AA14CR15

AS (2014) CR 15

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Fifteenth sitting

Wednesday 9 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 3.35 p.m.)

1. Organisation of debates

      The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open. Given the large number of members who wish to speak in the debates this afternoon, we will have to interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.20 p.m. in the first debate, and at about 7.35 p.m. in the second debate, to leave sufficient time for the replies on behalf of the committees and for the votes. Are these arrangements agreed?

      They are agreed.

2. Debate under urgent procedure – recent developments in Ukraine: threats to the functioning of democratic institutions

      The PRESIDENT* – I welcome Pavlo Petrenko, the Minister of Justice of Ukraine. The first item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “Recent developments in Ukraine: threats to the functioning of democratic institutions”, Document 13482, co-presented by Ms Mailis Reps and Ms Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin on behalf of the Monitoring Committee. I inform the Assembly that Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, will speak briefly after the rapporteurs have had an opportunity to reply to the spokespersons for the political groups. The rapporteurs will have a total of 13 minutes between them, which they may divide as they see fit between presentation of the report and reply to the debate. I call Ms Reps.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – Thank you, Madam President. Distinguished colleagues, Minister, and Secretary General, we again have an opportunity to discuss the situation in Ukraine. Just a few months ago, we debated Ukraine and expressed great concern about the situation disintegrating. We called on the Ukrainian authorities to refrain from further actions. Unfortunately, we as rapporteurs acting on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly saw the situation in Kiev get worse and worse. There were clear violations of human rights. Our President, Secretary General and Assembly were greatly concerned. There was use of live ammunition, military equipment and personnel, and a moment when the authorities suddenly broke, and lost their reputation and their support in the country. Of course, that was followed by the President leaving the country.

      The further escalation in violence has been on our minds. Everyone in this Assembly has followed the events in Ukraine with great concern for the human rights situation. Today, as we discuss Ukraine, I remind members that our Assembly has obligations, including friendly obligations to support Ukraine’s efforts. That is why the resolution and the debate are about not only the problems that Ukraine is facing, but what we can do to support and help in this grave situation.

      It is very important for us all to understand that there are various reforms, which my colleague Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin will point out in a short while, that Ukraine has to make, but if it is to be able to work on those reforms, it is of the utmost importance that all Council of Europe member States stand back and do not interfere militarily, or annexe any part of Ukraine. We all condemn any attempts to segregate or separate the country, and any separatist movements that call into question the territorial integrity of Ukraine. That is why it is very important that we understand the events of February clearly. We call for, and are thankful that Ukraine has started, an internationally supported objective analysis of the situation and the human rights violations in Ukraine. Our experts are going there to give support and help, and I am sure that experts from various countries are going to Ukraine to investigate objectively all human rights violations, whoever perpetrated them.

      It is very important to support and not undermine the Verkhovna Rada’s efforts. It is also important for all of us to understand that it would undermine the future of Ukraine if there was a level of interference, whether military or political, that did not allow the elections that have been called for 25 May to take place, so let us all make a united effort to help Ukraine to have full, fair, and respected elections in May.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, co-rapporteur.

      Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – I start by condemning Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the ongoing threat posed by the Russian military on Ukraine’s eastern border. We as an Assembly recognise the legitimacy of the new authorities in Kiev and the legality of their decisions. The Verkhovna Rada – the Ukrainian Parliament – has never been as united as it is now, despite external pressure from Russia. It has handled the situation excellently and has achieved mostly two-thirds majorities in votes on difficult matters.

      A window of opportunity has opened for Ukraine to fulfil the commitments and obligations that it signed up to when it entered the Council of Europe. The main priority must be constitutional reform, part of which involves the balance of power between the president and the parliament. Power is being decentralised to local communities, based on a strong unitary State, but it is not federalism. Ukraine also needs an independent judiciary and a unified electoral code. The Assembly and the Venice Commission are ready to assist Ukraine’s democratic development. We welcome the responsibility that the Verkhovna Rada has taken so far and look forward to that responsibility and unity in decision making continuing in the best interests of Ukraine as a whole and including all Ukrainian citizens.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The rapporteurs have six minutes and 28 seconds left to reply.

      I now call Mr Agramunt to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – I pay tribute to the work done by our rapporteurs, Ms Reps and Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, who is a colleague in the EPP. To be clear, I am with the legitimate Government of Ukraine and not the neo-imperialistic regime in Russia. There is absolutely no doubt about the legitimacy of the current domestic government. After all, it was backed by three quarters of the Verkhovna Rada and has returned to the constitutional spirit of 2004.

      Ukraine is Europe and Russia is Europe, too. Russia’s military aggression in Ukraine was a violation of sovereignty, territorial integrity and international law. The referendum in Crimea last month basically cocked a snook at democrats around the world. Russia’s occupation of Crimea is unconstitutional and unlawful. It should never be recognised by the international community and the occupying forces should pull out. I support the independent sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and want to propose some measures to de-escalate the situation. First, the Ukrainian people must decide on their own future. We must never lose sight of that principle in trying to solve the situation. Secondly, Ukraine has the right to choose its own economic and political entities. I do not see why it cannot sign customs unions both with the European Union and with Russia. Thirdly, the Council of Europe must convince all Ukrainians and Russia that a democratic Ukraine with ties to Europe would also nurture the culture, language and history that it shares with Russia. Fourthly, Russia must no longer engage in military actions and must withdraw its troops from the border.

      I want to pay tribute to the domestic government in place right now. It has been in office for just one month and yet has already approved 80 laws and an important package of economic measures. Constitutional and judicial reform must go ahead, corruption must be fought and a realistic budget must be approved.

      The so-called pro-Russian demonstrations seen in Donetsk, Kharkiv and Luhansk are fakes. They are the embodiment of Russian propaganda and have been whipped up by the Kremlin. I recently visited various Ukrainian cities, including Donetsk, and witnessed the demonstrations myself. They were wholly artificial and were actually carried out by Russian tourists. We must speak out against the destabilising action that Russia has engaged in with an eye on the elections on 25 May. They are unacceptable and will lead only to further sanctions. It is also important that urgent parliamentary elections are held soon after the presidential election and as soon as the political, constitutional and economic reforms have been put in place.

      We cannot adopt some new principle of international law whereby aggression by one country against another in the name of national ethnic protection, as Russia did in Crimea, becomes acceptable. If that principle was universalised, it would be like going back centuries – a new kind of colonialism. As for the President of Russia, Mr Putin, his behaviour was more typical of the 19th century. Seeking national power in such a way and territorial domination are obsolete ideas that have no place in the 21st century.

      The European Union must leave no stone unturned in helping Ukraine to find the right solution through customs unions and visa waivers.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call Ms Beck to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms BECK (Germany) – I have often been on Maidan, where the protest started as a student movement with students saying that they wanted to go with Europe because they saw their futures there. When police started badly beating those students, their parents came and said, “They are now beating our children. That is too much.” It then started to become a people’s revolt against despotism, omnipresent corruption, a politically controlled justice system and the shameless personal gain of the political elites. It was an uprising of all citizens. On Maidan, the people spoke not only Ukrainian; Russian, and Jewish citizens, among other minorities, were also present. There were smaller Maidan equivalents in 50 Ukrainian cities, including in the east, which proves that the country is not divided.

      Ukraine is a sovereign State that now has a legitimate government. It is not Russia’s backyard and neither is it the backyard of the European Union. Whoever thinks along those lines is falling back into the imperial mentality of the 19th century, but we live in the 21st century. There cannot be two classes of sovereign State in Europe.

      Peace in Europe must be based not on the military force of the most powerful States but on the rule of international law. Russia guaranteed the integrity of Ukraine’s borders in the Budapest memorandum, but broke its promise when it annexed Crimea. Thus, it challenged the order of peace in Europe. When we talk about Ukraine, we are talking about ourselves. The Council of Europe stands for the survival of international law; it is responsible for peace on our continent.

      I am worried that the eastern part of Ukraine is systematically being destabilised. That destabilisation was instigated partly by provocations from across the border, perhaps with the intention of preventing the elections on 25 May. Those elections are crucial. Ukraine needs stability through legitimate elections and a pluralistic constitution. The Council of Europe must support that political process with all our might. We owe it to the idea of Europe and its citizens.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Kox from the Netherlands to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Ukraine is a country in disarray. The disarray was caused not by Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, although it increased the country’s problems enormously, nor by the revolt that toppled its elected president and the government, although it further complicated the situation, nor by the president who abused his powers by using unacceptable violence against Ukrainian citizens, nor by the extremists and fascists who marched in the streets of Kiev and other cities, and played a role in and after the revolt – some of them are now in the government. Ukraine’s disarray is structural. It started when the country became independent 23 years ago. Since then, the country has been divided along far too many lines. Oligarchs plunder the country’s riches and use parliamentarians and government officials as puppets. Governments come and go, unwilling or unable to make Ukraine meet its obligations towards its citizens. The citizens are the main victims of the endemic corruption of the past two decades, as the new Governor of Donetsk told us when the Presidential Committee visited him.

      We must ask how we can help that vast country with 44 million inhabitants become a more democratic society with functioning institutions, an independent judiciary, less inequality and more solidarity. That should be the topic of this urgent debate. The Group of the Unified European Left opposes foreign intervention in Ukraine, whether it is from Russia, the European Union, the United States of America or NATO. Let us end the imperialist approach to Ukraine. Let us leave it to the Ukrainian citizens; it is their vital human right. Let us help them organise as soon as possible free and fair elections for the presidency and the parliament so that there is a legitimate president, government and parliament.

      I am convinced that the Council of Europe can still be part of the solution in Ukraine because we are not a foreign power – Ukraine is one of us. However, we should take care not to become part of the problem. A more balanced, less subjective resolution should be presented to the Assembly. Therefore, the Group of the Unified European Left tabled a series of amendments to achieve that balance. We want objectively to analyse the situation and help the citizens of Ukraine create a democratic, stable and socially just State. That should be the aim of the debate, and my group is willing to help.

      The PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Flego to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – Ukraine is living through difficult days. It has suffered a dramatic crisis and its territorial integrity has been violated. It experienced bitter disappointment after the signatories to the Budapest Agreement, which guarantees the territorial integrity of Ukraine, left the country alone during the military occupation of Crimea. It is living through the tectonic movements of the political regime of the Maidan revolution. The people rose up against an unjust and corrupt oligarchic regime, in which the enormous wealth of the few was based on the poverty of the majority of the people. The Maidan has a history, and I regret that the events have not been sufficiently analysed in the draft resolution. Changing a political regime is a long and often painful process. The eastern parts of Ukraine are in an uncertain state.

      The Parliamentary Assembly has already commented on the Ukrainian dilemma – whether to approach Russia and eliminate European Union and NATO from Ukrainian politics, or do the opposite – is harmful, and the recent unfortunate events prove that. During the discussions on the previous draft resolution, we suggested that Ukraine should find a way of including both sides. We said it should be a bridge between EU and Russia and a relay between the east and the west. However, it is not up to us. The Ukrainians themselves must find their proper political venue. However, we believe the Ukrainians should consider a policy of political neutrality. Non-aligned politics, as demonstrated by many examples, can satisfy the majority of interests in the country. The Ukrainian uprising, the Maidan revolution, might be contagious. It might spread and be dangerous for authoritarian regimes and their allies. We suspect that that is an additional reason why the country of the revolution is being punished and compromised, in particular through powerful political propaganda.

      Several of us were lost in the text of the resolution. Some colleagues tried to improve the text, but one night was too short to do that. The resolution proposes judicial and constitutional reforms and the decentralisation of the unitary State. They are good measures, but they will probably not be sufficient to respond to the crisis. We should mobilise all available experts and use our full capacity to assist Ukraine in creating a functioning State and establishing a full democratic system.

      The PRESIDENT – I call the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Jagland.

      Mr JAGLAND (Secretary General of the Council of Europe) – I thank the rapporteurs, the Presidential Committee, the Parliamentary Assembly and you, Madam, for the action you have taken. Redrawing the borders of Europe based on ethnicity has always been dangerous and unacceptable. We must ask ourselves how we can help Ukraine defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

      First, it is necessary to bring those responsible for human rights violations to court and bring justice to those who were harmed or even killed. This is an important part of the healing process. That is why I was in Kiev late in November to set up a panel to ensure that investigations are undertaken in a way that everyone can trust. The panel, which has now been established, is headed by the Council of Europe and the former president of the European Court of Human Rights, Sir Nicolas Bratza. The first meeting took place in this very building today.

      We must help Ukraine to build political institutions, a constitution and laws that people can trust and that are inclusive. That is why we did three things. First, I secured an agreement with the Acting President Turchynov to put in place my special representative in the Verkhovna Rada, who can work with and advise the law makers there and the government. The special representative has been received very well. He has his own office and works daily on all those things. Secondly, we are assisting Ukraine to get a constitution that everyone can embrace. The Venice Commission will play an important role in that respect and the work has already started.

      Thirdly, protecting the human rights of all minorities in Ukraine is of utmost importance. That is why the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the advisory panel to the convention must play an important role. The panel has already visited Ukraine and written a report. It will continue to observe the rights of all minorities in Ukraine. If the minorities are not being safeguarded and cannot have their own languages, it will be a pretext for intervention.

      It is of paramount important that Ukraine has ownership of these processes and that there is no interference from abroad. Ukraine is a member of the Council of Europe, so our task is to assist Ukraine in all these endeavours. I say “assist” because we are assisting on request and on demand from the Ukrainians; we are not imposing anything on them.

      Ukraine is a good example of how important it is to uphold human rights and the rule of law in every member country of the Council of Europe. This has become a threat to the entire continent, so it is time for all the governments under the European Convention on Human Rights to understand that and to invest even more in the European Convention. That is important to ensure security and stability on the continent. I call on all the States under the European Convention to say that upholding human rights and the rule of law is the best security policy we can have for the continent.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Secretary General. I now give the floor to Mr Popescu.

      Mr POPESCU (Ukraine)* – We thank the rapporteurs of the Parliamentary Assembly for their support for the Ukrainians in these difficult times. Unfortunately, recent events will have consequences not just for Ukraine but for the world community. The Russian Federation was a guarantor of our territorial sovereignty because we were prepared to give up our nuclear arms, but now countries that want to become nuclear States have no reason not to do so.

      The taking over of Crimea is an obstacle to the Ukrainian authorities ensuring the human rights of the residents of that peninsula. We will never accept and recognise that annexation and we will take advantage of all the instruments available in the Council of Europe and other international organisations to return to the previous status quo. We want our country to be recognised by all – the full border, with full territorial sovereignty. What has been done is unacceptable. The situation is still tense, especially in eastern Ukraine. An attempt is being made to destabilise the situation. For stability to return, the Russian troops should go back to their usual stations.

      In December, in the Political Affairs Committee, a group was set up to study the situation in Ukraine. At that time, no lives had been lost. The group never went. In January, in the Bureau, it was decided that the Presidential Committee would go to Ukraine, but it did not come until after the tragic events. Therefore, we should take the right decisions now and not wait for further tragic events. Any conflict must be resolved by peaceful means, without the use of force and spilling of blood. The countries that have guaranteed, under the Budapest Agreement, the inviolability of Ukraine’s border should leave no stone unturned to ensure that the situation is corrected.

      The process that has started to change the constitution is a tremendous opportunity to modernise Ukraine, giving more autonomy and powers to the regions, ensuring full independence of the judiciary, reforming the prosecutor’s office and the forces of law and order, and ensuring full rights for all ethnic groups. The various entities of the Council of Europe, including the Venice Commission, should assist and examine the proposed changes to ensure we have a full legal and legislative base that is in line with the standards of the Council of Europe and guarantees full respect for human rights. That must be done by our parliament, with your assistance.

      We support the draft resolution. A few amendments have been tabled, but we thank all of you for your solidarity with our nation and people.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Russia has annexed Crimea. It will stay there. Another frozen conflict has been created in Europe. Our Secretary General has outlined some of the responses that we have made. It is to be expected that this has raised fears of another Brezhnev doctrine. Member countries in the Baltics such as Moldova fear that there will be another Sudetenland. The Russian interest in fomenting upset and anger in the minority is being carried out now.

      Russia clearly has a legitimate interest in terms of language and minority protection in Ukraine. It has no interest in trying to impose its own views on a constitution – I think of Switzerland – or on neutrality – I think of Finland – as a model for the Ukraine that enjoys national sovereignty.

      There are two possible responses. One is the extreme diplomatic, and the Secretary General has mentioned some examples. Diplomats always like a quiet life. We think of Georgia, where after the initial turbulence it was business as usual, even though Russia is in contravention of the pledges it made at that time. Secondly, there are those who wish to punish Russia strongly. There was a period of illusion that Russia was firmly set on the way to democracy after 1990-91. We gave the benefit of every doubt to Russia. Those people would want Russia to be entirely isolated, to be contained and punished. Obviously, Russia will in any event be punished by the private sector. There will be a great loss of confidence and an attempt to find alternative markets for gas – gas dependence is an issue. Indeed, we see what has happened already with the freezing of South Stream.

      The wise response, of course, is between the two. The Secretary General has already outlined our importance, not by punishing Russia but by helping Ukraine as best we can. However, Russia cannot go unpunished. For the Committee of Ministers, the door should not be closed on co-operation where there are areas of mutual interest, such as Iran and Syria. However, for the Assembly, dialogue is not an end in itself. When there is a club, there are rules and values that should be upheld. For our own credibility, surely we should consider, under those same rules, perhaps not expulsion, but at the very least the suspension of Russia and the parliamentarians from the Russian Federation, who unanimously accepted that annexation.

      Mr HOOD (United Kingdom) – I pay tribute to the joint rapporteurs and welcome the Secretary General’s comments, which I hope will be helpful to our debate.

