AA14CR13

AS (2014) CR 13

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Thirteenth sitting

Tuesday 8 April 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 3.40 p.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

      Before our exchange of views with the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, whom I welcome, allow me to make a brief statement on 8 April, International Roma Day.

      We note that Europe still has a lot to do to guarantee to the Roma minority full respect of their fundamental rights. Yesterday, when the “Roma politics in Austria” exhibition opened in the foyer of the Committee of Ministers, a representative of the Roma minority attested to the difficulties. I invite member States to take all the necessary steps to break the vicious cycle of discrimination affecting so many Roma in Europe. We must guarantee access to public life for all Roma, including young girls. We must begin by affording education access to all. We will overcome this discrimination only once members of that minority become active participants in political life, once all member States shoulder responsibility and once the voice of the Roma is heard in all our institutions.

      As Members of Parliament, we are perfectly placed to understand how important that is. As elected members, it is also our responsibility to combat stereotypes in the public domain – stereotypes that Roma are often the victims of. We must stand firmly against that to prevent victimisation.

1. Annual Activity Report 2013 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

      The PRESIDENT* – Before I give the floor to the Commissioner to present his annual activity report for 2013, I would like to extend a most cordial welcome to him. May I thank you for the excellent co-operation we have enjoyed since the beginning of my term of office? The success of your institution no longer needs to be demonstrated. Your firm and daily commitment to human rights does credit to this Organisation. You do not hold back when it comes to taking a position on subjects under debate that affect our societies, whether it is the situation of Roma, migrants – particularly migrant children – refugees and asylum seekers, police misconduct, racism among the police ranks or, indeed, discrimination based on sexual orientation. Your active and resolute work is a major contributory factor towards pushing human rights forward in Europe and getting them better understood.

      You have an equally solid commitment to all the burning issues in Europe today, as your visit to Syrian refugee camps bears witness. We thank you for feeding into the Assembly’s debates. Since our last session you have also visited Ukraine, right at the beginning of the crisis. We are very grateful to you.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      I thank you not only for being with us today, but for being at our side every day in defending and promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We look forward to hearing your report.

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights) – It is a great honour and pleasure to present my second annual report. I thank the President very much for her warm words of welcome. I, too, am gratified by the co-operation we have enjoyed to date, not only with you personally, but with the Parliamentary Assembly as a whole.

      It has been an intense year, as can be seen in the annual report that I am presenting today. I visited 24 countries over the year, including full country visits with reports to nine countries: Greece, Moldova, Estonia, the Russian Federation, Azerbaijan, Spain, Turkey, Albania and Denmark. I have continued the pace of these visits this year, with full visits to four countries so far: Georgia, Ukraine, Montenegro and Romania.

      In preparation for this presentation, I re-read my presentation from last year, along with the questions and answers, to see how much continuity and change there had been. There has been both continuity and change. Let me start with the issues that have remained on my agenda since the beginning of my mandate and that continue to show up in country work and thematic work. First and foremost is assisting the European Court of Human Rights in addressing systemic problems in member States and pushing for the implementation of judgments – this is a pledge I made when I took up office: to do whatever I could to help the European Court of Human Rights. At the end of 2012, more than 12 000 judgments at the Court were awaiting implementation, so there is not only a backlog of cases; there is a serious implementation gap. It is incumbent on us all to do everything we can to help the Court, which is the centrepiece of our human rights architecture.

      In several country reports I focused on the administration of justice and human rights, in particular delays in the implementation – or the lack of it – of decisions by national courts and the need to strengthen the independence and impartiality of judiciaries and the rights of the defence. Even when the administration of justice was not the focus of my country visits, I tried as often as I could to raise the implementation of court judgments, particularly pilot judgments, because the pilot judgment procedure must function if we are to have an efficient Court.

      The second area of continuity is my work addressing the consequences of the economic crisis and austerity on human rights. This is a topic that comes up in many countries and I fear that it will remain an area focus in country visits to come. Initially I had a difficult time because I did not have a conceptual prism with which to address this issue and I did not know what the best practices were in forging a human rights-compliant response to the crisis and austerity. After several country visits, we began a series of consultations with outside experts and national human rights structures. We compiled some good practice and put out an issue paper, “Safeguarding human rights in times of economic crisis”, which has turned out to be quite useful. I presented it this morning in a committee of the Parliamentary Assembly.

      In summary, if I were to reduce this issue to three core messages, they would be these. First, maintain social protection floors for all in times of austerity. Do not let anybody fall between the cracks in terms of basic support for income and access to health care. Secondly, ensure equality, especially for the most vulnerable, who cannot defend their interests themselves. This means children and young people, people with disabilities, old people with low pensions and various other vulnerable groups. As the International Monetary Fund and the OECD recently concluded, equality is essential for sustainable growth to return. It does not stand in contradiction to growth. My third and final core message is this. Use your human rights structures. Do not weaken them in times of crisis, when they are needed more than ever. They are the low-threshold bodies to which vulnerable groups can turn. They have their finger on the pulse and they know what is going on in society. You should use their advice and knowledge of the situation on the ground to plan and monitor austerity measures. You should keep those bodies strong because you will need them not only in the crisis, but afterwards as well.

      The third major issue of continuity involves Roma and migrants, who are a constant area of focus in country work. Both groups are prime targets of hate crimes, which have been on the rise during this period of austerity. I have tried to address that not only in country reports, but in regular media interventions.

      Today, as the President mentioned, is International Roma Day. I think that it is a good time to reflect on the situation of Europe’s most vulnerable and excluded minority. I discovered that in some countries Roma have been the target of measures that restrict their right to leave the country. Those measures have stemmed primarily from European Union pressures to halt the flow of asylum seekers from countries neighbouring the European Union into the European Union. As a result, some countries have engaged in ethnic profiling at borders and disproportionate measures, such as confiscating passports and airline tickets. We therefore issued an issue paper on the right to leave a country, which we thought could provide those countries with good guidance and also draw the attention of the European Union and its member States to the kinds of pressures they sometimes put on neighbouring countries.

      A new group of newcomers to Europe are Syrian refugees. The situation in Syria is the biggest humanitarian crisis today, according to the United Nations, and the biggest refugee crisis that Europe has faced in more than 20 years. Europe is doing far too little, as I noted the last time I was here, with few countries participating in resettlement programmes and some having very low recognition rates, meaning that they do not recognise the claims to protection of Syrians who manage to make it to their countries. Other countries have even engaged in push-backs, pushing back Syrian refugees and asylum seekers to the countries neighbouring Syria, whose capacity to accept people is already overstretched. I conducted a thematic mission at the end of last year, starting in Turkey, going through Bulgaria and on to Germany, basically in order to learn more and to raise awareness of the human rights aspects of the crisis – the right to seek asylum, the prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment and the ban on collective expulsions.

      There have been several new areas of focus in my work, or areas that have gained more prominence, one of which is police misconduct. I ended up producing several reports on police misconduct in various countries. The practice is widespread throughout the Council of Europe. In a number of countries we have seen disproportionate use of force, especially during demonstrations, ill treatment in police custody, both during apprehensions and after, abusive targeting of migrants and minorities, through practices such as ethnic and racial profiling, and other abuses. It is absolutely essential that the top political leaders in a country, such as the Minister of the Interior, consider the kinds of political messages they are sending out. Do they say that police violence is intolerable? Do they say that there a zero-tolerance policy on police misconduct? Police forces tend to be very hierarchical, and police officers listen to the signals given by political leaders. It is essential to give the right signals, and to combat impunity for police violence and violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, through independent and effective investigations and dissuasive punishments. In many countries I found a lack of a clear legislative framework on the use of force and on when and how demonstrations can be dispersed. There is a clear need for rigorous human rights training for police officers throughout their careers, and additional attention needs to be paid to the social and economic rights of police.

      Another topic I have dealt with in a number of different contexts is freedom of expression, media freedoms and the Internet. I dealt with that last year, but I think that our work has become more systematic, with regard not only to countries, but to media interventions and so on. The safety of journalists remains an important concern. Most journalists injured last year were injured by the police in the context of demonstrations. Journalists suffer attacks, threats and harassment from various sources, but quantitatively – this is according to my analysis – the largest number were injured by police. That clearly implicates a State that has the obligation to facilitate the work of journalists.

      Some restrictions on media freedom on grounds of national security are also highly problematic. For example, we have learned about the mass spying that takes place without strict rules and oversight. If that takes place against investigative journalists, media freedom can also be compromised. There is the continued importance of keeping the Internet free. We have seen a number of attempts in countries to try to restrict it by blocking whole platforms, not just sites. I will soon be issuing an issue paper on the rule of law on the Internet, in which we examine in detail the legal principles involved, such as the right to private life, jurisdiction issues, the circumstances in which any kind of restrictive measures are permissible and the kinds of safeguards that need to be in place.

      Another new element in my work was my first third-party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights. I am entitled to intervene as a third party. I do not do so often. I do so when I feel that I can add value through my experience of an issue or a country. The case on which I decided to intervene involved the right to standing of non-governmental organisations defending those who cannot defend themselves – persons with mental or psycho-social disabilities. This group really needs attention, protection and access to justice, and often it is only through the work of NGOs that they can get it. Most member States have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but there is still a huge amount of work to be done to implement it, especially with regard to deinstitutionalisation, bringing national legislation on the right to legal capacity into line with the demands of the UN convention and supporting the decision making of persons with mental or psycho-social disabilities, rather than taking decisions for them.

      In conclusion, I am happy to report that thus far all governments in the Council of Europe have co-operated with me and my office. They respect my work and my mandate, even if they do not always agree with the conclusions of our reports. We publish the comments of governments alongside our reports on our website, which allows readers to draw their own conclusions and ensures that the information is available to allow everyone a fair hearing. Respect for the independence of my mandate has been a hallmark of the relationship with member States and the Committee of Ministers, which is absolutely essential in making the institution work. I am very pleased that thus far there have been no attempts to curtail my independence or interfere in my work. That is very good news.

      I know that many members want to ask questions, which I am eager to address. Thank you for your attention.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Commissioner, for presenting your report. You successfully provided a concise summary of all your work, which will enable members to ask specific questions. There is a long list of speakers. I call Mr Recordon to ask a question on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – How do you view the legal reality in Crimea, particularly with regard to human rights, now that it has moved from being under the stewardship of one member State of the Council of Europe to being under that of another? Specifically, as the exhaustion of rights is guaranteed, will the Strasbourg Court be able to help?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS* – Thank you for your question. I have not yet been to Crimea, but it is perfectly clear from the Court’s case law that there is no human rights vacuum in Europe within the area of the Convention on Human Rights. The individual right of petition will be available to all individuals living in Crimea. It is up to the Court to decide to whom these questions should be addressed and to whom the sentences should be handed down.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Čigāne on behalf of the European People’s Party.

      Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – Mr Commissioner, how will you address the issue of Crimean Tatars after the aggression of the Russian Federation towards the territory of Crimea? My second question is: how are you going to look into the cases of so-called Bolotnaya Square protesters, who were given sentences – some of them severe – straight after the Sochi Olympics?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – As I said, I have not yet visited Crimea, but I have received very alarming reports about the human rights situation there, which I hope to be able to investigate first-hand: reports of abductions, ill treatment, attacks on journalists and the marking of the doors of houses inhabited by Crimean Tatars. Recently, the advisory committee to the Framework Convention for the Protection of Minorities flagged up concerns about the rights of Crimean Tatars. I have had several telephone conversations with leaders of the Crimean Tatars. They are concerned because already up to 5 000 Crimean Tatars – primarily women and children – have left Crimea for western Ukraine. So the situation is of grave concern. I have not been there, but I hope and intend to go there in the near future.

      On the Bolotnaya cases, I would say that it is beyond my mandate to examine individual cases, but we did examine the administration of justice in Russia following a country report last year. I found many shortcomings and some progress, especially on these cases, which are highly sensitive. Much still needs to be done to strengthen the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. I refer you first and foremost to this report. We tried to be as comprehensive as we could, because there is a great deal of case law in the European Court of Human Rights regarding Russia and the independence and impartiality of its judiciary. We tried to mention in passing many cases, although we did not focus in particular on these or any other cases. Instead, we examined the problems underlying the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. I recommend my report on Russia to you.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker on my list is Sir Roger Gale, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Sir ROGER GALE (United Kingdom) – On a personal level, as Chairman of the Media Sub-Committee of the Council of Europe, I thank the Commissioner for his extremely robust defence of free journalism. I am sure that everybody here was heartened to hear that. On behalf of the British members of the group of which I – at least for the moment – am still a member, I ask the Commissioner what he thinks he might do to seek to maintain the freedom of the press in Crimea.

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – What I usually do when I examine issues pertaining to freedom of expression in a country is, first and foremost, meet the persons in question – the journalists, editors, bloggers and broadcasters – to learn about their concerns and the pressures that they are facing. Then I meet the relevant regulatory authorities in that country. The first task is gathering information. In Crimea a core task will be to gain access and keep a presence there, and not to allow the interests and human rights of the people of Crimea to be lost in the broader geopolitical game. It is absolutely essential that we go there, talk to people and gather information.

      When I go there, I will of course investigate these and other human rights issues. I will meet the relevant authorities and write a report. I will then do follow-up and media work, and make as much noise as I can – as I usually do in any other context. The important thing is to gain access and not let the human rights of the people living there be forgotten in the broader discussions that we are having.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Beck from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms BECK (Germany)* – I, too, turn to Crimea. Human Rights Watch reported that some people had disappeared for 11 days. Two young people came forward and spoke out about the authorities having tortured them. They were human rights activists. How much do you know about the highly restrictive NGO legislation being transferred and applied to Crimea?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – All these allegations about ill treatment, abductions and attacks need to be effectively investigated. This is the standard of the European Court of Human Rights and the standard that should be applied in these cases. On NGO legislation, I am concerned about recent statements and about the transfer of this restrictive legislation, which unfortunately the Constitutional Court of Russia has found to be in conformity with the Russian constitution. My view is that it is not in conformity with the Convention. We published a lengthy opinion on Russian NGO legislation in the light of Council of Europe standards, in which we highlighted a number of problematic practices. Those concerns remain in general for Russia, and also now for Crimea.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Villumsen to put a question on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – Mr Commissioner, first I thank you for your report on austerity and human rights. It was very interesting. I had the honour of visiting Portugal on behalf of the Assembly, where I talked to the Troika organisations. I was astonished that neither the European Union nor the International Monetary Fund had considered the impact on vulnerable groups and the consequences for human rights of the crisis policies they had made. How can the Council of Europe ensure that human rights are not forgotten in this time of crisis?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – This is one of my main concerns in a number of different countries. It is why we put out the issue paper, which provides guidance. I do not want to interfere in ideological discussions about how big the State should be and what it should be doing, but it is clear that the State has human rights obligations. It is also clear to me that lenders should be held accountable for human rights. I find it striking that sometimes international lenders have imposed conditions for bailout packages that have later been overturned by constitutional courts or the European Court of Human Rights, or found to be in violation of a country’s obligations under the European Social Charter.

      I recently participated in a discussion in which I heard that it was beyond the mandate of the European Central Bank to examine issues of fundamental rights. However, to me it is good policy. If you impose a medicine that is later rejected by a court, you are doing something wrong: you are wasting time and effort, and confusing national authorities. You should take into account human rights considerations from the very beginning. Parliaments and all the institutions of the Council of Europe have to try to keep human rights on the agenda not only of national Governments but of the European Union and international lenders.

      The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers on behalf of the political groups. I call Ms Zohrabyan.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – I would like to put a question about the Armenian prisoner of war Hakob Injighulyan. So far the efforts of the Red Cross have not produced any result. Every day prisoners in Azerbaijan are in danger of losing their life. What can you and the Assembly do to make sure that Azerbaijan returns the soldiers to their country, or at least to a third State? I also inform you that the prisoner Mamikon Khojoyan, who was handed over to Armenia, had suffered physical, psychological and inhuman torture. This is the way Azerbaijan is acting.

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I think that it is important that both sides continue their co-operation with the International Committee of the Red Cross to resolve cases of captives and missing persons. The Red Cross is the competent body to carry out this work. Azerbaijan, Armenia and all member States of the Council of Europe are bound by the standards of the European Convention prohibiting ill treatment. There is clearly not only that human rights obligation but one under the standards of the Geneva Convention that prohibit the ill treatment of prisoners of war. So there are not only clear standards but international institutions such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. This issue was not on our agenda when I visited Azerbaijan in May, but we talked about many other human rights issues. It is clear that human rights apply to people in such situations as well.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – The Council of Europe and our Assembly have undertaken reflection on reforming the monitoring procedure. Although most people admit that we have to face the issue of monitoring fatigue, what do you consider your part should be in this work of reflection? What do you expect from the reform of the monitoring procedure? What criteria do you think could be used to decide whether this reform has been successful?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I have heard the phrase “monitoring fatigue” many times. One of the problems with monitoring mechanisms and my office is that we have returned to countries time and again to recommend the same things and they have not been implemented. So part of this is an implementation gap, which feeds into monitoring fatigue. We would love to move on and look at other issues if old human rights issues could be address effectively.

