combat discrimination and tackle racism within the police. It is a very good starting point. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the report has really valuable content.

      We should not forget that many police officers – men and women – do excellent work. We should thank them for that. After all, they are there to guard our security and safety, and they sometimes do this at the risk of their own lives. But we also need a modern police force that is adapted to the circumstances of modern society. Racial profiling simply should not exist in police work. There should be no racial profiling and we should show zero tolerance towards this kind of approach.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – Dear colleagues, first, I congratulate the rapporteurs on their very important reports. I agree with Mr Gunnarsson that the increase in racism, hatred and intolerance should seriously concern us. Member States should not ignore this problem and must strengthen their efforts towards its prevention. For this purpose, the young, growing generation should be educated about respect towards human beings, irrespective of their ethnicity, religion, gender or social State. Unfortunately, in some countries, the statements of politicians and the information reflected in the media condition the growth of this negative development.

      I am a citizen of a country suffering from such cases. To better understand the implications of intolerance and racism, I draw your attention to the recent history of my country. Due to the intolerance and hatred generated by the Armenian Government, education system and mass media, hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis were forcibly deported from Armenia in 1988. Afterwards, having occupied 20% of Azerbaijani territory, Armenian armed forces murdered more than 20 000 Azerbaijanis, perpetrating genocide in Khojaly. One million Azerbaijanis have been living as refugees and IDPs, and through ignoring Resolution 1416 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Armenia prevents their return to their homes.

      Instead of ensuring the implementation of the resolution, a member of the Armenian parliamentary delegation, Ms Zohrabyan, delivers disinformation to the Parliamentary Assembly about the President of Azerbaijan. If you visit Azerbaijan, you will have the opportunity to see thousands of Azerbaijani citizens of Armenian ethnicity and to talk to them. They will tell you the genuine truth. What about the similar situation in Armenia? At the moment not one Azerbaijani is in that country because all Azerbaijanis have been expelled from Armenia. I regret that our Armenian colleagues confuse Assembly members with disinformation, thus facilitating the increase of tension.

      Finally, I support the rapporteur in all the issues raised by him in the report and call on member States to focus much more on these issues.

      THE PRESIDENT – I am obliged to interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the list of speakers who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report. Now I call on the rapporteur, Mr Davies, to reply. Mr Davies, you have six and a half minutes.

      Mr D. DAVIES (United Kingdom) – It has been a pleasure to listen to all the contributions, which are probably too numerous for me to discuss in detail. My friend and colleague Geraint Davies, a fellow member of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, mentioned my contretemps with the Black Police Association, which caused a fair amount of publicity in the United Kingdom at the time. What I said was that I believed that the association should have been encouraging ethnic minorities to join the police. At that time, it was actively discouraging them from joining because it said the force was too racist and was not a safe place. I do not accept that it was right and it was certainly not right to discourage people from joining. The whole point of having an association for black police is to get as many black and ethnic minority officers into the police as possible. I am glad that now the association is actively campaigning to do that.

      There were many other interesting contributions. Mr Díaz Tejera talked about the Franco years, although that was long ago, of course. I certainly hope that the Spanish police do not reflect the culture prevalent at that time. Ms Blondin was right to point out that the report will go to member States. That is why it was so important to me that the report represented unity from left to right.

      I sit as the chairman of a Select Committee in the British Parliament and I know from many years’ experience that it is quite possible for members of a Select Committee or an organisation such as this to vote one way or another depending on their political views. However, when a report is unanimously signed off by members of all sorts of different political persuasions, it is taken far more seriously by governments. Obviously, some people might not have wanted some things to be in the report; others might have wanted to see things that are not in the report. However, I believe that we all can agree on the report and as a result it will have more power and weight.

      I do not have time to refer to every speaker, but the last speaker, Mr Mayer, made an important point in saying that the vast majority of police do a good and difficult job in dangerous circumstances. They do not always get it right and they get let down by a small number of colleagues whose behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. It is in everybody’s interests that we sort that problem out. My recommendations are not there just to support ethnic minorities – I want the police to support the recommendations because they realise that their lives will be easier as a result.

      I have worked as a police officer in London and have been pleased to go out with officers from all sorts of different ethnic backgrounds in areas with high ethnic populations. That gives us a certain credibility and gives the public confidence that we are reflecting the society that we police. That is why it is important that there should be more visible ethnic minorities in the police and independent oversight of complaints. There should also be diversity training, although as I said it should be appropriate; it should not be about singling police officers out and making them out to be the enemy, but about saying, “If you get this right, your life as a police officer will become much easier. You will find it easier to get out into the community and solve crime.” That is what all police officers want to do. There should be training about how to stop and search people in a polite fashion; all too often it goes wrong. We need records. Police officers should be able to wear identity badges. I can look any police officer in Europe in the eye and say that that need not cause a security problem.

      The issue is not just down to the police or to politicians; NGOs have a role as well although they do not always play it. I am surprised and a little worried about the lack of understanding among some NGOs about what life as a police officer is like. I spoke to people who clearly did not have a clue what it was like to be in a threatening situation – the adrenalin kicks in and people make decisions under pressure that they might not have made in other circumstances. That is not to excuse bad behaviour in any way, but such situations need to be put into context. It was not my place to do this in the report, but I want to put on the record my suggestion to NGOs that they walk the streets with police officers as I did in Germany. The police in many European countries that I spoke to were open to that suggestion. In London, it happens; community representatives can see the job through the eyes of a police officer. They come back with a totally different perspective. Any NGO that wants to comment on policing should support that idea and any police force who want to get their point of view across ought to welcome such involvement.

      Finally, I make an appeal to all politicians. I did not hear this today, but we came across examples of police officers being described in completely unacceptable terms by elected representatives. In Germany, I believe, one such representative implied that the police there were acting like Nazis. That was absolutely disgraceful and there have been rare examples of similar things happening in the United Kingdom. I cannot say enough in support of how the German police and people have come to terms with the past and made enormous efforts to rid themselves of the awful stigma of what took place in the Second World War. I thank all members of the Committee for their support and all the NGOs and police officers whom we met. I hope that the report will be picked up by member States who will be able to sell it to police officers and communities as something that will deliver a win-win for them all.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Davies. Mr Gunnarsson, you have seven and a half minutes.

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – I am happy about the vast support for the resolution and recommendation shown by colleagues in the Assembly. All the political groups gave their support to the Committee’s suggestions and I am proud of that. Almost everyone who spoke gave their own testimony about racism in their daily lives, constituencies or countries, and that says something about the issue. Racism, intolerance and hatred are everywhere and only we can do something about that. We need to speak up and say, “No – this is not okay.”

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – You ignore patriotic people. I do not have the right –

      THE PRESIDENT – You are not allowed to speak.

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – Yes, so be quiet.

      Many speakers mentioned the Holocaust and other ethnic cleansing atrocities in Europe’s history. It was also said that Europe’s collective historical memory seemed a bit bad – that we suffer from some sort of dementia. I agree. Every day, every generation needs to be reminded about our history. When we have allowed hatred to spread in a society, it has caused wars, killings and murders on an almost unimaginable scale. That is why we need to combat racism, hatred and intolerance. Mr Gozi said that no one is born a racist, and that is absolutely true. We are all accountable for bringing up responsible European citizens. Only we can give a new generation good values for the future. A mere legal framework is not enough; there needs to be education and we need to work on our own attitudes – that is the only way in which we can create a future Europe without racism.