      I do not want my comments today to be interpreted as either pro-Ukraine or anti-Russia. What I am is very pro the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe – which is what I hope we will all be today. It is therefore without qualification that I disagree with the unlawful annexing of Crimea by Russia, which was against all international law. However, my response to the situation is not to mimic the views of America, NATO or the European Union. Indeed, I feel that some of the utterances from NATO have not been helpful at all.

      That said, we in the Council of Europe are here, firstly and lastly, to defend democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Russia has offended these core values – the very values that the Council of Europe is all about. We need to respond to that and to take action. In saying that, however, I remind you that there are issues in the other 46 member States of the Parliamentary Assembly that need to be dealt with under our rules. I will not mention any of those member States, but any action we take today cannot be taken in isolation, because there are other issues we need to address. There can never be cherry picking when it comes to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Whatever we say about Ukraine and Crimea, other member States must get the same message.

      Let me close my brief contribution by saying that we want Ukraine and Russia to de-escalate movements in the direction they appear to be heading and to desist from further conflict. Today we vote to uphold the fundamentals of what we stand for: human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

      Ms SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER (Switzerland)* – The situation in Ukraine remains tense. Desperately needed domestic reform is progressing at a very slow pace. For several months the Ukrainian people took to the streets to protest and express their wish for changes – for sustainable and democratic reforms that benefit the entire population in Ukraine. The success of such reform hinges to a great extent on carrying out proper, democratic and transparent presidential and local elections, bringing in all sectors of the population. The planned observation mission of the Parliamentary Assembly will contribute to the legitimacy of this process. The debates taking place today and tomorrow in this Assembly on developments in Ukraine and the threats to democratic institutions are therefore of paramount importance.

      The Parliamentary Assembly, whose members span the entire European continent, is the appropriate forum for holding an exchange of views with all parties involved. That is why continuing the dialogue with our Russian colleagues is an important step in the direction of finding a political solution to the crisis and should not be ruled out by this Assembly. I thank the rapporteurs for their successful and informative presentation on the situation in Ukraine. I also thank you, Madam President, for your efforts in preparing this debate. Your visit to Ukraine about two weeks ago reflects the commitment of the Council of Europe, which, since the beginning of the crisis in November 2013, has been offering its expertise in promoting democracy and the rule of law, as well as in protecting human rights, particularly the rights of minorities.

      Great credit should also go to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for his commitment to Ukraine. Sending a special adviser from the Council of Europe to support the legislative work of the Verkhovna Rada and reform of the Ministry of Justice, as well as bringing in the Venice Commission as an expert body for reform of the constitution and the judiciary, are steps that should be welcomed.

      Switzerland remains concerned about the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. We condemn the violations of national and international law, as flagged up in the Venice Commission’s report. At the same time, we would like to continue to strive to implement policies based on impartiality and to foster dialogue with all parties. We are also making a commitment in the framework of the OSCE, of which Switzerland currently has the chair, and we want to remain true to our role of neutrality. We want the best possible results. It is important for the investigation to be carried out by the international advisory panel. We also want the OSCE to send an observer mission to Ukraine, which can play a significant part in de-escalating the crisis. This should be done in co-operation with the Council of Europe. A regular information exchange between both organisations is vital for adequate crisis management.

      Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation)* – I would like to remind everyone that we are talking about the dangers and threats to the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine, and these threats do not come from Russia. There are several threats, but I have the impression that a large part of this Assembly does not wish to recognise them because they have got carried away by political considerations.

      The first threat is that there should be no constitutional power or government in Ukraine. In saying that, I am relying on the judgment not of Russian propaganda, but of a legal expert in France, Mr Robert Charvin, who runs the legal faculty in Nice. He says that although the position of new authorities currently installed in Kiev is to say that they are the harbingers of constitutionality in Ukraine, they have spurned this legality because the status of the president is now illegal. Mr Charvin says that the new authorities in Kiev therefore cannot claim legitimacy because they have ditched their constitutional legitimacy. They have violated the law and are therefore illegitimate.

      There are certain elements being discussed today that have unfortunately been rejected by the rapporteurs. For example, the rapporteurs are stressing that nobody in Ukraine is asking for the country to have a federal structure. I am very surprised, because there are 10 million people – Russian speakers – who live in Ukraine who are asking for federation. If you want to turn a deaf ear to that, does that mean that you are refusing their rights, which are the same as those you were defending of the people demonstrating in the Maidan? This is completely reprehensible. It is simply wrong that no one is asking for federation in Ukraine.

      Secondly, it says in the resolution that the Ukrainian Government is implementing the agreement of 21 February, but that is not true. There is no constitutional reform going on, there is no coalition government, the armed military organisations have not disarmed, and so on and so forth. That has all been recognised at least in part by the European Union.

      The rapporteurs even rejected my amendment condemning the actions of racist and ultra-nationalist parties in Ukraine, including Svoboda, the Freedom Party, simply because it came from a member of the Russian delegation. As you know, some of Svoboda’s leaders are on the list of the world’s 10 most prominent anti-Semites. Are the rapporteurs showing solidarity with racist and ultra-nationalist parties? I call upon the Assembly, despite all the emotion today, to be more objective in its judgment.

      Ms KHIDASHELI (Georgia) – I call upon the Assembly to join the Ukrainian Government’s efforts to ensure a successful transition to fully functioning democracy in Ukraine, even in the severe conditions it faces today. It is crystal clear that today’s debate is not about the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine. It is also obvious that today’s debate and tomorrow’s are inseparable. We need to tell the Russian Federation over and over again that it should leave Crimea, stop provocations in eastern Ukraine, stop inspiring war and let Ukraine makes its own choices and its own progress.

      All we can do today is stand firm in supporting the independent countries that are unlucky enough to share a border with Russia. All we can do is show our solidarity with the Ukrainian people and our readiness to help the current leadership of Ukraine, whose determination to introduce democratic reforms, pursue European integration and hold free and fair elections is obvious.

      Today is 9 April. I cannot stop thinking about this day 25 years ago, in 1989, when Russian troops marched into my home town of Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, to crush a peaceful demonstration, leaving 20 people dead, thousands injured and tens of thousands poisoned by an unidentified gas – we still do not know what it contained, but people are still suffering as a result, including me. As tragic as that night was, one felt that it was the end of an empire, the end of Russian boots on our soil. That night we all believed that the world would not tolerate such violence or imperial ambitions and that it would fight to ensure peace. We were killed, injured and poisoned, but we were still happy believing that our fight for independence was successful.

      Unfortunately, after 25 years, it feels like we never left that moment. We are still there. Year after year we see the Russian army marching from one independent country to another. It looks like there will be no end. They are pursuing their clear aim of restoring their imperial pride, and so far there has been no response from the rest of the world.

      Dear colleagues, let me remind those of you who are lost in the 20th century that the Soviet Union is over. As unacceptable as it might seem for some, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine are independent States, and they will remain as such. They will make their own choices, as they already have done. We chose peace over aggression, freedom over occupation and democracy over dictatorship. Russia is just a geographical neighbour that we wish to have good neighbourly relations with, but that is it. We do not want to live with Russia in the same State. This is our choice, this is our future and this is our destiny. These are facts that you cannot change. It is also a fact that history has a logic. Sooner or later you will leave Crimea, you will leave Transnistria, and you will definitely leave Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is an historical fact, because you are not in Prague, Vilnius or Tallinn any more and there is no Berlin Wall any more.

      As we speak in this Assembly, all of Ukraine should know that we stand with them in these difficult times and support their future success. Tomorrow we should all give a clear response to Russia that there is no place in this Chamber for the people who vote for aggression, occupation and the annexation of independent States.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I thank the co-rapporteurs for their honest and brave report, which shows the real situation not only in Ukraine, but in Russia. In Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine we are waiting for new acts of aggression against your States. Those who are near us and sitting in this Chamber are voting together for aggression against Ukraine, for troops who killed our soldiers, our women and our children. They are still sitting in this Chamber. That must be the answer for those who vote for this. You can hear the voices of those women who vote for the troops that came to Ukraine.

      We must stop the aggression, because it is directed not only against Ukraine, but against democracy. The foreign troops who came to Crimea did so with one purpose: to occupy our sovereign territory. You must understand that Russia guaranteed our sovereignty because we were the only state in the world to give up our nuclear weapons, which is what you want Iran and other countries to do. You must want new countries to have nuclear weapons if you allow such a situation.

      In only six weeks the new government, which received 372 of 450 votes – you can imagine the huge support it has – has introduced real reforms in the judicial system and a real struggle against corruption. Who now supports corruption in Ukraine? Where is Yanukovych and his team? They are in Moscow, where he hid billions of dollars from our pensioners, our children and our common people, and the Russia Federation and Putin hide all his crimes.

      The report offers a real answer. Who is now the aggressor in Europe, and indeed in the whole world? We must stop the aggressor, because if we do not we will have the same situation that existed on 1 September 1939. It was Poland then, but now they want to see Ukraine divided. That is the only way they can conquer other countries. We support the report, every word of which describes a real situation. We thank everybody for their support.

      Mr O. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine) – The revolution in Ukraine has destroyed a government and established the basis of an idyllic State. The government created by the Ukrainian Parliament, which includes representatives of the All-Ukrainian Union, or Svoboda, has already taken its first steps to implement democratic reforms. In order to reform the systems of law and local government, the Ukrainian constitution should be amended. The parliament plans to finish amending the constitution in the autumn.

      Reforms in Ukraine are complicated by Russian aggression and the occupation of Crimea, which violates international legal norms and principles of international relations. Moreover, it renounced the agreements of 1997 on the temporary placement of the Black Sea fleet in Crimea. In view of this renunciation, Russia has no legal grounds for keeping its fleet in Crimea. Therefore, I hope for the support of members of the Parliamentary Assembly when I demand the immediate withdrawal of the Russian army and fleet from Crimea.

      Since the Russian Federation is blocking the process of decision-making in the United Nations Security Council and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, I hope that the Council of Europe will become the body that stops the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and does not allow it to interfere in our internal affairs.

      I suggest imposing a political boycott on Russia, excluding it from the Council of Europe, or at least depriving its delegation of the right to vote in the Parliamentary Assembly. Given that Russia’s actions are destroying the mechanism of global security, and that its ownership of missiles and nuclear weapons puts the whole world in fear, I suggest that the Council of Europe should start a campaign for the abolition of all nuclear weapons in countries that have them.

      Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – I would like to commend our rapporteurs for this excellent and timely report. The work they accomplished was not easy. I commend the chairman of the Monitoring Committee for the committee’s very capable work and I fully support the report.

      For a generation that not merely witnessed but played a role in ending the Cold War, and later negotiated national independence, the events in Crimea were a moment of existential reckoning. The USSR was built on an empire: all of us know that. When the ideological and military grip of Stalinism had been undermined, the question of nationalism emerged.

      Nationalism, including Russian nationalism, has always been present. As I admitted, the USSR was an empire, and its disintegration led to a series of wars – secessionist, often geopolitical, and often sponsored by outsiders to promote their interests rather than those of the people they claimed to be backing. Moreover, nationalism is part of the foundation of the international system. It explains why the world is organised in a particular way and it is constantly used to mobilise populations and get them to act jointly as a people.

      Russia’s occupation and annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea, under the fig leaf of a referendum, tragically sets the stage for more such actions. Moscow is now a revisionist – even a revanchist – power, committed to overturning not only the settlement of 1991 but that of 1945. By its actions, ethnic Russians outside the borders of the Russian Federation have come to feel both threatened and protected – and that changes Europe and Asia.

      Many are tempted to believe that the current crisis is just about Crimea, “which was Russian anyway” – but that is wrong. Far more is at stake. First, Moscow’s insistence on redrawing borders on the basis of nationality alone returns the world to 1918 and Versailles, and opens the way for a variety of acts of aggression.

      Secondly, Moscow’s action is predicated on reversing the decline of nationalism and promoting its resurgence. Thirdly, it has put about the dangerous notion that ethnicity is more important than citizenship, thereby undermining the basis of the United Nations.

      If any of these views is allowed to stand or be legitimised by negotiations, we will be living in most interesting and dangerous times – not in a new Cold War but in something that may be even more pernicious: a Hobbesian world of all against all.

      Again and again I have posed the question: what else would have to happen for us to react adequately? Why do I ask that? All of us should remember Pastor Niemöller’s sad observation, which of course I have adapted in response to the developments in Ukraine. I mention it in particular to those young people sitting on the balcony. First it happened in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and I did not speak out because I was not Georgian. Then Crimea was annexed and I did not speak out because I was not Ukrainian. Then they came for us and there was no one to speak for us. We should all remember that.

      Mr BAKRADZE (Georgia) – Dear colleagues, I believe that we have a very clear-cut case in front of us. A territory has been annexed by a Council of Europe member State. There is an ongoing concentration of troops along the border with Ukraine. There are ongoing and open threats of intervention in the internal affairs of Ukraine, and of its further destabilisation. That makes the case very clear.

      The justification for this is that the member State – Russia – simply does not like the Government of the neighbouring country, Ukraine. Many of us may not like our neighbours, but if we agree today that this is grounds for annexation and intervention in their internal affairs, Europe and the whole world will face a major catastrophe in future. That is a very clear reason for adopting a strong and clear resolution today.

      Another reason we need a strong resolution is that what is at stake in Ukraine today is not only the functioning of democratic institutions but the entire State of Ukraine: the unity, integrity and European future of this country. That is a reason to be decisive in adopting today’s resolution.

      Another reason to be decisive is that the story is not finished; it continues, and every day brings new waves of instability, new threats and new risks to Ukraine. Every day we see riots and demonstrations in eastern Ukraine, orchestrated by Russia. Today, by voting for this resolution, we may make our contribution to ending this instability and bringing peace and democracy to the State of Ukraine. That is another reason for us to be decisive.

      I have listened to our Russian colleagues and read some of their amendments, but I make it clear that in my view people who unanimously supported the use of force against Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea do not have the moral credibility to table amendments about the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine. We in this hall should make this very clear. By supporting war, annexation and occupation, you lose the moral credibility to teach lessons and table amendments about the functioning of democratic institutions.

      Lastly, as my colleague mentioned, it is 25 years to the day since Russian troops organised a massacre in my home city. I was a young teenager. Many in the balcony are the same age as I was. I need to support Ukraine for the sake of supporting my own past when I fought for the freedom of my country. I need to support Ukraine today for the sake of the victims who fell to the Russian troops 25 years ago in my city. We need to support the freedom of Ukraine today for the sake of supporting those who fought for their freedom in the Baltic countries, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and many European States. Friends and colleagues, let us be very clear and support freedom, integrity and choice in Ukraine, and support our own freedom for the future.

      Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation)* – From reading through this report, one gets the impression that it is not about Ukraine but about some virtual country that exists only in the rapporteurs’ imagination. You say that it was not the far right that has taken power in Kiev, but today in most regions of the country the Communist Party and its activities are prohibited and some of its members have been beaten up and killed. They have lost their lives for their political convictions. Today, in the Verkhovna Rada, not all representatives of all parties can work and the leader of the Communist Party and our Parliamentary Assembly colleague Mr Petro Symonenko was beaten up – this could be seen on all television channels – by a member of the nationalist Svoboda Party.

       You say that there are no problems with the Russian language and other minorities languages in Ukraine, but the use of the Russian language will result in separatist tendencies. In many regions, especially in western Ukraine, people are being oppressed simply because they speak Russian. Go out into the street and hear these people. Listen to people who live in Ukraine, but you do not want to hear them out. You say that there is no Nazism in Ukraine today. Go to the office of the leader of one of the far-right parties and you can see the sort of slogans that he has written on his door. You say that people have come to power legitimately, but, no, it was essentially a coup d’etat by people who support a Nazi ideology, which is not appropriate for Europe in the 21st century.

      I cannot agree with the rhetoric in the report. We said today in the Socialist Group that we are not the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO, but I would not be surprised to learn that this report was written in Washington or by the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO. No, we are the largest pan-European organisation. We are a European family. We as the Council of Europe should be working to unite the east and the west, yet we are doing exactly the opposite with the report. I appeal to everyone not to favour this report, which is the most monstrous demonstration of double standards in the history of the Council of Europe. I call on us all to find the truth and to let truth see the light of day. Let us uphold our values and standards.

      Mr BOCKEL (France)* – Ukraine belongs neither to the East nor to the West – or perhaps it belongs a little to both – but it would appear that Ukraine is the victim of Russian cynicism and western inconsistency. It is the victim of its own leadership as well. Everyone has miscalculated the situation in Ukraine. The European Union was so arrogant, even blind, that it thought that it would be powerfully attractive, but it was not able to anticipate the U-turn by President Yanukovych. Russia underestimated the capacity of Ukrainian civil society to mobilise. In fact, President Putin took a high risk in forging ahead with his plans. Europeans cannot understand the Russian President, as far as I can tell. He has his own logic. Crimea is very important to Russia from a military point of view, with the naval base at Sevastopol. Ukraine is also important emotionally because the roots of orthodoxy are found in Kiev. Therefore, Russia has made the most of the situation and the weakness of the West, including the Americans, and the inconsistency of our policies on Ukraine.

      Now that this power grab has succeeded how do we look to the future? European sanctions are unfortunately merely symbolic. Russia is the European Union’s third biggest trade partner and, of course, one of its primary providers of energy. Europeans and Americans rightly believe that they need the Kremlin to resolve the sensitive international conflicts in Iran, Afghanistan and Syria. So what can we do today in the present circumstances? The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe provides an opportunity as a forum for dialogue and democratic debate. Our job is to stand up and say things, even when they are not pleasant to hear and difficult to say.