      From my own perspective, I try very carefully to remain aware of what the monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe are looking at – I am aware of their schedule and the issues raised – so I try not to duplicate what they are doing. I understand that countries do not have much time and that it gets annoying and tiring to hear the same thing over and again. I look very closely at the schedule and the issues raised, and I try not to duplicate their work. This kind of communication takes place, and we need to keep on working at it. We have had some joint visits of monitoring mechanisms. I would not be able to engage in a joint visit with a monitoring mechanism, as that would impinge on the independence of my office, but there have been a number of joint visits by two monitoring mechanisms. If that can take place, if it is logical and if both sides are happy with the co-operation, that kind of practice should be expanded as well.

      In terms of success, the key thing is our impact. If human rights improve on the ground, monitoring fatigue eases because we will not visit so often and new issues will come up that need to be addressed, but the key indicator is progress on the ground.

      The PRESIDENT – As Mr Schwabe is not here, I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – Commissioner, poverty and inequality are increasing in the community of States that we represent here today. Everything must be done to ensure that economic, social and cultural rights can reach Europeans who have been affected so badly by unemployment and poverty. I am thinking in particular of the scourge of youth unemployment. People have to live before they can engage in philosophy. That is where hope will stem from.

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I completely agree with you that young people – children and youths – should be a central concern of us all, especially in countries undergoing austerity measures, because if a child is traumatised by an eviction, if a child is malnourished because his parents are unemployed, if a child does not have access to health care or education, this will have very long-term consequences, not only for that person, but for society as a whole, and the same holds true with the youth.

      Youth unemployment is the single most common social pathology of countries undergoing austerity measures. Why should youths trust the government to help them? Why should they be oriented towards Europe and believe in European solidarity? We must think very hard about the future of Europe and our societies, and the best way to do that is to focus on the social and economic rights of children and young people and to protect them, so that they can become fully-fledged Europe-oriented citizens when they grow up.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – It can be negative to consider the territory of another State. Nevertheless, the occupation of its own nation by the State with such an aggressive spirit is doubly terrible. For 20 years, the Armenian State has pursued a policy of aggression towards not only Azerbaijan, but its own nation. Consequently, having lost its independence, Armenia has turned into a fortress. I am concerned by the complicated position of the Armenian nation, which has become the hostage of criminal policy conducted by its own State; so I ask you what concrete steps can be taken to protect the rights of hundreds of thousands of freedom-loving Armenian citizens who have been deprived of these rights by those who run the country with mafia rules.

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I guess that that was more of a statement than a question, but I will go to Armenia on a country visit in the relatively near future. I have not yet identified which issues I will focus on. Usually, we identify two or three priority issues to look at. One of the previous speakers asked about monitoring mechanisms, and we look to find where we can add value where other monitoring mechanisms have not engaged, but I look forward to doing human rights work in Armenia, the same as I have done human rights work in Azerbaijan until now.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Commissioner, I should like to ask you about Moldovan schools in Transnistria. In spite of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, as part of the OSCE efforts, the rights of parents and children are still violated. Eight schools are threatened to be shut down this autumn. What can be done so that children have the right to be educated in their mother tongue?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – When I was in Moldova last year, I made a brief visit to Transnistria as well to meet the de facto authorities and to sound out whether it would be possible for me to do human rights work there. I received some moderately positive signals, so I hope to go back to look at human rights issues in greater detail and work with the Moldovan authorities and the de facto authorities in Transnistria to push for progress. This issue has been subject to a Court ruling; it is on the regular agenda of the OSCE. My own view is that it is not in the best interests of these children to learn a dead language – to learn Romanian in Cyrillic, which is used nowhere outside Transnistria. So we have to think about the best interest of these children and their future. There is clearly no great future for the Romanian language in the Cyrillic alphabet, and we must take that into account when we are considering these children.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia)* – Commissioner, what is the present situation in respect of the protection of displaced persons following the conflict between Russia and Georgia in 2008? My second question relates to the very grave concern expressed by many international organisations, including the European Union, about the persecution of the opposition in Georgia. There is reference to criminal prosecutions being brought against opposition leaders. Such prosecutions are more political in nature than judicially based.

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I recently went to Georgia and the report on our visit will be published very soon. Among the issues that we looked at was the administration of justice. Like everyone else, I have heard many of these allegations of politicised justice. We found certain troubling features. We heard allegations of investigations being carried out against local politicians until they change their political affiliation. I raised this with the Minister of Justice. She promised to look into it. We have continued to gather information. There have been a number of other troubling incidents. All this will be analysed in great detail in our forthcoming report, but I also saw progress in a number of different areas, particularly with regard to ill treatment in prisons and detention, which was a hugely controversial issue.

      Internally displaced persons in Georgia were not one of the focus areas of my visit, but their condition is dire, I know. The Georgian authorities have done what they can to help. There are clearly human rights issues. IDPs, not only in Georgia but in other conflict areas, are one of the more vulnerable populations in Europe. I committed to look more closely at this issue during a future visit, but all that I can say for now is look out for our report on Georgia, which should be published in the coming weeks, and I look forward to meeting you and other parliamentarians in Georgia when I return on a follow-up visit in the future.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Badea and Mr Sobolev are not here, so I call Ms Bilgehan.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – Commissioner, I congratulate you on your work and I am pleased to learn that the number of your subscribers on Twitter has doubled. Several million users of social media in Turkey have been deprived of their access to information, as you probably know, but I was surprised to note that there is almost nothing in the report that is devoted to combating violence against women, and the difficult situation that women are in in general.

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – My predecessor began to look at issues pertaining to freedom of expression in Turkey, including on the Internet, and I have tried to continue that work. I have criticised the recent amendments to the law, extending the grounds for restricting access to websites, transferring powers from courts to an administrative body, and the wholesale blockage of Twitter and YouTube. I hail the involvement of the constitutional court and its constructive role.

      The situation of women is definitely an issue in Turkey, as it is in many other countries. My visit to Turkey in July came on the heels of the largest demonstrations that Turkey has seen in many years. We thought it was important for us to engage on that issue, and on police actions with regard to the demonstrators, as well as the new developments including the creation of an ombudsman’s office and a national human rights structure. Those issues remain on my agenda, and I hope to address them in future work in Turkey.

      Mr JENSSEN (Norway) – Congratulations, Commissioner, on your important and impressive work in 2013. I have a question regarding the situation in Ukraine – including, of course, Crimea – and I would like you to elaborate on it, although you have already answered a few questions on that topic. We have seen a member country of the Council of Europe violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another member country. How do you assess the situation in Crimea from a human rights perspective, and how will you be following up that very serious situation?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I visited Ukraine in early February, and published a report focusing on police violence, access to justice, and the lack of a legislative framework when dealing with freedom of assembly. I met representatives of the Crimean Tatars, but I have not been to Crimea. I was in eastern Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporozhye, and of course I have been watching with grave concern the use of military force, and also the use of people who look like military but have masks on. That was one of the reasons that I detected for the unfolding of the crisis in Ukraine: the co-operation between the police and various armed auxiliary groups, often wearing masks and using clubs and so on. That is a very dangerous practice, wherever it takes place, and it undermines public confidence in the police.

      As I said, I am gravely concerned. I intend to go to Crimea in the near future and to look at all those issues on the ground and talk to people. That is the way I work because before I go to a country or territory it is difficult to give an exhaustive analysis of the situation. However, I went on an emergency visit to Ukraine, which shows one of the added values of the Council of Europe. I made the decision to go to Ukraine as the crisis unfolded, and three days later I was on the ground with a team of five people, including a forensic medical expert, and we had access to all the facilities we wanted to visit. I hope that I will be able to do human rights work there and report back in detail at the next Assembly session.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – Dear Commissioner, your budget was more than €3 million last year, and today you mentioned that the most vulnerable groups should be protected. In spite of this, in your current report I could not find a single sentence about people belonging to traditional national minorities – which includes 15% of all European citizens – but just about LGBTA, Roma and refugee people. Following Crimea’s accession to Russia, you seem really attentive to the situation of the Tatars, but you fail to engage with the violated rights of 3 million Hungarians who were detached from the King’s State in 1920, and who are now living in Slovakia, Romania and Serbia. Do you not think that is against the basic principle of equal treatment?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – First, I do not like the division between traditional and historical minorities because I think that could serve as a basis for discrimination. I have spent quite a bit of time working on the Roma, who I think are one of the most vulnerable minorities in Europe. As I said, I do not want to duplicate what the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities or the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages are doing, but I try to reinforce their message by bringing it to the member States. I have not considered the situation per se of Hungarian minorities outside Hungary because I think that is primarily the task of the framework convention and the language charter. If I think that they are doing an unsatisfactory job and not paying attention to the issue in a way I deem appropriate, I will raise the matter either in country work or in my thematic work.

      Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – Commissioner, I congratulate you on your work, which I really appreciate. Much has been said about Ukraine and Russia, and I want to hear your opinion about the situation of human rights defenders in those countries. Would you consider the submission of third party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ukraine against Russia?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – Human rights defenders are a constant concern of mine in those two countries and throughout the Council of Europe, and they are explicitly mentioned in my mandate. One thing that prompted me to go on an emergency visit to Ukraine was all the meetings I had with human rights defenders who were in Strasbourg during the last parliamentary session. They were so desperate and wanted assistance so much that I said, “I cannot wait. I must go and meet them and raise those issues.” I met many human rights defenders of various persuasions in Ukraine, and they were all good people.

      I have regular meetings with human rights defenders from Russia both here and when I go to Russia. One reason we drafted this opinion on the NGO legislation in Russia is that it affects core partners of my work – human rights defenders and the organisations they often work in. I am quite concerned about reports of recent restrictions on media freedoms in Russia, the high-level rhetoric about destructive NGOs, and the proposals to limit further freedom of assembly that have been submitted to the Duma, because all those issues directly impact on the work of core partners of the Council of Europe and of my office.

      In Crimea I am particularly concerned about the pressures that Tatar activists have come up against. Before I go there, I was hoping to meet some of them this week, and I think we should be paying special attention to human rights defenders in this conflict situation in Ukraine proper, in Crimea, and also in Russia. We are also seeing a ratcheting up of pressure within Russia as a consequence of this conflict.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation) – Mr Muižnieks, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to Crimea. I hope that you will come and will see that the rumours reaching you are more myth than reality – I mean the rumours about people having things hung on their doors and being identified as belonging to certain groups. However, my question is on something else. Ukrainian journalists are subject to sanctions, as there are some limitations on access to Russian TV channels. How do you react to that limitation of media freedom in Ukraine?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I have received reports that certain Russian television stations have been blocked not only in Ukraine but in several other countries. Dunja Mijatović, the OSCE representative on freedom of the media, issued a statement on 27 March outlining the conditions under which broadcasts can be blocked. Basically, she said that it can be appropriate if it is set out by law, if it serves a legitimate aim and if it is necessary and proportionate. The aim in Ukraine was apparently to forbid hate speech and incitement to war. I have not seen an analysis of the broadcasts that were blocked, and so do not know whether there were any appeals for war, justification of war or hate speech in those broadcasts. I look forward to reading an analysis of the case. It is key that any measures to block broadcasts are temporary and can be appealed in courts, including finally in the European Court of Human Rights. I am looking forward to looking into this issue. It is on my agenda and that of the OSCE representative on freedom of the media.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – Thank you, Madam President, and welcome, Commissioner. You have already partly answered my question, but further to that question, I am a rapporteur in Turkey. You know that Internet sites have been shut down. We have already heard about the blocking of various sites and the fact that the block on YouTube may yet be lifted. But there is also concern about repeated threats to block the Internet again. What do you have to say on that matter?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I would first revisit the case law established by the Court in the case against Turkey on blocking the Internet – the Yilderim case. The Court found Turkey in violation of the Convention for blocking too much content and content that should not have been blocked. We have the same case here. Blocking an entire social media platform, as Turkey has with YouTube and Twitter, is clearly a disproportionate response. If there is illegal content – perhaps content that violates the right to private life or other types of illegal content – it can be blocked, subject to a court ruling, and I understand that Twitter took down material on several occasions following court decisions.

      It is highly problematic and, in the end, futile, to try to block entire platforms. As I said before, I am happy with the stance of the constitutional court, which took a strong position on this issue. I am hoping the issue can be resolved at the national level, in line with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that we will not see additional cases coming to the European Court of Human Rights – we have plenty.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Commissioner, for your report, your statement and the way in which you have answered the questions of the members of the Assembly. I would also like to reiterate my thanks for the excellent co-operation between you and your office and the Assembly. Thank you, and good luck with all the work that is coming up.

2. Request for Partnership for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the President of the Kyrgyz Republic

      The PRESIDENT – I would like to welcome the head of the delegation and vice-speaker of the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic, and all those accompanying her. You are welcome in our Assembly. I also want to welcome to this discussion my pre-predecessor, Mr Çavuşoğlu, who, as we will all remember, as rapporteur followed closely the request of the Kyrgyz Republic for status as a Partner for Democracy. Thank you for being with us today.

      (The speaker continued in French)

      Now we will proceed to the discussion of the report entitled “Request for Partnership for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic”, Document 13461, presented by Mr Andreas Gross on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, with two opinions presented by Mr Pedro Agramunt on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13477, and Ms Gülsün Bilgehan on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 13476.

      I remind members that there is a speaking limit of three minutes.

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

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, colleagues from Kyrgyzstan and Mr Çavuşoğlu, former rapporteur, I would like to begin by establishing a few facts. There has been some misunderstanding about whether Kyrgyzstan, which is part of central Asia, might be considered for future membership of the Council of Europe. In 2009-10, we gave partnership status to countries in our environs that were making efforts to consolidate their democracies. Partnership for Democracy is for those countries that could never nor would ever wish to become members of the Council of Europe but might want to become observers, just as Mexico, Japan and even the United States of America, observers in the Committee of Ministers, have done.

      This is not a question of Kyrgyzstan becoming a member of the Council of Europe at some time in the future. Nor is it a question of extending the Council of Europe to include central Asia. We do not want to become a small United Nations – that is why we restricted membership. But in the interests of democracy we are open to supporting those countries in our environs that might wish to take the path to democracy. We have a partnership towards the south, with Morocco, we have a partnership with the Palestinians, and Jordan is also a candidate for partnership.

      Four years ago, the Kyrgyz Republic became the first State in the east to apply for Partnership for Democracy status; members can see the letter in the documents before them. We need to be aware of what that means. The Kyrgyz are a 2 000-year-old people with Turkish, Mongolian and Uighur roots. The country is not a neighbour of Russia’s, because Kazakhstan is between it and Russia. The Kyrgyz Republic spans 4 000 km and is a long way away – four hours by air.

      When the Parliamentary Assembly heard about Mevlüt’s efforts to bring about the partnership, many of us thought, “We have to find out about this country”, because we did not know that much about it. That is why all the chairs of the political groups got together in an ad hoc committee, made use of Mevlüt’s report, which we knew of, and went to Kyrgyzstan last autumn to talk to colleagues there. We saw that the country has a small, poor population, is surrounded by authoritarian countries – China, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan – and needed help and support. It is a pearl in the middle of a desert, because other countries in the region want nothing to do with democracy – they even laugh about this country, which is striving for democracy.

      Kyrgyzstan became independent for the first time in 1991. In 1876, it became a member of the Russian empire. Kyrgyzstan is pragmatic: it says it wants support from the Russians, and money for the support of its waterways. What it wants from Europe is more democracy, and to learn all about democracy. To deny it that would be irresponsible. It is in our interests to make sure that we are not an island of democracy, and that all around us, democracies become stronger.

      Kyrgyzstan has had two revolutions since 1991. It has had a system of oligarchic family structures, but has overcome that form of domination. It does not want a very authoritarian presidential democracy, similar to what came before; it wants a parliamentary democracy, although it does not have a tradition of that kind of democracy. It is a voice alone in the desert. That is why all chairs of the political groups agreed unanimously that the country should be given partnership status. It is not a reward for having a successful democracy – a kind of medal to be pinned on one’s breast – but something that can strengthen the country’s will to improve and give it support. For example, if I have understood correctly, there was an attempt to enact legislation discriminating against homosexuals, as in Russia, but the Kyrgyz Parliament said, “No; that contradicts our ideas of human rights. It is discrimination”, and that was accepted. Through partnership status, we can enter into dialogue and a joint learning process with that country. That would help it to find a way of consolidating parliamentary democracy.