      I hope that I heard her wrongly – perhaps it was my English – but what I think Ms Faber-Van de Klashorst said about Islam and Muslims is exactly what the report aims to eradicate. We cannot speak about groups or people who belong to them in that way. We need to stop doing that, and that is why we produced the report. We must build over the differences among people in Europe. That is the only way forward. If we can recognise that we are different and respect that, we can go forward in greater harmony than today.

      I again thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I also especially thank the Secretariat for doing a very good job and the committee for taking such a great interest in this issue.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does the vice-chair of the committee wish to speak? You have two minutes.

      Ms DERVOZ (Bosnia and Herzegovina.) – I will begin with some good and important news. The report highlights that the fact that Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination attaches great importance to preventing and combating racism and intolerance on whatever grounds. This is why in its meeting on Monday the committee decided to set up the role of general rapporteur against racism and intolerance.

      Two important reports on highly topical issues have today been presented to us. Their importance is confirmed by the fact that so many members have been present for the debates. It has become urgently necessary to address racism, hatred and intolerance in Europe through a strategic, rather than a piecemeal, approach. The urgency becomes all the greater when we consider that these phenomena affect entire groups, leading to group victimisation. They create barriers in society between different groups, affect human rights and social cohesion, and erode even further trust in public authorities, the rule of law and, ultimately, democracy.

      I want to stress that politicians have a special role and responsibility in condemning intolerance and refraining from racist and discriminatory behaviour. All too often the contrary is the case. Racism in politics has become a problem of huge proportions, which we cannot overlook.

      We tried to highlight the situation in several Council of Europe member States with a view to having an overall vision of the context. Racism is present in society and therefore also in the police and no country is immune from it. The report on racism in the police sheds light on the phenomenon of institutional racism and individual racism in the police in several Council of Europe member States. The acknowledgement of the existence of a problem is the first step to tackling it and the resolution calls on all of us to look into this matter.

      I again congratulate both colleagues, Mr Gunnarsson and Mr Davies, and I call on all colleagues to support the reports of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      THE PRESIDENT – In respect of the first report, “A Strategy to Prevent Racism and Intolerance in Europe” (Document 13385) the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has presented a draft resolution to which two amendments have been tabled; and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Equality and Non-Discrimination Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that amendments 1 and 2 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

Is that so Mrs Dervoz?

      Mrs DERVOZ (Bosnia and Herzegovina.) – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

      As there is no objection, I declare that amendments numbers 1 and 2 to the draft resolution have been agreed.

      The following amendments have been adopted:

      Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Mahoux, Mr Blanchart, Mr Henry, Ms Saïdi and Mr Van der Maelen, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 2, insert the following paragraph:

      “A report by the European Network Against Racism has emphasised the responsibility borne by political decision-makers who, on the pretext of not remaining silent on real problems, issue dangerous and stigmatising statements against certain communities. The rise of the far right and its rhetoric may also influence conventional political discourse.”Am

      Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Mahoux, Mr Blanchart, Mr Henry, Ms Saïdi and Mr Van der Maelen, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 2, insert the following paragraph:

      “The fact that some national legislations do not consider racist insults and discrimination as criminal offences effectively sends out a negative signal to European peoples as there is no provision for any official sanction against these actions.”We

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13385 as amended. Will members please ensure that their voting cards are in the slot.

      The vote is open,

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 13385. Will members please ensure that their voting cards are in the slot.

      The vote is open.

      In respect of the second report “Tackling racism in the police” (Document 13384), the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has presented a draft resolution to which two amendments have been tabled.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Equality and Non-Discrimination Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that amendment 2 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so Mrs Dervoz?

      Mrs DERVOZ (Bosnia and Herzegovina.) – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

      As there is no objection, I declare that amendment 2 to the draft resolution has been agreed.

      The following amendment has been adopted:

      Amendment 2, tabled by Mr G. Davies, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Crausby, Mr Sheridan, Lord Anderson, Mr Dobbin, Ms Osborne and Mr Connarty, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 7.1.7 with the following sub-paragraphs:

      “provide the police with sufficient resources to work in satisfactory conditions; ta

      take specific measures to ensure that the police give absolute respect for the rights of the persons        they deal with;”

      We will therefore now consider Amendment 1, tabled by Mr G. Davies, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Crausby, Mr Sheridan, Lord Anderson, Mr Dobbin, Ms Osborne and Mr Connarty, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 7.1.3, add the following words:

      “including targets and quotas including senior ranks.”I

      I call Mr Geraint Davies to support amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr G. DAVIES (United Kingdom.) – Over half the population of London is black or ethnic community yet only one in 10 of the police are, and some 14% of the population is black or ethnic but only 5% of the police are. The police need to represent the community they serve, so I am recommending ambitious targets with minimum quotas to deliver change, because without them it has not happened.

      THE PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr David Davies, rapporteur, wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Equality and Non-Discrimination Committee, as follows: “In amendment 1 to delete the words “and quotas”.”

      The President may accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

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

      That is not the case.

      I therefore call Mr David Davies to support his oral sub-amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr D. DAVIES (United Kingdom.) – I agree absolutely with what my colleague, Geraint Davies, has just been saying about the need for more ethnic minorities in the police. That has been the whole point of my report. I think putting in place targets is good, but putting in place a legally binding quota would be almost impossible at this moment to sell to police forces, and I certainly could not support this, so I ask that we support the proposal of the entire committee, which is that we aim at ambitious targets. This is achievable.

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

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of Mr Geraint Davies?

      Mr G. DAVIES (United Kingdom.) – I support the need for targets, as does David Davies, but I also support the need for minimum quotas, which he does not support, so I ask for there to be a vote on this.

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

      Mrs DERVOZ (Bosnia and Herzegovina.) – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote. Will members please ensure that their voting cards are in the slot.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment as amended?

      Mrs DERVOZ (Bosnia and Herzegovina.) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 1, as amended, to the vote. Will members please ensure that their voting cards are in the slot?

      THE PRESIDENT – We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13384, as amended. Will members please ensure that their voting cards are in the slot?

      The vote is open.

7. Evaluation of the Partnership for Democracy in respect of the Palestinian National Council

      THE PRESIDENT – The final item of business this afternoon is a debate on the report entitled, “Evaluation of the partnership for democracy in respect of the Palestinian National Council” to be presented by Mr Tiny Kox on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. There will be an oral opinion presented by Mr Şaban Dişli, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and an opinion presented by Ms Gülsün Bilgehan, on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      I remind you that we have already agreed that, in order to finish by 8 p.m., we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.45 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – On 4 October 2011, the Parliamentary Assembly granted Partner for Democracy status to the Palestinian National Council. The PNC thus became the second parliament after that of Morocco to be granted that status, which was introduced by the Assembly in 2009 to develop institutional co-operation with the parliaments of the Council of Europe’s neighbouring States.

      The PNC declared then that it shared the same values as those upheld by the Council of Europe and made political commitments in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly. In addition, the Assembly stated that a number of specific measures were of key importance to strengthen democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Palestinian territories.

      Today, we evaluate the first two years of the partnership and decide on the follow-up. I hope that my explanatory memorandum and the draft resolution that I prepared satisfy the Assembly, as they did the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which adopted unanimously the draft resolution in December. I thank all members for their valued contribution to my report – now better said to be our report.

      I shall make some general remarks regarding the partnership. First, I want to praise the active participation of the Palestinian parliamentary delegation in the work of the Assembly and its committees. Let me in particular thank Mr Bernard Sabella, who leads the Palestinian delegation in an excellent and most charming way, showing the importance that our Palestinian delegation sees in our partnership.