      Today we have heard people mention firmness, including in some of the Russian arguments that we have heard very recently. Our Assembly should also take into account what is at stake here geopolitically. That is our role. I will not criticise the report; I am already looking towards the debates that we will have tomorrow. We should not just cover the whole issue with a fig leaf and think that that is all we need to do to assuage our consciences. We need to consider what kind of sanctions we could impose for certain types of conduct. Surely, our best strategy is to remain together around the same table, in our common debating Chamber. We need to say things face to face, even though they might unpleasant, and to stay together nevertheless. That is what the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is all about, and we should defend the Parliamentary Assembly’s honour in that way.

      Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia) – I will refrain from making an assessment of the situation because it is obvious that there are different perceptions and analyses about the cause of the crisis and its background. I rather would like to invite you to think about the role that our Assembly played and should play in general in Ukraine.

      Since Ukraine joined the Council of Europe, different monitoring mechanisms have conducted numerous visits and produced dozens of reports about Ukraine, while taking into account its accession commitments. All the findings of those visits and reports have been discussed at length and conclusions and recommendations were published. But even after years of monitoring and reporting, we are witnessing unprecedented unrest in Ukraine, and my question is: do we recognise our own responsibility for this crisis? Are we ready to accept that, because of our reluctance, hesitance or political affiliation, we were unable to prevent this crisis by strengthening democratic practices, ensuring the rule of law and protecting human rights in its wider interpretation in Ukraine.

      As well as extending our hands to help our Ukrainian friends to overcome this crisis and to deal with the post-crisis situation, we should ponder our approach towards those shortcomings that exist in the Council of Europe area. First and foremost, we should not abandon our practices when geopolitical interests, affiliations, economic benefits prevail over our core values. If we fail to recognise our own responsibility and if we are too cautious to speak up and voice our strong disagreement to unacceptable violations of our basic principles, we will have even more difficult crises on our hands in the future.

      In this context, I should like to make one observation. In less than one month’s time, the Council of Europe will be led by a country that is champion among member States for jailing journalists, human rights defenders and political prisoners – a country where the freedom of assembly and association and the freedom of the media have been continuously supressed by the government. With few exceptions, distinguished parliamentarians are quite comfortable with this prospect. They are comfortable that this distinguished Chamber will be represented by a country that a couple of days ago jailed for seven years the director of the Council of Europe School of Political Studies in Baku, because of his readiness to run for presidential office. Again, the Assembly’s inaction shows that it is obviously quite comfortable that the president of that country will address the Assembly in June. What kind of messages are we sending to the public? Before looking at others, it is always necessary to ask ourselves whether we have done enough in preventing the erosion of our values.

      Mr BERDZENISHVILI (Georgia)* – It may seem rather strange to some that I am the fourth Georgian to speak today as it is a small country for such a lot of speakers, but I say to the Assembly that I deliberately chose to speak in this language – Russian – because there is something to say to our friends from the Russian Federation.

      I am from the generation that was part of the Soviet Union. We dreamed of freedom and independence, and I was very pleased in 1990 when we became members of the Council of Europe. We really strove towards that. We did not want that because we hoped to hear the kinds of statements that I have just heard, or to hear that anyone who does not agree with Russia is a fascist or nationalist – that is not why I wanted to be here. It is true that it is very easy to say that kind of thing, but I am ashamed that I have to even hear such things in such an august Assembly as this. Well, never mind; we all have our cross to bear.

      I thank the rapporteurs; they have done a great job and it is great to support this report on Ukraine because it is associated not just with the independence of Ukraine, but with the strategy of Europe regarding its relationship with a very large country – Russia. We often talk about how we can help Ukraine, and there are certain things that may help. First, we should condemn the annexation and call on Russia to take its troops out and not get in the way of constitutional change in another country. It should allow that other country to choose its own way in life – even if it is the wrong way, it is its right to choose it. All that reminds me of what President Putin said – I think he was also president at the time because in Russia they have found a way of ensuring he is always in power. He said that people who do not regret the passing of the Soviet Union have no heart – or perhaps even no brain, but that is a whole different issue. We must think about the people who are trying to re-establish the Soviet Union by occupying other countries, small or large. I think that they do not have any hearts of brains or even eyes to see what they are doing in the 21st century – the 21st century, ladies and gentlemen, not the 19th!

      Mr PYLYPENKO (Ukraine) – Dear colleagues, Ukraine achieved its independence in 1991, and I remind the Assembly that that happened without bloodshed, death or any military conflict. Now my State has to prove whether it and its people will be able to uphold that independence and defend it from foreign occupation.

      Under our eyes, an undisguised occupation of Crimea has occurred. Separatist groups are staging a revolt in the eastern regions of the State, where they destabilise the situation – which is already extremely intense – and portray disorder and anarchy in Ukraine in the Russian mass media. In the course of those events, the threat to the normal functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine becomes apparent. The same scenario that was played out in Crimea a few weeks ago is now taking place in the problem regions. There is incitement of the local population and referendums on joining the Russian Federation, the result of which is already predefined in Moscow. Such acts constitute a danger to the territorial integrity of Ukraine and its entire future.

      The Russian Federation, which is occupying our sovereign territory, completely ignores the democratic institutions, values, freedoms and achievements of the international community. During a so-called “referendum” in Crimea, at least four articles of the Constitution of Ukraine were breached. That constitution provides for the indivisibility of the country and does not allow the holding of any local referendum on secession from Ukraine. Constitutions of other Council of Europe member States contain similar provisions. Crimea’s persona non grata list stirs up special outrage, and I am among the more than 300 people included in the list who now are unwelcome in Crimea. Just imagine: I, a Ukrainian citizen, am prohibited from entering my own country.

      I thank the rapporteurs and all Council of Europe member States for the support provided to my country. Believe me, for my nation that means a lot. We seek peace in our land. Ukraine aspires to be a European nation because for us law is stronger than weapons. I hope that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will continue to support Ukraine in its aspirations for maintaining its territory, culture and nation in the face of an external threat. We want Europe to know that Ukrainians say no to separatism, no to armed conflict, but yes to the European way of development in Ukraine, and yes to the principles of international law. We are grateful that in that way we have the support of the Assembly.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – I wish to underscore the importance that I attach to the inviolability of borders, the peaceful settlement of conflicts, and the territorial integrity of member States. With that in mind, I note that whether we are talking about Crimea or Kosovo, Russia has not always had the same vision of international law – unless its position has changed in the meantime – and tomorrow it will be recognised in Kosovo.

      Similarly, I condemn in the strongest possible terms as completely unacceptable the violent actions carried out by different fomenters of trouble in the east of Ukraine. Although a large number of errors were committed by the West, on no account should that justify the invasion of Crimea. I call for a peaceful solution to be found, predicated on dialogue and mutual respect. In particular I call on Russia to engage in a direct, sincere and honest dialogue with the Ukrainian Government, and I hope that the Parliamentary Assembly can foster that dialogue.

      The threat to the future of that country should not, however, exempt us from carrying out an objective and in-depth examination of the situation in Ukraine which is sufficiently disquieting, and not only from an economic point of view. We cannot help but notice that there is a legitimate wariness among the population with regard to its leaders, who have entered into a series of dishonest arrangements, and who have often made policy changes far more to preserve their own interests than because they fully adhere to the values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Let us not be overly naïve about that; it is universal logic.

      In France when Napoleon I was on the brink of defeat, the Imperial Senate, covered in gold and honours, dropped him without flinching. I confess that the current candidates for the Ukrainian presidential election do not seem to point to the much hoped for renewal. That could be a cause for concern because they seem to be part of the recent unenviable past of that country, and that is an important issue if we really want the much needed reforms to be introduced. Those reforms, particularly of the judiciary, are greatly expected, and we call on them to be carried out with the help of the Council of Europe and our Assembly. We have vital tools to make that possible, such as the Venice Commission, or the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. I hope that the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe co-operate actively on the essential reforms that must be introduced in Ukraine, but their implementation involves far more than simply adopting a law. Democracy and the rule of law cannot be decreed or established overnight and are as much about changing mindsets as having a written text. We must be aware of that and leave the necessary time for it to take place.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – Dear colleagues, once again, unfortunately, we are forced to examine an unbalanced and distorting report on Ukraine. Our January report, which was adopted by the Assembly and drafted by the same rapporteurs, did not contribute at all to resolving the conflict in Ukraine. It resulted in more civil unrest, which then resulted in a change of regime.

      We have extended support to the opposition. We did not notice – or we did not want to notice – the rise in neo-fascism. Our past resolutions on Ukraine have contributed to the chaos there. In the report there is a whole series of categorical statements. There is no room left for compromise, for ensuring civil peace or for adopting models that would be appropriate for all regions of Ukraine and for all its citizens, independent of their language or ethnic origin.

      The previous report fomented unrest and the change of regime, but this report completely disregards reality. There are substantiated reports of problems for Russian speakers. Ms Reps has been trying to convince us that there are no violations of the rights of Russian speakers in Estonia but their rights are violated – they are second-class citizens. Today, she is once again insisting that there are no threats to Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine. If that is the case, why are tens of thousands of people going out into the streets in protest and clamouring for their rights – rights that we, as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, should be protecting?

      How can the rapporteurs say that there are no far right groups in the new government in Kiev when there are people wearing swastikas? How would the rapporteurs react if armed bands were roaming the streets in Sweden or Estonia and people were afraid for their own lives and the lives of their children? Why are we supporting extremist neo-fascist groups – why are we not insisting that they are disarmed? The red and black flag of the Bandera army is flying next to the flags of the European Union and the Council of Europe. That group collaborated with Hitler.

      We cannot say a categorical no to federalism or say that it would weaken the country. Who came up with that idea? Germany and the Russian Federation are federations and Switzerland is a confederation, but that does not weaken them – on the contrary, it strengthens them.

      We should insist that those in authority do not take any unilateral measures that increase tension. They should not be threatening to use any force against peaceful demonstrators in the south and the east of the country. They should make sure that they hold free and fair democratic election in which all political parties are able to participate.

      I will be voting against the resolution. I will also be trying to convince the Assembly to think about changing the rapporteurs on Ukraine.

      Mr CHISU (Observer from Canada) – Thank you, Madam President, for this opportunity to speak about the events unfolding in Ukraine, which Canadians continue to monitor very closely and with great concern. I also thank the rapporteurs for their work.

      Canada condemns Russia’s military intervention in Crimea in the strongest terms. Indeed, Canada sees Russian actions as a clear violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Furthermore, Canada does not recognise the outcome of the referendum on the status of Crimea that took place on 16 March 2014, and fully supports the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly of 27 March 2014 that calls upon States not to recognise changes in the status of the Crimea region. Not only was the referendum not authorised by Ukraine, but the circumstances surrounding it violated democratic standards, as reflected in the recent legal opinion of the Council of Europe’s own Venice Commission.

      Within that context, we must commend the Ukrainian Government’s restraint in the face of such provocations. As it moves forward in its efforts to build a free, democratic and prosperous society, we believe that the protection of minority rights should remain paramount. Canada has been working very closely with the Ukrainian Government to help achieve those objectives by addressing challenges facing the country’s democratic institutions.

      For example, at the request of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Canada has frozen the assets of 18 members of the former Yanukovych regime, as well as those of his family members and close associates, to help fight corruption and support democratic reforms and accountability in the country. In addition, we have imposed sanctions on Crimean and Russian individuals responsible for the crisis in Crimea. As part of our international development programme in Ukraine, we are supporting projects that increase equitable access to justice for men and women, particularly those from marginalised groups, as well as efforts to build a transparent and fair electoral environment. We have also announced that we will provide Ukraine with a $200 million loan guarantee to help restore stability in the country.

      Those actions have not been without consequences, however. In response to Canadian sanctions, Russia has banned the entry of 13 Canadians, including senior government officials, six members of parliament – three from the Conservative Party of Canada, two from the Liberal Party of Canada and one from the New Democratic Party – and a leader of the Ukrainian-Canadian diaspora. Our House of Commons has remained united in condemning those and other actions taken by Russia in response to the crisis in Ukraine. We also remain united with Ukrainians as they address the very real threats facing their democratic institutions.

      The way forward for all parties involved in the crisis lies in ongoing and inclusive political dialogue at all levels, including here at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – Since the last debate in our Assembly on Ukraine, on 30 January, the situation in that country has changed a great deal. There has been a series of violent events in Kiev. We have witnessed the flight and deposition of President Yanukovych, the appointment of an interim government, the anti-constitutional secession of Crimea followed by its brutal annexation by Russia in full disregard of international law and all Russian commitments to that, a diplomatic crisis with sanctions and the sound of marching boots on the eastern frontier.

      In just under a month we have witnessed not only the most serious international crisis since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, but a questioning of the best established principles of international law, starting with territorial integrity and national sovereignty. The condemnation of the takeover of control in and annexation of Crimea was unanimous. Even China abstained in the vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

      The crisis in Ukraine reminds us of the methods used in 1938 to protect, as it was claimed, the Sudeten Germans, who were supposedly in danger. It also reminds us of the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968 to shut down the Prague Spring protests. Today, as then, western powers have simply sat back and watched, limiting themselves to strong declarations of solemn condemnation. We know how successful European and American sanctions have been. Moscow will think it would be wrong not simply to keep going – after all, what Russia did in Georgia in 2008 has remained unpunished. It has full impunity, but where will the Kremlin stop? Already there are threats about Transnistria, Moldovan territory on which Russian troops have been stationed since 1992. Everything will depend on how firm the western attitude is. Moscow is adept at playing on divisions among Europeans, the lack of co-ordination between Brussels and Washington and the knee-jerk pro-Russian stance of certain countries that are fascinated by its military power, its energy resources and the strong fist of an audacious and determined leader who has no scruples whatever and no respect for international law.

      Even in Europe, there are some who would give arguments in favour of the Russian attitude, arguing that, to begin with, all Russia has done is to protect Russian-speaking populations or ethnic Russian populations in Crimea. We still do not know whether there was any aggression against those people or who the alleged aggressors were.

      Finally, if President Putin is so much in favour of the right to self-determination, it is a pity that the Chechens have not been the subject of as much of his concern on that matter.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – This report is biased and misleading. It is a diktat to Russia rather than a balanced report. That is against the principles of the Council of Europe and is why we cannot accept it.

      We have to understand what is going on in Ukraine. Hidden powers tried to take control of Ukraine in order to colonise it and to prepare an attack against Russia.

      There are double standards. The Council of Europe has not a word to say against the UK, which is absolutely liable for the mass surveillance revealed by Mr Snowden, who is now in Russia, escaping from the “democratic” US. US private soldiers are fighting alongside Ukrainian people against the Russian nation, and you have not a word to say about that. There was even an Israeli ex-soldier fighting alongside the “democratic” Maidan people. You have no idea of the core issue of self-determination. You are talking not about the people living there, but just about territorial integrity, and special substantive values of some kind, without facing the fact that many millions of people living in Ukraine are oppressed and forced to leave the country. Ukraine is an artificial State. It was never a contributing partner to any of the peace dictates that took away many territories from its neighbouring countries; an example is Transcarpathia, which belonged to Hungary for 1 000 years. It is a lovely region in the Carpathian basin, where 1 million Rusyns live. [Interruption.] Thank you, democratic colleagues, for your democratic behaviour. That accurately reflects your attitude to democracy.

      Hungarian people in Transcarpathia would like it to return to Hungary, as would Rusyns. Rusyns are not recognised by Ukraine. Not a word is said about them; the only mention is of the Tatars living in Crimea. No sanctions against Russia relating to the referendum can be valid, because the referendum is about self-determination, which cannot be stopped. It will go on, and Transcarpathia will return to Hungary because it belongs to Hungary, according to international law. Please initiate an urgent session of the UN Security Council to protect all oppressed nationalities in Ukraine, and to avoid a bloody conflict, which has been initiated by powers that are deeply interested in splitting up all nations in Europe. Thank you.

      Mr LE BORGN' (France)* – How sad it is to hear nationalist discourse in this Assembly. The Council of Europe is the European organisation that upholds the rule of law. That is our history, our vocation, and the value added that we can offer. The 47 member States are bound by the ideal of democracy, and by specific commitments, including total adherence to the idea of territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders – two principles that have been deliberately flouted by the Russian Federation in the past few weeks.

      The Russian military intervention in Crimea and the annexation of that part of Ukraine are a flagrant breach of international law and the Russian Federation’s commitments as a member of the Council of Europe. [Interruption.]

      The PRESIDENT* – May I ask all members of the Assembly to listen to speakers and not interrupt them?

      Mr LE BORGN' (France)* – Thank you, Madam President. Compliance with the law is not an optional extra; the Council of Europe is not a market – a place where a country can, depending on its national interests, cynically cherry-pick certain principles and reject others. It is intolerable for one member State of the Council of Europe to be aggressive to another, usurp its authority in part of its territory, strangle it economically, and subject it, for the foreseeable future, to carefully circumscribed freedom. The idea of limited sovereignty belongs to the history books and is inconceivable in a community of free, democratic States. Nothing can explain or excuse this violation of international law.

      It is common knowledge that there are historical, cultural and economic trade links between Russia and Ukraine. Given the difficulties that Ukraine is going through, Russia’s voice counts and must be heard, but Ukraine is a sovereign State. If it wants to choose Europe, it is totally free to do so. Everything points to the Russian Federation being intent on destroying the Ukrainian emancipation movement, annexing Crimea and fomenting unrest in the rest of the country.

      Ukrainian presidential elections will be held on 25 May. For the sake of stability and the future of Ukraine, they must be organised in a way that is beyond reproach. The Council of Europe must play a full role in that. Observers from our Assembly will be present in great numbers on the day of the election. The resources of the Venice Commission must be mobilised to assist with any institutional reform on which Ukraine decides, in a sovereign manner, to embark.

      Democracy is not just about elections; it is also about principles and values, the independence of the judiciary, fighting corruption and a constant interchange with civil society. It is the role of the Council of Europe to be present when there are hurdles of this kind to be overcome, and it will be present. It will stand firm in the face of aggression, if it is wary of pied pipers, rejects posturing and makes its voice heard loudly and proudly for freedom.