      I therefore encourage members to support the report and the draft resolution, and to understand the limits here: we are talking about not giving the country an award, but supporting it on its path. Partnership should be extended not only southwards, but eastwards. Thank you.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Gross. I call Mr Agramunt to present the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Thank you, Madam President. I congratulate the Rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Mr Andreas Gross, on his report, and commend the work of his predecessor, our former President, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu. The report, which is based on the revised preliminary draft report by Mr Çavuşoğlu, takes stock of recent political developments in the Kyrgyz Republic.

      In October 2011, the Speaker of the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic sent a letter to the Assembly requesting Partnership for Democracy status for the Kyrgyz Parliament. I propose that we support the Republic’s request while stressing its need to make more effort on the rule of law and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Granting partnership status to the Republic will create new dynamics in the co-operation between that country and the Council of Europe, and will lead to further progress in implementing reforms in that country.

      We should not forget our human rights concerns about the continued use of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment; impunity for the perpetrators of such acts; the lack of independence and impartiality of the judiciary; unfair trials; arbitrary arrests; poor conditions in detention; restrictions on the freedoms of expression, assembly and association; and threats to, or attacks on, human rights activists, especially those of Uzbek origin or those dealing with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues. Such concerns have been raised by various international bodies, including United Nations bodies and prominent human rights non-governmental organisations.

      On the basis of my proposals, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has proposed several amendments to the draft resolution, with a view to putting the emphasis mainly on respect for human rights. The committee also pointed out the formal criteria, enumerated in Rule 61.2 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, for granting Partnership for Democracy status. In his request of October 2011, the Speaker of the Kyrgyz Parliament omitted to mention a clear commitment to informing the Assembly regularly of the state of progress in implementing the Council of Europe’s principles. The committee did not consider that an obstacle to granting partnership status, as the Assembly will automatically review the fulfilment of all commitments in two years. However, the committee considers that this missing reference in the Kyrgyz Parliament’s request should be remedied by including a reference in the draft resolution to the obligation to inform the Assembly of progress accomplished. I thank members for their attention.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Agramunt. I call Ms Bilgehan to present the opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – Thank you, Madam President. I, too, warmly welcome the delegation from Kyrgyzstan. I have had the good fortune to visit that wonderful country. I also welcome our former Assembly President, Mr Çavuşoğlu, who initiated the report.

      The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination agrees with the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy that Partnership for Democracy status should be accorded to the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic. Our committee believes that giving the parliament that status could be a way of assisting it in moving towards the establishment of a democratic State based on the rule of law and respect for human rights, but we have some reservations. We expressed a concern about violence and discrimination towards LGBT persons, violence against women, and the situation of minorities. The committee therefore calls on the Kyrgyz authorities to take the necessary steps to promote equality and condemn all forms of violence and discrimination on any grounds whatever.

      The draft resolution has a gender perspective and refers to equal opportunities for women and men in political and public life. It also refers to promoting equality between women and men, and fighting any form of gender-based violence and discrimination. It also refers to the fight against xenophobia and all forms of discrimination and the promotion of the rights of minorities.

      Missing from the draft resolution, however, are several important issues, such as discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, participation in political and public life, the linguistic rights of minorities and the fight against human trafficking. Accordingly, the committee has tabled several amendments to cover those issues.

      I want to say a few words about the protection of human rights promoters, who play an important role. Representatives of non-governmental organisations who work to protect the rights of minorities have been harassed and intimidated and, in order to demonstrate its commitments to the values and standards of the Council of Europe, the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic should do whatever it can to protect human rights defenders and make it possible for them to do their work.

      Partnership for Democracy status is just a first step in a long process. It is the initiation of a dialogue. The status should be granted, as recommended by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, and I wish our Kyrgyz friends good luck in their future endeavours.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Bilgehan. I now give the floor to members of the Assembly who want to contribute to the debate. I call Ms Khidasheli, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms KHIDASHELI (Georgia) – I congratulate Andy Gross and his predecessor on an important and interesting report and, more importantly, on the commitment that they, as well as the ad-hoc committee, have shown to the Kyrgyz Republic’s cause. On behalf of my political group, I will speak in support of the report and of having Kyrgyzstan as a Partner for Democracy with the Council of Europe. There are many reasons to do so and I will try to list some of them.

      Kyrgyzstan has been through serious problems, including several revolutions, changes of government, ethnic tensions and political turmoil. What was clear over the years, however, is that it remains the only State in that part of the world where people are truly committed to a different future than living under dictatorship and obedience, which is unfortunately part of the game in its neighbourhood. I believe that a person’s choice to live in democracy should be respected and all doors should be open for partnership with those who want to become European in values and spirit, but not necessarily geographically. I do not believe that freedom is defined by geography and is not about proximity to the Alps and beautiful mountains. It is about people’s spirit and fight for the choices that they make on a daily basis. Being European means, among other things, respecting individual freedoms, respecting diversity and fighting for equality. It means respecting sovereignty and individuality. It means continually fighting for peace. It means societies free from State-orchestrated violence and persecution.

      An obvious question is whether Kyrgyzstan is already there, but it is obviously not. It has much homework to do, but the commitment shown over the years proves that with our help and with the recommendations and conditions set by the Council of Europe it can deal with difficult issues, such as justice system reform, prisoners’ rights, in particular for political prisoners, which gives serious cause for concern, equality and ensuring stability of democratic institutions. The list could go on. Kyrgyzstan cannot do it alone. It has tried over the years and has been quite successful while working alone and joining our Partnership for Democracy club will give them even more chances and opportunities to become a viable democracy. I ask everyone here to support the Kyrgyz cause, to respect how the Kyrgyz people have fought over the past 20 years and to welcome them to the club.

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

      Mr HUNKO (Germany)* – Speaking on the behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I want to thank Andy Gross and his predecessor, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, for a good report. We also support it and the draft resolution.

      I was in Bishkek as an election observer during the presidential election in 2011 when there were indeed ethnic clashes between Uzbeks and some of the Kyrgyz population. I want to emphasise what Andy Gross said at the outset. Kyrgyzstan is an island of parliamentary democracy, which has been fought for by the people involved. This area of central Asia is pretty authoritarian on the whole, which should motivate us to vote in favour of the draft resolution. When I visited, the Kyrgyz civil society was extremely lively and active, which generates hope that the ambitions that underpin the request for Partnership for Democracy status will prosper.

      I have tabled several amendments. They do not seek to change the report’s direction, but it is clear that we are not talking about perfect democracy. Democracy is inevitably an ongoing process. Many eastern European countries have had problems because people are rather reluctant to join political parties. We must demonstrate that political parties do not need to depend on oligarchs or rich tycoons and that people can put together a political party for themselves.

      I have examined the region and its history, and it is clear that there are explanations for the current problems, but we can tackle them if we work together. Partnership for Democracy status is not the end of the road; it is the beginning.

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

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – I congratulate Mr Gross on his interesting and balanced report, which was initiated, as has been said, by Mr Çavuşoğlu. I also welcome the valuable opinions presented by the Committees on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      For a second time, we are dealing closely with a country in central Asia. I used to be a rapporteur on Kazakhstan, which is a case worth mentioning as it is a huge country and a pillar of stability in Euro-Asia. Ten years ago, it signed a co-operation agreement with this Assembly and has sent a parliamentary delegation to our part-sessions since then. That type of co-operation has been replaced by Partnership for Democracy status, and Kazakhstan is increasingly eligible to request it. However, only the Moroccan Parliament and the Palestinian National Council – in 2011 – have been granted it thus far. It is high time that Kyrgyzstan got the same.

       Kyrgyzstan is a land-locked, mountainous country with 5 million people from 150 nationalities. It is south of Kazakhstan, borders China, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and has American and Russian bases on its territory. Its 2010 constitution made it the only parliamentary republic in the region. I had the opportunity to visit Kyrgyzstan before and after the so-called “tulip revolution” of 2005. Since then, many democratic processes have taken place. For instance, seven years ago, the death penalty was abolished. The role of women in social life has increased – Madam Otunbayeva even served as acting president. It is a cliché that for creating a stable democracy and ensuring the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Kyrgyzstan, it is still a long way to Tipperary. However, its record in those fields is better than that of other central Asian countries. Partnership for Democracy status is, on the one hand, a means of recognising democratic achievements, and on the other hand a tool for improving democracy and overcoming deficiencies – among other things, uncovering corruption, improving the judiciary and overcoming the consequences of inter-ethnic tensions.

      In summary, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I am in favour of enabling Kyrgyz MPs actively to participate in our work. It would strengthen democratic parliamentary culture in that charming country. Our group will also support the amendments proposed by Ms Bilgehan and Mr Agramunt, which aim to strengthen the draft resolution by putting more emphasis on human rights problems, such as the rights of women and LGBT people, and the situation of minorities in areas such as Osh and Jalal-Abad.

      The PRESIDENT* – The next speaker is Mr Mariani from France, on behalf of the European People's Party.

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – It is not the business of Europe, nor would it be possible, to behave as though a boundless ocean separated us from the rest of the world. On the contrary, it is in Europe’s interest to develop a dynamic, neighbourly policy with the countries outside Europe. To have neighbours invested with stable, democratic institutions is, without doubt, an excellent thing for us, and it gives us the opportunity to allow ourselves to be enriched by their visions of the future. I salute those who created the new Partnership for Democracy status, which has already provided excellent results for our partners in the south – the Moroccan Parliament and the Palestinian National Council. Today, following the excellent work of our colleague, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, we are discussing the possibility of according that status to a country to the east, Kyrgyzstan. Opening up to the east is particularly appropriate, given Mr Gross’s report, which shows that the request is well-founded.

      I have visited Kyrgyzstan several times, most recently as the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly special representative for central Asia. It is, in fact, the only parliamentary democracy in central Asia. Freedom of expression and freedom of association are real there, in spite of the difficulties the country faces. We should also stress that the request is supported by the whole of Kyrgyz society, which abolished capital punishment in 2007. It is our duty and in our interest to help the country overcome the serious obstacles that remain and respond to our requirements and values. That is the point of the procedure.

      I fully support the concern expressed in the draft resolution about Kyrgyzstan acceding to the relevant conventions and agreements that are open to non-member States. It is already a member of the Venice Commission. The authorities there have always shown courage in recognising the obstacles they face and the ways in which their country is dysfunctional. It is a sign of political maturity, which is rare in that region, despite the fact that there are positive developments here and there. Our decision is all the more important for the fact that Kyrgyzstan, a neighbour of Afghanistan, is concerned about its security because the American forces are about to withdraw.

      Beyond the Partnership for Democracy status, sharing our values with Kyrgyzstan would be a strong symbol in a region that is always under threat by extremists. That is why, on behalf of the European People's Party, I am in favour of granting the status to Kyrgyzstan.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Seyidov from Azerbaijan, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – From time to time, I am critical of Mr Gross’s reports. However, this time, Andreas, let me congratulate you, your predecessor, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Agramunt and Ms Bourzai on doing an excellent job.

      We are discussing an important report. On behalf of the European Democrat Group, and as a representative of Azerbaijan, let me welcome to this Assembly my brothers and sisters from Kyrgyzstan. We are of the same family, and we have the same history and roots. I am so happy that you are here sharing the values that we are defending. The report is not a gift but an invitation to fight for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. You can do that. Your history and experience give vivid proof that Kyrgyzstan is ready and able to be a part of our big family. I hope that your country, together with the 47 members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will be able to restore international law, which unfortunately is under threat in the world. You will be able to defend human rights, which is a difficult question not only for the Council of Europe countries but your region. You will be able to keep the rule of law, which is so important. Friends, sisters and brothers, on behalf of the European Democrat Group and Azerbaijan, welcome to your new home.

      The PRESIDENT* – Mr Gross, would you care to reply?

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I am grateful to Mr Agramunt and Ms Bilgehan for their amendments. The committee accepted all the amendments, so you do not have to worry that anything will be forgotten. We tabled only two small sub-amendments, which do not change anything but enrich, add to and complete the resolution. The resolution is like a checklist. One of the amendments suggests that the Kyrgyz Parliament remains in dialogue with us by every year telling us what it is doing. It is a good checklist that does not overlook anything. We always have to think about doing the rights things. Mr Hunko is right that nothing is ever finished, but we can always reduce the imperfectness.

      As Mr Hunko correctly said, a parliamentary democracy depends on having good parties. A democratic party is a strange thing in this context. That is why we agreed that the first seminar the Council of Europe and the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic will hold in Kyrgyzstan, with the support of the European Union, will be on how to build up a good party. Having pluralistic parties is one of the main pillars of parliamentary democracy.

      The PRESIDENT – We now continue with the list of speakers. I call Mr Ghiletchi.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I congratulate the people who have made the partnership a reality. I congratulate Mr Gross on presenting a good report and putting together the draft resolution; Mr Çavuşoğlu, our honorary President, on initiating the partnership on behalf of the Assembly; Mr Agramunt and Ms Bilgehan on the opinions that contributed to the report; and the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan on becoming the first central Asian Partner for Democracy with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Many people in former Soviet countries, including those that are not members of the Council of Europe, are expressing a desire to build on democratic principles, and the Kyrgyz Parliament deserves our full appreciation and support for taking the initiative in that respect. As Mr Gross stressed, this is not a reward but support, and I believe that our Kyrgyz colleagues deserve full support.

      Taking note of those great aspirations, I stress that it is necessary for the Kyrgyz Parliament to be strongly involved in the process of reform to strengthen democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in that country. To strengthen fundamental rights, it is essential to ensure full respect for freedom of conscience, religion and belief, including the right to change one’s religion and freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

      I am aware that it is a big challenge to achieve full respect for freedom of religion in former Soviet countries. Several years ago I visited Kyrgyzstan, spoke with church leaders there and learned about some of the challenges. But I am convinced that it is worth pursuing this goal, and I hope that Partnership for Democracy status will be a motivation to move in that direction. The peaceful co-existence of all ethnic groups, all faiths and religions, including the minority groups, must be the key to a harmonious society.

      In conclusion, I call on the Kyrgyz Parliament and Government to be open and to address all the issues listed in the draft resolution in order to ensure full implementation of the political commitments. Therefore, in the following years, it is crucial to promote deep political and legal reforms, including to secure full respect for freedom of conscience and religion. I look forward to seeing a successful and efficient partnership between the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

      Mr CHITI (Italy)* – I rise to express my conviction concerning the importance of the instrument that we availed ourselves of in the Parliamentary Assembly some years ago – the Partnership for Democracy status – which enables us to work in pursuit of the objectives of the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe: dissemination of democracy, respect of fundamental individual rights, pluralism and equality of the sexes. The Partnership for Democracy is proving its worth. From that point of view, the granting of Partnership for Democracy status to the Kyrgyz Republic – I very much support Mr Gross’s argument – is not a medal. It simply betokens the commitment entered into by the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic.

      As has been said, we have engaged in discussions on Partnership for Democracy status with the Parliament of Morocco and the Palestinian National Council. Central Asia is in the process of reform. The country concerned has embarked on a process of reform and it abolished the death penalty in 2007, which is a clear watershed, but other important aspects must be borne in mind. It is necessary to combat widespread corruption. One has to overcome ethnic tensions and see reform of the judiciary. However, the efficacy of the Partnership for Democracy instrument lies in the fact that the objectives are subject to scrutiny and review. In a couple of years, our Parliamentary Assembly will examine the progress achieved in that period by our Kyrgyz partners. Therefore, I express my satisfaction and congratulations. I hope that this will be a successful process.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – Our colleague Andreas Gross and our former President, Mr Çavuşoğlu, have done very good and comprehensive work. There is a lot at stake: we want to contribute to turning the Kyrgyz Republic into a genuine democracy and a State with a solid rule of law by granting Partnership for Democracy status to its parliament.

      In his report, Andreas Gross tells us that the request from the Kyrgyz Parliament was first met with scepticism. One can understand that, given the substantial challenges with which the Kyrgyz Republic is confronted. In fact, our rapporteur does not gloss over them: a very low standard of living, an exceptionally high unemployment rate, endemic corruption, substantial emigration, institutions that work on the basis of clans and clientelism, substantial inter-ethnic tension, discrimination of all sorts, in particular in respect of the Uzbek minority, institutionalised work by children, and a disastrous education system. As we can see, it is a sombre picture. Yet Kyrgyzstan is the only country of central Asia to choose the road of democracy.