      I also thank Mr Sabella and the Palestinian delegation, assisted by Mr Ibrahim Khreisheh, Secretary-General of the Palestinian Legislative Council, for the pleasant and professional way in which they helped me access all the information and all the relevant players I wanted to meet in Palestine, such as parliamentarians; the president; the prime minister; ministers; heads of institutions such as the central elections commission and the anti-corruption bureau; the chief justice; the human rights commissioner; trade unionists; media representatives; and many ordinary Palestinian citizens, including women, youth, students and entrepreneurs. They made me realise time and again how much the Palestinians are interested in this special partnership with our Assembly.

      After granting the Partnership for Democracy to the PNC, the Assembly supported the Palestinian bid for full membership of the United Nations in 2011. However, as the UN Security Council was not able to make a unanimous recommendation on the bid, full membership was not achieved; although more than 130 United Nations member States – 18 of them Council of Europe member States – have already recognised the State of Palestine. The Assembly noted the UN General Assembly resolution that granted Palestine non-member State status, which increased the opportunities for Palestine to join some international organisations and to accede to certain international treaties and conventions. The Assembly also decided, following that resolution, to use the name “Palestine” in the Assembly list and related documents.

      During our partnership, a reconciliation agreement was signed between the Palestinian authorities and the de facto rulers in Gaza. I regret, however, that the agreement has not been put into practice, and that the formation of a Palestinian Government of national unity has not yet succeeded. As a consequence, dates for the much-needed parliamentary and presidential elections have yet to be agreed on.

      Recent developments show new activity to implement the reconciliation agreement. It is of utmost importance that the lack of checks and balances due to the current absence of an effective legislature in Palestine is overcome. I am pleased that the chief negotiator on reconciliation of the Palestinian Government, Mr Azzam al-Ahmad, is part of the Palestinian delegation, and he is here with us.

      Since last year, new negotiations have started between the governments of Palestine and Israel, also thanks to the efforts of the Government of the United States. A period of nine months has been agreed for negotiations. Secretary of State Kerry has paid many visits in the past months both to Palestine and Israel, and he has met other relevant leaders in the region. Recognising that progress is slow, I ask the Assembly to urge all parties to support the negotiations and to be optimistic that an agreement can at last be reached.

      I ask the Assembly, by adopting the draft resolution today, which was, as I said, unanimously adopted by the Political Affairs Committee last December, to reiterate our support for a two-State solution; to call for an end to the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel; and to regret the on-going construction of illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories. Respect for international law by all parties involved is absolutely required to reach a just solution, which, if and when it is reached, would benefit the whole world – the citizens of Palestine and Israel first and foremost.

      I note with pleasure that the Knesset has informed us that it continues with the support it gave to the partnership in this Assembly two years ago. Of course, my report’s interpretation of certain elements may differ from that of Israel, but I did my best to base all my conclusions on facts that I was able to check in Palestine. Once again, I urge our colleagues in the Knesset to do their upmost to get elected Palestinian parliamentarians released from Israeli custody. Parliamentarians should not be put in prison; they should be able to work in parliament and serve the interests of their people.

      The fact that Palestine is not a full member of the United Nations prevents it from co-operating fully with special mechanisms, including the United Nations universal periodic review. However, that does not prevent it from adhering to Council of Europe conventions and other legal instruments, provided that there is agreement among the Committee of Ministers and the States party to such instruments. I ask the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to help the Palestinian authorities in that respect, if that is what they want. I encourage the Secretary General to take all necessary steps, together with relevant partners, to mobilise the Organisation’s experience to assist in the further development in Palestine of human rights, the rule of law and democracy, and to investigate future possibilities for Palestine to make more use of the relevant instruments of the Council of Europe. In the next years of the partnership, we should not only prolong, but deepen our relationship. I invite our Palestinian partner to suggest new proposals to the Assembly in time.

      In conclusion, I propose that the Assembly welcomes the progress achieved and resolves to continue to review the implementation of political reforms in Palestine, to offer its assistance to the Palestinian National Council, and to make a new assessment of the partnership within two years of the adoption of the resolution.

      I thank the Secretariat in general and Mr Joao Ary in particular for the excellent way in which they have helped us evaluate this partnership, which is important for our Assembly and the PNC and which is, first and foremost, so relevant for the citizens of Palestine, to whom we owe our solidarity and support. I ask the Assembly to adopt my resolution.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kox. You have four and a half minutes left. I call Mr Dişli, Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, to present the committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Tiny Kox, for his excellent work. He has covered every aspect of developments and obstacles in Palestine. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights fully supports the draft resolution.

We join in the encouragement given to members of the Palestinian Partner for Democracy delegation to help speed up the implementation of legal reforms. We hope that the United Nations Security Council will agree unanimously to recommend a full membership application from Palestine to the United Nations. We also recommend that Hamas and the PNC unite behind the Partner for Democracy status, which will strengthen Palestine’s efforts for better democracy and also help make it easier to conduct talks and negotiations with Israel. Like Mr Kox, we are very happy to see the active participation of the Palestinian delegation in the work of our Assembly.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Dişli. I call Ms Bilgehan, Rapporteur of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, to present the committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

      Ms BILGEHAN (Turkey)* – I congratulate Mr Kox on his detailed report on the progress in implementing commitments undertaken by the Palestinian National Council in the context of its request for Partner for Democracy status. I welcome the fact that the report addresses on several occasions the issue of women’s rights, which was one of the PNC’s commitments in October 2011. Like Mr Kox, I stress from the outset that Israeli occupation and the refusal of Hamas to respect the reconciliation agreements are major hurdles against the implementation of the PNC’s commitments. However, notwithstanding the difficult circumstances, improvements can and must be made, especially with respect to the situation of women.

Major clarifications are needed with regard to the situation of women in Palestine. Women’s representation in the parliament has not progressed since 2006. There are three women in the government, which is not so bad, but when local elections were held in the West Bank in autumn 2012, 20.1% of those elected were women and a woman was elected Mayor of Bethlehem.

      Palestinian women have a crucial role to play in the peace negotiations and the building of a Palestinian State. None the less, they have marginal representation in key decision-making positions, although that is the case in most places. The plight of women is a major cause for concern and there have been no serious improvements since October 2011. As Mr Kox has pointed out, legislative power is, in effect, absent from Palestine and that prevents implementation of the rights of the family and compliance with international standards.

All in all, I endorse what Mr Kox has said and I support the efforts of the Palestinian Authority to continue to demonstrate its commitment to gender equality and improving the status of women in Palestine. The political and legal situation makes it difficult to make real progress, but it is clear that the resolve to move towards an inclusive, democratic society remains intact. I therefore support Mr Kox’s proposal to continue co-operation with the Palestinian National Council and for a second assessment in two years’ time.

      THE PRESIDENT – In the debate I call the first speaker, Mr Villumsen, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – First, I thank the rapporteur for a good and fact-based report. On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I stress our support for continued co-operation and partnership with Palestine. I therefore ask the rapporteur to look into the possibilities of strengthening the co-operation between the Council of Europe and Palestine. Does he have any ideas about how that could be done?

      I underline the positive point that, by adopting this report, we are making a clear stand in support of a two-State solution, calling clearly for an end to the illegal Israeli occupation, and stressing the need to stop the illegal settlements and to end Israeli violations of international law. The human rights of Palestinians are violated daily due to the illegal Israeli occupation. That is simply not acceptable.