      The PRESIDENT* – I do not see Mr Mariani, so I call Ms Godskesen from Norway.

      Ms GODSKESEN (Norway) – In 2008, during the presidential election campaign in the United States, Sarah Palin warned that Russia could be tempted to enter Ukraine because of America’s inaction during the Russian military incursion into Georgia. She was ridiculed. Four years later, Mitt Romney revisited her concerns, and President Obama laughed at him. Neither President Obama nor anyone else is laughing now.

      In Crimea, almost 58% of the population is Russian, but we must not forget that the Russian population represents only about 17% of the total population of Ukraine. We often get the impression that the country’s population is divided in half between Ukrainians and Russians, but that is not correct.

      After the military invasion of Crimea, condemning Russia is easy. Russia has clearly violated international law and has shown us that it does not respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The tension is at its peak, and that is very unfortunate, particularly as both countries belong to the Council of Europe. If Russia does not respect Ukraine, which countries does it respect, and who will be invaded next? That is the question many are asking.

      Russia’s conduct has caused concern in other parts of its neighbourhood. Many had great expectations after the Cold War and the collapse of communism in Europe. Many are therefore disappointed now. Norway has historically had a good and fruitful relationship with Russia. Our two countries have never been at war with each other. We need Russia as a positive and constructive partner and player in the international arena, but the way Russia has acted on this matter is neither positive nor constructive. NATO, the European Union, the Council of Europe and Norway agree: we strongly condemn what Russia has done, and urge it not to contribute to further escalation. We will stand together with our allies and try to co-ordinate our response with them; we owe the Ukrainians that. Ukraine has the right to choose its path, just as all other States do. Thank you.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – The very same force that organised the massacre of peaceful demonstrators in Tbilisi 25 years ago on this day went on to do the same in Baku, Vilnius, Riga, and most recently in Kiev, and is now trying to carve up the free and sovereign State of Ukraine and deprive its freedom-loving people of their future. I remind members that 70% of those people support European integration.

      When we drew parallels between the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the events of the 1930s, eyebrows were raised, but today the parallels are self-evident. The sham referendum in Crimea is reminiscent of the so-called referendum organised in Austria, and the subsequent Anschluss. The premise of defending “compatriots” used by Mr Putin in Crimea is strikingly similar to the premise used by Hitler to seize the Sudetenland, and we all remember that he did not stop there.

      Most people here would agree that one reason why Putin went ahead with the decision to invade Ukraine was that he paid only a very small and inadequate price for the invasion of Georgia, the occupation of its territory, and the ethnic cleansing that the Russian troops carried out there – and that ethnic cleansing is recognised as such by this Assembly. In 2009, 75 members of the Assembly signed a motion to annul the Russian delegation’s credentials. Mr Gross insisted that it was important to keep channels of communication open and that MPs could not be held responsible for the decisions of the Executive. We kept the channels open, but the result has been the opposite of what we wanted.

      I thank the rapporteurs for a clear report that condemns military aggression, which could go further, and endorses the current Ukrainian Government’s legitimacy. Action has a price, but the cost of inaction is much higher. We will decide tomorrow whether to deprive our Russian colleagues of their voting rights or to annul their credentials. The Russian media is already trumpeting that only having voting rights suspended is a victory, meaning that the Russian delegation can still come here to give us Gromyko-type lectures. Surely we all agree that we do not want to embolden the aggressor.

      In 1968, when Soviet troops invaded Czechoslovakia, only eight people were brave enough to go out into Red Square with the famous slogan “For our freedom and yours”. Without a free Ukraine, there cannot be a free Russia, so if we want a free Russia one day, we should support a free Ukraine.

      Ms FINCKH-KRÄMER (Germany)* – I remind the Assembly of the many demonstrators at Maidan who were protesting against and managed to topple a corrupt government. However, did they wish for the current government, which has ministers from a political party with good links to right-wing radicals in Germany and which does not represent the south or east of the country? In a conflict, one side might be wrong, but that does not mean that the other side is necessarily right. The referendum in Crimea was in breach of international law, for example, but there were peaceful protestors on Maidan who were not saying anything against Russia, but rather were calling for their rights, for democracy and for an independent judiciary.

      Some of today’s statements smack of the kind of political conflicts that we had 35 or 40 years ago during the Cold War, which – I remind the Assembly – was not ended by throwing accusations at the other side, but through negotiations on disarmament, cultural and economic exchanges, travel freedoms and bringing down the Iron Curtain. That is what led to changes in the countries of the former Warsaw Pact. That is how they achieved democratic development and got what they wanted. It also meant that many new member States, including Ukraine, were welcomed into the Council of Europe, which helped to pave the way for democracy and the rule of law in those countries. There is a country that is seen by its population as being governed by the rule of law and it cannot be destabilised in this way, so the Council of Europe’s primary task is to ensure that the people of Ukraine are helped on the path towards greater democracy and the rule of law.

      I am a German citizen, and I want to emphasise that I am very much opposed to any similarities being drawn between this situation and Germany’s past. I happen to know one of the speakers mentioned and that person became a pacifist because of Hitler’s actions. The name cited was incorrect.

      I remind the Assembly of the 30 000 demonstrators in Moscow on 1 March. They demonstrated for peace and should be remembered when discussing what type of country Russia is.

      Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – President, I thank you for your firm stance on the Ukraine issue and for hosting this debate. I respect the work and commitment of the rapporteurs and hope that they can continue their good work and that any attempts to remove these courageous women as rapporteurs on Ukraine should be prevented from the start. Their reporting gives us a good picture of what is going on in Ukraine and helps us to avoid following the many in the Assembly who claim that more investigation is needed, because they have not seen first-hand the situation for Crimean Tatars, for example, before being able to make judgments.

      I want to repeat something that has been stressed over and over in the Assembly. The pro-European choice of closer integration with the European Union was made by the Ukrainian people in 2010 when they voted for the Party of Regions and for the former President Yanukovych, who were campaigning on a pro-European platform. I therefore reject the accusations levelled at the European Union that it acted boldly and encouraged too much hope in Ukraine. In addition, we must reject any attempt to decide Ukraine’s future, such as whether it will be a federal or non-aligned or non-NATO State, without Ukraine being at the table. Otherwise, it will be just like the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, which divided Europe for 50 years and introduced the concept of spheres of influence. It would be shameful. Do we want Europe to be divided again? The Ukrainian people must decide their own future. I think we all agree that the Verkhovna Rada is fully legitimate and must make such decisions in the interests of the Ukrainian people.

      Finally, the vote on 1 March in the Russian Parliament to authorise the use of military force in Ukraine sent shockwaves through all Russia’s neighbours, including Latvia. Thank God we are in NATO. I thank all the countries that supported our membership, which we worked very hard towards.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The last speaker is Mr Sudarenkov.

      Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation)* – A hundred years ago, Vernadsky, the founder of the Ukrainian academy of sciences, wrote that the Ukrainian issue is a very old one because no occupying force over hundreds of years ever managed to divide the country.

      I am expressing a personal opinion when I say that had there not been a February in Kiev, there would have been no March in Crimea. That needs to be taken into consideration. We are not really assessing the events of February and March in an objective way to try to reach the right conclusions and to discover the truth. We should perhaps listen to what the President of the Russian Federation has to say. He said quite clearly on 18 April that Russia did not want or need Ukraine to be divided. We should perhaps ask for that to be explained or clarified, but there is no special policy for Ukraine – despite people pulling out various plans from the wartime archives. I am probably the only one here who experienced the occupation, so I know what it is like. We should not use high-falutin’ words, such as saying that people are taking over the reins of power, to strike fear into people’s hearts. That should be prohibited in our Chamber. That is what we should be talking about.

      There was no protest in Crimea in reaction to what happened. For the rapporteurs, the result of the referendum was unexpected. Why? What kind of result did they expect, given the situation in which the multi-ethnic population of Crimea found itself? It was not only the Russians who voted. The force is not in our resolution but in the truth.

      The PRESIDENT* – We must now interrupt the list of speakers. Members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be provide their speeches in typescript to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

      I call the rapporteur to reply to the debate. You have six and a half minutes left.

      Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – I thank all our colleagues who took part in the debate. Most supported our report, but a few did not; they seemed to be afraid of our description of reality. I did not know whether to cry or laugh when I listened to our Russian colleagues continue the propaganda war in the Chamber. They are the same members of the Duma who authorised Mr Putin to use military force in the whole of Ukraine. I am sure the Ukrainian Government and the Verkhovna Rada have the strength to continue with the necessary reforms in Ukraine, even if Russia is doing its best to destabilise and provoke them.

      We are running out of time, so I want to thank Bas Klein from the Secretariat, who helped us with the report. He stood with us on Maidan from 18 to 20 February, when we saw people being shot at by snipers and the wounded and dead being carried out. Thank you very much, Bas, for standing by our side.

      The PRESIDENT – Would the other rapporteur like to take the floor?

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – My co-rapporteur has already had the final word. Today we are debating Ukraine, and tomorrow we will debate the consequences for the Russian Federation and its delegation. Let me remind you of a few things from the resolution. We made five essential points. The resolution is not too long to read, but I will go through it.

      First, we said we should use every possible means, such as the Venice Commission and our experts, including those who are in Ukraine today, to support the reforms we have asked Ukraine to carry out. Quite a few reforms have already been started, and many drafts have already gone through the Venice Commission on issues including constitutional reform. We have told the new government in the Verkhovna Rada what we expect of it. No matter what the situation in Ukraine is, we want it to continue with that work.

      Secondly, we support the elections. We are calling on everybody to do their utmost to ensure that both the first and second rounds of the presidential elections are free and fair. Our observers will be there to do whatever they can. We want there to be an electoral code for the parliamentary elections. We also want a clear-cut vision for the future of the local governments, and more powers to be devolved to them.

      Thirdly, we want to ensure minority rights. I hope that those who do not accept the factual evidence of the rapporteurs trust the advisory committee that we sent to Ukraine. It was there for a week and produced a comprehensive report. Please read it. What we are discussing is not our opinion, but the conclusions of the expert group, which said that no minority group is in imminent danger today in Ukraine.

      Fourthly, on Crimea, we have all said clearly in the Standing Committee and here today that the annexation of another country’s territory is not acceptable. There can be no excuses. That is our statement, and I hope we all vote for it.

      Fifthly, we are calling for a tangible security agreement. It is clear that the Budapest memorandum has already fallen, so we must discuss what that means for Europe and the wider world. Does it make any difference to what we say about Iran? What consequences will it have? Those are the things we must discuss when we return home from this debate on Ukraine.

      Finally, I thank everybody who has participated in this lively and interesting debate. I am very interested in knowing what our next debate on Ukraine will be like. Hopefully, it will have a different tone and be in a different environment. I hope that at that time we can come to a different conclusion on Crimea. I hope a miracle happens and Crimea remains part of Ukraine.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Reps. I call the chairperson of the committee, Mr Schennach. You have two minutes.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – On behalf of the Monitoring Committee, I thank the entire Assembly for this intense debate and the way in which we have addressed the situation in Ukraine. The fact that 75 colleagues signed up to speak in the debate demonstrates that the Council of Europe is very concerned about the conflict between two member States of our Assembly. This intense, lively debate is proof that the Council of Europe is the primary forum for this kind of debate. The Council of Europe is the only body not to have geostrategic interests in this matter, which allows us to have the debate.

      I thank the two co-rapporteurs for their hard work. I want to give you an impression of what it has been like for them and of the work they have done. They went to Ukraine 15 times, and spent 100 days there. In other words, they dedicated four months of their political lives to the country. That is an enormous contribution, and we should pay tribute to them for their commitment. We should thank our two co-rapporteurs very much for their dedication.

      In conclusion, the Federal President of Austria made a recommendation to the Assembly when he addressed us today. I have made the same recommendation. The decision must be made by the people of Ukraine, but this it is also a political and economic issue. We must ensure there is neutrality in Ukraine. Political and economic neutrality brought about stability in my country and other European countries. I come from a federal State. I know that is not the subject of the report, but it is an issue that office holders who are responsible for policy in Ukraine should bear in mind. I invite them to incorporate it into their discussions. A lot of amendments have been tabled, so we will be debating this issue for some time.

      The PRESIDENT* – The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution, to which 47 amendments and four oral sub-amendments have been proposed.

      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 understand that the Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 15 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

      Is that so Mr Schennach?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object? There is no objection.

      The following amendment is adopted:

      Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Popescu, Mr Kalmár, Ms Beselia, Mr Iwiński, Mr Díaz Tejera and Mr Cilevičs, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, last sentence, replace the words "the Law on the State language" with the following words: "the Law on the Principles of State Language Policy".

      We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Jónasson and Mr Petrenco, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, delete the second sentence.

      I call Mr Tiny Kox to support Amendment 1.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – As I said earlier, we can improve the draft resolution by concentrating on the facts and by not mentioning those things that are not yet clear, or that are still the subject of investigation. As the Secretary General announced earlier, this is one of the things that is under investigation by the new panel proposed by the Council of Europe. If we delete the second sentence, we will stick to the facts. Those things still have to be investigated.

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

      I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin.

      Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – We are talking here about the facts and the reality – what has happened on the ground. We were there. Mr Kox does not want us to describe the reality but we would like to do so. That is why the sentence should stay in.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 22, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Kazakova, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, replace the words "the increasingly hard-handed approach of the authorities, including the so-called anti-terrorist action to break up the Euromaidan protests by force, contrary to all advice given by national and international interlocutors, including by the Assembly in its Resolution 1974 (2014) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine" with the following words: "the interference of the EU and the US into the internal affairs of Ukraine, their support of anti-government forces which acted beyond the legal framework".

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 22.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – The draft resolution says that these dramatic events were the result of “so-called anti-terrorist action” but we think that that should be replaced. All of this was the result of interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine by the European Union and the United States. We would like to mention that. A number of European Union and United States leaders – eminent politicians – were on the Maidan supporting the protests.

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

      I call Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – I am sorry but it is not true that only US and European leaders visited Kiev at that time. According to the SBU, the State security service, the FSB of Russia was present during the shooting of Maidan representatives. So it would be incorrect to mention only one side. Therefore, the amendment is unacceptable.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 22 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 40, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Petrenco, Ms Burykina, Ms Kazakova, Ms Nikolaeva, Ms Borzova, Ms Goryacheva and Mr Timchenko, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, first sentence, delete the words "against protesters by the Ukrainian authorities at that time".

      I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 40.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – The sniper shots and the live ammunition caused not just protesters to lose their lives but police officers and special service officers. Let us be concerned about their lives as well and delete those words in the draft resolution.

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

      I call Ms Reps.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – In the second paragraph of the draft resolution, we first condemn the actions by the authorities against the protesters. In the following sentences, we call for a full investigation of all human rights abuses – so all sides who violated human rights are included. We cannot exclude any part of the sentence, including the part on shooting protesters.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 40 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Jónasson and Mr Petrenco, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, after the first sentence, insert the following words:

      "The same goes for those who used violence against the police and others."

      I call Mr Kox to support Amendment 2.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – This is in line with what the co-rapporteur has just said. We condemn the use of snipers and live ammunition against protesters but the same goes for all those who used violence which caused the death of police officers and others. I cannot see why the amendment is not reasonable and balanced enough to be accepted by the Assembly.

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

      I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin

      Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – If you read the report, it says, “There can be no impunity for human rights abuses, irrespective of who committed them.” That covers everything. It is already in our text. We do not need the amendment. It is already covered.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 23, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Kazakova, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, third sentence, delete the words "in relation to the Euromaidan protests".

      I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 23.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – Infringements of human rights occurred not just in the Euromaidan protests – there were anti-Maidan protests as well. In the past week, there have been many infringements of human rights, so we need to investigate all cases, not just those associated with the Euromaidan.

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

      I call Ms Reps.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – In our resolution, all actions related to Maidan means not only the square of Maidan or the events related to a certain period. We are talking about all actions related to Euromaidan in Kiev and in other regions, actions against protesters and actions against the police force. All need to be investigated. We cannot take those words out – they are important.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 23 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 45, tabled by Mr Kandelaki, Ms Čigāne, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Japaridze, Ms Gerashchenko, Mr Shevchenko, Ms Bokuchava, Ms Guţu, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Hanson, Mr Bardina Pau and Ms Mateu Pi, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 2, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly takes note of the statement of Valentin Nalivaichenko, director of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) on alleged advice rendered by Russia's FSB in the run up to and during the shooting of demonstrators in Kyiv, the participation of 26 FSB officers in the shootings and calls for thorough investigation of these claims.”I

      I call Mr Kandelaki to support Amendment 45.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – As we have already heard from one of our Ukrainian colleagues, on 3 April, Mr Nalivaichenko, the head of the Ukrainian security service, presented evidence of the involvement of the Russian security service in the shooting of protesters and specifically named high-ranking officers from Moscow who took part and helped to organise it. It is therefore extremely important to register the demand for an investigation of any such involvement, which would be extremely grave.

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

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – In Russia we have a proverb. It is very interesting that today we heard information from a Georgian general, a citizen of Georgia, who said that the snipers were more likely to have been Saakashvili’s people – that they were trained by him – so we really do not know what happened and we need an investigation. I am therefore against this amendment.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 45 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 24, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Kazakova, Mr Shlegel, Mr Morozov and Mr Aligrudić, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 3.

      If this amendment is agreed, Amendments 17, 3 and 4 fall. I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 24.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – We propose that paragraph 3 of the resolution be deleted because it is just not factual when it comes to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. It says that it played an important role on 21 February, which is not true. One of the points in that resolution was that various groups in Ukraine should be disbanded, but that has not been done either. We should not distort the facts, which is why we think paragraph 3 should be deleted.