       I insist that our Assembly demonstrate prudence. The Kyrgyz Parliament has shown obvious good will and has made clear commitments to promote democracy, the rule of law and fundamental liberties. It needs support and is asking our Assembly to provide that assistance. That is a great honour for us. As has been rightly stated by our rapporteur, granting Partnership for Democracy status offers the Kyrgyz authorities substantial encouragement to follow the road that they have taken. However, let us be careful. For the granting of that status to be effective and credible, our Assembly must be extremely vigilant as to its implementation and the reform undertaken in the Kyrgyz Republic. We cannot just sit back and be happy with commitments. We must achieve concrete and quantifiable, measurable results.

      In that respect, paragraph 15 of the draft resolution sets out a long list of points to be worked on and aspects to be improved. One can rightly ask oneself whether the granting of Partnership for Democracy status to the Kyrgyz Republic is sufficient to meet those substantial challenges. Several facts force us to be vigilant. If you read Amnesty International’s annual report, you will see a sorry picture: torture and other ill treatment, unfair trials and other problems. Kyrgyzstan is still fragile. We should encourage and help it but set high requirements, too. Let us not forget the disappointment after the “tulip revolution” of 2005.

The PRESIDENT* – I do not see Mr Slutsky, so I give the floor to Ms Pashayeva.

Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Gross, on the good work that has been done and I also congratulate the Kyrgyz Republic. I should also mention the work of Mr Çavuşoğlu, our dear friend and honoured President, who was the previous rapporteur on this issue. I welcome to the Assembly our Kyrgyz colleagues, our brothers and sisters, including the vice-speaker of the Kyrgyz Parliament, my dear friend Asiya Sasykbaeva, with whom we have had a useful exchange of views.

The Kyrgyz Republic is the first country in central Asia to request Partnership for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly. Through taking that step, the Kyrgyz Republic has demonstrated its intention to employ the best European practice and the standards of the Council of Europe in its future development.

      The Kyrgyz Republic is taking serious steps towards promoting such fundamental Council of Europe values as human rights and democracy. These efforts, by a country situated in a complicated region, should be supported. Despite the economic hardships and some internal political problems that emerged following the restoration of independence, the Kyrgyz Republic has demonstrated progress towards democracy. The abolition of the death penalty, the implementation of constitutional reforms to improve political institutions, holding free and fair elections, ensuring equal political and social rights for men and women, taking action to combat corruption, involving NGOs in the activities of the legislative and executive bodies and reforming local democracy clearly show the way chosen by the Kyrgyz Republic. Granting it Partnership for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly will give important support to speed up steps in this direction. Granting the Kyrgyz Republic this status will also support it against the background of recent tensions in the region, as well as strengthening its co-operation with the Council of Europe in the process of democratisation. Enlarging the indicated co-operation is also significant for our Organisation, as it can help to spread a positive influence to the rest of this part of central Asia.

      I congratulate our brothers and sisters from the Kyrgyz Parliament and welcome them to their new status in our European family.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – Today we are discussing granting Partnership for Democracy status to the Kyrgyz Parliament. I think we should give the Kyrgyz Parliament this status, if they really want to be guided by the fundamental values of our Organisation. I would just remind you that we recently gave a similar status to the Parliament of Palestine, which is a non-recognised State. I remind you that some time ago, in the report we adopted concerning the activities of the Bureau, we also decided that whenever a question on our Assembly’s agenda concerned, for example, Kosovo, the representatives of the parliament of that country could be invited to the discussions. We welcome this approach. Granting Partnership for Democracy status to the Parliament of Palestine, as well as establishing close relations with the Parliament of Kosovo, corresponds fully to the fundamental values of our Organisation.

      In the context of those problems, I want to raise the question of granting Partnership for Democracy status to the Parliament of Nagorno-Karabakh as well. There is no reason why the Parliament of Palestine should have this status and the Parliament of Nagorno-Karabakh should not. When we discuss questions concerning Kosovo, representatives of the parliament of that country should be invited. Why, then, do we not apply the same approach to Nagorno-Karabakh? Doing so would be a very fair decision to take.

      I would like to remind you again that the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh has deliberately undertaken several commitments to the Council of Europe, unilaterally agreeing to various international conventions, which underscores its commitment to the values of the Council of Europe. There should be no reason to trample the rights of the inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh underfoot. European peace and security can be guaranteed by bringing together a large number of States to agree to democratic values.

      Ms FABER-VAN DE KLASHORST (Netherlands) – The Kyrgyz Parliament has submitted a request to the Council of Europe for Partnership for Democracy status. It can do so because the country lies within the European neighbourhood region. In order to gain this status, Kyrgyzstan has to hold the same values as the Council of Europe, such as gender equality and fundamental freedoms.

      The vast majority of the population – 75% – adhere to Islam and their proportion is growing. Thirty-three per cent of the population is of the opinion that Islam has to be part of government policy. Section 1 of the Kyrgyz constitution seems to give hope, because it states that Kyrgyzstan is a secular State. The question is how long this will be tenable, especially as Kyrgyzstan has been a member of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation since 1992.

      A country can join the OIC only if it underlines the values of true Islam. Islam recognises only theocracy and does not recognise democracy. Are these European values? Kyrgyzstan has joined the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, whose aim is the destruction of the only democratic country in the Middle East, namely Israel. Are these European values? All members of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation have signed the Cairo declaration on human rights in Islam. In this declaration no mention is made of freedom of religion and belief or the freedom to change religion. Within ideological Islam, apostasy is punished by death. Are these European values? Within the ummah – the Islamic world – the segregation of women and unbelievers is everyday practice, fostered by the Sharia. They are second-class citizens. Are these European values?

      I really wonder, what is the matter with you if you can seriously consider this request for democratic partnership from an Islamic State? Is it, again, the fear of political incorrectness that reigns here? Do you prefer to be muzzled, rather than step into the breach for the acquired rights and liberties of the European peoples? Sacrificing the peoples of Europe is to show contempt for them. Or are these European values? By honouring the request of Kyrgyzstan, we will accept more Islamic influence in Europe. As a representative of the Freedom Party, I cannot agree to this request.

      The PRESIDENT – I do not see Mr McNamara, so I call Mr Mota Amaral.

      Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – May I begin my short remarks by congratulating and thanking my good friend Andreas Gross for his excellent report on the Kyrgyz Republic’s political institutions and the request of its parliament for Partnership for Democracy status with our Assembly? In my opinion, the rapporteur should be congratulated alongside our former President, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, who initiated the proposal to bring the Kyrgyz Republic towards us.

      It is indeed an honour, and also a duty, for our Assembly to verify that the principles and values of the Council of Europe maintain their shining power of attraction for such far-away countries as the Kyrgyz Republic, situated in the very heart of Asia. Human rights, democracy and the rule of law are a fabulous acquis of humanistic doctrines and an outstanding advantage for men and women of our times. We all know for how many centuries these values were dreamed of and what strong efforts and sacrifices were made before they were at last adopted in our societies. The horrors of the Second World War throughout Europe forced a renewed acceptance that the fundamental rights of human beings are, as Antigone, the character of the classical tragedy says, not a concession of the State and its political institutions, but previous to their existence and irrevocable by their authority.

      Democracy and the rule of law are instrumental to the full respect of human rights, which are the very cornerstone of our modern societies. Even within the member States of the Council of Europe, there are challenges yet to be faced – including public perceptions and mentalities – and reforms to be made in order to implement fully the principles and values of our Organisation. Parliaments of non-member countries increasingly understand how useful it could be to have dialogue and co-operation with our Assembly, for the purpose of applying in their societies those same principles and values. That is now the case for the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic. Its representatives are fully aware of the meaning of the meaning Partnership for Democracy status. I greet and commend their desire to meet the challenges and accept the responsibilities of that status.

      On behalf of the Portuguese national delegation, which I have the pleasure of chairing, I warmly welcome our colleagues in the Kyrgyz Republic. I hope that their courage and their long-term vision will be an example to parliamentarians of other countries in their very important continent.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I have visited the Kyrgyz Parliament and was impressed by it, as I was impressed by the country as a whole. I would like to say a few words about the broader context – less about Kyrgyzstan and more about the behaviour of some member States of the Council of Europe.

      Kyrgyzstan continued to be under the heel of international organisations, particularly foreign NGOs. What is their role in the life of Kyrgyzstan today? As I see it, it is a case of active interference in a sovereign State by the United States of America and its European allies, which has already led to two revolutions in that country. The first revolution took several years to prepare. In 2005, before the “tulip revolution”, financial support from the United States of America to opposition parties grew to $30 million. In 45 higher education institutions they set up organisations called Students in Action, which received another $5 million. The number of NGOs controlled by foreigners in that country is as high as 17 000.

      In April 2005, United States Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld visited Bishkek to discuss an increase in the number of troops at the US base at Manas airport, but President Bakiyev said that he saw no reason to increase the number of foreign troops in Kyrgyz territory. Then the opposition went into action. In April 2010 there was the second revolution, which Catherine Ashton called peaceful crisis settlement. It cost 87 people their lives, and it was only by lucky coincidence that more bloodshed was avoided. This habit of interference is typical of the so-called democratisers. The economic results of that period of instability were catastrophic.

      The same habit of interfering in the internal affairs of a State was shown in the liberation of Arab countries in the so-called Arab Spring, leading to the destruction of Libya as a State, civil war in Syria and many other evils. The number of victims of the Arab Spring officially recognised is more than 700 000. The Ukrainian Maidan, where United States Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was handing out bread rolls and $5 million – others were present to show their support, including Catherine Ashton, Guido Westerwelle, Loreta Grauziniene, Senators Christopher Murphy and John McCain, along with many others – led to an armed coup, the loss of Crimea and so on. It was the result of the actions of the US and several Council of Europe member States. Nobody will be held responsible for all that, but millions of people will make the judgment of history, including people in Council of Europe member States.

      The PRESIDENT – We will shortly have to conclude, but first I will give the floor to Mr McNamara, who was not present earlier. I ask him please to be brief.

      Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – I will be brief, Madam President. Many members of this Assembly are justifiably concerned about the potential for duplication of the Council of Europe’s role by the European Union, yet we seem to pay little attention to the potential for duplication by the Council of Europe of the role currently being carried out by the OSCE. Its work stretches from Vancouver to Vladivostok and includes, of course, Kyrgyzstan. In fact, there is an OSCE mission in Bishkek that does a lot of valuable work, including support for democratisation. If Kyrgyzstan becomes a Partner for Democracy, I fear that we will be duplicating the OSCE’s role.

      We are told that the partnership will in no way detract from the Council of Europe’s work because the European Union will fund us to work in Kyrgyzstan, but I am not terribly interested in the European Union’s funding and do not think that we should necessarily be driven by it. If the EU wants to support democratisation in Kyrgyzstan, why does it not do so by supporting what the OSCE’s is already doing there? It has had an office there for a very long time, it has a long track record and it has developed valuable links with Kyrgyzstan. I oppose making it a Partner for Democracy because I fear that that would duplicate the OSCE’s valuable work. Furthermore, I think that we have enough work to do in the member States of the Council of Europe, for example looking at the upcoming chairmanship, which I think would give us more bang for our buck, if that is a concern of members present today.

      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 to the Table Office in typescript for publication in the official report.

      I now call the rapporteur to reply. Mr Gross, you have four minutes and 45 seconds.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I thank all the members who support the report and the partnership. I regret that two of the members who spoke think that we are making a mistake. Mr McNamara, it is absolutely not the case that the OSCE is there especially to help to secure the country. It has so much to do to help the country with the right borders, for instance, and to help overcome the tensions between minorities that it has no energy, experience or potential to work on parliamentary democracy. There is absolutely no duplication.

      We will not be taking any funding away from Europe in the smaller sense. We are not doing this because the European Union is funding it; the European Union is funding us because it thinks this is exactly the right thing to do, and because we are the parliamentarians who can share and help build the parliamentary culture much better than any man from the Commission, who was never elected and never worked with citizens. That is why it would be totally wrong if members voted against the partnership for those reasons.

      Ms Faber-van de Klashorst, our Dutch colleague for the Wilders party, seems to have such weak self-confidence that she thinks that partnership with a country that does not want to be an Islamic country – the majority want it to be a secular country – can influence Europe in a negative way. We are strong enough not to have to be afraid of that. The best security against Islamisation is the strengthening of democratic structures, especially when the majority of the people do not want Islamisation. They care about democracy and, as was said, want to be free. They do not want to be governed by an ideology based on religion.

      By the way, we should never forget that Muslims were always part of Europe. We as Europeans owe an enormous amount to our Islamic roots, so we should not close the door to all those who are not Christians. That would be a big mistake and a big loss. In that sense, it is an enrichment to show that pluralism is one of the basic values, and the Kyrgyz people, as she mentioned, are for pluralism, and that goes also for religion. We would do exactly what she pretends they do by reducing our commitment to pluralism by taking only Christians. That would also be boring, by the way, because we can learn from others only when they are different and when we are not afraid of them.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Mr Iwiński, Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Human Rights and Democracy, do you wish to take the floor?

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) - Very briefly, I will say that we have gone beyond the main point. The issues of the rainbow revolutions and the religious aspects have erased it. We should focus on the situation of the small country next to China that was a former member of the Soviet Union and is in a very difficult economic situation. It is ready to follow and even go ahead of its great neighbour, Kazakhstan. We would like to see the delegation of Kyrgyz MPs very active in the foreseeable future, as are their colleagues from Morocco and Palestine. In the case of Kazakhstan, they come here but they are not as active as we expected, so we hope that perhaps in the foreseeable future the countries of central Asia will follow others’ example, and sooner or later Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan will have very stable and mature democracies.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. That brings our debate to an end. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution to which 23 amendments and two sub-amendments have been tabled. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wishes to propose to the Assembly that we apply Rule 33.11. Given that all amendments to the draft resolution other than Amendments 4 and 21 were unanimously approved by the committee, they could be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that correct, Mr Iwiński?

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT* - Thank you very much. Are there any objections? That is not the case.

      Therefore, all amendments, with the exceptions of Amendments 4 and 21, are adopted.

      The following amendments have been adopted:

      Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Hunko, Mr Jónasson, Ms Werner, Mr Kox and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, to replace the words “It recalls that partner for democracy is not a certificate of a perfect democracy but rather a tool to improve it” with the following words:

“It recalls that Partnership for Democracy status is a tool to improve democracy”.

      Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Hunko, Mr Jónasson, Ms Werner, Mr Kox and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, last sentence, to delete the word “best”.

      Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Hunko, Mr Jónasson, Ms Werner, Mr Kox and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15.5, to insert the following paragraph:

“strengthening the development of political participation in political parties, to ensure a pluralistic representation of all parts of the Kirgiz society”.

      Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Hunko, Mr Jónasson, Ms Werner, Mr Kox and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.21, to replace the word “reduce” with the word “ban”.

      Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Hunko, Mr Jónasson, Ms Werner, Mr Kox and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 15.21, to add the following words: “and high quality health treatment”.

      Amendment 7, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 14 with the following paragraph:

“In this context, pervasive corruption, an ethnically unbalanced judiciary lacking impartiality and independence, continued use of torture, impunity of law enforcement agents for the latter, acts of intimidation of civil society and still unresolved consequences of inter-ethnic tensions cause very serious concern and must be addressed as matters of priority, including in the framework of future cooperation between the Council of Europe and Kyrgyzstan as partners for democracy.”

      Amendment 8, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.1, after the words “and improving the electoral”, to insert the word “legal”.

      Amendment 9, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, at the beginning of paragraph 15.10, to insert the following words: “stepping up efforts to ensure respect of the right to a fair trial, in particular by ensuring that the right to defence is respected in practice and”.

      Amendment 10, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 15.12 with the following paragraph:

“reinforcing the training of judges, prosecutors, prison staff, law-enforcement agents and lawyers as regards respect for international human rights standards”.

      Amendment 11, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15.12, to insert the following paragraph:

“erasing practices of arbitrary detention”.

      Amendment 12, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 15.13 with the following paragraph:

“effectively implementing international norms on the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment of persons deprived of their liberty; fighting impunity for torture and ill-treatment, in particular by introducing an effective complaint mechanism against such acts”.

      Amendment 13, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 15.14 with the following paragraph:

“improving conditions of detention as well as the effectiveness of the National Prevention Mechanism, in line with the United Nations prison-related norms and standards.”