      I thank Palestine for its good co-operation with the Assembly. We in the Group of the Unified European Left look forward to continuing that co-operation. I and the group are very proud that I am able to stand here today and say that, by adopting this report, we are sending a clear message from this Assembly that Palestinians have the right to dignity, self-determination and a free Palestinian State – a free Palestine.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Villumsen. I call Mr Schennach, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – On behalf of my group, I congratulate Tiny Kox on his successful report, which covers all the crucial issues. I am glad that we have introduced the Partnership for Democracy, as it is a very important institution. As Mr Villumsen said, the partnership with Palestine is particularly important, given the impossible situation there. One thing is beyond dispute, and that is our solidarity with Palestine. That needs to be said.

      How can we have democracy in Palestine when Gaza is a modern Guantanamo – an open-air prison – and the West Bank is cut up into smaller areas? The West Bank is small, but because of arbitrary decisions it sometimes takes people 10 hours to cross it. How can we have democracy in such a place? When we encourage elections and the result does not please us, we must remember that people are listening to their hearts, and voting for Hamas was a natural choice for a certain number of Palestinians. We have to recognise that dialogue and assist in it.

      If we look back to the Balfour declaration and the situation in 1919, we see that one of the stumbling blocks is water. A lot of conflicts are about water. The West Bank has three major water tables, but the main one is the River Jordan. We know that a lot of water is being siphoned off and the Golan Heights have been occupied, and it is the only source of water from that particular aquifer. It is therefore important that we remain part of the dialogue with Palestine, which involves both Fatah and Hamas. We must promote democratisation, although we do so in the most impossible conditions. We have to try to keep that dialogue alive.

      In the shadow of the Arab Spring, we have to recognise opportunities and seize them. A number of Arab potentates have not conducted reform at home, and although they show solidarity with Palestine they almost take Palestine hostage. That is an obstacle to any peaceful or democratic development, and it is important that reforms are conducted in these Arab countries. An opportunity is there for the taking, but both sides have to move closer to each other. Israel has to release 100 elected representatives who are sitting in prison. They are being held in detention, but not because of any acts they have committed.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schennach. I call Mr Sasi to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr SASI (Finland) – The Assembly granted Palestine Partner for Democracy status in 2011, which was a very good idea because we need co-operation with neighbouring States. Our idea must be to strengthen democracy in our neighbouring area, because that is one way of trying to guarantee peace and freedom there. Involving Palestine in this process was a good choice because it means that the Palestinians themselves want to build a democratic State. A democratic Palestine means more stability in the area and it increases the possibilities for the peace process, because in a democracy people participate and there is an exchange of views. That can easily lead to better results in the peace process. The fact that the Palestinians chose this approach was respected, as they had declared that they had the same values as us: democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

      What has happened in the time since that status was granted? Two years ago, we were speaking a lot about the need to release Gilad Shalit. He has now been released, and that is a big bonus. Even though that was done in an exchange between Israelis and Palestinians, that requirement has been fulfilled. Unfortunately, in other respects very little progress has been made. The situation is very difficult and making progress is not easy, but more effort should be made. Palestine needs a real democratically elected body that represents the people. It would be nice to set the dates for parliamentary and presidential elections as soon as possible, but the situation in Gaza is terrible. It is ruled by its own rulers and there should be some kind of democratic control in that part of the country, too. We identified three areas of co-operation, one of which was the reform of the judiciary, where we could help Palestine a lot. We have to put pressure on Palestinians to try to build their own justice system, because it can be improved. The death penalty is a key issue for us. There is a de facto moratorium on its use, but unfortunately courts in Gaza hand down death penalties and Hamas carries out illegal executions. What the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has said about the need to change the law and stop the executions in order to fulfil our requirements and expectations was good.

      Like the previous report, this one indicates what the Palestinians should do so that we can all benefit from the process. I hope that within the next two years more progress will have taken place. The rapporteur should follow things up so that the Palestinians choose the right way, which is democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We can help in that respect because we have expertise and we are willing to do so.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sasi. I call Mr Makhmutov to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation)* – Our group, too, highly commends the report prepared by Mr Tiny Kox. Substantial work has been done and it warrants a positive commendation. The report goes deeply into the problems of democracy in Palestine, and we think that the draft resolution merits our support because it refers to the efforts in Palestine to develop bodies for democratic governance and the Palestinians’ aspiration to achieve that goal.

       For a more effective resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian question, a greater role could be played by the Middle East Quartet, which was not mentioned in the draft resolution or the report. In saying that, I do not belittle the importance of the Council of Europe or the European Union, which are very active in bringing about a peace settlement and the establishment of the rule of law. I point out that the ministerial meeting of the Quartet was held in New York in the autumn, and regular representations are made to the representatives of the key players, and that was done most recently in Paris. They have called for a stepping up of the quest for a peace settlement. The document needed to be balanced and measured, and it correctly analysed the situation as a result. There is a need to take the greatest and most effective steps towards recognition of Palestine as a State. We are already on the right road with that, and such an approach would help to resolve many of the problems in the Middle East.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Makhmutov. I call Mr Reimann to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr REIMANN (Switzerland)* – The Partnership for Democracy between the Council of Europe and the Palestinian National Council is premised on good will on both sides. We in the Council of Europe would like to transmit values to the PNC, values that will help it in its existence and help it to set up its own democratic State and to move forward. It is true that the first two years of the Partnership for Democracy have been very much marked by the conflict in Palestine.

      In fact, we have two partners in Palestine, so to speak. On the one hand we have Fatah, which is responsible for the West Bank and would really like to be our partner, but we also have Hamas, which is in charge of Gaza and is giving the Council of Europe the cold shoulder. The two sides are rivals and enemies. They have moved towards reconciliation, but it is a tragedy that neither a unity government nor a unity parliament is on the horizon, and the Partnership for Democracy has not helped us to move forward. It is good that the partnership is working with one party, which is represented here in Strasbourg, but that is insufficient. We want a democratic partnership with the whole of Palestine. We obviously cannot force the issue and there must be good will in Gaza and from Hamas.

      It would appear, however, that not only good will, but the material conditions to allow for such a situation, are lacking, which is a point that Mr Kox makes clearly in his report. He describes the situation in the Gaza Strip, including how death sentences are being handed down and carried out and how there is no press freedom. He also states that there have been no genuine and free elections, and as long as that holds true our partnership is stalled. We would like Palestine to have full membership of the United Nations and we would like a viable two-State solution, but that is sadly still far off. I know the situation in Palestine well as I have been active there on behalf of the International Committee of the Red Cross. I welcome the progress that has been made, particularly in the West Bank, even though Israel’s questionable settlement policy, which is still being pursued, is an issue. I hope that further progress will be made over the next two years and that that progress will apply to the whole of Palestine in due course.

      Ms OSBORNE (United Kingdom) – I welcome the Partnership for Democracy. It was a pleasure to be here when President Abbas accepted Partner for Democracy status on the behalf of the Palestinian people.

      It is impossible to talk about the Palestinians’ ability to make progress on meeting their obligations under Partner for Democracy status without reference to the occupation, for two reasons. First, no country can truly enjoy the rights and responsibilities of democracy, human rights and the rule of law as long as it is illegally occupied by another State and its citizens are denied basic freedoms that we all take for granted, including recognition as a State by the United Nations. Secondly, there is the sheer struggle to cope on a daily basis and to remain hopeful, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that a peaceful, secure future is possible.

      Anyone who has had the opportunity to witness conditions in Gaza cannot fail to see that they are absolutely dire. The closure of Gaza has tightened since the events in Egypt in July, when the Egyptian military destroyed or closed many of the tunnels that have been supplying Gaza, which has no doubt reduced the illegal smuggling of weapons, but has also meant that everyday essentials and economic necessities, which could no longer get in because of the blockade, can now no longer get in through the 2000-plus tunnels that substituted for the closed crossings. The winter storms in December led to massive flooding in areas of Gaza and 10 000 people were forced to leave their homes. The humanitarian situation cannot simply be ignored; otherwise, Gaza will shortly be literally unfit for human habitation. Those are not my words, but those of a UK minister, Alan Duncan, who returned from a visit last week and warned that Gaza could become an unlivable place with no food, power or clean water by autumn.