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

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – The only people who did not perform on the 21 February agreement were the Russians, who did not sign the agreement, and Mr Yanukovych, the ex-President of Ukraine, who fled the country on 21 February. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has fulfilled all its obligations under that agreement, so we should not support this amendment.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

       The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 24 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 17, tabled by Mr Morozov, Mr Fetisov, Mr Umakhanov, Mr Tarlo and Mr Chernyshenko, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 3 with the following paragraph:

      “Being a partially legitimate body, the Verkhovna Rada failed to deal with a dificult moment of the transitional period and formed a government with the participation of representatives of the ultra-right nationalist forces. As a result it has not yet started to implement the 21 February 2014 agreement, thus triggering social and political protests in South-Eastern Ukraine and general destabilization of the situation.”If

      If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 3 and 4 fall. I call Mr Morozov to support Amendment 17.

      Mr MOROZOV (Russian Federation)* – I believe that paragraph 3 should be replaced by the words in our amendment.

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

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – The national Parliament of Ukraine was elected in 2012, under the previous Yanukovych Government, so it is fully legitimate and it is not right to say that it is partially legitimate.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 17 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Jónasson and Mr Petrenco, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, first sentence, delete the following words: “when, in unity and consensus, it managed the change of power and implementation of the main provisions of the 21 February 2014 agreement, in line with the overall tenets of the agreement ans with due consideration for constitutional principles.”

      I call Mr Kox to support Amendment 3.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Again, let us focus on the facts. Whether, how and to what extent the agreement of 21 February has or has not been implemented is still the subject of investigation and discussion. It will be discussed, among other things, in the upcoming meeting between Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the United States. Let us leave it as a matter of discussion; let us not present it as a fact in this resolution.

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

       Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – The Parliament of Ukraine voted for the addition of the constitution of 2004, as the recommendation of the Venice Commission proposes. Then the Ukrainian Parliament voted by three to one for the new government, so it was an absolutely legitimate decision. This is not a matter for debate.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Jónasson and Mr Petrenco, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace the last sentence with the following sentence:

      “The Assembly calls upon the new authorities to act in line with their national and international obligations, including their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and to restore public trust in government and Parliament.”Mr

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Again, let us look at the facts. There is discussion about the legitimacy of the authorities in Ukraine. This has not yet been investigated by the Venice Commission. What the result will be is not clear. What is clear is that there is a de facto government. Therefore, I propose that we call on the de facto government to ensure that things are arranged. I do not see what is inappropriate in this amendment.

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

      Mr O. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine) – I am against this amendment because it questions the public trust in and legitimacy of the new government and the parliament. Indeed, the Parliament of Ukraine played a crucial role during the events when bullets were flying and Yanukovych fled the country. It was the parliament that came together and took a legitimate decision and found a solution to the crisis.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 25, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Ms Kazakova, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 4.

      If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 38 and 5 fall. I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 25.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – We suggest that paragraph 4 be deleted. It says that the events of 18 to 21 February resulted in a change of government and opened up the opportunity for democratic change and so on, but that is not at all the case. Journalists are being censored, the mass media are no longer free and people are repressed.

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

       Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – The amendment should be rejected because there is a legitimate Parliament in Ukraine that has changed the constitution in a legitimate way and, with 370 votes, we chose a new government. We do have freedom of speech. I think that Russian journalists are jealous of Ukrainian journalists, who do not have to engage in propaganda and disinformation; they can tell the truth.

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

       Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 25 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 38, tabled by Mr Morozov, Mr Fetisov, Mr Umakhanov, Mr Tarlo and Mr Chernyshenko, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, first sentence, replace the words “, has opened a window of opportunities for Ukraine's democratic development” with the following words: “does not have genuine public support and will eventually result in a long-lasting civil conflict”.

      I call Mr Morozov to support Amendment 38.

      Mr MOROZOV (Russian Federation)* – I think that paragraph 4 should be changed. The present political configuration is not supported by a majority of groups in the population, and there is a lot of political repression. Criminal events took place on Maidan, and in the south and east other crimes have been committed. Since 21 February the State has not had genuine public support, which will eventually result in a long-lasting civil conflict.

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

      Mr O. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine) – The amendment is a weak and groundless interpretation of the events in Ukraine. I think that we should keep paragraph 4 the way it is, because it encourages opportunities for democratic development in the country.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 38 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Jónasson and Mr Petrenco, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 4, insert the following sentence:

      “In order to restore the rule of law, the Assembly calls for the immediate disarmament of illegally armed persons and groups in Ukraine and for continuous action of the authorities to protect Ukrainian citizens against the endemic corruption in the whole country.”I

      I call Mr Kox to support Amendment 5.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – During the Presidential Committee’s fact-finding mission we learned two important facts: the Minister of the Interior spoke of the absolute necessity to disarm armed persons and gangs as soon as possible because they threaten stability; and the new governor of Donetsk informed us about the “endemic corruption” that hinders the country’s development. We and the co-rapporteurs, who were with us, were told those facts, and I think that they should be added to the report.

      The PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Ms Reps and Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, have referred to the Bureau an oral sub-amendment which reads as follows: “In Amendment 5, after ‘in order to’, add ‘fully’, and after ‘disarmament of’ add ‘all’.

      In my opinion the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I call Ms Reps to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The oral sub-amendment would make Amendment 5 refer to “all illegally armed persons”, so it could not be seen as applying to one side.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 5 on the oral sub-amendment?

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – The oral sub-amendment shows the good spirit that I hope the rest of the debate will have. It improves my amendment, so I definitely support it.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 5, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 26, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Ms Kazakova, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, the fifth sentence, delete the words “in first reading before the next presidential elections take place and in final reading”.

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 26.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – This depends on the Ukrainians, because you only have to go there to see things with your own eyes. As far as the amendment is concerned, we feel that the parliament is not legitimate, because not all parties are represented. Prior to elections, without all the regions being represented, you cannot take such an important decision.

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

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – In the Ukrainian Parliament there are no members from Crimea, because it has been annexed. Ex-President Yanukovych is missing, as is former Prosecutor-General Pshonka. We ask the Assembly to defend Ukraine and ensure that we can carry out an objective investigation of the events without hampering anything taking place in Ukraine.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 26 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 27, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Kazakova, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, delete the words “Such a decentralisation strategy should be based on the principles of a strong unitary State with an effective system of central governance with delegated responsibilities and powers to the regions. The Assembly strongly objects to any notion of a federalisation of Ukraine, as this would substantially weaken the unity and stability of the country.”

      If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 44, 14, 6, 42 and 11 fall.

      I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 27.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – We propose deleting the line that refers to federalisation. You cannot just discard any model for resolving the situation, including federalisation of Ukraine, and especially you cannot talk about federalisation leading to the weakening of the State. Look at how many federal States there are in Europe. Are they all so weak? Why should we rule out this model as unsuitable for Ukraine from the outset?

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

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – There is now a commission in the Ukrainian Parliament working on a new constitution. We think that the First Reading will go through before the presidential elections. This is being developed by our experts and by the Ukrainian Parliament and not being dictated from the Kremlin, so we call for the amendment to be rejected.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 27 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 41, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Kox, Ms Burykina, Ms Nikolaeva, Ms Kazakova, Ms Borzova, Ms Goryacheva and Mr Timchenko, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, fourth sentence, delete the word "unitary".

      I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 41.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – I propose that we discuss the substance of the issue. The previous speaker spoke emotionally, but I do not work for the Kremlin, so perhaps we can discuss the substance and context of these amendments. This amendment is similar to the previous one; you cannot just dismiss the federal model and say that it will weaken the State. Is Germany a weak State? Is the Russian Federation a weak State? Let us try to be balanced in our approach. Therefore I suggest that we delete the word “unitary”.

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

      Mr A. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine) – We should respect the existing Ukrainian constitution. It will be appreciated in Ukraine. Federalisation is widely used these days to question the territorial integrity of Ukraine – an assumption that the Russian Government uses to blackmail the new Ukrainian administration. Therefore, I am against the amendment.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 41 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Mr Shevchenko, Mr Popescu, Ms Gerashchenko, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Taktakishvili and Ms Bokuchava, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, fourth sentence, replace the words “to the regions” with the following words: “to the local communities”.

      I call Mr Shevchenko to support Amendment 14.

      Mr O. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine) – The Government of Ukraine has worked out a concept for the development of self-governing bodies. It envisages providing the self-governing bodies with broad powers that will be brought into the constitution of Ukraine. Therefore, I ask you to support this amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – An oral sub-amendment has been forwarded by the co-rapporteurs on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, as follows:

      In Amendment 14, after “with delegated responsibilities and powers”, replace “to the regions” with “to the local and regional communities”.

      I consider this sub-amendment to be admissible under our rules, but it cannot be taken into account if more than 10 members object to it.

      That is not the case.

      I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin to move the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – We think that it is important to have both local communities and regions in this paragraph. That is why we do not want to take away “regions” but instead to add “local communities” so that they are both in.

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

      The author of the amendment is obviously in favour.

      Mr O. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine) – I am in favour.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – We are in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We come back to Amendment 14. Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 14, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – We are in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 14, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Jónasson and Mr Petrenco, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, delete the last sentence, and Amendment 42, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Kox, Ms Burykina, Ms Nikolaeva, Ms Kazakova, Ms Borzova, Ms Goryacheva and Mr Timchenko, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, delete the last sentence.

      The amendments are largely identical. Amendment 6 was tabled first, so I call the mover of that amendment, Mr Kox, to move both Amendment 6 and Amendment 42.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I am from the Netherlands, which is a decentralised, unitary State. That was our decision; it was left up to us. I would like us to leave the decision on how the Ukrainian State should be organised to the Ukrainians. It is not up to us to tell them what to do. Therefore I propose that we delete the sentence.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendments? I call Mr Popescu.

      Mr POPESCU (Ukraine)* – The point is that, according to the constitution, Ukraine is a unitary State. If we are to ensure decentralisation and the devolution of power to the regions, the standards of the Council of Europe and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities are valid, and it can be done only in the context of a unitary State. That is our position.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendments 6 and 42 are rejected.

      We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Ms Čigāne, Mr Bērzinš, Mr Dombrava, Ms Lībiņa-Egnere, Mr Kandelaki and Mr Ghiletchi, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, last sentence, after the word “Ukraine”, insert the following words: “and any outside pressures to pursue federalisation in future”.

      I call on Ms Čigāne to support Amendment 11.

      Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – We tabled this amendment for precisely the reasons that you have heard in this Assembly. Any discussion of the federalisation of Ukraine should happen with no outside pressure. No pressure should be applied, so please support the amendment.

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

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – Distinguished colleagues, the amendment is already evidence of external pressure. The question of federalisation should not be resolved by us in the Assembly – or will the constitution of Ukraine be written in Washington? It must be decided by Ukraine after free elections.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the view of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 11 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Ms Čigāne, Ms Lībiņa-Egnere, Mr Dombrava, Mr Bērzinš, Mr Kandelaki and Mr Ghiletchi, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 9, add the following sentence: “The Assembly calls upon the media, in particular that of the Russian Federation, to report on the events in Ukraine in an impartial and objective manner so as to promote and foster de-escalation.”

      I call Ms Čigāne to support Amendment 12.

      Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – This amendment confirms that there has been a remarkable propaganda campaign against Ukraine in the media of the Russian Federation. However, we agree with the committee that the amendment should have been tabled to apply to paragraph 13 rather than paragraph 9.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anybody wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin.

      Ms de POURBEX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – As Ms Čigāne said, this amendment concerns paragraph 13. It deals with the media, which are dealt with not in paragraph 9 but in paragraph 13. The argument has already been made.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the view of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 12 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 28, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Ms Kazakova, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 10.

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 28.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – We want to delete paragraph 10 because it refers to the need for urgent judicial reforms, but such reforms should not be done in haste. Given the situation in Ukraine now, they could even have very adverse consequences.

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

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – The Venice Commission demands this reform in Ukraine. We have started the reform. We have voted for the laws. The paragraph must remain in the report because it is in accordance with the Venice Commission’s decision and its recommendations.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (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 Petrenco, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Kazakova, Mr Shlegel, Mr Morozov and Mr Aligrudić, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, delete the second sentence.

      I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 29.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – In my opinion, it would be the height of cynicism to state that there is no threat to the enjoyment of minority rights in Ukraine. The fact that tens of thousands of Ukrainians have gone on to the streets to demand their rights is evidence that there is a real problem. We are talking about not just the rights of Russian speakers, but those of Moldovans, Hungarians and Romanians and so on. Repealing the law on languages has affected all those national minorities. So please let us delete the second sentence.

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

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – What we have just heard has nothing in common with reality. The language legislation adopted by Mr Kivalov and Mr Kolesnichenko is still in force, and pro-Russian Members of Parliament want to change the Ukraine into Crimea. It is only propaganda to say that something has happened to the national minorities in Ukraine. The legislation is still in force and is defended according to international law.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 29 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Jónasson and Mr Petrenco, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, last sentence, delete the following words: “, even if this decision was never enacted or implemented”.

      I call Mr Kox to support Amendment 7.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – During the fact-finding mission of the Presidential Committee and the co-rapporteurs, we learned that the cancellation of the law on the State language led to fear and anger in Ukrainian society and to the disapproval of the international community. It is an excuse to say that the law was not yet functioning. We should state the facts as they are: the cancellation led to anger in the society and the international community.

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

      Mr A. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine) – If we remove these words, the paragraph will be extremely misleading. As a matter of fact, no decisions on languages have been enacted or implemented by the new Administration. Moreover, this specific law has been in force for the past two years, and the constitution of Ukraine specifically refers to special rights for the Russian language. I am against the amendment.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 30, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Ms Kazakova, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 12.

      If this amendment is agreed, Amendments 18, 19 and 47 fall.

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 30.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – The document contains a lot of untruths, and this is something else that completely does not correspond with reality. I question the data. I wonder where this information has come from and why is there no information about similar problems in other parts of Ukraine. So we propose the deletion of this paragraph.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin.

      Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – This proposal comes from the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and from various non-governmental organisations, such as HumanRights Watch, so the paragraph should remain.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 30 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 18, tabled by Mr Morozov, Mr Fetisov, Mr Umakhanov, Mr Tarlo and Mr Chernyshenko, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 12 with the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly expresses its gratitude to the State Council of Crimea (the Russian Federation) for the adoption on 11 March 2014 of a historic statement ‘On guarantees for restoration of the rights of the Crimean Tatars and their integration into the Crimean community’ which reflects the achievement of the Crimean Tatar national movement major goals they have been unsuccessfully striving for during the past 23 years in Ukraine”.If

      If this amendment is agreed, Amendments 19 and 47 fall.

      I call Mr Morozov to support Amendment 18.

      Mr MOROZOV (Russian Federation)*– Paragraph 12 contains complete disinformation on what has actually happened to the Crimean Tatar minority. I have just come from Crimea, and the State has adopted a statement of historic importance that guarantees the restoration of the rights of the Crimean Tatar people. As result, they have now received offices in the government, including first deputy prime minister, and the Crimean Tatar language has become a State language for the first time in 235 years – something for which the Crimean Tatars have been fighting for the past 23 years in Ukraine.

      The PRESIDENT* – I am sorry; your speaking time is up, and we know the text of the amendment.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Reshat Ametov, a Crimean Tatar, was tortured to death by the so-called unidentified troops, but we know that they were Russian soldiers. We have thousands of Crimean Tatar refugees who left their motherland in Crimea and moved to the western, central and eastern parts of Ukraine. We should keep the paragraph.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 18 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 19, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Jónasson and Ms Strik, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, replace the first two sentences with the following sentence:

      “The Assembly is worried about the situation of all Crimean citizens, especially the Tatar and ethnic Ukrainian minorities”.I

      I call Mr Kox to support Amendment 19.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – There are good reasons to worry about the situation of all Crimean citizens in the annexed territory, especially that of the Tatar and ethnic Ukrainian minorities. It is good that we call on the OSCE to observe the situation. The draft resolution also mentions an increasing number of credible reports of violations. Those reports have not been presented to the Assembly. I will study them carefully if I get them; but we should stick to the facts, and if we adopt my amendment, they will be dealt with properly.

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

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – To study these facts the Russian occupants would need to leave the territory and allow international organisations to have access to the territory. We know that the OSCE has not been given access. We are categorically against the amendment because of the genuine human rights violations, even killings, of minorities, including Crimean Tatars and servicemen of the Ukrainian armed forces.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 19 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 47, tabled by Mr Dişli, Mr Denemeç, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Türkeş, Mr Selvi and Mr Baykal, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, after the second sentence, insert the following words:

      “The report of the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, following its visit to Ukraine on 21-26 March 2014, points out that persons belonging to the Crimean Tatar Turks are exposed to particular risk in Crimea. There is a growing fear and uncertainty among Crimean Tatars, who have been subjected to sufferings from deportations in history. The concerns regarding their safety and access to rights, including the enjoyment of cultural, education, language and property rights, have to be duly addressed.”I

      I call Mr Dişli to support Amendment 47.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – The amendment is self-explanatory. In order to give an accurate picture of the current situation in the region, the risks faced by the Crimean Tatars, which are also highlighted by the Advisory Committee in its report, should be duly reflected in the resolution.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 47 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Jónasson and Mr Petrenco, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 13 with the following paragraph:

      “Freedom of media and freedom of expression are vital to the development of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Ukraine. The Assembly calls on the authorities to guarantee these freedoms.”If

      If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 31, 32 and 33 fall.

      I call Mr Kox to support Amendment 8.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – In times of crisis, freedom of media and freedom of expression are vital to the development of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Ukraine is in a crisis, and therefore the freedom of media and of expression are most important. The amendment calls on the authorities to guarantee those freedoms, in line with almost everything that we always say about the freedom of the media.