      Amendment 14, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15.19, to insert the following paragraph:

“refraining from adopting laws aimed directly or indirectly at restricting civil society activities;”.

      Amendment 15, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15.20, to insert the following paragraph:

“refraining from harassing human rights defenders and civil society activists and protecting them against attacks or other acts of intimidation by non-State actors; releasing Mr Azimjon Askarov and guaranteeing him a fair trial;”.

      Amendment 16, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 18.1, to insert the following words: “on the understanding that it will regularly inform the Assembly on the state of progress in implementing Council of Europe principles”.

      Amendment 17, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.7, to delete the word “further”.

      Amendment 18, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.7, after the words “equal opportunities for women and men in”, to insert the word “economic,”.

      Amendment 19, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.16, after the words “promoting reconciliation”, to insert the following words: “, participation in political and public life,”.

      Amendment 20, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15.16, to insert the following paragraph:

“guaranteeing respect for the linguistic rights of minorities and promoting the right to education in minority languages;”.

      Amendment 22, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15.19, to insert the following paragraph:

“not following-up on the draft bill drawn up on the model of laws on the prohibition of “homosexual propaganda”.

      Amendment 23, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15.20, to insert the following paragraph:

“increasing efforts in the fight against trafficking in human beings for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labour;”.

      We come to Amendment 21, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15.19, to insert the following paragraph:

“condemning and combating all forms of discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity;”

A sub-amendment has been tabled. I call Ms Bilgehan to support Amendment 21 on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – After paragraph 15.19, we would like to add a new sub-paragraph which would refer to condemning and combating all forms of discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In the course of the debate, we explained our concerns regarding the situation of LGBT people in the Kyrgyz Republic, and that is why we want to add this sentence.

      The PRESIDENT – First we will deal with sub-amendment 1, tabled by Mr Gross, Mr Agramunt, Mr Hunko, Ms Khidasheli and Lord Tomlinson, which is, in the draft resolution, in Amendment 21,delete the words “condemning and”.

      I call Mr Gross on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – There is duplication here that is perhaps not so nice. We want to combat all forms of discrimination but we do not have to start by condemning them. Combating and fighting are enough. You will see many of these terms, but in a democratic partnership, proposing to condemn is not a very nice way to start.

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

      What is the opinion of the drafter of the amendment?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – I accept Mr Gross’s sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy is obviously in favour.

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – We are in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 21, as amended? That is not the case.

      The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Hunko, Mr Jónasson, Ms Werner, Mr Kox and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.20, after the words “women and men”, to insert the following words: “; fighting against LGTBIQ discrimination”.

      I call Mr Hunko to support Amendment 4.

      Mr HUNKO (Germany)* – Essentially this is the same topic. It is fighting discrimination against LGBTIQ persons. I used the term LGBTIQ but I think that we have agreed that we will go for LGBT, which I can accept.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. First we will deal with sub-amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in Amendment 4, replace “LGBTIQ” with “LGBT”.

      I call Mr Gross.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland)* – IQ normally stands for “intelligence quotient”, which I do not think is what is being referred to here. You would have to be pretty thick not to understand the regular abbreviation LGBT. I think that we can forget “IQ” on this occasion.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – Thank you. I think the previous amendment covered this problem, so there is a duplication of the wording about the urgent need to fight against discrimination against LGBT people. We have somehow to take care about the heritage and traditions of Kyrgyz people, too. We should not force them to follow this path.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the drafter of the amendment on the sub-amendment?

      Mr HUNKO (Germany) – I am in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour. We shall now vote on the sub-amendment.

      The vote is open.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 4, as amended?

      That is not the case.

      I assume that the view of the committee is in favour, so we shall now vote on Amendment 4, as changed by the sub-amendment. The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13461, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      I most warmly congratulate the delegation of the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic – a parliament that is now a Partner for Democracy with us. Welcome to our home. We are delighted to have you with us. [Applause.]

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

3. The situation and rights of traditional national minorities in Europe

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “The situation and rights of traditional minorities in Europe”, Document 13445, presented by Mr Ferenc Kalmar on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      I remind you that we have already agreed that we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 7 p.m. to allow time for the reply and votes.

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

      Mr KALMAR (Hungary) – Dear Colleagues, we have arrived at the final stage of one and half years of work. First, I express my gratitude not only to the Secretariat of the Committee for Equality and Non-Discrimination, to the experts who helped my work, to the Italian, Finnish and Serbian delegations who helped to organise and conduct the three fact-finding visits and, of course, to the former and current chairs of our Committee, but to the members for their very active participation in the debates organised on this report.

      The report has manifold bases: the legal antecedents of the Council of Europe, especially the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; desk research and information collection during fact-finding visits to Italy, Finland and Serbia; meetings with Mr Lattimer, Executive Director of Minority Rights Group International; public hearings organised by the Committee with Athanasia Spiliopoulou Ĺkermark, President of the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and Mr Stefan Oeter, Chair of the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in Madrid.

      Specific issues were discussed, such as Spanish language policy, with the participation of Mr Rafael Rodriguez Ponga, Secretary General of Instituto Cervantes and Mr Fernando Rey Martínez, President of the Council for the promotion of equal treatment and non-discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin; the political participation and territorial autonomies with the participation of Ms Michčle Akip, Head of the Secretariat of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and Professor Stefan Wolff, Director of Research and Knowledge Transfer, College of Social Sciences, University of Birmingham.

      All this work was done with the intention of collecting as much data and as many experiences and opinions as possible, to produce a well-balanced and useful report on this very sensitive issue of high political importance.

      I appreciate the decision of the Bureau of the Assembly to define and approve the title and goals of the motion, which was followed by a decision of the Committee on the outline of the report. In the light of the political situation in Ukraine, no one can ignore the importance of protecting and promoting the rights of traditional national minorities in Europe in preventing conflicts and threats to the integrity of States. This is the first occasion when the Bureau has tabled the title of a report on this sub-category of national minorities. I therefore want to mention that several Council of Europe reports, resolutions and recommendations concern other sub-categories of national and ethnic minorities – for instance, the Roma people. I had an exchange of clarifying letters with the European Roma and Travellers Forum. I am convinced that a new free-standing follow-up report should be done in the future on the Roma people.

      I was struck during my work by the need for a report on the Jewish communities in Europe. It is perhaps not well known that there are about 100 million people in traditional national minorities in the 47 member States of the Council of Europe. The ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe has been an essential element of its competitiveness and creativity. “Unity through diversity” is one of the European slogans. This richness should be protected and nurtured. Europe today has to answer economic challenges coming from other parts of the world. I am convinced that if we cannot unite our forces there will be no prosperous future for any of our nations. The aim must be to avoid assimilation and to ensure peaceful co-existence and tolerance, which bring stability, development and security for all.

      The report is mainly based on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, but it also presents other international instruments and some of the best practices used in this field. In my opinion those tools are under-used; this is our common responsibility, and the peaceful co-existence of traditional national minority communities with the majority is at stake. The issue is European but the risk is global.

      “The stability of our society depends on the rights of national minorities”, stated Ms Gordana Stamenić, State Secretary at the Serbian Ministry of Justice and Public Administration, during our meeting. During my fact-finding visit to Alto Adige/ Südtirol I was told that the Italian-German cohabitation had the following stages: after the Second World War it could be labelled as “one against the other”; later it was followed by “one next to the other”; now it is in the stage of “one together with the other”, and the next very desired and expected stage will be “one for each other” – en français, “l’un pour l’autre”. I am sure that Europe can win the global competition if, and only if, we all reach at least the stage of “one together with the other”.Th

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kalmár. You have six minutes and 20 seconds left to reply at the end of the debate. I now call Mr Villumsen on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – The rights of national minorities is an important issue to which the Council of Europe should pay close attention, because discrimination against national minorities is the root of many conflicts and unstable situations in Europe. That is why the issue is not just important to secure basic human rights, but fundamental to secure peace and stability for all people in Europe. Unfortunately, however, the report fails to solve that problem.

      The report introduces a new category. Instead of just national minorities, it creates a new category of so-called “traditional” national minorities. Furthermore, it excludes Roma people from that new category. Today is International Roma Day, and it would be a terrible decision for our Assembly to use this day to exclude Roma people from a report that should secure minorities. On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I urge you, dear colleagues, to vote in favour of amendments that remove the word “traditional”, and ensure that the report aims to include all national minorities, including Roma people. If those amendments are not adopted, I ask you vote against the whole report.

      I was happy that in the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination there was a majority in favour of securing rights for all, and to remove the word “traditional”. Unfortunately, however, the committee did not have time to deal with all the amendments to the report. I urge members to follow the committee’s recommendation and continue its work of ensuring that our Assembly secures all national minorities, including Roma people. I therefore ask members to vote for and adopt amendments 14 to 21, because the Assembly should use today – International Roma Day – to stand up for all minorities, including Roma people, when we vote on the report.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Villumsen. I now call Mr Gunnarsson to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – First, on behalf of the Socialist Group I thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for the report on the situation and rights of traditional national minorities. The way a society protects its minorities says a lot about that society, and it becomes clear that when it comes to the matter addressed in the draft resolution and draft recommendation, Europe is very diverse in the way that the rights of minorities are addressed by different member States. The idea and history of the national State is addressed in the explanatory memorandum, and in many ways the striving for ethnically homogeneous populations in European countries became the idea around which today’s map of Europe was drawn. I am happy that the rapporteur stresses in his memorandum the idea that today we should build our countries around the idea of inclusion and plurality.

      The statement “differences should be the rule and not the exception”, which is found in the report, says a lot. Europe’s ambitions for the protection of the rights of national minorities are high, and that is demonstrated in several recommendations and resolutions passed by the Assembly, and also in the very important Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. In the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination we had many and long discussions about this very ambitious report, many of which centred around the use and definition of the term “traditional national minorities” and what would distinguish those minorities from national minorities. Sadly we have not found common ground on that issue, which I deeply regret. One might think that it is not very important, but it is. I cannot understand why, for example, we should deny Roma people from being covered by what is written in the draft resolution and draft recommendation, and in these matters I cannot see any good reason to make a distinction between traditional national minorities and national minorities.

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

      Mr PALACIOS (Spain)* – I congratulate the author of this report, Mr Kalmár, on his very good work on a subject that is fundamental for all countries of Europe, particularly when it comes to the rights of traditional minorities. As the report states, we must give top priority to such rights in the Council of Europe, as that is the way we can help to prevent conflict and ensure that peace and stability prevail on our continent.

      The report submitted to the Parliamentary Assembly calls on all member States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and to implement agreements that have been entered into and apply laws to protect those minorities. People who belong to a traditional ethnic minority need assurances that they can play a role in the public and economic life of the country in which they live, and also transmit their mother tongue to future generations.

      In that context, it should be remembered that in a multi-ethnic State such as my own, or a multi-lingual State in which the national language co-exists with others, one cannot deprive people living within national borders of the opportunity of receiving instruction in the official national language of the country. Spanish law requires that all citizens of Spain know the Spanish language and have the right to use it. That is why it is inadmissible that the rights of minorities are pitted against those of the majority, and the rights afforded to them by the constitution.

      Minorities should play an integral part in the overarching human rights protection machinery. If we are to have a pluralistic and democratic society, not only should we respect the ethnic culture and linguistic identities of people who belong to minorities and make sure that we put in place the conditions for them to be able to preserve and develop that identity, but minorities must also make sure that there is a climate of tolerance and dialogue. That is a prerequisite for cultural diversity, which enriches society.

      Majority and minority groups alike need to be clear about where their responsibilities and duties lie, in a spirit of mutual respect. We cannot have a situation – as we do in part of Europe – in which there is discrimination against minority groups. In the report we are seeking to proclaim that everybody should be equal, with no discrimination on the grounds of gender, race or social circumstances – to name but a few possible grounds – and to make sure that we put in place the conditions for freedom for individuals.

      I reiterate my congratulations to Mr Kalmar.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Palacios. I would like to remind speakers to restrict themselves to three minutes, otherwise we will get into problems with the time. I call Mr Stroe, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr STROE (Romania) – Thank you, Mr President. We thank the rapporteur for his efforts and for the opportunity for this debate on national minorities. The report is politically welcome as an expression of pluralism, but we believe that its proposals have a number of deficiencies that we can hardly ignore, such as trying to impose a few specific cases of territorial autonomy as a model or the insistence on the idea of collective rights, which often come to contradict the individual rights of members of minority communities.

      All European and international legislative frameworks, including the Lisbon Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, are based on the rights of individuals belonging to national minorities. In fact, one of the factors that facilitated the entering into force of the most relevant document in this sense, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, was the clear specification that, to quote from the explanatory report on the framework, “It does not imply the recognition of collective rights.” Furthermore, inserting the idea of a sub-category of national minorities, the so-called traditional minorities, undermines existing monitoring mechanisms, especially the framework convention, which is based on a common understanding of the concept of national minorities, not on sub-dividing that idea.

      Secondly, the questionable element of the report is not its vocation to protect and promote the identity of national minorities, but its resort to the instrument of collective rights and territorial autonomy as a unanimously recognised European or international standard. Of course, Europe has a diversity of methods – including the territorial, non-territorial, cultural and federal, decentralised administration or special political representation – for protecting minorities. Trying to impose one option over the others is contrary to pluralism and could generate unwanted tensions in member States. I have read the report carefully, and it relies on two examples of territorial self-government that, although good lessons learned, could hardly be a universal model for all countries.

      Thirdly, the ethnic accent placed on the need for territorial autonomy has a major flaw: it prevents and discourages debates on a flexible and credible process of administrative reorganisation at national level centred on rationality and economic and social sustainability, which can be applicable to the entire society and to each citizen. The result of such an approach is detrimental to development.

      Last, modern States are multi-ethnic States, but it is citizenship, not ethnicity, that binds modern societies. Citizenship is the source of individual rights that are enforceable in a court of law, even against the abuse of the State, if need be.

      Mr PRESIDENT – Colleagues, those speakers who speak for too long prevent the last speakers on the list from speaking, so please be careful. Mr Kalmar, do you wish to respond at this stage? You have four minutes.

      Mr KALMAR (Hungary) – I will deal first with the issue of traditional national minorities and why we did not discuss the question of Roma people. As I have said already, I had a clarifying exchange of letters with a Roma organisation. The fact is that the question of the Roma people cannot be discussed in half a page or even a whole page of another report. It should be the subject of its own free-standing report, which should be made here in the Council of Europe in the next session. There have been a lot of reports on the Roma people made by the Council of Europe – I listed about two pages of titles.

      On the question of traditional national minorities, if we look we see that the motion approved by the Bureau of the Assembly contained that phrase. Excuse me for saying this, but if I have been given the job of building a motor car, I do not decide to build a train because I like them better. It is a question of what we are actually discussing.

      I am not against making a report on the Roma people. Of course I am not – I was one of the rapporteurs who gave an opinion here two years ago, along with Mr Aligrudić. It is not about what we like or do not like. We must do that, and I accept the idea. But this report is focused on traditional national minorities. That is a separate issue from the issue of the Roma people, their social problems and so on.

      Mr Stroe, regarding the idea that we want to impose autonomy, first of all I must remind you that all the recommendations and resolutions of the Council of Europe are non-compulsory. We do not impose anything on any State. We show ways – I think we show the right ways – of solving problems.

      On the question of collective rights and individual rights, I know that Romania does not accept the idea of collective rights. But there are such rights. Article 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities starts: “The protection of national minorities and of the rights and freedoms of persons belonging to those minorities forms an integral part of the international protection”. That means that rights have a collective dimension. In modern legislation, that is how the term is used. It is used in parallel – there are individual rights and rights with a collective dimension.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Kalmár, you have two and a half minutes left for your final reply. I call Ms Magradze.

      Ms MAGRADZE (Georgia) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Kalmár, for raising this important and urgent problem. We can see that almost all conflicts within or between states are caused by, or at least said to be mostly based on, problems concerning national identity. The rapporteur states that one solution to problems involving national minorities could be the creation of autonomous areas for minorities, in order to preserve their rights. I draw members’ attention to recent world history, which shows that international society needs to be very careful about supporting autonomies.

      It is necessary to distinguish between two kinds of traditional minority. One is a national minority that lives only in one State, and the second is a minority inside a given country that has a majority in its own nation. Of course all minorities should be protected, but territorial autonomy could be a useful solution for a traditional national minority that does not have a State elsewhere and wants to make sure that its national identity is preserved. However, when a minority in a given State has a nation elsewhere, creation of territorial autonomy could be risky. Recent history confirms that it is especially risky for countries where the minorities are from a large neighbouring State. In Georgia and Ukraine, we have seen how autonomous territories have been occupied by a larger neighbouring State.