      In the short time I have available, I want strongly to support the amendment by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination relating to women’s rights. Universal human rights should not depend on whether you live in the West Bank, Gaza or Jerusalem, on your religion or on which political party is in power. I want to emphasise what has been achieved by Palestinian women over many years in a situation of conflict and insecurity. For example, if they achieve a 30% quota in the general election – when it happens – they will be ahead of many mature democracies, including the United Kingdom.

      Finally, I look forward to the day when Palestine can pursue the cause of democracy, human rights and the rule of law fully as a State in its own right and without its hands tied behind its back.

      Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – By granting the Palestinian National Council Partner for Democracy status a little over three years ago, our Assembly made a doubly significant gesture. It offered the political reality of Palestine a new venue for dialogue with Europe while asserting faith in the common values that underpin democratic life in Europe. The rapporteur’s clear intention was to take stock of the initiative and to see to what extent the goals of the Partnership for Democracy had been achieved. He recalled the commitments entered into by the PNC, which are restatements of principles developed a long time ago by the Council of Europe. The report states that the authorities he met have tried to refer to the commitments and to undertake efforts to address them. He indicates that the Palestinian negotiators have often used the conflict with Israel as an excuse for delays or shortcomings in the implementation of the Council of Europe’s reforms. Such a justification is slightly clichéd, but one cannot deny that current relations between Israel and Palestine, in the troubled context of the Arab world as a whole, are not conducive to meaningful implementation of the reforms. Progress requires a modicum of stability.

      The continuation of the Partnership for Democracy is not easy to contemplate in a situation that is marked, as the rapporteur says, by “the current absence of an effective legislative power, which was the cause of a severe imbalance in the Palestinian State structures.” We also know that relations between the President of the Palestinian National Council and his Prime Minister are not the best. The split of Palestinian territory into two areas separated by both geography and internal disputes is not conducive to facilitating the building of a political society as we understand it in the west. Moreover, negotiations between Hamas and Fatah do not seem close to bringing about the establishment of a national unity government, which would help to strengthen cohesion in Palestinian society and the PNC’s ability to have its voice heard internationally and in bilateral negotiations.

      The rapporteur no doubt has in mind all those facts when he concludes that it is practically impossible for the Palestinians to carry out the various reforms to which they had agreed in principle. However, he asserts the need for co-operation to be continued and for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to develop the Partnership for Democracy. He is right that no ties should be broken that may eventually bring about the gradual establishment of truly democratic institutions in Palestine, even if the actual possibilities for positive developments are limited.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next speaker is Mr Sabella from Palestine; Partner for Democracy.

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine) – Thank you, Mr Kox, for the work done on evaluating the Partnership for Democracy. I also thank the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for the last two years of partnership. We are also appreciative of the work of and support from the Secretariat, in particular Ms Despina Chatzivassiliou and Mr João Ary. We are also thankful to Mr Dişli and Ms Bilgehan for their opinion reports. We are proud of the partnership, because it recognises the aspirations of our people to end occupation and to exercise our rights similarly to other peoples. The report strengthens our determination to be a people committed to the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Without such resolve, we cannot go forward with normal relations within our society and with our neighbours.

      As I have said on previous occasions, the partnership has given us a model that we can emulate, learning from your complex and varied experiences in trying to reach consensus on differing and sometimes conflicting views within Europe. The report encourages us to approach our challenges in a similar manner. We feel empowered by our partnership and we are cognisant of our shortcomings, but this is not the place for mea culpas. We are cognisant of our need to learn from others in an egalitarian manner. While we have noted the Israeli delegation’s remarks on Mr Kox’s report, we have provided our own clarifications.

      We yearn for a future where the relationship is neither simply judgmental or condescending, nor strictly based on a one-dimensional perspective. We want a relationship that acknowledges the rights of our people amid the difficult circumstances created by continued occupation, increasing settlement activity and other measures that indefinitely postpone peace and eventual conciliation. A vote to renew our partnership is a strong message from this distinguished Assembly that the future for Palestinians and Israelis should be based on mutuality and a respect for basic rights. Continued occupation and its negative manifestations will remain stumbling blocks for a future of peace, mutual recognition and eventual reconciliation between our two peoples. I again thank the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for extending its trust in a continued partnership with our people, represented by the Palestinian National Council.

      Ms ALLAIN (France)* – Rapporteur, in your report assessing the situation, you say that Israeli occupation has meant that the PNC has not been in a position to fulfil its commitments, but we need to recall forcefully that the context has created difficulties that are incompatible with the emergence of a democracy. The wall that has separated Israel and the Occupied Territories for more than 10 years is the most insolent symbol of that. Declared illegal by the International Court of Justice at The Hague on 9 July 2004, it stands as an unacceptable violation of international law. It covers some 60,000 hectares of fertile land and covers important wells. The wall exacerbates already difficult living conditions for the Palestinians. The main victims are farmers who have been expropriated and often cut off from the rest of their farmland. Businessmen have seen a 30-50% drop in turnover. Doctors and lawyers can no longer work in Jerusalem. A number of students and workers have to be extremely patient to get through the various checkpoints and obstacles.

      The humanitarian situation, which was already difficult, has been exacerbated by the political situation in Egypt and the closure of the tunnels from Egypt that enabled the Gaza population to survive. How can we hope for the introduction of real democracy when human rights are being trampled underfoot? We talked earlier in the context of racism about a crime against humanity. How then can we accept the crimes that have been perpetuated by the State of Israel against people who are forced to live in perpetual conflict or war? The support to the arms industry should be denounced, but there is a glimmer of hope: we are talking about a courageous people whose resistance is shown each autumn by a human shield in which Israelis join that enables Palestinian farmers to harvest olives and plant trees. That is a sign that change is possible, and change is essential if we want democracy to move in. The example of the rainbow society in South Africa after apartheid proves that walls can be brought down, even in Palestine.

      Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – I think it says a lot for what Israel has achieved in this debate in recent years that it can unite the whole of the Council of Europe, from the first speaker, who spoke on behalf of the UEL, to a British Conservative such as myself, who would instinctively support the existence of the State of Israel. This debate makes clear that we are united in the partnership between the Council of Europe and the Palestinian people. Although the report makes clear that there are some shortcomings under Fatah leadership in Palestine, including on women’s rights and how journalists are treated, all those shortcomings pale into insignificance compared with the basic denial of freedom to the Palestinian people, who are living under a state of occupation.

      Like others here, I recently visited Bethlehem, and I saw a country where a people are effectively imprisoned and where even people who are neutral observers and do not come to this matter with pre-suppositions are horrified by the continuous expansion of settlements within the historic land of Palestine. What the report shows – the speech that we heard from Mr Sabella from the Palestinian point of view was a powerful echo of this – and what the first speaker made clear is that this Assembly is united in its support for the desire and right of the Palestinian people to live, like other peoples, in peace, freedom and democracy.

      THE PRESIDENT – I give the floor to Mr Shai, Observer from Israel.