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

      I call Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – In Ukraine there are no limitations on freedom of speech or freedom of media. We have only to secure our information and our areas from the propaganda of separatism, hate and war. There is only one limitation, which is in accordance with the principles of the Council of Europe.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 31, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Kazakova, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, first sentence, delete the words “and unsubstantiated”.

      I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 31.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – To be honest, I do not know whether it is possible to improve the content of paragraph 13, but in any event we propose to delete the words “and unsubstantiated” in the report. Evidence of the violation of minority rights in Ukraine comes from various public organisations, including international ones. To say that that is unproven or unsubstantiated is not at all objective.

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

      I call Ms GERASHCHENKO.

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – If we are talking about facts, of the 15 newspapers in Ukraine, 14 come out in Russian, Ukrainian news on television is in Russian, and the most popular theatre in Ukraine is a Russian-speaking theatre. If representatives of the State Duma were to go to the theatre instead of visiting the separatists, they would see that there is no problem with national minorities and no problem with Russian language. We are categorically against any amendment that is not objective in reality.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 31 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 32, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Ms Kazakova, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, replace the last sentence with the following sentence:

      “The authorities should immediately take measures to establish inter-ethnic dialogue”.I

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 32.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – If we are talking about paragraph 13, then indeed it needs to be changed although it is difficult to do so. None the less, the words referring to inter-ethnic relations stand for themselves; there are objective facts and there is objective evidence of this, in spite of the one-sided way in which the international media are covering the issue. We are trying to improve this paragraph by adding that “authorities should immediately take measures to establish inter-ethnic dialogue”. I think that is somewhat better than talking about censorship of the media.

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

      I call Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – We in Ukraine have many problems but not with ethnic relations. Our government includes people who were born in the eastern part of Ukraine and Jewish people. The governor of one big industrial region is one of the leaders of the European Jewish Congress. We do not have a problem with ethnic relations because there is peace between different ethnic groups. We have problems with our neighbours who constantly try to explode the situation in Ukraine. That is the problem.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 32 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 33, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Kazakova, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 13, add the following sentence:

      “We call upon the authorities in Ukraine to reconsider the decision to stop the broadcasting of some of the most popular TV channels in the country and to refrain from any censorship of the media.”I

      I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 33.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – Distinguished colleagues, in my opinion we will all agree that freedom of speech and of the media are values that we all support and champion in all areas, and the amendment calls on the Ukrainian authorities to reconsider the decision to stop broadcasting television channels, and to refrain from any censorship of the mass media. We count on the Assembly’s support.

      The PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that the rapporteurs wish to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, which is, in Amendment 33, delete “of the most popular”.

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

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

      I therefore call Ms Reps to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The oral sub amendment would delete the words “of the most popular”. We are not having a popularity show with the media channels, and there are not really any possible reports to say which channels are more or less popular. We should delete those words.

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

      I call Ms Gerashchenko.

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – The Ukrainian delegation is categorically against the oral sub-amendment because we have freedom of speech in Ukraine and we, and other countries, need to defend it against terrible Russian propaganda. Two candidates for the presidency, Tymoshenko and Poroshenko, are of Jewish extraction, and we are now seeing anti-Semitic propaganda being spoken about, whereas we need to protect our population against those allegations. We are categorically against the oral sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 33, as amended?

      I call Mr Shevchenko.

      Mr A. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine) – There was nothing wrong with the sub-amendment, but it strongly encouraged us to vote against the amendment in general. In reality, plenty of Russian channels broadcast in Ukraine, and if you go to a typical Ukrainian household and turn on the TV, it will most likely be either a Russian channel or a Russian programme you see. Ukraine stopped broadcasting several State-run Russian channels that are notorious for propaganda. That is a very limited amount of channels, and it was a clear reaction to the propaganda against the Ukrainian State.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 33, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 39, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Chernyshenko, Ms Nikolaeva, Ms Kazakova, Mr Makhmutov and Mr Sidyakin, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 13, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly strongly condemns the actions of the Ukrainian party “Svoboda” within the Verkhovna Rada as well as on the territory of all the regions of Ukraine. The Assembly recalls the resolution of the European Parliament of 13 December 2012 which says that racist, anti-semitic and xenophobic views go against the EU’s fundamental values and principles and therefore appeals to pro-democratic parties in the Verkhovna Rada not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party, the activity of which, as well as the one of the “Right Sector” organisation, is openly fascist.”I

      I call Mr Pushkov on a point of order.

      Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – May I call on some of our Ukrainian colleagues to behave? We are not resorting to any kinds of curses against any members of the Assembly or against the politics in Ukraine. This lady here was banging on the floor constantly, and now she is accusing Russia of anti-Semitism and all that nonsense. Madam President, I would like you to settle the issue of whether we are allowed to say whatever comes to mind.

      The PRESIDENT* – I remind you that the debate should proceed in an atmosphere of calm and mutual respect. I appeal to all members of the Assembly in that regard, as I did prior to the debate. I remind you of what I said earlier.

      We are considering Amendment 39. Do you wish to move the amendment, Mr Pushkov?

      Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation)* – We have already heard that there are no problems in Ukraine. I congratulate my Ukrainian colleagues on that, but in fact there is at least one problem. On 13 December 2012 the European Parliament found that the Svoboda Party was an anti-Semitic, xenophobic and racist party. We think the Assembly should point the finger at that party and at Right Sector. If colleagues wish to stand with those parties, they have only to reject my amendment.

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

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – Mr Pushkov, if you are going to say that Ms Geraschenko was not right to talk about anti-Semitism in the Russian Federation, why are you allowed to put forward similar ideas in your amendment? The amendment is not correct because Right Sector was not a party two years ago. It is factually incorrect. Secondly, our government is a coalition and we have representatives from all nations. There is no problem in this area in Ukraine.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 39 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 34, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Ms Kazakova, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 14.

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 34.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I congratulate the Assembly on supporting Right Sector – in a year and a half or so we will be ashamed of that decision, but that is not the point now.

      The PRESIDENT* – Excuse me; I would appeal to you to respect the vote and to refrain from making any comments once a vote has been carried or rejected. I now give you the floor to move Amendment 34.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – Thank you, Madam President. Paragraph 14 refers to regret about “democratic changes and political developments in Ukraine” and the events in Crimea being a result. That is not objectively true. We cannot regret the democratic changes and political developments leading to the events in Crimea. There are countries in the West and in the Council of Europe that have supported that process practically and brought it about. We cannot support the paragraph, which is why we call for its deletion.

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

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – We understand why the Russian delegation proposes to delete the paragraph. It condemns Russian military aggression in Crimea. Pull your troops out of Crimea, then we can change the paragraph.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 34 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Ms Čigāne, Mr Bērzinš, Mr Dombrava, Ms Lībiņa-Egnere, Mr Kandelaki and Mr Ghiletchi, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14, replace the word “overshadowed” with the following word: “harmed”, and after the word “condemns”, insert the following words: “the authorization of the Russian Federation parliament to use military force in Ukraine,”.

      I call Ms Čigāne to support Amendment 13.

      Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – We believe that we should mention the fact that the Russian Parliament voted unanimously to authorise the use of force in Ukraine on 1 March. The amendment includes that. We support the oral sub-amendment tabled by the rapporteurs.

      The PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that the rapporteurs wish to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, as follows:        “Not to delete the word ‘overshadowed’.”In

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

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

      I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – We want to keep the word “overshadowed”.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 13, as amended? I call Mr Shlegel.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – In response to our opponents we would say that there has been no annexation. There was a free referendum. Whether or not you like that or wish to believe it, I can tell you, because I was there. I attended, and it was the most free and democratic referendum we have seen on earth. As for talking about troops, our troops have been there for a very long time. We have military bases there. If we look at the facts, there was no aggression and we did not introduce a military contingent from outside.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 13, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Jónasson and Mr Petrenco, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 15, and Amendment 43, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Kox, Ms Burykina, Ms Kazakova, Ms Nikolaeva, Ms Borzova, Ms Goryacheva and Mr Timchenko, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 15.

      Amendments 9 and 43 are identical. As Amendment 9 was tabled first, I call the mover of that amendment, Mr Kox, to support the amendments.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is a clear breach of international law, according to the vast majority of the General Assembly of the United Nations, almost all member States of the Council of Europe, our Committee of Ministers, the President in a statement, and the vast majority of those in my political group. I am not interested in any argument from the Russian side as to why they did what they did; they should not have done it, because they breached international law. We should not open up the discussion and invite the Russians to bring forward better arguments; there are no arguments for illegal annexation.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendments 9 and 43 are rejected.

      We come to Amendment 35, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Ms Kazakova, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 16.

      If the amendment is agreed to, Amendments 20, 16, 44 and 46 fall. I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 35.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I propose that paragraph 16 be deleted, because it says that the results of the referendum were implausible. As I have said, I attended that referendum as an observer, and I have never seen people so quick to go into the voting booths as soon as the polls were open. These were genuinely free elections, certainly compared with others.

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

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – Anybody who reads the constitutions of Crimea and Ukraine can attest that this was an unconstitutional referendum under both those constitutions. It was also a violation of international law, so I am against the amendment.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 35 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 20, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Jónasson and Mr Petrenco, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 16, delete the second sentence.

      I call Mr Kox to support Amendment 20.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Asked for its opinion, the Venice Commission informed us that the referendum in Crimea was a breach of Ukrainian law. I am not interested in the way in which the referendum took place; even if it was the best referendum ever, it remains illegal. We need no evaluation of the referendum; the only thing that matters is the fact that it was illegal – it was a breach of Ukrainian law. I cannot find any arguments against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin.

       Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – The amendment would remove the second sentence of paragraph 16 of the draft resolution. If members read paragraph 82 of our report, they will see that the turnout could never have been 82%, and 96% of votes could not have been in favour, because we know that 36% boycotted the elections, so those figures are not possible. If members read paragraph 82, they will find all the figures that explain why we wrote paragraph 16 in the way that we did.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 20 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 16, tabled by Mr Shevchenko, Ms Gerashchenko, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Taktakishvili and Ms Bokuchava, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 16, insert the following sentence:

      “In connection with the denunciation by the Russian Federation of the agreements, concluded with Ukraine in 1997, on the Black Sea Fleet deployment in the Crimea, the Assembly calls on Russia immediately to withdraw its troops from the Crimea.”I

      I call Mr Shevchenko to support Amendment 16.

      Mr O. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine) – Russian Deputies have denounced the 1997 agreement on the deployment of the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, as well as the so-called Kharkiv agreements. In the view of those agreements, the Russian Federation has no legal grounds for the deployment of the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, so the Assembly should call on the Russian Federation to pull back its troops from Crimea.

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

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – We can see how far the Assembly would be from reality if it adopted the amendment, because the Russian fleet is based in Crimea. We cannot withdraw troops, as they were already there.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 16 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 44, tabled by Ms Gerashchenko, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Bokuchava, Mr Popescu and Mr Sakovskis, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 16, add the following sentence:

      “Therefore it calls upon member States to facilitate redress for the injuries sustained by Ukraine due to the unlawful annexation of Crimea through effective cooperation with the Ukrainian authorities on the investigation of the circumstances of human rights violations which occurred on the territory of the Crimean peninsula and a speedy response to their requests, as well as through mutual recognition of the courts' decisions.”Th

      The amendment is identical to Amendment 46, tabled by Mr Zingeris, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Berdzenishvili, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Ghiletchi and Mr Jakavonis.        As Amendment 44 was tabled first, I call the mover of that amendment, Ms Gerashchenko, to support the amendments.

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – As a result of its annexation, Crimea has suffered not only territorial loss but massive financial loss. Military property and oil and gas from the Black Sea have been seized. Of course, Ukraine will defend its interests through international organisations and in the courts. We appeal to the Parliamentary Assembly to support the amendment, which refers to our request for help in securing compensation, through the appropriate judicial means, in the international courts.

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

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – What the amendments say is not true. We should look at compensation for the stupid actions of western States – primarily the United States, but also countries in the Council of Europe – with regard to Ukraine. Unfortunately, what has happened in Ukraine is the result of mistakes made by western politicians who have crudely and wantonly intervened in the internal affairs of a sovereign State.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendments 44 and 46 are rejected.

      We come to Amendment 36, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Ms Kazakova, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 17.

      If the amendment is adopted, Amendment 21 falls. I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 36.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – In paragraph 17, the Assembly expresses great concern about the build-up of large numbers of military troops on the border with Ukraine. There is nothing to be worried about. How we deploy armed forces on our territory is a matter for us.

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

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – There are about 100 000 military troops concentrated on Ukraine’s border, and they are not on a holiday walk, so we have to keep the paragraph in.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 36 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 21, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Petrenco and Ms Strik, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17, to delete the words “, which could be an indication that the Russian Federation is considering futher unprovoked military agression against Ukraine, which is unacceptable”.

      I call Mr Kox to support Amendment 21.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – The build-up of Russian military forces near the Ukrainian border is a fact and gives cause for great concern. We do not know the Russians’ intentions. They do not tell me and they do not tell us, which would perhaps be better. We should not speculate, but we should stress that we are deeply concerned by the facts.

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

      Mr BOROWSKI (Poland) – We should discuss the intentions, because we must bear it in mind that the Duma passed a law allowing the Russian President to intervene militarily in neighbour countries, which resembles the Brezhnev doctrine and is a major problem.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 21 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 37, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Ms Kazakova, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel and Mr Morozov, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 18.

      If Amendment 37 is agreed, Amendment 10 falls.

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 37.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I ask colleagues to think seriously before voting on the amendment, because paragraph 18 is conducive not to peace but to instability, which affects all countries of the Council of Europe. If it is a choice between war and peace, I suggest that the Assembly does not support paragraph 18, because it could have the most serious of consequences.

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

      Mr O. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine) – Paragraph 18 is important because it identifies Russian military activity as a major source of escalation not only for Ukraine, but for Georgia, for Moldova and for the whole of eastern Europe and Europe in general. Russian military activity, together with the Russian Parliament’s decision to allow the sending of troops and Russia’s unhelpful style of leadership, is a major threat to the region.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 37 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Jónasson and Mr Petrenco, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 18, first sentence, to delete the words “by further Russian military aggression against Ukraine”.

      I call Mr Kox to support Amendment 10.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – As I said earlier, foreign intervention in Ukraine is hindering the country. We should stop intervention by the Russian Federation first and foremost, but also by the European Union, the United States and NATO. I propose to clarify what we mean by not pointing at only one of them.

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

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – This paragraph refers to only one of them and recommends against the use of weapons in favour of negotiations. We must not support the amendment. The words must be in the report.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 10 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13482, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13482, as amended, is adopted, with 154 votes for, 26 against and 14 abstentions.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      I have an important announcement concerning our debates tomorrow. Following the late delivery of amendments to tomorrow’s report on the credentials of the Russian delegation, the deadline for submitting sub-amendments has been extended until 9 p.m. tonight.

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

3. Access to nationality and the effective implementation of the

European Convention on Nationality

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “Access to nationality and the effective implementation of the European Convention on Nationality” ,Document 13392 and corrigendum, presented by Mr Boriss Cilevičs on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, with an opinion presented by Mr Rafael Huseynov on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 13438.

      I remind you that we have already agreed that in order to finish by 8.00 p.m., we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.35 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – My report focuses on several issues related to the ability to access nationality: the right to nationality, the promotion of the European Convention on Nationality and the need to combat statelessness and facilitate long-term residents’ access to nationality. The right to nationality is often defined as the right to have rights. Although several international legal instruments recognise the right to nationality as a human right, the European Convention on Human Rights is silent on that issue. The European Convention on Nationality, which was opened for signature in 1997, was intended to fill that gap. It recognises the right to nationality and regulates nationality at an international level for the first time. Regrettably, the instrument has been ratified by only 20 member States of the Council of Europe. Moreover, nationality matters that used to be a priority for the Council of Europe have not appeared on its agenda since the end of 2008, when the activities of the Group of Specialists on Nationality ceased.

      The European Convention on Nationality contains safeguards against statelessness, which remains an issue of concern in Europe. Given the scale of the problem, a hearing on the need to eradicate statelessness was held today in our Assembly, in co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It was organised on the 60th anniversary of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

      Statelessness is an extremely widespread problem. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are 12 million stateless people worldwide and nearly 700,000 in Europe, particularly in Latvia, the Russian Federation, Estonia and Ukraine. The scale of statelessness was caused mainly by the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, but other causes include gaps in nationality laws that allow for statelessness at birth or upon loss or deprivation, and discriminatory nationality laws or practices. Stateless people often remain in legal limbo. They are deprived of political rights and often lack access to healthcare and education.

      The main legal instruments for preventing and combating statelessness – the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of 1954 and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 1961 – have not yet been ratified by all Council of Europe member states. Many children are born stateless because they inherit statelessness from their parents. Some even lack birth registration because their parents could not meet documentary requirements or were unaware of its importance.

      We should also think about long-term residents who do not have the nationality of their host country. Impediments to their acquiring nationality often prevent them from fully integrating with their society and sometimes prevent their descendants from acquiring the nationality of the country in which they were born. In my report, I noted some discriminatory practices and regressive trends. Many States have strict requirements for acquiring their nationality, such as linguistic or civic knowledge tests.

      In view of those problems, the draft resolution contains some concrete proposals. National parliaments should adopt legislation to allow stateless people to acquire citizenship without undue obstacles. Children must be unconditionally prevented from being made stateless at birth. Laws should allow citizenship to be granted to long-term residents without discrimination. The Committee of Ministers should re-establish an expert committee on nationality and take further steps to promote accession to the European Convention on Nationality.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Cilevičs. You have nine minutes and 13 seconds remaining.