      It is true that in some cases, territorial autonomy can play an important role in the protection of the rights of traditional national minorities, but that is not always the best solution. If the State protects the rights of national minorities, ensures their effective participation in social, economic and cultural life, provides teaching in minority languages and so on, the urge for the State to create an autonomous republic within its territory seems redundant. Our recent history is good evidence for that. In the autonomous republic of Abkhazia, 17% of the population was native Abkhazian. Georgia protected all the rights of the Abkhaz national minorities and ensured that the identity of the Abkhaz was preserved. Schools, universities, theatres, and the media used the Abkhaz language, and Abkhaz minority representatives headed up the autonomous republic’s local government. The Parliament of Georgia was quick to adopt electoral legislation allowing the pluralistic political representation of Abkhaz minorities.

      Georgia treated its autonomous region of South Ossetia in the same way, but after Georgia declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia took advantage of the autonomous status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and caused an armed conflict, and Georgia then lost control of the autonomous regions. That is why the creation of autonomous territories should be considered on a case by case basis, and should not become a widely used practice. Thank you.

      Ms DJUROVIĆ (Serbia) – I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent work on this important issue, which relates to one of the Council of Europe’s main areas of interest. I thank him for undertaking a fact-finding visit to Serbia while preparing his report, and mentioning it as a good example of respect for the collective rights guaranteed to persons belonging to national minorities.

      The Republic of Serbia has done a lot to improve the position of national minorities and protect their rights. We are applying the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. A law on national councils of national minorities has been enacted, and direct elections for national minority councils have been held. The law defines activities and regulates the competences of the national councils of national minorities in the field of education, culture, media and the official use of languages and scripts. It guarantees that all minorities will be recognised and enjoy rights under applicable legislation, and that was confirmed by the Advisory Committee on the framework convention.

      I support the rapporteur in calling on those member States that have not signed or ratified the framework convention and the European charter to do so, but I underline that it is implementation of these documents that counts. I have to point that out because, unfortunately, we are witnessing numerous violations of this right by some countries that are party to both the framework convention and the charter. Respect for minority rights and the right to official use of minorities’ languages in regions with significant national minority populations is indisputably one of most important achievements of modern democratic systems.

      Given that we are debating further improvements to the rights of national minorities, I have to mention regretfully that tomorrow the Croatian Parliament will deliberate on holding a referendum on bilingualism, and on a proposal to increase the threshold at which the right to bilingualism applies from 33%, which is already too high, to 50%. That would fully deny the Serbian national minority the right to official use of their language and script. I sincerely hope that the referendum will not occur; otherwise, Croatia will violate not only its laws and the international conventions that it has ratified, but commitments it made in negotiations on membership of the European Union.

      The Republic of Serbia is firmly committed to continuous engagement in promoting and further improving the status of national minorities in the country, in co-operation and accordance with the recommendations of the Council of Europe. We therefore support the report and its recommendations, and expect that the rights of members of Serbian minorities in other countries, including the right to use their language and script, will be fully respected in accordance with Council of Europe standards.

      Ms MULIĆ (Croatia) – I recognise the valuable effort that Mr Kalmár invested in preparing his report, but it has three weak points that represent three good reasons not to support it. One of them is the term “traditional national minorities”. I come from the Republic of Croatia; for historical reasons, in all of south-eastern Europe, if we apply the definition of “traditional national minorities”, problems might occur.

      According to the Croatian constitution, we have 22 national minorities, and Serbs are one of them. In the Croatian Parliament, which consists of 151 Deputies, eight seats are guaranteed to representatives of national minorities; minorities are also guaranteed cultural, social, economic and human rights. For the past 12 years, we have had a constitutional law on national minorities, so we are one of the best models in Europe of the protection of national minorities. There are other international legal instruments that can be used in nation States to protect the rights of national minorities, as well as internal territorial arrangements.

      On Roma people, I am very much aware that additional regard is needed to improving the rights of Roma people, but Roma people cannot be excluded from the report. I remind all members that today we celebrate International Roma Day. Roma people came to Europe in the 12th or 13th century, so I am strongly convinced that they should be included in the people covered by the report. There are plenty of legal instruments that allow us to not assimilate but integrate national minorities, and respect all their rights. Thank you.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on a difficult job. The report has been thoroughly debated by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. The issue belongs on the list of the Council of Europe’s priorities, because the linguistic, ethnic and cultural rights of people who belong to national minorities are of paramount importance; we should therefore ensure that the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is implemented. As has been said, a climate of dialogue and tolerance is a prerequisite for cultural diversity, which does not divide but rather enriches society. That is what it says in the report and that is why we must promote tolerance and intercultural diversity and make a decisive contribution to preventing conflict.

      As a Romanian senator and a representative of Romanians in the diaspora, I take care of citizens in Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, all of which have significant Romanian populations, and encourage them to integrate into the country in which they live and work. A fair balance must be struck between protecting national minorities and requiring that such people become part of the societies and countries in which they live. The first High Commissioner on National Minorities at the OSCE recently declared that the privileges of those who govern certain groups should not lead to secessionist tendencies in the States in which they live. It is important that people’s rights to identity are preserved, but also that they live in harmony with other members of society, which is vital to peace and international security. Earlier this year, the Bolzano declaration stated that the mother State should ensure that its policies on its ethnic kin living outside its borders do not stand in the way of integration and do not fuel separatist tendencies. We should strive to improve conditions for national minorities and, more importantly, ensure that we actually implement existing standards and afford protection to people who belong to national minorities.

      Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate the rapporteur on a diverse and sometimes controversial report.

      Every State and every society has its own history of ethnic minorities. As a consequence, every minority group in every country has its own peculiarities and differences, which is why there can be no single approach to the issue. We should not avoid cultural dialogue when speaking about multi-ethnic societies. Cultural diversity is the reality of the modern world, which not only constantly renews existing differences, but also creates new ones. As a result, ethnic, religious and other identities, including more traditional ones, in fact appear completely modern.

      A minority’s fate depends entirely on the good will and democracy of the State, but it is obvious that many minorities suffer discrimination. The rights to identity and to pursue one’s own culture and religion should be considered inalienable. No State can deny a person being themselves, manifesting their religion or studies or enriching their culture. What is necessary to provide rights for ethnic minorities? If ethnic minorities are represented in parliament and in government and if the State provides freedom of religion for all ethnic minorities and respects the cultural heritage of minority groups, rights have been provided. I am proud that my country provides all that. In Azerbaijan, people of various ethnicities have lived in brotherhood and harmony for centuries. National minorities are represented in parliament and in government structures, and great attention is paid to religious freedom. Catholic and Orthodox churches and Jewish synagogues are constructed and reconstructed at the expense and initiative of the State.

      People of all ethnic groups should take part in a country’s political life and be involved in all political processes. We should remove the borders in society. Every society carries its culture and religion, but they should not be the priority. The issues related to ethnic minorities require mutual work between the State and the minority groups. If the State provides rights to ethnic minorities, minorities should not isolate themselves from the national interests of the country. Mutual respect and a desire to strive for the prosperity of the country should unite the whole population, no matter to which ethnic group someone belongs, and make it function as a single entity.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Issues relating to national minorities have always been present and now, when borders are more transparent and countries are closer, they are much more of a reality. To achieve a successful policy on national minorities in a certain country, the traditions of that country are much more important than the type of policy. If such traditions existed previously, the process is easier. Azerbaijan is one such country. Centuries of rich experience in national, religious and cultural tolerance can reduce related problems to zero. Here is a simple example. In the Guba district of Azerbaijan, there is a 5 000-year old village called Khynalyg that is 2 300 metres above sea level and has a population of some 2 000 civilians. These people have their own language that is used solely in this place. However, the language of Khynalyg is now separately taught, and the proper manuals are published by the State.

      Russians, Jews, Talyshs, Tats, Georgians and more than 20 other national minorities reside in Azerbaijan as a single family. They have schools, publishing houses and press agencies. Nonetheless, various external forces are using subversive activities and instigating separatism, which is very dangerous. Despite offering the ideal terms for national minorities, certain persons or groups, influenced from outside the country, still clamour about alleged pressures or indifferences towards some national minority. Such things have been seen in recent examples, which include undermining stability, external military interference and aggression. This is the most disturbing problem relating to national minorities.

      Racism, xenophobia and nationalism have always harmed societies and the existence of such things in the 21st century is nothing but a pity. Combating the negative elements and ensuring rights for national minorities in each country should be our common cause, alongside the major duty to establish a more civil Europe. However, we should be constantly ready for organised and joint resistance against national minorities being used by external forces for separatist purposes.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I warmly congratulate Mr Kalmár and his committee on bringing this excellent report to the Assembly. It is a milestone in the protection of the rights of traditional minorities. Such people live in the same territory as their grandfather, grandmother and all their relatives, but history cheated them and forced them to live in another country. An example is the Roma people, whose rights are really important, but their story is another thing. I checked the Council of Europe’s website to see how many adopted texts deal with Roma rights, and about 21 texts have been adopted by the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers. It is high time that we concentrated our efforts on people belonging to traditional national minorities, who make up some 10% of all European citizens. We must end discrimination.

      A special home page on the Council of Europe website is entitled “Making Human Rights for Roma a reality”. We also have to make human rights for traditional national minorities a reality. That is our task. This is a sui generis regulation, and includes the relevant Council of Europe documents. The wonderful report delivered by Mr Gross in 2003 was followed by Resolution 1332. In 2011, another important resolution was adopted – Resolution 1811 on the compromise between traditional minorities’ rights in their motherland and the territorial integrity of the State. This report is wonderful because it promotes the best practices of South Tyrol, Finland and other countries. We have to avoid bloody conflicts in Europe, so we should follow the method of South Tyrol rather than that of Kosovo. The future of Europe is vested in this report. Please support it.

      Mr SZABÓ (Hungary) – I would like to express my deep gratitude to the rapporteur for the production of the report. It is not controversial to put this topic on the agenda now. Every day, reports from all over the world of minorities asserting their rights, which are being violated, highlight the importance of protecting minorities. This issue concerns the world, and, of course, Europe.

      Among the different minorities, I want to emphasise that there are national and ethnic minorities. Let us think of what happened in the past century and the first decade and a half of this century. In the crisis in Ukraine, national minorities – Russians, Poles, Romanians and Hungarians – have a key role to play. There have been heated discussions about minority rights and, in particular, the laws governing the use of minority languages. Over the past decades, the Council of Europe has addressed issues pertaining to national and ethnic minorities. The report contains key documents, resolutions and recommendations. There has been a lively discussion about whether we should use terms such as “traditional minorities” – in other words, native or indigenous minorities. Are there such minorities in reality? Clearly, they exist; nobody could deny that. We are not talking about a theoretical, speculative term, but a fact. Indigenous, native national minorities exist. It is therefore important that the Council of Europe concern itself with their situation and characteristics. This will not work to the detriment of national minorities and other minorities, but will improve co-operation and peaceful co-existence with the majority.

      The terms used in the report are clear. Traditional, indigenous minorities are defined as minorities that have been residing on the same territory for several centuries and have a shared identity. Those minorities are seen as a sub-group of national minorities. That interpretation means there is a good chance that the majority of the Assembly will vote in favour of the report’s resolutions and recommendations. I therefore suggest that we approve the report and its resolutions and recommendations. It is of great importance for diversity and will lay a foundation that can be developed to make progress in the future.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – I address you today as one of the representatives of traditional national minorities. First, I congratulate our dear colleague, the honourable rapporteur, on his work in preparing the report. I agree with his main conclusion that the protection of the rights of minorities should remain our priority. Nevertheless, it is important to adopt legislation, implement the existing legal framework for the protection of traditional national minorities and consolidate existing laws.

      When education policies are formulated, it is essential that the needs of traditional national minorities are borne in mind. Secondary and higher education institutions should take steps to ensure education in mother tongues is maintained. It is of the utmost importance that people who belong to national minorities establish and maintain their own education institutions and other kinds of institutions. It is essential that minority languages are protected. Traditional national minorities must have the official right to speak minority languages in public in the territories in which they live. It is necessary to adopt affirmative measures to ensure a proportional representation of members of all national communities in State authorities, public services and local government. States should keep in mind the national composition of the population and ensure proportional representation.

      If we really support the participation of traditional national minorities in public life and the decision-making process, it is necessary to adopt electoral legislation to improve the political representation of minorities. For example, in 2004, Serbia passed a law amending the law governing the election of members of parliament to facilitate minority representation in the Serbian Parliament. It abolished the 5% threshold for national minority parties and their coalitions. Since the 2007 parliamentary election in Serbia, minority representation has significantly improved. We do not need to do much, but we must ensure that traditional national minorities are able to stay and prosper in their territory of origin, where they have been living for centuries.

      Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – Europe is an intricate web of different cultures, languages, races, nationalities and religions. That diversity is a strength and a weakness. Legislating for the rights of traditional national minorities has assumed a redoubled importance in the times in which we live. The decline of living standards in several countries and communities in Europe has shifted the focus not only to national minorities and immigrants, but to traditional national minorities. Despite the fact that they are fully fledged nationals, they are often the target of discrimination, xenophobia and even violence, which brings to mind the darker side of our democracies.

      It concerns me deeply that several of this Assembly’s member States have not yet marked out their place in history by signing the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages – two of the pivotal legal instruments on this issue. A people, whether a traditional minority or not, can only rise to its full potential if it is fully recognised by the surrounding society. A society cannot reap the benefits of a true worldview if it is not prepared to grant equal rights to all its citizens under the law. We cannot simply sweep entire cultures and ethnicities under the rug. Our struggles throughout history demand that we act ahead of events. Morally, we cannot remain on the sidelines. In practice, back-pedalling is anathema to our social goals.

      I therefore call on all member States to promote laws that not only protect, but promote the culture, customs, language, traditions and identity of all traditional national minorities – their inclusion and, most importantly, their participation in all parts of society’s fabric, including the decision-making sphere. That said, I cannot support the amendments that try to delete the word “traditional” from the draft resolution and recommendation.

      Finally, I have a special word for the rapporteur, Mr Ferenc Kalmár. This is your last report and last speech in our Assembly. Maybe you will be back one day, but let me tell you how much we have appreciated your dedication to the institution and your friendship. You were born in a traditional national minority, but the number of friends you leave here is an absolute majority.

The PRESIDENT – Ms L'Ovochkina is not here, so I call Ms Gorghiu.

Ms GORGHIU (Romania) – I have only two brief observations about the report, which allows us to debate the right of persons belonging to national minorities to participate in public life and the use of native language in education and media. First, in the last 25 years, the situation of minorities in Romania has constantly improved. As a citizen and a Romanian MP, I am pleased to report that the inter-cultural situation in Romania is a good one. Romania recognises 18 national minorities, which are represented at parliamentary level, the largest being the Hungarian minority. Under the legislation, the Hungarian minority have the right, for example, to receive education in their own language in public and private schools and universities, and to have television stations in the Hungarian language. The minority’s language is also used in administration where the ethnic Hungarian minority population exceeds 20% of the regional population. Any minority group that meets certain conditions clearly stipulated in legislation enjoys the same rights.

My second observation relates to the events that we witnessed recently in Ukraine. It was an unfortunate decision to attempt to abolish the law on regional languages, and I am glad that the President in office has vetoed that decision of the Rada. As a Romanian, I also think of the well-being of the Romanian community in Ukraine. The official number of Romanian ethnics in Ukraine is above 400,000, of whom 128,000 are in the Odessa region. I want to stress, however, that certain difficulties in minority protection can by no means justify military intervention and annexation of a part of the territory of a sovereign State. The monitoring instruments of the Council of Europe are aimed at avoiding precisely the kind of rhetoric and behaviour that triggered the Second World War: for example, the employment of military force allegedly to protect kin-minorities from other States.

I am confident, therefore, that the leadership in Kiev will maintain in force the existing legislation on minority languages and that any amendments will be first analysed thoroughly with representatives of national minorities and international experts on the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Bilateral dialogue with neighbouring States, including Romania, will also play a part, in a spirit of good neighbourliness.

      Mr POPESCU (Ukraine)* – I congratulate our colleague, Mr Kalmár, on this excellent report. An analysis of the rights of traditional national minorities is of symbolic importance because none of us on this continent is in an ethnic majority; we are all minorities really. So we must be fair to all. We have the framework convention and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, but representatives of national minorities are not always equipped with equal rights when it comes to culture, education and political representation. Not all member countries of the Council of Europe have signed and ratified those documents and, even where they have ratified them, they have not always had effective mechanisms to implement the provisions of the legislation.