      Mr SHAI (Observer from Israel) – Israel and the Palestinians are in the midst of negotiations. There are ups and downs and we must not judge negotiations before they are finished. It is clear that the two sides are taking tough positions as starting points from which they can later withdraw. From Israel’s perspective, the central point is security. Israel must have conditions of maximum security to prevent Judea and Samaria from falling into the hands of terrorists, as happened in Gaza. The Israeli public will only be willing to accept withdrawal from the territories if our day-to-day security is not threatened.

We do not fear another Holocaust. We know that the world will not allow that tragedy to happen again. Nor do we believe in the shadow of the Holocaust, but you cannot take away a nation’s memories: you cannot make people forget their loved ones who were murdered seven decades ago.

      Europe has an important role in the peace process. It is crucial that the involvement is constructive and not destructive. A shared vision needs to be offered to Israelis and Palestinians, with European support. We hear such offers coming from Europe, and they are attractive and meaningful. I urge you, as representatives of Parliaments and States, to convey this message back home: only by way of persuasion is there a real chance for Israel and the Palestinians to reach the finality of the conflict.

      At the end of the process, Israelis will take the right steps and do what is required internally in order to motivate the Government to move in the right direction. We will do it ourselves. I should also mention, however, that we need two to tango. Europe has a variety of ways to encourage the Palestinians to show flexibility and to adopt a realistic and sober attitude towards the Middle East. Only a sober and realistic approach will help.

      Unjustifiably, the Palestinians blame Israel for their failure to democratise. Still, on behalf of the Knesset, we support the extension of the State of Palestine and the status of Palestinian democracy, under monitoring.

      Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – Our Assembly decided to grant Partner for Democracy status to the Palestinian National Council on the basis of its request and the proclaimed commitment of its leaders to the core values of the Council of Europe. We also took note of the formal promises made to adopt legislative and administrative reforms in the territory under the responsibility of the Palestinian National Authority, in order to allow the Palestinian people to enjoy the benefits of the full respect of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

      Our Assembly has observed the situation in Palestine. The Sub-Committee on the Middle East made an extensive visit to those territories, and also to Israel, and had fruitful exchanges with top Palestinian officials. It was made clear from the beginning of our dialogue and co-operation that Partner for Democracy status implies mutual obligations to our Assembly and each Parliament involved.

      From our side, we provide assistance and expertise, and a forum in the plenary and committee sessions where our partners can have their voice heard. Our Palestinian friends take advantage of that through strong and effective participation, which is most commendable. However, we expect progress to be made in implementing and strengthening human rights and democratic institutions on the ground, as Rapporteur Tiny Kox correctly points out in his report, for which I thank and congratulate him.

      The evaluation we are making expresses full understanding of the very special situation of Palestine and the Palestinian people and its authorities, while noting that important failures remain. We hope the current round of negotiations will be successful, opening the way at last for sound progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, within the framework of the two-State solution.

      We encourage our Palestinian colleagues to make all efforts to organise free and fair legislative elections and to form a Government of national unity. Those tasks are really urgent. Let us proceed with the Partner for Democracy partnership between our Parliamentary Assembly and the Palestinian National Council.

      Ms MATEU PI (Andorra)* – The excellent report from Tiny Kox is measured, balanced and objective. As Mr Dişli and Ms Bilgehan said, we need to acknowledge that it is not an easy task, given that this region is subject to convulsions and upheaval and has been for decades. But we have to note that this report gives us an open and inclusive vision of how our institution can help the Palestinians to meet our standards of human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

      However, the report is not complacent. It puts everyone and everything on an equal footing, including what is working and not working. It puts side by side the perceptions, feelings and aspirations of the various parties in civil and economic contexts, whether they be positive, negative or of a “wait and see” nature. This is the right way to go, because it is in following this approach that the Palestinian National Council may make headway, step by step – by adopting the appropriate laws for developing protection of human rights and the rule of law.

      As the rapporteur said, the path to attaining the objectives laid down by the Assembly remains a lengthy and tortuous one. Progress is slow, but thanks to this partnership and the support our institution can give the Palestinian authorities, I am convinced that it will be a less difficult path to follow and Palestine will become a fully-fledged State, with the rule of law internationally recognised.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Next I give the floor to Mr Salhi, Partner for Democracy from Palestine.

      Mr SALHI (Palestine) – First, I would like again to thank Mr Kox for his report. The Palestinian delegation would like to emphasise the need to use the political and ethical role of your Assembly to press for the release of Palestinian Members of Parliament detained in Israeli jails, and to stop the harassment of our colleagues. That includes travel bans, as happened recently to a well-known member of our delegation, Mr Qais Abdul Karim, and to Ms Khalida Jarrar. This behaviour of the Israelis and the Israeli occupation represents a flagrant violation of the values of democracy, self-determination and human rights. It is time to stop the occupation and the building of new settlements in Palestine, and to start a new era to build peace.

      We understand the problem of the division of Palestine and of not setting the date of the elections. We continually try to solve this problem through reconciliation between all the Palestinian groups, including Hamas. We understand that there are democratic violations on our side, in the State of Palestine, which is under occupation. Let me point out that the majority of the criticisms of the violations come from the Palestinians themselves: from Palestinian political parties, from Palestinian human rights institutions and other groups. Even the reference to these violations by Mr Shai in his letter is quoted by the Palestinian institutions. That means that we understand the problems, and we are trying to solve them. We will work together to stop such violations, but we need you to support us to end the occupation. The occupation is a basic violation of human rights, democracy and self-determination.

Thank you, again, for this. We need your support on this basic issue, the resolution of which can help us to end the violations on our side.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – Thank you, Tiny Kox, for this report. I greet our Palestinian colleagues and the president of the Palestinian Legislative Council – at least, what is left of it – who is with us.

      Our friend Mr Schennach rightly recalled that the 2006 elections were observed by the international community and the results were not recognised. We therefore bear some responsibility for the divisions that exist today. I think we are being a bit excessive when we call for reconciliation, talk about elections, and call for a Palestinian unity government. We all wish to see these things, but we need to put this in context. The United Nations has said that such a State will have a non-member status, so it would be a sort of virtual State with an occupied people and an international blockade. The International Court of Justice has referred to that vast number of physical obstacles such as checkpoints, different types of permit, settlements, separation walls and so on. We need to add the annexation of East Jerusalem and the more recent message in December regarding the intention to annex the valley of the River Jordan, where land comes at a price.

I wish to say to our Israeli friends that, of course, I welcome the existence of any security, but security only guaranteed by Israel in these conditions is not at all legitimate. In that context, Tiny, I feel somewhat bothered about the lack of proportionality between this situation vis-a-vis our legitimate demands. We need to make those demands, but we also need to assess their power in the light of the situation. I read the letter sent by Palestinian friends, who made legitimate points. They said they wished to reach the end of the road but perhaps at some point a little more benevolence needed to be displayed. Thank you, Mr Cox, for a report on a matter that is not at all easy.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I express my support for the work of Rapporteur Kox, which has led to the first steps towards co-operation between the Council of Europe and Palestine, and to this balanced report. The report mentions some small steps of improvement but also addresses the issues on which too little progress has been made. I sincerely hope that all the actors, including us as an Assembly, keep on making efforts to intensify the co-operation and to support reforms in Palestine.

      Of course, we cannot look at this process and problem without acknowledging the context in which the Palestinian authorities have to co-operate. They are still vulnerable and, to a large extent, depend on the policy of the Israeli Government. Palestinian citizens suffer from severe restrictions in their freedom of movement. Politicians are under the same restrictions, and as a result cannot participate in conferences, peace talks or meetings with their citizens. I call on our observer in Israel to end these restrictions and make sure that Palestinian politicians are able to do their work.

      It is important to highlight the violations of the rule of law in Palestine. The Palestinian authorities should work on that, and I am glad that they already do so. At the same time, they face immense obstacles in improving the rule of law and human rights situation because of the illegal occupation by Israel. Of course we all hope that Mr Kerry will achieve a framework for an interim agreement in April, but we cannot depend only on those efforts. Europe should try to stop the illegal occupation and ongoing creation of new settlements. For instance, the European Union has concrete tools because of its economic co-operation. Also, its association agreement includes a human rights clause. Until today, despite non-compliance with international law and judgments of the International Court of Justice, this human rights clause has not been applied. Continuing the dialogue is of vital importance, but words need to be followed by actions; otherwise those words become very weak.

      The Council of Europe is in the unique situation of having relations with the parliaments of both countries. I urge the Assembly, but also the Committee of Ministers, to think of a strategy to use these contacts by bringing both parties together. Would it not be great if the peace process towards a two-State solution were fuelled from the basis of democracy – members of parliament? I hope for a sense of urgency and a strong commitment to equal treatment and human rights for all citizens living in the two countries. The violations have gone on for far too long and more delay is not an option.

      The PRESIDENT – Ms Kanelli is not here, so I call Mr Chisu.

      Mr CHISU (Observer from Canada) – Like this Assembly, Canada supports a two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reached through a negotiated agreement that will guarantee Israel's right to live in peace and security with its neighbours and ultimately lead to the establishment of a viable and independent Palestinian State. Certainly, any steps taken by the Palestinian National Council to democratise, to protect human rights and to respect the rule of law can only be construed as encouraging and ultimately of great help to the lives of Palestinians.

      Canada has not recognised Palestinian statehood. It is strongly opposed to Palestinian efforts to seek recognition of statehood or membership of or other status in the United Nations, or in other international organisations, prior to a negotiated peace settlement with Israel. To this end, both parties should be encouraged to take measures to build confidence for a return to peace talks. The Palestinians believe that membership of international organisations can facilitate a return to negotiations with Israel. However, we are not convinced that such status is helpful for the peace process. Despite the psychological boost that recognition in international organisations provided to the Palestinian Authority, it has significantly raised tensions with Israel. This is counter-productive to the peace process.

      The Palestinian political and economic situation is still shaky. The Fatah-Hamas dispute continues to undermine the Palestinian position, and the Palestinian Authority continues to face a fiscal crisis. These are very serious problems that no amount of international recognition can resolve and which continue to plague the lives of Palestinian people.

      We should all be concerned about the political situation in the Palestinian territories, and the rapporteur has drawn our attention to a number of pressing matters. The reconciliation agreement between Palestinian authorities and the de facto rulers in Gaza has not been put in place and the formation of a Palestinian unity government has not succeeded; the Palestinian National Council continues to be an unelected body, while the Palestinian Legislative Council does not function properly; despite the creation of an anti-corruption agency, corruption remains a cause for concern, and surely the root causes of corruption are best addressed by Palestinian leaders themselves; and the death penalty has not been abolished in Gaza. Reforms in these areas can only help the situation of the Palestinian people. They are also the kinds of reforms that do not undermine, and may help in building, confidence in peace negotiations. In building on that, Canada has announced that it will provide $66 million in additional support for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza to help to advance the peace process, promote security and the rule of law, stimulate sustainable economic growth, and deliver humanitarian assistance.

      Mr CHITI (Italy)* – Thank you, Mr President. I should like to flag up a few points, if I may.

      First, the decision that we made in 2011 to grant to the Palestinian National Council Partner for Democracy status was the right one. Through this institutional co-operation, rather than an European Union military intervention, we can make a contribution to shoring up democracy.

      The method chosen is a very positive one because the objectives agreed upon are subject periodically to an assessment or an evaluation. When it comes to the evaluation and the PNC, I think that some progress has been made. We have also been able to see the obstacles, the difficult circumstances under which the PNC is operating, the most important of which is the absence of a peace agreement with the Israeli authorities. It is important that we appeal for the continuation of those peace negotiations so that they reach a positive result.

      The agreement between the Palestinian authorities and the de facto authorities in Gaza has stalled, but since 2010 the death penalty has been carried out by Hamas after a moratorium of five years. There is no freedom of the press, as we know, but the resolution includes reference to objectives that need to be fulfilled: co-operation in a certain number of key sectors; reform of the judiciary; the promotion of practices of good governance; and efforts to curb human trafficking. These are important issues but one of the most important points has to do with the structure of the PNC itself, which is an organic body that is not yet democratically elected. That democratic deficit has given rise to an imbalance when it comes to governing structures within Palestine exercising effective government. It is important that we assess progress made according to these benchmarks and we need to underscore the importance of this status.

      THE PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given, in typescript, to the Table Office for publication in the official report. I call on the rapporteur, Mr Tiny Kox, to reply. You have four and a half minutes.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Normally a rapporteur is obliged to answer a lot of questions but in this debate few questions were asked of me, and much support was given to the promulgation of the Partnership for Democracy with Palestine. Nobody in this Chamber opposed the continuation of the Partnership for Democracy, and that is great. On the other hand, many of you – our colleague Mr Schennach but also Ms Allain, Ms Strik and others – said that this is a mission impossible. Who of us could try to build democracy under occupation? It is impossible. Nevertheless, the Palestinians have taken it upon themselves to give it a try, to at least build statehood in an occupied territory in order to prepare Palestine to be an independent, democratic State based on the rule of law. Yes, this is a mission impossible, but we should support our Palestinian friends in their efforts.

      Josette Durrieu said that the report is almost disproportionate, with its demands on the Palestinians, whereas the only real demand should be anti-occupation – give the Palestinians the chance to develop their country. Of course, we totally agree, Josette, but the fact is that the occupation is there. Nevertheless the Palestinians have asked for this Partnership for Democracy and voluntarily undertook a lot of important commitments. When I sum them up, it is to remind us, and them, that these obligations are there. Partnership is not for free, however difficult it might be.

      If you go to Palestine – and I have had the pleasure to go there many times – you will see that nothing is easy. Everything is difficult. Everything is more or less impossible to solve. If you see what happens in Palestine, there is a good reason for the Palestinians to be proud of what they are delivering, but they have to deliver more. That is why we have prolonged the partnership. Nikolaj Villumsen asked: what more can we do for Palestine? We should elaborate on two issues: to help the Palestinians to accede to conventions of the Council of Europe – it is very difficult but it is possible – and to get more expert support for Palestine in the development of its statehood and the institutions of this Assembly.

      To be clear, in my humble opinion, to build a sustainable democracy under occupation is not possible. You can finally build democracy only when you are a free and independent country. I thank Mr Shai for not opposing the Partnership for Democracy. Of course, Israel supports the idea that there should be democratic development in Palestine, but when you say that, you cannot ask a country to forget its own history, I say that we all should not forget history. Therefore, I say to you and the Israeli Government: let the Palestinians go. Give them the right, as you once got, to develop an independent country with its own democracy.

      That is the main thing that could and should happen. Start by releasing the parliamentarians who are in Israeli custody. We cannot have a functioning democracy if you put their parliamentarians in jail. Please try to support us all and then we will be united – not only united without you, but all of us together. Get those parliamentarians out of prison and let them participate in the work of this Assembly as a first step to be taken.

      I thank the Assembly very much for the support for my resolution.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kox.

      The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented draft resolution 13382, to which three amendments have been tabled. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy proposes to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 2, and 3 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Mr Kox?

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Yes.

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

      The following amendments have been adopted.

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Selvi, Mr Denemeç, Mr Çonkar, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş and Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 9.1, insert the following paragraph:

“welcomes the efforts of the Palestinian National Council in striving to comply with the political commitments of a partner for democracy despite all the hardships and impediments of the ongoing occupation and illegal measures such as arbitrary arrests and restrictions on freedom of movement.”

      Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.2., in the second sentence, replace the words “such executions” with the following text:

“all forms of capital punishment. It urges the PNC to intervene with Hamas authorities to stop executions in Gaza and to abolish the death penalty in the Palestinian Penal Code, in line with the commitment entered into under the Partnership;”.

      Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 9.4 with the following paragraph:

“acknowledges the efforts made, in particular by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and women’s organisations, to promote the participation of women in political and public life; to fight discrimination based on gender; to ensure effective equality between women and men; and to fight gender-based violence. It expresses concern, however, at the increase of violence against women and calls on the Palestinian authorities to take resolute action against this scourge, in co-operation with civil society and more specifically women’s organisations”.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in this document, as amended. Please will members ensure that their voting cards are in the slot. The vote is open.

8. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much for all your contributions and for staying so late with us. The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the agenda that was agreed yesterday.

      The sitting is closed.

(The sitting closed at 8.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

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

2. Appointment of committees

3. Communication from Mr Thorbjorn Jagland, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Questions: Mr Schennach, Mr Agramunt, Mr Pushkov, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Hunko, Mr Diaz Tejera, Mr Fournier, Ms Zohrabyan, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Huseynov, Mr Villumsen

4. A strategy to prevent racism and intolerance in Europe and tackling racism in the police

Presentation by Mr Gunnarsson of the report of the Committee on Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 13385.

Presentation by Mr D. Davies of the report of the Committee on Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 13384.

Speakers: Ms Lundgren, Ms Renner, Mr Geraint Davies, Ms Quintanilla, Mr Marias, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Conde, Ms Blondin, Ms Schou, Mr Sidyakin, Ms Zohrabyan, Ms Christoffersen, Ms Faber-van de Klashorst, , MsStrik, Mr Kalmár, Ms Virolainen, Mr Timchenko, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Gozi, Mr Loukaides, Mr Casey, Ms Santerini, Mr Chaouki, Ms Pipili, Ms Gafarova, Mr Kolman, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Chiti, Mr Mayer, Ms Pashayeva

Replies: Mr D Davies, Ms Dervoz

Amendments 1 and 2 to Document 13385 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13385 as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13385 adopted

Amendments 2 and 1, as amended, to Document 13384 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13384, as amended, adopted

5. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights (Result)

6. A strategy to prevent racism and intolerance in Europe and tackling racism in the police (resumed debate)

7. Evaluation of the Partnership for Democracy in respect of the Palestinian National Council

Presentation of a report by Mr Kox entitled, “Evaluation of the partnership for democracy in respect of the Palestinian National Council” on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

Oral opinion presented by Mr Dişli on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Opinion presented by Ms Bilgehan, on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination

Speakers: Mr Villumsen, Mr Schennach, Mr Sasi, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Reimann, Ms Osborne, Mr Rochebloine, Mr Sabella, Ms Allain, Mr Conde, Sir Edward Leigh, Mr Shai, Mr Diaz Tejera, Mr Mota Amaral, Ms Mateu Pi Mr Salhi, Ms Durrieu, Ms Strik, Ms Kanelli, Mr Chis, Mr Chiti

8. Next public business

Appendix I

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON

Luise AMTSBERG*

Lord Donald ANDERSON*

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV*

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI/Brigitte Allain

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Pavel Holík

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Guguli Maghradze

Deborah BERGAMINI/Milena Santerini

Sali BERISHA/Oerd Bylykbashi

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Teresa BERTUZZI

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO*

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Eric BOCQUET/Maryvonne Blondin

Mladen BOJANIĆ

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI/Khalid Chaouki

Márton BRAUN*

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON/Maximilian Reimann

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Elena CENTEMERO/Giuseppe Galati

Lorenzo CESA

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE

Agustín CONDE*

Telmo CORREIA

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO

Jonny CROSIO

Yves CRUCHTEN

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Milena DAMYANOVA*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER*

Reha DENEMEÇ

Roel DESEYN*

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK/Marjolein Faber-Van De Klashorst

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ*

Jim DOBBIN/Joe Benton

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Damian DRĂGHICI

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE/David Davies

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES/Cheryl Gillan

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Franz Leonhard EßL/Edgar Mayer

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV/Alexander Sidyakin

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Bernadette Bourzai

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE*

Adele GAMBARO*

Karl GARÐARSSON

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA*

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI

Fred de GRAAF/Tineke Strik

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR/Ahmet Berat Çonkar

Gergely GULYÁS*

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG/Jonas Gunnarsson

Sabir HAJIYEV*

Andrzej HALICKI

Hamid HAMID*

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Armen Rustamyan

Alfred HEER

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN

Andres HERKEL

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO/Olga Kazakova

Vladimir ILIĆ*

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ*

Antti KAIKKONEN

Ferenc KALMÁR

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI/Zbigniew Girzyński

Deniza KARADJOVA*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Pascale Crozon

Ulrika KARLSSON/Tina Acketoft

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski

Serhiy KLYUEV*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Kateřina KONEČNÁ

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Attila KORODI/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Alev KORUN*

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV/ Sergey Kalashnikov

Christophe LÉONARD*

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN/Katherine Zappone

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE*

Lone LOKLINDT

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Trine Pertou MACH/Nikolaj Villumsen

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOUX/Olivier Henry

Thierry MARIANI*

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA

Ivan MELNIKOV*

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Jacques Legendre

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ*

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Marian NEACŞU*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Elena NIKOLAEVA/Robert Shlegel

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Mirosława NYKIEL/Tomasz Lenz

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Lesia OROBETS*

Sandra OSBORNE

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS/Maria Giannakaki

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Foteini PIPILI

Stanislav POLČÁK/Gabriela Pecková

Ivan POPESCU*

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT*

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE/Carmen Quintanilla

Alexey PUSHKOV

Mailis REPS*

Eva RICHTROVÁ/Marek Černoch

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET

Pavlo RYABIKIN*

Rovshan RZAYEV

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Ömer SELVİ

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Bernd SIEBERT*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Algis Kašėta

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*

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Liana Kanelli

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER/Sir Edward Leigh

Dame Angela WATKINSON

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER/Martina Renner

Morten WOLD

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLÀ

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Petras Gražulis

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Vassiliy Likhachev

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Croatia / Ivan Račan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Geraint DAVIES

Angeliki GKEREKOU

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Anvar MAKHMUTOV

André REICHARDT

Spyridon TALIADOUROS

Observers

Stella AMBLER

Marjolaine BOUTIN-SWEET

Sean CASEY

Corneliu CHISU

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Jorge Iván VILLALOBOS SEÁÑEZ

Partners for Democracy

Azzam AL-AHMAD

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Nezha EL OUAFI

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM

Appendix II

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

Werner AMON

Sali BERISHA/Oerd Bylykbashi

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Robert BIEDROŃ

Alessandro BRATTI/Khalid Chaouki

James CLAPPISON

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK/Marjolein Faber-Van De Klashorst

Jim DOBBIN/Joe Benton

Franz Leonhard EßL/Edgar Mayer

Francesco Maria GIRO

Sandro GOZI

Andreas GROSS

Tiny KOX

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Epameinondas MARIAS

Sir Alan MEALE

Michele NICOLETTI

Elena NIKOLAEVA/Robert Shlegel

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Ingjerd SCHOU

Ömer SELVİ

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Petras Gražulis

Naira ZOHRABYAN