      I call Mr Huseynov, Rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, to present the committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons welcomes Mr Cilevičs’s report. We are concerned that only a small number of countries have signed the European Convention on Nationality. Indeed, the number of signatory countries should have been so high that we did not have to investigate why other countries did not sign. Naturalisation is a problem for all member States. It causes hardships that are a source of psychological tension for millions of human beings. Clearly, the countries that have not signed the convention have arguments for not doing so based on the political, economic and social situation of their societies, but signing is logical. It is not only older and middle-aged people who face deprivation, but babies, children and generations not yet born.

      It is a pity that the number of people without nationality is so high in Council of Europe member States; it is a serious problem. The problem is caused by several things, including voluntary or forced migration. Borders are more open than they were 20 or 30 years ago, which has considerably intensified the problem. People move from one country to another and live without nationality. Children who are born without nationality face numerous problems at a young age. Inequality is generated by the fact that people who enjoy all the rights guaranteed by the State co-exist with those without nationality, who enjoy limited rights.

      After the Second World War, my country, Azerbaijan, was flooded by thousands of emigrants from its neighbour to the south, Iran. We share the same ethnicity, but not the same nationality. Those people have lived for nearly for half a century without getting official nationality. When they leave the world they have political refugee status, but not nationality. It is true that they lived in fairly normal conditions, in accordance with the ideological requirements of that time, but their lack of official nationality resulted in certain discomforts. The children who were born in Azerbaijan had the right to nationality.

      Those were the realities of the 50s, 60s and 70s in the previous century. Now in the 21st century, irrespective of all our efforts to build a more compact world, dozens of hundreds of human beings are suffering from similar problems in the common European house. They are even more concerned than people were previously. But the opposite should be the case. Today, many children born in a family of migrants without nationality have to share the same destiny as their parents, encountering obstacles to meeting their most necessary requirements. We should take concrete measures to solve the problems that we have discussed.

      The PRESIDENT – The good news is that I have just learnt that, thanks to the generosity of our interpreters, we will have 10 minutes more for debate. I must interrupt the list of speakers at 7.45. I ask all speakers to be as brief as possible so that as many people as possible can participate.

      I call Mr Makhmutov, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation)* – Statelessness in the context of modern civilisation is a manifestation of terrible injustice and a crude violation of human rights. People live in their own country without the chance to work or study and they lose all their faculties as a result. That is completely unacceptable in the 21st century, especially in Baltic countries such as Latvia and Estonia.

      In Latvia, some 300 000 people, 14% of the population, are Russian speakers. They were born in that country, have trained there and stayed there after the creation of the independent State. The Committee of Ministers has called on Latvia to implement the convention on national minorities and expressed concern about the fact that many people were excluded from the protections in the convention; they were excluded from involvement in public life, including local elections.

      In the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, two reservations were entered, under which minorities in certain locations should not be allowed to use their national language. Latvia’s declaration is explained by the fact that those people are not subject to the convention. So thousands of people, mostly Russians, living in the larger cities of Latvia, including Riga, are deprived of their rights.

      Last year, the State Department of the United States referred to the situation in Latvia in 2008. It said that recommendations were made to Latvia to speed up the process of naturalisation, to allow people to take part in local elections and to give children citizenship. There were also recommendations on the ombudsman.

      The universal periodic review by the United Nations Human Rights Council, which looked at Latvia, also considered the issue. It made many recommendations, particularly with respect to unacceptable large scale statelessness, discrimination against national minorities and the encroachment on rights to have education in the minority language and to be protected against racism. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance referred in its 2011 fourth report on Latvia to the failure to implement that country’s obligations. Many of these States are saying that these are not indigenous people, but this is simply a crude deprivation of their rights.

      The PRESIDENT* – I now call Ms Guţu, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – I thank the rapporteur for drawing our attention to the need to respect one of the most fundamental rights we have: the right to nationality. In the report, we see that civic identity and nationality are essentially identical. There are two approaches: the French and the German. According to the French doctrine, nationality would include civic identity, whereas the German approach draws a distinction between civic identity and cultural national identity.

      I draw your attention to the situation in post-Soviet countries, including Moldova. Post-Soviet countries have been marked by the civic identity approach. We all have a civic identity. We are citizens of the Republic of Moldova. However, we have seen political speculation proliferate and the national cultural aspect has been emphasised. However, no one would say that you are necessarily first and foremost Moldovan, rather than Russian or Bulgarian. Under international law, we will see changes in the definition of civic identity and national cultural identity. The OSCE intervened in Crimea to defend the rights of the Russian-speaking minority. Therefore, we wonder: what is the real identity of people living in Crimea? What about people in eastern Ukraine flying the Russian flag? Some of them have been granted nationality. They have Ukrainian citizenship but claim the nationality and citizenship of another country.

      The same applies to the Republic of Moldova because we have the secessionist region of Transnistria. The same applies to the south of the country, which have other minorities. But we have been very generous in giving civic identities to all representatives of national minorities, including those who are not culturally integrated. It is highly regrettable that that gesture has not been properly appreciated. Representatives of the Russian-speaking and Russophile minorities are giving precedence to countries such as Russia. I am talking in particular about representatives of national minorities in post-Soviet countries. They have certain reactions to a pro-European foreign policy.

      It goes without saying that we support fully the resolution and recommendation and everything indeed that is said in the report, as we believe that it is perfectly in keeping with the spirit of human rights, as well as the right to a civic identity. The report includes many references to Council of Europe texts and Assembly resolutions.

      The PRESIDENT* – I now call Mr Le Borgn', who will speak on behalf of the Socialist group.

      Mr LE BORGN' (France)* – I pay tribute to the remarkable work that Mr Cilevičs has done on access to nationality. Nationality is a right and no one should be deprived of it. The history of Europe is that of successive waves of migration that have either succeeded or come up against difficulties, according to the degree that the host society has integrated them. Access to nationality is essential to that success because it is only nationality that can confer equality in terms of the rights and obligations to which aliens aspire in the host country. But often that access has been made dependent on conditions as futile as they are discouraging. Often it is made subject discretionary assessments, a thinly veiled disguise of unacceptable discrimination.

      Let us look at the number of stateless persons. There are some 700 000 in Europe. The disappearance of the Soviet Union, the breakdown of Yugoslavia and the dissolution of Czechoslovakia explain the numbers. I am thinking of the Russian-speaking communities in Estonia and Latvia and the Roma in countries in central Europe. Without nationality and identity papers, can you have equal access to education, health, employment and housing? No, unfortunately you cannot. Statelessness condemns people to live on the margins of society. That marginal situation also affects the children of stateless persons. They are deprived in a sense of their youth, so what can be done?

      We need a campaign to ensure that more countries sign, ratify and implement the 1997 Council of Europe convention. There have been 20 ratifications to date, out of 47 member States. That is far too few. That text includes important elements that enable us to fight against statelessness. The proposals include automatic acquisition of the nationality of the country of residence by stateless children who are born there and making it easier for parents to acquire nationality.

      Let me turn to issue of multiple nationality. Fortunately, the Council of Europe convention of 1963, which sought to reduce cases of multiple nationality, has become more or less obsolete and six of the 13 signatory States have denounced it. Multiple nationality, whether through birth or naturalisation, is not a danger; it reflects personal history. It reflects movements between peoples and is an opportunity there for the taking. Living in a country for years and loving it to the extent that you want to become a citizen is in no way to turn your back on your country of origin. On the contrary, it is a way of joining in and embodying the European promise.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Pakosta to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms PAKOSTA (Estonia) – The question of guaranteeing human rights to refugees and giving stateless people a fair legal procedure to apply for citizenship in the countries of the Council of Europe is very important. Besides guaranteeing civil rights, it should be a question of stabilising internal and external security.

      First, we can clearly see nowadays that citizenship and statelessness issues have become a new kind of weapon for States with neo-imperial aspirations. We have seen what the delivery of Russian passports in Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Crimea has brought about in recent years. So-called passportisation has been used and misused as a casus belli – as a reason for invasion. We are not talking about refugees in these cases; we are talking about fabricated citizens who have little or no connection to Russia, other than visa facilitation and economic benefits. I am slightly disappointed that, despite at least two motions being tabled in the recent past, the Assembly has not taken up the issue of passportisation in order to give a legal opinion once and for all on the matter. I sincerely hope that the Bureau of the Assembly will take up this important issue should a new motion for a resolution be drafted.

      Secondly, mentioning just some countries in this report is absolutely unjustified and even dangerous, especially in the light of the current tensions, which we have been discussing all afternoon. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to whom the report refers as a source, has stressed that only a minority of countries have procedures in place for the identification, registration and documentation of stateless people, and Estonia and Latvia are among them. For example, the number of people with undetermined citizenship has decreased considerably in Estonia, from 32% in 1992 to 6.5% in 2014, and among younger generations the rate is marginal. All persons of undetermined citizenship have travel documents and residency permits, all rights to equal treatment and access to social services and education, as well as the right to vote in local elections. Children born in Estonia get citizenship, if their parents are not against it.

      However, you should also be aware that many so-called non-citizens do not want to obtain any citizenship because they actually benefit from their dubious position. All residents in Estonia with undetermined citizenship can travel visa-free to both the EU and Russia, whereas people with Estonian citizenship have to undergo a difficult ordeal to obtain a Russian visa, and their sons do not have to do military service in either Estonia or Russia. These are the details that matter for these people; we cannot force citizenship upon them. Giving citizenship automatically to grown up people, as proposed, is not the solution for stabilising Europe.

      The PRESIDENT – I presume that the rapporteur will respond at the end of the debate, so I call first Mr Frécon.

      Mr FRÉCON (France)* – The right of each individual to a legal link with a State is a crucial part of our human rights protection machinery. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 stipulates that all individuals are entitled to a nationality and no one can be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality or their right to change their nationality, because citizenship – or nationality – is an important right for all individuals. Not only does it confer on individuals a sense of their identity; it also confers on them a number of civil and political rights and the protection of a State. Indeed, citizenship has often been described as the right to have rights. If you are stripped of your citizenship, you are essentially deprived of your belonging to the world.

      I, too, should like to say something about Latvia, which was mentioned by the rapporteur as well as the member of the Russian delegation. It just so happens that in April 2008 I travelled to Latvia on behalf of the Council of Europe to look into the issue of so-called non-citizens – the Latvian people who, having lived in the country for 50 years, working there and raising families, were deemed to be non-citizens. Following independence in 1991, Latvia granted citizenship only to people who were entitled to citizenship before 17 June 1940 and their descendants. Those who did not meet those conditions – and 17% of the population at that time did not – had no entitlement to citizenship and were accordingly deemed to be non-citizens. I gauged for myself just how excluded they were because they did not then have the right to take part in local elections.

      Of course, States did not remain silent in the face of that suffering, but nationality is still a sensitive issue. We have a convention that has been ratified by 20 countries. France, for example, has signed the convention, but has not ratified it, which is a great pity. I very much hope that it now will, because it has passed laws that in practice resemble the provisions of the convention. That is why I support the conclusions drawn in the report, while also emphasising that all member States must be allowed sufficient room for manoeuvre to determine in their legislation the precise conditions for access to their nationality.

      Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – I would to respond to the arguments presented by the previous speaker. This report talks about access to nationality and statelessness, which it defines as lacking a legal bond with the given country. Dear colleagues, Latvia’s non-citizens have a permanent legal bond with the country and enjoy full diplomatic and cultural protection. They are limited in some rights, but they do have a legal bond.

      In that respect, I would like to comment on the report in general. Mr Cilevičs talked at the outset about the different things it focuses on. Because of this, in my opinion it lacks a concrete focus. It mentions statelessness and access to nationality and talks about non-citizens and dual citizenship. These are all different concepts. Also, the draft resolution offers a comment about four countries that are discussed completely differently in the body of the report and the memorandum. For instance, the report mentions Ukraine in the draft resolution, but does not comment on Ukraine at all in the memorandum. The report mentions the Russian Federation as having a large number of stateless people, but mentions only a few different numbers in a footnote. The report does not discuss the case of Russia in depth.

      When it comes to Latvia and Estonia, the report refers to so-called Latvian and Estonian non-citizens as Russian speaking. Dear colleagues, this is a mistake. I just looked up the statistics. Among the so-called non-citizens in Latvia, 70% say that they are of ethnic Russian origin, but 14% say that they are Ukrainians, 10% say that they are Belarusians and 3% say that they are Lithuanians, and we also have some Estonians. We cannot call them Russian speakers.

      The report fails to mention the problem raised by our colleague Ms Pakosta: passportisation. We know that our colleague Mr Slutsky went to Crimea and offered people there Russian passports before the referendum. Why do we not mention these things?

      Unfortunately, the report’s rhetoric reminds me of the rhetoric Mr Slutsky uses when he talks about Russia protecting Russian speakers in neighbouring countries. I ask the Assembly to refer the report back to the committee to discuss it thoroughly so that the serious issue of statelessness can be addressed properly.

      Ms JONICA (Montenegro) – I must first emphasise the fact that the right to a nationality is actually the right to have rights. How important is that right? Many citizens of the former Yugoslavia learned how administrative problems could make their lives hell. In one moment their lives were changed. One day they were citizens of the State in which they lived, and the next day they were not. What happened to them? They had so many troubles looking for a home in the former Yugoslavia, where they used to be citizens. It was often the place where they had lived for one or two years, or perhaps where their father or grandfather had been born.

      Montenegro ratified the European Convention on Nationality but made a reservation on Article 16, which I consider the most relevant to the problems our citizens face. My party, the Socialist People’s Party of Montenegro, opposed that reservation. For years we have advocated solving the problems our citizens have with the rigid law on citizenship. We argued that that law should find solutions to our people’s problems, not create them.

      Following a suggestion from my party in 2011, an amendment providing that was made to the law. Many people acquired Montenegrin citizenship under easier conditions as a result, but the provision had a deadline and did not cover all the categories of people that should have been included. Therefore, a month ago we again proposed amendments that would deal with exactly the same issues highlighted in the report. I hope that the adoption of the resolution by this Parliamentary Assembly will help me convince the representatives of other parties in the Montenegrin Parliament to support our proposal.

      I completely agree that children should be able to have the nationality of both their parents. I have proposed such an initiative in the Montenegrin Parliament, because the current law means that children born outside Montenegro with only one parent who is a citizen can obtain citizenship only by renouncing the citizenship of the other parent. What will we do with people who are a year, or even a day, older than 18? They are children of their parents, but they are not recognised as children by the law and cannot use this right to have both nationalities.

      The resolution’s recommendation on a reduced reasonable period is very important, but what does duration of residence really mean? Montenegrin citizens who came to Montenegro as refugees from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo have a problem with that. If they take the passport or ID card of their home country, in order to have at least one document while waiting for status in Montenegro, Montenegro then considers them to have interrupted their legal residence by taking the documents of their home country.

      I particularly support paragraph 6 of the resolution, which I hope will help me convince the Montenegrin Parliament to do the same. I strongly support the resolution. The rapporteurs have done a great job.

      The PRESIDENT – As Mr Badea is not with us, I call Mr Aleksandrov.

      Mr ALEKSANDROV (Russian Federation)* – The problem of nationalisation requires close attention. There is this appeal to European parliamentarians to ratify the convention. The convention is not at the top of the league when it comes to the number of countries that have ratified it – only 20 of the Council of Europe’s 47 member States have. Russia signed the document in November 1997. However, the question of ratification remains open, as is the case for our colleagues from Italy, France, Greece and a number of other countries. None the less, we feel that this is a serious instrument for influencing States whose citizenship legislation discriminates against non-indigenous populations. Latvia’s signing of the convention in 2001 has not changed its position on citizens of the former Soviet Union who have been deprived of their nationality. There has been no serious pressure on such counties, especially in the Baltic region, from the Council of Europe.

      Moreover, the unacceptable situation facing stateless people in the Baltic States has not been the subject of sufficient attention in European structures. Even in the countries that have ratified the convention there might be fundamental departures from its principles. We note, first and foremost, the principle of non-discrimination, in Article 5 of the convention, according to which legal norms should not discriminate on grounds of gender, religion, race and so on. What else can we call the situation facing Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine other than discrimination, given the current situation? Use of Russian has been prohibited in State authorities and in the broadcast media, and there have been mass threats to so-called disloyal people from defenders of the Maidan. Ukraine’s supreme Rada, after the forced seizure of power in Kiev, adopted a motion to repeal the language law. That not only threatens to violate the legitimate rights of Russians, Poles, Romanians and other people who have traditionally lived in Ukraine; it is the crudest form of moral pressure on the whole population. The decision might not yet have been put into practice, but the mood of the Kiev authorities is obvious.

      I would also like to comment on the concern about the large number of stateless people, including children, in certain States, especially Latvia, the Russian Federation, Estonia and Ukraine. We share the Assembly’s concern about mass statelessness in Latvia. As of 1 January 2014 the number of non-citizens in that country was around 14% of the population.

      The PRESIDENT – There are three more speakers on the list who are present in the Chamber.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Let me start by thanking Mr Cilevičs for his thorough report, in which he highlights all the different aspects of nationality, including statelessness, requirements for naturalisation and multiple nationalities. While analysing these aspects, one bottom line emerges: how important having access to a nationality is for people’s social identity, for full participation in society and civil rights and, last but not least, for the feeling of belonging. That clearly implies that access to a nationality is a core human right that is too precious to leave completely to the sovereignty of a State.

      Many eastern European countries had to adjust their naturalisation procedures to join the Council of Europe, so this Organisation has already influenced access to nationality. It is a bit ironic that many older member States have since increased the thresholds for gaining access to nationality. For instance, the level of language and integration tests has been raised significantly. In addition to skills, historical knowledge, values and even behaviour is being tested. On the one hand we cherish our freedoms and our pluralistic society, but on the other hand we only want certain types of new citizens.

      We have to consider the effects of that, because it has led to a drop in the number of applications for naturalisation. In particular, less educated, illiterate and older migrants, and certain nationalities, either no longer apply for citizenship or fail the tests. That means they remain living in societies but they are excluded from certain rights. That affects their feeling of belonging, because they cannot vote, and their residence remains insecure. That damages the integration of the individuals and society as a whole.

      Another development is that increasing numbers of people have more than one nationality, yet most of them cherish both of them. The notion that multiple nationalities should be resisted does not take reality into account. Why would we force people to choose when they feel attached to two countries? Instead, we should inform citizens better about the consequences of having multiple nationalities, so that they can make a deliberate choice and look at ways to solve potential conflicts.

      My final point concerns the opposite of having multiple nationalities: namely, being stateless. UNHCR organised a splendid conference at which it was revealed that 680 000 people in Europe are stateless. Children in particular are affected severely by this. One expert compared it to growing up with a handicap. We should combat that and make sure that member States comply with treaties.

      Mr MARUSTE (Estonia) – Access to nationality is undoubtedly an important issue. For that reason, it certainly merits being on the agenda of the Parliamentary Assembly. The report prepared by Mr Cilevičs calls this access a “right to a nationality” – a reference to the Council of Europe Convention on Nationality, adopted in 1997 and ratified so far by only 20 member States. This is fewer than half of all member States. As we know, the European Convention on Human rights has 48 signatories.

      However, the European Convention on Human Rights does not prescribe and protect a right such as the “right to a nationality”. According to the Convention, it is left to member States to determine who is a national and under what conditions they become one. This approach has been consistently supported by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

      Nationality – citizenship – is not a legal right in the true sense. It is a privilege given to individuals who fulfil certain conditions. They identify themselves with a particular state, have a bond of loyalty with that State and wish to take the nationality of that particular State.

      Nationality cannot be given against someone’s will. The situation of each and every country is different, as are their policies on nationality. We should not put all States into one basket and measure them with a one-size-fits-all method.

      We consider it inappropriate to name or list States only on the basis of figures. We should look at the roots of the problem; trends of development; what the countries have done so far to engage stateless people; what rights they have granted them; and the true reasons for the slow progress, if such is the case, in particular countries. We support the general aim of this report and the measures it recommends, but we remain reluctant to list and label States solely on the basis of figures.

      The only right that adult stateless people in Estonia do not have is the right to vote in parliamentary elections – and this is not unique in Europe. All stateless people have the same rights as Estonian nationals.

      Finally, I fully agree with the arguments of my colleague Ms Čigāne in respect of so-called “Russian-speaking stateless persons”. The description in the report is incorrect and misleading. The reason that Estonian adults –

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Maruste. You have had three minutes.

      Ms ZIMMERMAN (France)* – In his 1988 report, “Being French Today and Tomorrow”, Marceau Long, President of the Committee on Nationality, defined nationality not only as a legal bond but also and in particular as a political bond between the State and the individual, whereby the individual understands himself or herself to be part of the population that makes up the State. Access to nationality is an important issue both to the States conferring it and to those requesting or requiring it.

      Among such people, women have a particular position. Questions about the nationality of married women, and their changing nationality as a result of marriage, are a recurrent problem. If in most European countries the problem seems to be resolved, we should not forget that the majority of migrant women in Europe come from non-European countries where the laws that are in force, and the legal conflicts between States, often give rise to cases of statelessness.

      I also point out that in some cases dual nationality can represent real progress for women, because it enables them freely to choose whether they wish to acquire the nationality of their spouse – it is in those terms that the question is most often posed. This also enables migrant women to be integrated without having to cut all links with their country of origin. We know that a certain number of migrant women are exposed to family or community pressures that encourage them not to seek naturalisation. Very often, access to the nationality of the host country is synonymous with genuine integration, and the doorway to real independence for these women.

      It is interesting to note that recognition of dual nationality is spreading globally, and that there are debates on the issue in a number of Council of Europe member States, notably Germany.

      For women, statelessness further exacerbates their precarious circumstances when social and economic rights are dependent on having the nationality of the country. Reducing statelessness has to be a priority. Although we understand the historical reasons behind certain choices, what we need with statelessness is a more human approach. The States concerned could gain only by restoring a legal and above all a political bond between migrant populations and both the country where they were born and the country where they want to see their children grow up.

      Studies should be undertaken within our own institution with a view to putting an end to statelessness so that we can reintegrate our invisible citizens into the greater Europe.

      Mr PRESIDENT – All speakers present have been able to participate in the debate. Now we are almost running out of time. You have nine minutes to respond, Mr Cilevičs. If you could save some time, it would be excellent: it is up to you.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – I will do my best, Mr President. A lot of different questions were touched on in this debate. I had no idea that such a huge variety of aspects would be discussed. The report is in fact quite narrowly focused. First, I remind Mr Makhmutov and my colleague Ms Čigāne that this is not a report on Latvia; it is a report on the problems that exist in many European countries, and we must handle them now because tomorrow it will be much more difficult.

      Ms Guţu said that nationality was about civic identity. I could not agree more. We have a great and growing culture of diversity in virtually all European countries, but what unites citizens is their civic identity, which is legally reflected in their nationality.

      Ms Pakosta touched on another important issue: security. I agree that it is a serious aspect of the question, but it is much easier to manipulate people who do not have citizenship. Therefore, it is in the best interests of all people to remove statelessness in order to ensure security.

      Particular countries were mentioned, and figures do matter. Of course this does not mean that other countries do not have problems – just that UNHCR statistics are revealing and I considered that it would be useful to mention them.

      We are of course aware that granting citizenship to newborn babies is quite possible if parents want it, but the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe has this precise problem with the willingness of parents. I tend to agree with him that it cannot be in the best interests of the child to remain stateless. If parents, for whatever reason, opt for statelessness, a democratic State cannot accept this, because it is against the interests of the child. If no other citizenship is guaranteed for a child, the citizenship of the State where the child was born must be granted automatically, regardless of whether the parents want it or not.

      Ms Čigāne mentioned a definition of statelessness. I did not set out my own definition but simply relied on the definition that is included in the conventions mentioned in the report. Yes, your emotional speech indicated that our country – Latvia – unfortunately still has problems in this respect. One of the problems is that the definition of statelessness introduced in our national law differs from the definition in the conventions – but that is our problem. Of course, when preparing this report I based my conclusions strictly on the conventions and not on the national law. Yes, dual citizenship is an option. I agree that we should study the passportisation issue. I would welcome a separate report on it. I feel uncomfortable with some of the amendments tabled by our Georgian colleagues because they are true in substance, but the problem is that the report does not deal with that issue.

      Finally, when speaking about non-citizens and stateless people whom we inherited from the collapse of big empires, we are dealing with the problems of the past. It is our fault that these problems have not yet been resolved fully. I agree with Ms Strik and Ms Zimmermann that we should concentrate on the problems of the future. We have an increasing number of stateless immigrants. In many countries, their situation is a grey area because there is no clear way to deal with them. That is what we must think about. I sincerely believe that, whether or not it is pleasant for some member States, we and the UNHCR should concentrate on eliminating statelessness. Statelessness is absurd in the modern world, particularly in Europe, and I very much hope that the draft resolution will be adopted and followed up.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Cilevičs, for your precise and short reaction, which helps a lot. Would you like to add something, Ms Reps?

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – I thank the rapporteurs for their excellent work.

      The PRESIDENT – Okay. That has saved two minutes.

      The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution to which six amendments and one oral sub-amendment have been proposed, and a draft recommendation to which two amendments have been tabled. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      We will start by considering the draft resolution.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1 and 3 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 Mr Reps?

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – Yes.

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

      The following amendments have been adopted:

      Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.2.5, after the words “newborn babies”, insert the following words: “, irrespective of their immigration status,”.

      Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 7.3 with the following paragraph:

“not discriminate against their citizens on the grounds of how they acquired their nationality, in order to avoid having different classes of citizens;”

      We will proceed to consider the remaining amendments in the order set out in the organisation of debates. I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Ms Čigāne, Ms Lībiņa-Egnere, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Kandelaki, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Pakosta and Mr Hanson, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, delete the second sentence.

      I call Ms Čigāne to support Amendment 5.

      MS ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – I propose that we delete the country references from paragraph 4, because the countries have completely different experiences, as discussed in the report. For instance, Ukraine is not mentioned at all and Russia very little. I have already explained about Latvia and Estonia. Please support the amendment.

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

      Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – I regret to say that I oppose the amendment. We must face the problems that exist regardless of which countries they exist in. The excellent report by Mr Cilevičs deals in considerable detail with those problems, and they must be addressed by the Assembly.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Ms Taktakishvili, Ms Lībiņa-Egnere, Ms Mateu Pi, Ms Palihovici, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Ghiletchi and Ms Čigāne, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 6, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly considers that the Russian Federation’s en masse distribution of Russian passports to persons living outside the Russian Federation (“passportization”) is contrary to the Council of Europe’s principles. The Assembly shares the opinion of the Venice Commission on the law on Defense of the Russian Federation (CDL-AD(2010)052) and considers that justifying the military actions by a member State against other member States by the need to protect its own citizens is not compatible with Council of Europe standards”.I

      I call Mr Kandelaki to support Amendment 6. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – When discussing access to nationality, we should remember that there are some irrelevant practices, such as the distribution of passports by one country in the territory of another. Access to nationality has another side: the granting of nationalities by states. Nationality involves belonging to a State. Of course, Mr Mr Cilevičs is right, and the paragraph is intended to insert a conceptual point.

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

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – As I have already said, I fully agree with the substance of the amendment, but this is not a report on passportisation. This issue is not reflected in the memorandum. I believe that we should have a special report on passportisation. If the amendment is rejected, the Assembly would not change its position on the issue. The amendment is simply not relevant to the draft resolution.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, replace the word “aliens” with “migrants”.

      I call Mr Huseynov to support Amendment 2, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – The amendment reflects the Assembly’s common terminology on this issue.

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

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – I am sorry, but “aliens” is a legal term and not all aliens are migrants, so our proposal is applicable to all aliens, not only migrants. For those purely legalistic reasons, I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.      

      We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Ms Taktakishvili, Ms Lībiņa-Egnere, Ms Mateu Pi, Ms Palihovici, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Ghiletchi and Ms Čigāne, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 8, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly calls on the Russian Federation to stop the en masse distribution of Russian passports in other member States and to amend its legislation on the authorization of military actions based on the need to protect its own citizens, in line with the opinion of the Venice Commission (CDL AD(2010)052).”I

      I call Mr Kandelaki to support Amendment 7.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – Again, the amendment is of the same nature, and I insist that in no way does it seek to deviate from the report or open a discussion. It is not a substantive amendment; it is a conceptual amendment to register a conceptual point.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Cilevičs wishes to pose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, as follows:

      In Amendment 7, delete the words “and to amend its legislation on the authorization of military actions based on the need to protect its own citizens, in line with the opinion of the Venice Commission (CDL-AD(2010)052).”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

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

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The Russian legislation and authorisation of military actions is certainly not something that the report deals with, so for the amendment to be relevant, the full stop should be placed after “member States”.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – I am in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 7, as amended? I call Mr McNamara.

      Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – The proposer of the amendment raises an interesting point that needs to be discussed in greater detail by the Assembly, but not in this report. The issue is not detailed or even discussed in Mr Cilevičs’s excellent memorandum. It is something that perhaps we should discuss, but it does not belong in this report.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7, as amended, is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13392, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in 13392, as amended, is adopted, with 64 votes for, 5 against and 1 abstention.

      We will now move on to consider the draft recommendation to which two amendments have been tabled.

      We come to Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 2.2, add the following text:

      “, and to examine the current and continuous relevance of the Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and on Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality (ETS No. 43) and its Protocols (ETS No. 95, ETS No. 96 and ETS No. 149);”.I

      I call Mr Huseynov to support Amendment 4.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – The amendment highlights the need to examine the relevance of those treaties.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is adopted.

       We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Ms Strik, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen, Mr Franken, Mr de Vries, Ms Groth and Ms Amtsberg, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2.2, insert the following paragraph:

      “stimulate and supervise, in co-ordination with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the member States in the establishment of a statelessness determination procedure at the national level, in accordance with their obligation under the European Convention on Nationality to avoid statelessness;”I

      I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 8.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Stateless people face many obstacles to prove that they are stateless, and that is an important condition in order to get access to nationality. I therefore want the Committee of Ministers to supervise and stimulate member States to create a determination procedure so that people can prove their statelessness.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13392, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13392, as amended, is adopted with 66 votes for, 5 against and 0 abstentions.

      I congratulate the rapporteurs and thank members of the Assembly for staying so long with us. I especially thank the interpreters because they stayed longer than they needed.

4. Next public business

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

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 8.15 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Organisation of debates

2. Debate under urgent procedure – recent developments in Ukraine: threats to the functioning of democratic institutions

Joint presentation by Ms Reps and Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin of the report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitment by Member States of the Council of Europe, Document 13482.

Speakers:Mr Agramunt, Ms Beck, Mr Kox, Mr Flego, Mr Jagland, Mr Popescu, Lord Anderson, Mr Hood, Ms Schneider-Schneiter, Mr Pushkov, Ms Khidasheli, Mr Sobolev, Mr O. Shevchenko, Mr Japaridze, Mr Bakradze, Mr Slutsky, Mr Bockel, Mr Harutyunyan, Mr Berdzenishvili, Mr Pylypenko, Mr Rouquet, Mr Petrenco, Mr Chisu, Mr Fournier, Mr Gaudi Nagy, Mr Le Borgn’, Ms Godskesen, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Finckh-Krämer, Ms Ms Čigāne, Mr Sudarenkov.

Amendments 15, 5, as amended, 14, as amended, 11, 47, 33, as amended, 13, as amended, and 16 adopted.

Draft resolution in Document 13482 adopted.

3.        Access to nationality and the effective implementation of the European Convention on Nationality

Presentation by Mr Cilevičs of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Right, Document 13392 and corrigendum.

Presentation by Mr Huseynov of the opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugess and Displaced Persons, Document 13428

Speakers: Mr Makhmutov, Ms Gutu, Mr Le Borgn’, Ms Pakosta, Mr Frecon, Ms Čigāne, Ms Jonica, Mr Aleksandrov, Mr Cozmancuc, Mr Maruste, Ms Zimmerman.

Amendments 1, 3, 6 and 7, as amended, to the draft resolution contained in Document 13392, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13392, as amended, adopted

Amendments 4 and 8 to the draft recommendation in Document 13392 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13392, 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/ Tineke Strik

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS/Ana Catarina Mendonça

Danielle AUROI/Pierre-Yves Le Borgn'

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Egemen BAĞIŞ/Suat Önal

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT/Pascale Crozon

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Silvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT/Mechthild Rawert

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI

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

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Olga BORZOVA/Otari Arshba

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN*

Gerold BÜCHEL/Rainer Gopp

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA

Nunzia CATALFO

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Lennart Axelsson

Elena CENTEMERO

Lorenzo CESA/Milena Santerini

Irakli CHIKOVANI/Tinatin Khidasheli

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/ Jim D'arcy

Agustín CONDE

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Jonny CROSIO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Milena DAMYANOVA/Irena Sokolova

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER*

Reha DENEMEÇ

Roel DESEYN*

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Jim DOBBIN

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Damian DRĂGHICI*

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL/Andreas Schieder

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Krejča

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 GARÐARSSON

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*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI*

Hamid HAMID *

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON/Rait Maruste

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Alfred HEER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Adam HOFMAN/Zbigniew Girzyński

Jim HOOD

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER/Volkmar Vogel

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO

Vladimir ILIĆ/Vesna Marjanović

Florin IORDACHE/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Marie-Jo Zimmermann

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE

Michael Aastrup JENSEN

Frank J. JENSSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ/Katarina Rakić

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ*

Josip JURATOVIC*

Antti KAIKKONEN/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Ferenc KALMÁR

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI/Łukasz Zbonikowski

Deniza KARADJOVA*

Marietta KARAMANLI

Ulrika KARLSSON/Kent Härstedt

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK/Tomasz Lenz

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN/Ingrid Antičević Marinović

Kateřina KONEČNÁ

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN

Tiny KOX

Astrid KRAG*

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Dmitry KRYVITSKY/Evgeny Tarlo

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV/Sergey Kalashnikov

Christophe LÉONARD*

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT/Nikolaj Villumsen

François LONCLE/Jean-Pierre Michel

George LOUKAIDES*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Trine Pertou MACH

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI*

Epameinondas MARIAS*

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI/Josep Anton Bardina Pau

Pirkko MATTILA/Jouko Skinnari

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ*

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES*

Igor MOROZOV

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Marian NEACŞU/Florin Costin Pâslaru

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Elena NIKOLAEVA

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL/Iwona Guzowska

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS/Andriy Shevchenko

Sandra OSBORNE*

Liisa-Ly PAKOSTA

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS/Olga-Nantia Valavani

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Foteini PIPILI

Stanislav POLČÁK

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT/Joe Benton

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV

Mailis REPS*

Eva RICHTROVÁ

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Pavlo RYABIKIN/Iryna Gerashchenko

Rovshan RZAYEV

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER

Laura SEARA

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Ömer SELVİ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Bernd SIEBERT/Jürgen Hardt

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Algis Kašėta

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/Giorgi Kandelaki

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Anvar Makhmutov

Romana TOMC

Lord John E. TOMLINSON/David Crausby

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Spyridon Taliadouros

Ilyas UMAKHANOV

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN/Pieter Omtzigt

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/Jeffrey Donaldson

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Gisela WURM

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Alexander Burkov

Naira ZOHRABYAN/Naira Karapetyan

Levon ZOURABIAN/Mher Shahgeldyan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Observers

Sean CASEY

Corneliu CHISU

Percy DOWNE

Ernesto GÁNDARA CAMOU

David TILSON

Nycole TURMEL

Partners for democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Bernard SABELLA

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

Tahsin ERTUĞRULOĞLU