      Within the same country, in certain regions, representatives of one nationality may enjoy all the ethnic and cultural rights, but in another region they may be subject to artificial assimilation measures. We must examine what to do about that. To uphold national minority rights, certain basic principles must be adhered to. We must recognise their right to freely use their own culture and language. We must ensure that they can be educated in their mother tongue. We must find ways to do that. We must ensure that there is a right to political representation in local government, central Government and the Parliament, so that national minorities’ voices can be heard at all levels. However, the most important point is that we should not allow any deterioration of their situation when new laws are passed or laws are changed. That principle is already enshrined in the Ukrainian constitution.

      The Council of Europe and the Venice Commission need to be vigilant and analyse all legislative initiatives that may affect national minorities’ rights. They must compare those initiatives with the standards of the Council of Europe and national legislation so that no restrictions on rights and freedoms are allowed and the rights of national minorities are not eroded. That is particularly topical in areas of frozen conflict, in temporarily occupied territories or in countries that are going through severe economic crisis, where often funding for programmes to benefit national minorities is cut.

      In such situations, we need to show solidarity with ethnic groups and appreciate the principle of live and let live. We should defend their rights through our documents, not through arms. Only in that way can we implement the European principle of unity in diversity.

      Mr CHISU (Observer from Canada) – I thank the rapporteur for highlighting the importance of protecting the rights of national minorities, including traditional national minorities, in Europe. Indeed, throughout European and world history, the failure to protect minority rights has given rise to many civil conflicts and two world wars. We need look no further than the events in the Balkans and eastern Europe to understand that respect for and protection of minority rights remain fundamental to peace and stability in Europe today.

      The draft resolution identifies ways in which States can protect the rights of national minorities through the implementation of international legal frameworks; the establishment of self-government arrangements; and the promotion of the use of minority languages in education and in the public sphere. In Canada, we refer not to traditional national minorities, but to our founding peoples: Aboriginal, French and British, whose rights are specifically protected in the constitution of Canada through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 16 of the charter establishes English and French as Canada’s two official languages, granting them equal status, rights and privileges in the Parliament and the Government of Canada, as well as in the courts established by parliament. In addition, the charter grants minority education rights to both English and French-speaking communities, if they are living in a minority situation in their province or territory. 

      The Government of Canada supports the realisation of these rights by providing funding for educational initiatives in official language communities and for the development of artistic, cultural and heritage products. The rights of Aboriginal peoples, including First Nations, Inuit and Métis, are protected through both the charter and the constitution. The aim of those provisions is to preserve the cultures, identities, customs, traditions and languages of Aboriginal peoples.

      In line with the draft resolution, the Government of Canada has also endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, thus reaffirming “its commitment to promoting and protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples at home and abroad.” To support the full participation of Aboriginal peoples in Canadian life, the Government of Canada funds initiatives such as the development of Aboriginal broadcast programmes and projects aimed at the preservation of languages and cultures. We believe that the linguistic and cultural plurality that has existed since the founding of our country has helped us over the centuries to forge a society that also embraces immigrants from many different cultures. For these reasons, we have placed the concept of “unity in diversity” at the very foundation of our State, as embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which includes the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism as part of Canada’s heritage and identity.

      Mr J. NAGY (Slovak Republic) – I congratulate Mr Kalmár and his team on their work. I am a member of a national minority in the heart of Europe. I belong to a traditional national minority, so I could probably talk too much about these problems. We know of many types of phobia – homophobia, xenophobia and others – but we are not ready to accept that phobias of national minorities also exist in many countries. This report will help to solve the problem for tens of millions of people in Europe. I am surprised that the problem is not wider, as was said in preparation. The report does not cover all national minorities, ethnic minorities, religious or sexual minorities or refugees; rather, it will help especially with the problem of traditional national minorities and was very well done.

      The second thing that I cannot understand is the problem of collective rights. Most of the rights enjoyed nowadays by several minorities, such as those I have mentioned, apply only on the basis of collective rights. We in Slovakia would prefer not to have territorial autonomy, but without a document – such as the one Mr Kalmár has prepared for us – getting our own independent cultural and educational institutions and our own independent media will be a hard job. Why do we need these institutions? We need them because without them it is hard to stop assimilation. Why is it is important to stop assimilation? It is important because national minorities, especially traditional national minorities, mostly live on the borders of national countries and can thereby build bridges between countries and nations for peace, freedom and prosperity. Dear colleagues, please accept this report, which will not only help the tens of millions of us in traditional national minorities, but the whole European continent.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland)I am a strong supporter of minority rights. It is our task as human rights defenders to support those who are weak and help them to get their voices heard. I thank Mr Kalmár for reminding us of this.

      The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities lacks a definition of “national minorities”. However, its advisory committee and international lawyers have established a broad consensus, whereby “national minorities” are understood as minority groups that have existed for centuries on the territory of a certain State sharing a common identity. This definition includes so-called traditional national minorities – the topic of this report. However, I do not understand why the rapporteur wants to create a separate group of national minorities with special rights. All national minorities should have the same rights.

      Another worrying element of the report is that paragraph 15 says that the Roma do not fit within its scope. I cannot understand or accept this. Having existed in Europe for more than five centuries, the Roma are one of the most traditional minorities in Europe, yet throughout history they have been subject to numerous forms of discrimination. Today we celebrate the international day of the Roma. If we accept the report and exclude the Roma from the notion of “traditional national minorities”, we will contribute to discrimination against them and weaken human rights.

      Our main task is to strengthen human rights and defend those who are weak. I want us to agree to a strong text on the situation and rights of national minorities in Europe. If we accept the current text, we risk creating double standards and confusing terminology, which would not help minorities, national or otherwise. My amendments would delete only the word “traditional” before the words “national minorities”. Half of my amendments have been agreed by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, but owing to the lack of time, the committee could not finish the list of amendments. I hope you will be able to support my amendments and strengthen human rights and national minorities.

      Ms GUZENINA-RICHARDSON (Finland) – Defending human rights means defending the weakest. This means defending the individual in relation to the government, children in relation to adults and minorities in relation to the majority. That is why I am deeply concerned by some elements of this report. Its stated aim is to strengthen the rights of traditional national minorities, yet paragraph 15 says that the Roma do not fit within its scope. I hope that most of us here would have trouble accepting that. The Roma have existed in Europe for several centuries and constitute one of our most traditional national minorities. The report does not name any other traditional national minorities, so it is discriminatory that the Roma should be explicitly excluded from its scope.

      This Assembly has accepted numerous resolutions and recommendations condemning all forms of discrimination against the Roma. On this day, International Roma Day, I urge you all not to accept a report that discriminates against the Roma. Our task is to strengthen human rights, not to weaken them by adding confusion to our terminology and creating double standards. I therefore support my colleague Ms Mattila’s amendments, which suggest deleting the word “traditional” before the words “national minorities”. That way we can send a strong and consistent message of support for all national minorities without excluding the Roma. I strongly urge you to support the amendments.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. The last speaker is Mr Morozov.

      Mr MOROZOV (Russian Federation)* – I, too, echo the words of thanks to the rapporteur, because his work covers an important subject for many countries. Unfortunately, however, I have not heard much about the traditional national minority of the Crimean Tatars in this debate, even though a lot of questions about them were put to the Commissioner for Human Rights earlier. I would therefore like to say a few words about what is happening in the Crimean peninsula, where they had lived for centuries.

      Since their return 23 years ago, the Crimean Tatars have gradually become integrated into Crimean society. The fact that the vast majority of people voted in the recent referendum testifies, it seems to me, to the fact that they are now participating actively in political life in Crimea. The vast majority of them voted in favour of being included in Russia. The laws operating today in the Russian Federation will help restore all the rights of those people, who have been repressed for a long time. For thousands of years Russia has never vanished any ethnic identities. Every ethnic identity has had every opportunity to maintain and develop its language, arts and cultural life.

      On 11 March the city soviet of Crimea said that it would safeguard all the rights of the Crimean Tatars and their integration into the life of Crimea. That is historic, because the Crimean Tatar movement received overnight what it had been fighting for in Ukraine for 23 years. It is now enshrined in law that Crimean Tatars will receive 20% of the seats in the Parliament, and 20% of the positions in the Crimean Government have already been allotted to them. I tell you this so that you will realise that the situation of the Crimean Tatars will be a great concern of politicians in Russia.

      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 to the Table Office in typescript for publication in the official report.

      I call Mr Kalmár, the rapporteur, to reply. You have two and a half minutes.

      Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – I must refer first to what Ms Guzenina-Richardson said. I do not know what you read, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, but I strongly reject your affirmation that I and the report are discriminatory. Paragraph 15 of the explanatory memorandum states, “I have decided to keep my report as focused as possible, with a view to formulating precise recommendations which would enhance impact. In line with this approach, although I consider these as equally important issues, I shall not deal with the situation of so-called ‘new minorities’, Roma people and religious minorities, as this would considerably expand the scope of the report. For instance, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages… itself also makes a distinction between so-called ‘new’ or often non-European language and the regional or minority languages defining the terminology of regional or minority languages. It also takes the view that ‘new’ or regional or minority languages have to be addressed separately.” I firmly reject your accusation that my goal was to be discriminatory.

      Regarding Roma people, I remind you that there are about two pages of text in the documents that deal with the situation of Roma people here in the Council of Europe. Besides that, under the Hungarian presidency of the European Union, a strategy was worked out for dealing with the situation of Roma people in Europe, which has to be adopted by every European Union member State.

      My time is up. I am sorry that I could not answer the other questions. Thank you, Mr Mendes Bota, for your kind words.

      The PRESIDENT – Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak?

      Ms WURM (Austria)* – Mr Kalmár, your report deals with a very topical matter. Our committee discussed it a great deal. In fact, it was quite controversial. Ultimately, we voted to approve the report. Lively discussions were held today about the number of amendments and sub-amendments that have been tabled. I strongly feel that our task in the Parliamentary Assembly is to put controversial issues on the agenda and ensure that they are aired. Although we cannot always reach consensus on every issue, we need to hear the different arguments, take them on board and communicate them to our national Parliaments. The report will helps us make further progress on our agenda. We need to continue discussing the matter. You have always been a committed member of our committee and played a key role in the Parliamentary Assembly. I wish you all the best for your future career, even if it will not be in the Parliamentary Assembly. Thank you.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has presented a draft resolution, to which 29 amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which six amendments have been tabled.

      They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

      I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I would like to inform the Assembly that there is a series of no fewer than 15 amendments with a similar purpose, which is to remove the word “traditional” from the draft texts. I will draw the Assembly’s attention to these amendments when we reach them.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 24, 27, 31 and 1 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

      Is that so, Ms Wurm?

      Ms WURM (Austria)* – Yes.

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

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 24, 27, 31 and 1 to the draft resolution have been agreed.

      The following amendments are adopted:

      Amendment 24, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu and Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, first sentence, replace the words “In addition, territorial arrangements can play an important role for the” with the following words:

      “Various forms for the protection of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities on the basis of best practices should be widely considered and valued in enhancing the protection and promotion of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities. As one of such forms, territorial arrangements might play an important role for the effective”.Am

      Amendment 27, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu and Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.2.2, replace the words “affecting their everyday environment, as laid down in” with the following words: “in conformity with”.

      Amendment 31, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu and Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.4.1, after the words “regional level,” insert the following words:

      “in conformity with the principles of the European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages,” an

and replace the word “need” with “obligation”.

      Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Nagy, Mr Fronc, Ms Kovács, Mr Sasi and Mr Franken, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.4.2, after the words “and institutions” insert the following words:

      “and incorporate the best practices in teaching foreign languages into the methodology of teaching official languages for elementary schools which provide education in a minority languages”.We

      We will now consider Amendment 22.

      I call Mr Badea to support Amendment 22.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – We do not intend to press Amendment 22.

The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, delete the last two sentences.

      I call on Ms Mattila to support Amendment 2. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – The amendment would delete the last two sentences of paragraph 3 of the draft resolution.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Kovács.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – Colleagues, as a representative of one of the traditional national minorities and as somebody who tabled the motion, I remind you that the Bureau adopted the motion and the committee adopted the report. Please do not change it.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, in paragraph 4, delete the words “including traditional national minorities”.

      I call on Ms Mattila to support the amendment.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – Traditional national minorities are included in the term “national minority”, so in paragraph 4 of the draft resolution I propose to delete the words “including traditional national minorities”.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment. I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – As I mentioned in my speech, this is a specific regulation that needs specific phrases. That is why we cannot take out the definition of traditional national minorities. For example, for Roma people, there have been 21 adopted texts. For this reason, we should keep the original idea and wording. That is why I strongly oppose the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 23, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu and Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 4, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly acknowledges that States have the sovereign decision to choose between affording protection to persons belonging to national minorities, focusing on the individual dimension of the rights enjoyed by them, or on the collective dimension of these rights. International law does not in any way oblige States to recognize collective rights for persons belonging to national minorities.”

      I call on Mr Preda to support Amendment 23.

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – Thank you. I suggest that the amendment is self-explanatory.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – Many documents that deal with collective rights have been adopted by the UN and the Council of Europe. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Resolution 1332 of 2003 deal with territorial autonomy and these kinds of sub-State arrangements. What the amendment intends to achieve is not correct.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 23 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 4. Amendments 4 to 8 and Amendments 11 to 17 all have the same effect. They delete the word “traditional” from the draft resolution, so that it would refer to “national minorities” rather than “traditional national minorities”. In order to simplify our evening, I propose that as these amendments all have the same purpose, the result of the vote on Amendment 4 should apply to all of them. Are there any objections to this proposal?

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – Although the wording of the amendments is mostly the same, the subjects they refer to are not: they refer to education, the media and so on. Amendment 10 is not only about the word “traditional” but about the interests and specificity of traditional national minorities connected to the media. It is about media privatisation and the real problems on the ground. In committee we had this discussion and voted on the issues one by one. The voting was nearly tied. That is why we could not finish. Therefore, I think that we should stay here and vote.

      The PRESIDENT – As there is an objection, we will not proceed in the suggested way. However, I ask you not to present arguments for every single case of the 15 if they are not absolutely necessary.

      We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, before the words “national minorities”, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 4.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – In Amendment 4 I remind you that territorial arrangements play an important role in the protection of all national minorities, so I propose to delete the word “traditional” in paragraph 7.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Kovács.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – I promise I will not speak to all the amendments, but this one is really important. Territorial arrangements and autonomy for traditional national minorities are logical. I remind you that the voting in committee was almost tied, with perhaps 60% against, so please think about this question and vote against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 25, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu and Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the words

“with a collective dimension and avoiding assimilation”

with the following words:

“especially in those cases where there is a real risk of assimilation”.

      I call on Mr Badea to support Amendment 25.

      Mr BADEA (Romania) – We will not press the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – Amendment 25 is not moved. We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, before the words “national minorities”, delete the word “traditional” .

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 5.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – Paragraph 9 concerns all national minorities, so in Amendment 5 I suggest deleting the word “traditional” from the paragraph.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. Who wishes to speak against the amendment? I believe that the rapporteur, Mr Kalmár, would like to speak against it.

      Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – We refer here to Recommendation 1735 of 2006 from the Council of Europe, which uses the term “traditional national minority”. It was accepted by the Council. The recommendation uses the term and states that these minorities need protection.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 26, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Ştefania Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu, Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 10.1.2.

I call Mr Stroe to support Amendment 26.

Mr STROE (Romania) – Signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is irrelevant to the report and draft resolution. Indigenous peoples are defined as traditional national minorities and vice versa. The term “indigenous peoples” is relevant in the context of colonialism.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Kalmár.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – During my fact-finding visit to Finland, the President of the Sami Parliament came to Helsinki, and he asked me to include this paragraph in the report, so that is why it is there. The Sami people of northern Scandinavia are the only indigenous people in Europe.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 26 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 28, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu, Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.2.4, after the words “as a guideline” insert the following words: “, where appropriate,” and replace the words “constitute valid models” with the following words: “may constitute valid models”.

I call Ms Badea to support Amendment 28.

Ms BADEA (Romania)* – The phrase “best practices” suggests that universal models can be used in some situations but not in all. The idea that best practice should be imposed in all minority situations contravenes the principle of diversity. We therefore support the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – The amendment is absolutely unnecessary because everyone knows that the South Tyrolean or Finnish models could serve as a guideline. We should not diminish the importance of such models by using the words “where appropriate”. That phrase is the core of the amendment, which is why I am against it.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 28 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 29, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu, Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.3.1, replace the words “based on relevant European documents” with the following words: “with due respect to the general principles of international law”.

      I call Mr Badea to support Amendment 29.

      Ms BADEA (Romania)* – We support the amendment because we do not have any generally relevant European documents that provide territorial autonomy for national minorities. Rights are better protected when they are derived from international law and agreements.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 30, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu, Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.3.2, replace the words “irrespective of” with the following words: “in addition to”.

      I call Mr Badea to support Amendment 30.

      Ms BADEA (Romania)* – We are trying to make it clear that economic reasons cannot be neglected when talking about development. Given the whole idea of protecting national minorities, we should include economic and development reasons that relate to the respective communities.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Kalmár.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – If we took account of economic reasons beyond all others, it would be possible to divide strongly ethnic regions into parts and their assimilation would be very quick and strong, so please reject the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 30 is rejected.

       We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson, Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, in paragraph 10.3.3, before the words “national minorities”, delete the word “the traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 6.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I suggest the amendment because dialogue is needed with all national minorities.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I shall try to convince my distinguished colleagues not to accept the amendment, to keep the original aim of the report. If we deleted the word “traditional”, we would neglect the original aim of the motion adopted by the Bureau and the former resolution referred to by Mr Kalmár. The amendment would spoil a lot of things that relate to the report, so let us reject the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson, Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, in paragraph 10.4.1, before the words “national minorities”, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 7.

Ms MATTILA (Finland) – This amendment concerns all national minorities, and I propose deleting the word “traditional” from paragraph 10.4.1.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Kovács.

Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – I wish to say briefly and without arguing that the subject is the official use of languages, so it is logical to retain the phrase “traditional national minorities”.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson, Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.4.2, before the words “national minorities”, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 8.

Ms MATTILA (Finland) – Paragraph 10.4.2 is very important, and I want it to concern all national minorities, so I propose the deletion of the word “traditional.”

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Kovács.

Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – I understand that the problem with this wording relates mostly to the Roma people. I wonder whether the Roma have their own education institutions in our countries.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 32, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu, and Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.4.2, after the words “including through specific”, insert the following words: “arrangements within their”.

      I call Mr Badea to support Amendment 32.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – We want to draw everyone’s attention to a very important fact: we believe there should not be separatism in States, but rather that there should be a quest for diversity. National minorities are already part of the public education system and should not have a separate education system, and that is why we would like the words “including through specific arrangements within their educational systems” to be included.

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

      I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) The amendment is wrong because the urgent need to set up specific education systems and institutions is an eminent necessity. In the debate, our Romanian colleagues mentioned that, for example, in Romania the Hungarian community has its own university that operates in the Hungarian language, which of course is not true. That is why we have to keep the original wording and reject the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 32 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson, and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 10.4.5 with the following paragraph:

“make use of history education as a means to improve young people's knowledge of national minorities”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 9.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I do not think the Government should be involved in writing history books, so I propose deleting paragraph 10.4.5 and replacing it with the words in the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – A sub-amendment has been tabled to Amendment 9, on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in Amendment 9, instead of replacing paragraph 10.4.5, insert the proposed text at the end of paragraph 10.4.5.

      I call Mr Kalmár to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – The sub-amendment was submitted by Mr Gaudi Nagy at the meeting of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, and it suggests that we keep the original paragraph 10.4.5, and add to it the words in Amendment 9. Together, that could make a very good paragraph.

      In Europe there are several examples of history books being written between France and Germany, Germany and Italy, Serbia and Croatia, and Serbia and Hungary. Even in 2013, Mr Martin Schulz gave an award to an NGO that wrote a book about the history and reconciliation of the Balkan nations. The sub-amendment should be accepted.

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

      I call Mr Gunnarsson.

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – The sub-amendment would mean that we keep the text that says that we think States should write the history books, which I do not think is okay. I am against the sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I am against the sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 9, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson, and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.4.6, delete the words “the specificity and interests of traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 10.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – Again, I think paragraph 10.4.6 should concern all national minorities so I want to delete the words “the specificity and interests of traditional”.

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

      I call Ms Kovács.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – I wonder whether I can propose an oral sub-amendment. As we see, the majority of the Assembly think we should delete the word “traditional”. That is okay, but please can we leave “specificity and interests”? It is really important to take that question into account when privatising the media, for example, because we can lose the achieved rights. I propose that we delete only “traditional”, but leave “specificity and interests” of national minorities, if that is possible.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – We have not had time to take a position.

      The PRESIDENT – Ms Kovács, you would like to propose an oral sub-amendment. What would be its precise wording?

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – The wording of the oral sub-amendment is to delete only the word “traditional” from the text but to leave “specificity and interests”.

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

      I call Mr Badea.

      Mr BADEA (Romania) – I am terribly sorry, but I thought we were in Europe. We are talking about privatisation and economic competition. What has any of that got to do with minorities, and what have they got to do with economic competition? We cannot stop privatisation on some kind of ethnic or minority grounds.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee does not have an opinion. Does the rapporteur have an opinion?

      Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – Of course I have an opinion: I am astonished at the position of Senator Badea. We speak about democracy, but democracy cannot be confined somehow to economic interests. I support the oral sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 10?

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I am against the oral sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is rejected.

      I will now put Amendment 10 to the vote.

      The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 33, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu and Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.5.2, after the words “Framework Convention”, insert the words

“without prejudice to measures taken in pursuance of their general integration policy,”

and replace the words

“, encourage migration or change the ethnic structure”

with the following words:

“or alter the proportions of the population”.

      I call Mr Badea to support Amendment 33.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – We do not intend to press Amendment 33.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.5.3, before the words “national minority”, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 11.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – Paragraph 10.5.3 is important, but I want to delete the word “traditional”, to make the recommendation that it contains available to all national minorities.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.5.4, before the words “national minorities”, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 12.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – Again, Amendment 12 suggests deleting the word “traditional”, this time from paragraph 10.5.4.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Kovács.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – This amendment is connected to the definition of traditional national minorities. The paragraph talks about the “possibility for the traditional national minorities within their territories to remain in their birthplaces, to prosper and progress where they have been living for centuries”. That cannot be the case for new national minorities. If we delete “traditional” from the paragraph, it would not be true, because new national minorities have not been living in a place for centuries.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.5.5, in front of the words “national minorities”, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 13.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – Again, the recommendation in paragraph 10.5.5 concerns all national minorities, so I suggest deleting the word “traditional”.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Kovács.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – I will use this opportunity to say that I am looking forward to seeing national strategies about all national minorities in the 47 member States in the next few years, and especially strategies on the Roma. That is what we are suggesting. I wonder whether we can draw up national strategies for all national minorities.

      The PRESIDENT – Do I understand that you are not against the amendment?

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – I am looking forward, if that is possible.

      The PRESIDENT – I did not ask for someone who supports the amendment but whether anyone wanted to speak against it. Please do not misuse the time.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, after the words “the issue of”, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 14.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – The amendment suggests deleting the word “traditional” after the words “the issue of” in paragraph 11, as the recommendation again concerns all national minorities.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I would like to refer to the fact that the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities deals with the issue of monitoring the problems of national minorities, but traditional national minorities are a sub-category and as such need a specific regulation. That is why we would keep the word “traditional”.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – We did not have time to take a position.

      The PRESIDENT – And the rapporteur?

      Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – I am against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 15, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, after the words “political representation of”, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 15.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – Owing to lack of time, the committee could not discuss the rest of my amendments, whereas all the previous amendments were discussed in the committee. In Amendment 15 I suggest deleting the word “traditional” after the words “political representation of” in paragraph 11.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – We did not have time to take a position.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 16, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Ms Johnsen, Mr Hagebakken, Ms Schou, Mr Garđarsson and Mr Villumsen, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 16.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – Services in minority languages should be encouraged for all national minorities. Hence in Amendment 16 I suggest deleting the word “traditional” from paragraph 13.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The same is true as of the previous two amendments.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 17, tabled by Mr Kaikkonen, Mr Gunnarsson, Ms Pelkonen, Mr Garđarsson, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold and Mr Skinnari, which is, in the title of the draft resolution, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 17.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I suggest that we remove the word “traditional” from the title of the draft resolution, so that the title reflects the amendments made.

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

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – At the core of the report is the issue of traditional national minorities. I accept that a great number of decisions have been taken to remove the word “traditional”, but the whole report is aimed at a draft resolution relating to minorities who have lived in the same territory for centuries. That is why we should keep the original wording.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee has no opinion.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13445, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      We will now consider the draft recommendation.

      We come to Amendment 18, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea, and Ms Gorghiu, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 18.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I suggest that we delete the word “traditional” in paragraph 1 of the draft recommendation. We should express our concern about all national minorities.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee has no opinion.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 34, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu and Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3, second sentence, after the words “the rights of” insert the following words: “persons belonging to”.

      I call Mr Stroe to support Amendment 34.

      Mr STROE (Romania) – We will not press Amendment 34.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 19, tabled by Mr Kaikkonen, Mr Gunnarsson, Ms Pelkonen, Mr Garđarsson, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold and Mr Skinnari, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 19.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I propose that we delete the word “traditional” from paragraph 3 of the draft recommendation.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The committee has no opinion.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 35, tabled by Mr Stroe, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Preda, Mr Badea, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Guţu and Ms Magradze, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.2, replace the words “the definition of the concept of a nation State, and link between protection of minorities, peace and stability” with the following words: “in a comprehensive manner, giving consideration as well to the fact that the promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities contribute to the political and social stability of States in which they live”.

      I call Mr Stroe to support Amendment 35.

      Mr STROE (Romania) – The definition of “nation State” was the topic of another report, and it would be unusual for the Assembly to recommend something relating to an earlier text. We also prefer to focus on the internal dimension of the protection of minorities, and not external issues such as international peace or stability, as it is in the internal context that the protection of minorities has been abused recently.

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

      Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – The notion of “nation State” should be discussed at an international and theoretical level. That is why we suggested that the Council of Europe schools of political studies would be good places in which to have workshops on modernising the notion, and updating it for modern times. We cannot base our opinions on something that is 200 years old.

      The PRESIDENT – If I understand correctly, the committee has no opinion.

      The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 20, tabled by Ms Mattila, Ms Anttila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Skinnari, Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Virolainen, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Myller, Mr Badea and Ms Gorghiu, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 4.3.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 20.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – We cannot propose a day of traditional national minorities as we do not even know exactly what we mean by “traditional national minorities”. The amendment therefore proposes deleting paragraph 4.2 of the draft recommendation.

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

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – As we heard, there are almost 100 million people in the 47 member States who belong to traditional national minorities. We know who belongs to a traditional national minority. A lot of people have mentioned that it is International Roma Day. Let us suggest having a day for traditional national minorities, and we will see what we can do about that, together with the European Union. I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee has no opinion.

      The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 21, tabled by Mr Kaikkonen, Ms Pelkonen, Mr Garđarsson, Mr Jenssen, Mr Wold, Mr Skinnari and Mr Gunnarsson, which is, in the title of the draft recommendation, delete the word “traditional”.

      I call Ms Mattila to support Amendment 21.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – To be consistent, we must change the title of the draft recommendation, so I suggest that we delete the word “traditional” from the title.

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

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) –       My argument is the same as before: in the report, resolution and draft recommendation, we are talking about the rights and situation of traditional national minorities. In the final wording, everything relates to special groups of that kind, so we should leave “traditional” in the title of the recommendation.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee has no opinion.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13445, as amended. A two-thirds majority is required, counting only affirmative and negative votes.

      The vote is open.

      I congratulate the rapporteur, those who worked on the committee, and those who contributed to the discussion.

4. Next public business

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

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 8.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Annual activity report 2013 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

Statement by Mr Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commission for Human Rights

Questions: Mr Recordon, Ms Čigāne, Sir Roger Gale, Ms Beck, Mr Villumsen, Ms Zohrabyan, Mr Fournier, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Huseynov, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Taktakishvili, Ms Bilgehan, Mr Jenssen, Mr Gaudi Nagy, Mr Biedroń, Mr Shlegel, Ms Durrieu.

2. Request for Partnership for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic

Presentation by Mr Gross of the report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 13461

Presentation by Mr Agramunt of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13477

Presentation by Ms Bilgehan of the opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 13461

Speakers: Ms Khidasheli, Mr Hunko, Mr Iwiński, Mr Mariani, Mr Seyidov, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Chiti, Mr Fournier, Ms Pashayeva, Ms Zohrabyan, Ms Faber-van de Klashorst, Mr Mota Amaral, Mr Shlegel, Mr McNamara.

Amendments 1 to 3, 5 to 20, 22, 23, 21, as amended, and 4, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13461, as amended, adopted

3. The situation and rights of traditional national minorities in Europe

Presentation by Mr Kalmar of the report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 13445

Speakers: Mr Villumsen, Mr Gunnarsson, Mr Palacios, Mr Stroe, Ms Magradze, Ms Djurović, Ms Mulić, Mr Badea, Ms Fatilayeva, Mr Huseynov, Mr Gaudi Nagy, Mr Szabo, Ms Kovacs, Mr Mendes Bota, Ms Gorghiu, , Mr Popescu, Mr Chisu,Mr J. Nagy, Ms Mattila, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Morozov

Amendments 24, 27, 31, 1, 2 to 5, 29, 6 to 8, 9, as amended, 10 to 17 to the draft resolution adopted

Draft resolution contained in Document 13445, as amended, adopted.

Amendments 18, 19, 35, 20 and 21 to the draft recommendation adopted.

Draft recommendation in Document 13445, as amended, adopted.

4. Next public business

Appendix

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

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*

Daniel BACQUELAINE

Egemen BAĞIŞ/Suat Önal

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE/Tinatin Bokuchava

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Silvia Eloďsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT/Mechthild Rawert

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Tinatin Khidasheli

Deborah BERGAMINI

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Teresa BERTUZZI

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Jacques Legendre

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN

Gerold BÜCHEL/Rainer Gopp

André BUGNON/Luc Recordon

Natalia BURYKINA

Nunzia CATALFO

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Lennart Axelsson

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI/Guguli Magradze

Vannino CHITI

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH/Grzegorz Czelej

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE*

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO

Jonny CROSIO

Yves CRUCHTEN

Katalin CSÖBÖR/Gábor Tamás Nagy

Milena DAMYANOVA/Irena Sokolova

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*

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Damian DRĂGHICI*

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA/József Nagy

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON*

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARĐARSSON

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA/Olga Kazakova

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Frédéric Reiss

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Andrzej HALICKI*

Hamid HAMID

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Naira Karapetyan

Alfred HEER

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Adam HOFMAN/Zbigniew Girzyński

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER/Johann Wadephul

Johannes HÜBNER

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Vladimir ILIĆ

Florin IORDACHE/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE/Eka Beselia

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Ögmundur JÓNASSON*

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić

Josip JURATOVIC/Gabriela Heinrich

Antti KAIKKONEN/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Ferenc KALMÁR

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI

Deniza KARADJOVA*

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Ulrika KARLSSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK*

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Kateřina KONEČNÁ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁĐSDÓTTIR*

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN

Tiny KOX

Astrid KRAG*

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Dmitry KRYVITSKY/Igor Chernyshenko

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Christophe LÉONARD*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE*

Lone LOKLINDT/Nikolaj Villumsen

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Trine Pertou MACH*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI

Epameinondas MARIAS/Spyridon Taliadouros

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV Robert Shlegel

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON*

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Philipp MIßFELDER

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES*

Igor MOROZOV

Joăo Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Marian NEACŞU/Florin Costin Pâslaru

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Elena NIKOLAEVA

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL*

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Lesia OROBETS*

Sandra OSBORNE/Geraint Davies

Liisa-Ly PAKOSTA

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS*

Eva PARERA*

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Foteini PIPILI*

Stanislav POLČÁK

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT/David Crausby

Jakob PRESEČNIK*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS

Eva RICHTROVÁ*

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET*

Pavlo RYABIKIN/Iryna Gerashchenko

Rovshan RZAYEV

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU/Hans Fredrik Grřvan

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER

Laura SEARA

Predrag SEKULIĆ*

Ömer SELVİ

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Bernd SIEBERT/Jürgen Hardt

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV*

Lorella STEFANELLI*

Yanaki STOILOV*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW/Jonas Gunnarsson

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*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ*

Snorre Serigstad VALEN/Tore Hagebakken

Petrit VASILI

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN/Jaana Pelkonen

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD/Ingebjřrg Godskesen

Gisela WURM

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Olivia MITCHELL

Katarina RAKIĆ

Olga-Nantia VALAVANI

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN

Observers

Corneliu CHISU

Percy DOWNE

Mr David TILSON

Partners for democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Nezha EL OUAFI

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM