AA15CR03

AS (2015) CR 03

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(First part)

REPORT

Third sitting

Tuesday 27 January 2015 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

3. The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.

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

5.       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 10.10 a.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – This morning the agenda calls for the election of two judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Bulgaria and Serbia. The list of candidates and their curricula vitae are to be found in Documents 13667 and 13652.

      The voting will take place in the area behind the President’s chair. At 1 p.m. the ballot will be suspended. It will re-open at 3.30 p.m. At 5 p.m. I shall announce the closing of the ballot. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers.

      I shall now draw by lot the names of the two tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.

      The names of Mr Omtzigt and Ms Marković have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s chair at 5 p.m. The result will be announced, if possible, before the end of this afternoon’s sitting. If necessary, there will be a second round of voting tomorrow.

      I declare the ballot open.

2. The humanitarian situation of Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the report entitled “The humanitarian situation of Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons”, Document 13651 and Addendum, presented by Mr Jim Sheridan on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, followed by a statement by Mr Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. I remind you that voting on amendments to the draft resolution will take place during this afternoon’s sitting.

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

      Mr SHERIDAN (United Kingdom) – Europe is facing its most serious military conflict since Yugoslavia in the 1990s. We all hoped never to see such conflict again, but we are seeing it in Ukraine. More than 5 000 people have died since the conflict began and the cease-fire that was renewed in December has completely broken down since the new year. During the renewed fighting, there have been three particularly tragic and I would say atrocious events. On 13 January, shelling killed 12 civilians at Volnovakha. On 21 January, at least eight more were killed in Donetsk and, last Saturday, unguided rockets struck Mariupol, killing 30 civilians and injuring another 102. These reckless and indiscriminate attacks must stop. Indeed, all fighting must stop, as all parties agreed when signing the Minsk agreement last September.

      As the fighting intensifies, the number of refugees and displaced persons continues to increase. There are now more than 920 000 registered internally displaced persons inside Ukraine, more than twice as many as when I visited Ukraine in November. Many more will still be unregistered.

There are more than 600 000 refugees and displaced persons outside Ukraine. More than 524 000 are in the Russian Federation, an increase of almost 60 000 since early December. Again, many more will not have registered. Other neighbouring countries are also affected. More than 60 000 Ukrainians have fled to Belarus and almost 33 000 to Poland. It is hard to see how that can be sustained, above all from the point of view of the millions of people who have been forced to flee their homes.

Millions still live in the separatist-controlled areas. As the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recently said, “Civilians held or trapped in these areas are subject to a total lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law.” Many live in inhuman conditions without food, water, housing or medical care. People are dying of cold and hunger and I agree with those, including the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Health Organisation, who refer to a major humanitarian crisis. Unfortunately, some of the actions taken by the government in Kiev are only making the situation worse. For example, it is withdrawing the payment of pensions and benefits and restricting movement into and out of those areas for both individuals and humanitarian organisations.

We are now approaching the first anniversary of the illegal Russian occupation of Crimea, where human rights violations continue to occur. Only yesterday, ATR, Crimea’s only Tatar television channel, had its premises raided by masked forces who illegally searched offices, detained staff, confiscated equipment and interrupted broadcasting.

The humanitarian crisis is caused by the conflict, but there would be no conflict without Russian involvement – political, financial and military. I have seen and heard enough to be convinced of that. The deaths, destruction and suffering in Ukraine will not stop until Russia respects Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, including by withdrawing all military support from the separatists. Until that happens, the humanitarian situation for Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons and for those still living in occupied Crimea and the separatist-controlled areas will continue to be the greatest crisis in Europe today and an affront to the values of this Assembly.

I count on the Assembly to adopt the resolution, which calls on the parties to the conflict – the authorities of Ukraine and the Russian Federation – and the international community to take the action that is urgently required to save those who are innocently suffering in the conflict.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sheridan. This is an important report, although not an easy one. I call the Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Muižnieks to address us.

Mr MUIŽNIEKS (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights) – It is a great pleasure to be with you again.

I followed the attack on Mariupol with grave concern and some of the worst fears I heard of during my previous visit to Ukraine have been realised. In 2014, I made four visits to Ukraine, the last of which was in December. I went as far east as the security situation permitted, and was in Dnipropetrovsk, Dniprodzerzhynsk and two towns in the Donetsk region, Kurakhove and Krasnoarmiisk, which are 15 and 30 km from Donetsk respectively. The situation for IDPs was a core focus of this visit, as well as of a visit in June. In December, I met IDPs, local officials, non-governmental organisations, international organisations and the national authorities. The message I heard on the ground was that people are tired and they want peace.

In areas under the control of the Ukrainian Government, there is good co-operation between local government and NGOs in meeting the needs of IDPs, but I am concerned that this effort, mostly run by volunteers, is not sustainable in the long term. The Ukrainian Government must step in and do its share. In the rebel-held areas and areas near the conflict zone, the situation is dire. Housing has been destroyed, the infrastructure is ruined, there are shortages of food and medicine and scary reports of lawlessness. The most vulnerable people in the rebel-held areas are the elderly and people with disabilities, as well as those living in prisons, psychiatric hospitals and care homes. We have heard a number of reports of hunger and a rapidly rising death rate because of the lack of care.

The law on IDPs adopted in the autumn by the Ukrainian Government was an important step forward. The government needs to develop a long-term plan to integrate IDPs and I praise the efforts of civil society and the business community in stepping up to meet those needs. I discussed with the authorities in Kiev the suspension of payments of pensions and benefits to persons outside the government-controlled areas. I understand the obstacles in reaching them without having the money stolen by the rebels, but I fear that the measure might exacerbate the isolation of the region and the vulnerability of many of the people living there.

      I encourage the Ukrainian authorities to take a flexible approach in paying pensions and to work with international organisations and humanitarian groups that have access and can reach those who are in need. I am concerned that a new security clearance procedure was recently set up by the Ukrainian Government and that it might complicate the work of those who are trying to provide humanitarian assistance to the conflict-affected areas. The Ukrainian Government should ensure unimpeded access to the eastern regions for the United Nations and other humanitarian organisations, and the international community should continue to assist Ukraine in meeting the many humanitarian and integration needs of the IDPs.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Muižnieks, for the work that you are doing, which is a difficult task but more valuable than ever.

      We shall start with the speakers on behalf of the political groups. I call Mr Németh to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – Sadly, we have a war in Europe, and the only parallel that we can recall is that of the Second World War. The critical factor in this war is obviously Russian aggression. We cannot hide that fact. We are confronted with the imperialistic instinct of an important European power, but we must deplore that and call on Russia to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. We expect Russia to refrain from the continuing violence.

      War has direct consequences. The grave humanitarian situation is well depicted by the rapporteur, and I thank him very much for his analysis. The data are unclear, but there have been about 10 000 deaths and about 15 000 people have been seriously wounded. There are approximately 2 million IDPs. Thousands of homes and hundreds of schools and hospitals are in ruins. We must underline the fact that both sides must respect humanitarian laws and procedures. We need to guarantee that the international community gives the appropriate material help.

      In Ukraine, however, the fight for freedom represents an important historical process in the life of the Ukrainian nation. We are confronted with a so-called national awakening. We must continually express our solidarity with the Ukrainians’ efforts and guarantee them the appropriate European perspective in future. We must also guarantee to help with future reconstruction.

      We must understand, however, that Russia cannot be defeated, as the renewed violence proves in both a military sense and an economic sense. For that very reason, a political solution is needed. I refer to the German offer concerning the free trade agreement with Russia in the long term and a complex offer of co-operation vis-à-vis Russia, and obviously the reform and decentralisation process should be supported in Ukraine. That is probably where our Organisation, the Council of Europe, has a fundamental role. But, in finding that political solution, we must never again accept spheres of influence; there must be no new Yalta. Europe cannot return to its 20th century history, post the Second World War. Ukraine’s future must be in the European family of nations.

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

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia)* – I thank the rapporteur for the report, which is a very important document indeed. More than 1 million people have been displaced as a result of this conflict, which is certainly not frozen; it is a real conflict between two member States of this Organisation. I would like to share some information with you about our group’s activities. We have exchanged views with several representatives of Ukrainian non-governmental organisations. We have been informed about the problems that they are confronting every day in trying to gain access to territory controlled by the separatist forces controlled by the Russian Federation. They do not have access to those areas. They have incomplete information about what is happening there. That is unacceptable and it is why the resolution calls for untrammelled access to all areas for all international organisations that want to assist civilians who are in dire straits and do not even have the basic necessities of survival.

      I should also like to refer to a very important part of the resolution, and here I thank you personally Madam President for your efforts to try to secure the release of Ms Nadiia Savchenko. She is a member of this Assembly. She should be here in the Chamber, but she is in prison. She has been captured by unidentified people, and we know nothing about the conditions of her imprisonment in Russia, although we know what it is like to be in prison in the Russian Federation. She has been accused by the Russian authorities of criminal acts. It is intolerable for this Organisation that she should continue to be detained on Russian territory. We must insist that the Russian authorities release her as quickly as possible, and we must leave no stone unturned to achieve that end.

      We must also keep in mind the need to engage in dialogue with the Russian Federation. We have had nine months to engage in that dialogue, but the result has been the bombing of Mariupol just a few days ago. That is unacceptable. The city was not previously affected by armed hostilities, but it has been attacked and the civilian population was the target of the bombing, which resulted in some 40 deaths and more than 100 people being wounded.

      The report and the amendments, which are largely supported by the committee, are supported by our group.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Sir Roger Gale to speak on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – I congratulate my colleague and friend, Jim Sheridan, on a splendid report that gets to the heart of a very serious problem. I add my thanks to those that have been expressed to the Commissioner for Human Rights for his ongoing efforts to shine a light into some of the darkest corners of Europe. We as the Parliamentary Assembly are indebted to him.

      Jim Sheridan has described – therefore, I do not need to – the hundreds of thousands of people who have been displaced and those who have been killed as a result of events in Ukraine during the past 12 months. Additionally and disgracefully, a member of the Parliamentary Assembly is currently in prison in Russia and journalists who have been trying to do their job to expose the truth behind the lies that are emanating from that country are also imprisoned in Russia.

      The blame must lie fairly and squarely on the shoulders of a country that has invaded the territory of another member State of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We cannot tolerate that. Later this week, we will have the opportunity to decide whether to take stronger action against the aggressor, whether to maintain the current action against the aggressor, or whether to roll over, put our paws in the air and pusillanimously accept weaker sanctions.

      This is a defining moment for the Council of Europe. If the Parliamentary Assembly sends out the wrong message, we will be perceived, rightly, as a weak and feeble talking shop. We must send the right message. We must take robust action. It cannot be right for the Parliamentary Assembly or the Committee of Ministers to accept the occupation of the land of a sovereign nation by another member state. We owe it to the people whom the Commissioner for Human Rights described – the elderly, the sick, the frail, the disabled and those who are in care homes, on both sides of the border – to take robust action, and I hope and believe that later in the week we will.

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

      Mr HUNKO (Germany)* – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Sheridan, and the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons for having put the issue of internally displaced persons and all those involved with this situation at the heart of our attention. We must consider those who are most immediately affected by what is going on, and perhaps that way we can best come to a solution. Current United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) figures state that roughly 600 000 people have fled Eastern Ukraine for Russia, and 600 000 have fled in the opposite direction and are still in Ukraine. Perhaps we can get even more up-to-date figures, since we know that more than 5 000 people have died and other facts have also been set out.

      I was in the region at the end of November to meet people and refugees. Given the security situation, I was not able to go to Donetsk, but I did look at refugee centres on the Russian side. I went to Rostov-on-Don and visited refugee centres and spoke with refugees – there are 600 000 people there, and there may be many more who have fled to Russia in the meantime. I gained a shocking picture from those conversations. Most people I spoke to were very bitter, not just about the war in general but about the way that the Ukrainian army conducted itself in Donetsk and Luhansk. Irrespective of what is solved at international level, it will be difficult for those people to co-exist again.

      We know that people in the east of Ukraine see things differently to those in the west of Ukraine – that is why some of them flee to Russia, and we must take that into account. I visited schools near the border where Ukrainian children are now integrated on the Russian side. In some of those schools, a third of pupils are from Ukraine, and the UNHCR has expressly praised Russia for its refugee policy – I have heard a lot of criticism of Russia, but I should mention that on the positive side. I have tabled an amendment to try to achieve some balance in the report. Paragraph 10 is on the integrity of Ukraine, which we all support, but we must also consider people’s democratic rights, above all in the east of the country.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I now give the floor to Mr Voruz, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr VORUZ (Switzerland)* – The report submitted by our colleague, Mr Sheridan, is excellent and deserves to be fully supported by everyone. On 16 December last year, before Christmas, there was still hope that the conflict would become less intense, but since the beginning of 2015 that hope has been dashed. The report shows that everything has been called into question by certain individuals who want war and power – namely the heads of the separatist forces in the east of Ukraine. With some naivety, I hoped that the great country of Russia would put an end to conflict and bring peace to the region. Russia is a great country that deserves to be a member of the European community, but unfortunately it is pouring oil on the fires of war, rather than extinguishing them. Many post-Stalinist forces are coming to the fore. President Putin was a KGB officer, and that mentality has remained with him.

      The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons felt that a number of amendments needed to be tabled, and they have been accepted by that committee. Given the large number of displaced persons or people who are persecuted, our Assembly must stand firm in its confrontation with a member State that is allowing mafiosi groups to exercise their will in the east of Ukraine. We must support Mr Sheridan’s report and all the amendments that have been tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I remind colleagues that the vote to elect judges on behalf of Bulgaria and Serbia to the European Court of Human Rights is still open. It will be temporarily closed at 1 p.m., reopened at 3.30 p.m. and definitively closed at 5 p.m. Anyone who has not yet voted can go behind the President’s chair to vote.

      Mr Sheridan, as rapporteur would you like to reply now to the representatives of the political groups, or will you speak later once the discussion is closed?

      Mr SHERIDAN (United Kingdom) – I will speak later.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I give the floor to Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Let me give a few numbers: Volnovakha, 15; Donetsk, 8; Mariupol, 30. Those are not just numbers: they are people who died after mortars, rockets, volleys and shelling from the occupied territory of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. More than 1 million people in Ukraine have left their homes in Russian-annexed Crimea and territories controlled by Russian-led terrorists. These are not numbers; they are human destinies. We should not accept those numbers just as statistics because each destiny has a tragedy behind it.

      Who inspired this catastrophic humanitarian situation in Ukraine? I hope you understand that Ukraine was always a very peaceful, multinational nation, with agreement between all nationalities within it. Everything started with Crimea, just under a year ago. Do you believe that in the so-called self-defence of Crimea, green men bought weapons – including heavy weapons – in local military shops? Of course nobody in the world believes that; normal people could not believe that. Do you believe that terrorists in the eastern part of Ukraine also bought heavy rocket systems, tanks and sub-machine guns in military shops? Of course not. All this conflict and situation was inspired by Russia.

      Only one thing helped Ukrainian society to survive: the common efforts of all kinds of people, including volunteers and non-governmental organisations. They did everything to support people who left their homes in conflict regions, including Crimea. They did everything to collect money and food to help people to survive. We will hear many speeches here, but the problem is not just the humanitarian aspect; it is about new challenges to European security. We have to resist Russian aggression.

Finally, I want to say something in Russian.

(The speaker continued in Russian)

You Russians should remember your proverb: “Don’t dig graves for your neighbours, because you’ll fall into them yourself.”

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – As always happens when there is war, the first victim, according to the classic statement, is truth. Some people talk about 1 million IDPs, while others say 2 million; some people say that there have been 5 000 fatalities, others 9 000. I do not know the truth, but in any event just one fatality or IDP should cause us to acknowledge the failure of international law, which provides for territorial integrity, sovereignty and respect of borders. International law establishes systems and mechanisms to make it possible to deal with those things using words and not weapons.

      This morning, people are remembering the suffering of their own kind, but that is being misused as a kind of settling of scores. We should be talking about human suffering. We need to decide whether we continue to discuss this issue or whether that should be for another occasion, but out of respect I thank Mr Sheridan for his report, which I will support in every way that I can. I also thank the Commissioner for Human Rights for his work. When I disagree, I say so; when I agree with his analysis, I say so.

      I ask all present: what can we do as individuals and as MPs to help the Commissioner for Human Rights and the rapporteur when it comes to the suffering of human beings? Politics is another matter – it is about discussions – but we now need to help our fellow human beings who are suffering. That is what I am asking all who are present here to do. Every news report is more frightening and horrifying. That moves me, but all that I have at my disposal are words and examples. Hence, I ask members whether they think that we, as individuals or as parliamentarians, can do much more and whether we can do what we are doing better. If so, what specifically can we do, apart from debating? We have our policies, but what ideas can we put forward? What can we do? How can we take decisions here to help the situation and not to cause it to worsen or to hinder improvements? That is my question, as I thank you for the work that you have done.

      Ms DURANTON (France)* – I congratulate Mr Sheridan on his excellent report, which is both balanced and complete. Based on many well-documented sources and field observations, he has presented us with a sadly dramatic picture of the humanitarian situation of refugees and displaced persons in Ukraine and elsewhere. In that respect, he is a credit to our Assembly. The figures in the report are all the more terrifying because they are generally speaking underestimates. The figures are increasing constantly, given that the situation in the area is still not secure, despite the fact that a cease-fire was concluded in Minsk on 5 September last year.

      Of course, behind the figures are real human dramas. The situation in Crimea is particularly worrying, not only for the Tatar minority but for all those who have the infelicitous idea of opposing the authorities and are then subjected to the same treatment as those in Russia, to which this Ukrainian territory has been annexed, whose fundamental freedoms are undermined.

      In Donbass, in the south-east of the country, the armed hostilities between the Ukrainian army and the militias of the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, which are armed by Russia, have resulted in thousands of deaths and have forced hundreds of thousands of persons to abandon their bombarded homes. The people remaining are living under particularly difficult conditions, deprived of running water and electricity and with insufficient food. They are often obliged to spend the night in basements. Public services have been destroyed and the local economy has collapsed.

      To begin with, the Ukrainian authorities were unable to deal with the scale of events. The flow of refugees was all the more difficult to manage, given that Ukraine was in a difficult economic and social situation before the conflict occurred. In that respect, it seems to me that the Council of Europe and our Assembly should draw up a list of all the reforms to be implemented in Ukraine. We have no doubt been insufficiently resolute about the country and we have not given sufficient encouragement to the Ukrainian State to reform itself. The State is undermined by archaic practices and corruption. It is weak and it is paying the price for that as it is confronted with these awful difficulties. Our Organisation is partly responsible for that situation.

      The law adopted by the Ukrainian Parliament on 20 October last year is particularly welcome. It grants displaced person status to people in their own country. At the time of its adoption, it was applicable to close to 425 000 people. For six months after registration, people receive a monthly grant of $34 to $68, depending on whether they can be gainfully employed. They can also receive certain allowances that they would have had the right to before these events. They also receive support for professional integration. The Verkhovna Rada has adopted complementary measures, particularly in the field of health. That, too, is important.

      Ms ZELIENKOVÁ (Czech Republic) – I thank Jim Sheridan for his resolution on the humanitarian situation of Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons. It might be a secondary problem for Vladimir Putin, but hundreds of thousands of refugees who lost their daily lives and their homes are, together with injured and dead civilians, the most tragic result of this pointless war. Fleeing from homes, worrying about relatives and close ones, surviving in demeaning conditions, suffering from the lack of everything, losing jobs, losing the possibility to earn money to live on, losing schools for their children, begging for help, queuing with thousands of people in the same situation and fighting with them for every shred of hope – that is the daily life of refugees from Donbass and occupied Crimea. That is life in eastern Europe at the beginning of 2015.

      People who are displaced from their homes are not lying. They are fleeing because they are afraid that they or their close ones might be killed, arrested, abducted or tortured. The alarming numbers of such people are an unquestionable proof that the conflict on the border of Ukraine and Russia is beyond our imagination. It is indeed a trap for tens of thousands of people who wish to flee but cannot, and whose dignity, health and life are therefore endangered daily.

      Like the author of the report, I think that there is only one key to ending this suffering: a termination of the fighting. That must be followed by a renewal of individual rights: safety, justice, the functioning rule of law, the right to earn one’s livelihood and the right to housing must be ensured. The war crimes will need to be properly investigated, and the perpetrators must be punished. This is also our task. We need to call for the war to end as soon as possible, so that people can live peacefully again. We also have a responsibility to point to the offender: Russia started the war and could terminate it, if it wished to.

      I am from the Czech Republic, as was the famous human rights defender Václav Havel. I always ask myself, “What would he think was the most important thing to do in this conflict?” As he always put human rights first, he would definitely be for a peaceful solution.

      Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation)* – Let me say to Ms Zelienková that the President of Russia, and every single Russian, cares about the survival of the people who are fleeing war in south-east Ukraine. That is why a very large proportion of the 1 million refugees find themselves in the territory of the Russian Federation. We invite the rapporteurs of the Parliamentary Assembly to come and see these people’s living conditions; they are living in dignity.

      The report covers the humanitarian angle, and is not political. I thank Mr Sheridan for his efforts. However, given that we are talking about the humanitarian disaster in Ukraine, we should focus not on giving a political assessment, but on how we in the Assembly can join forces to assist these people. We appeal to the Ukrainian authorities and Ukrainian people to co-operate with us. We are prepared to participate in any group or committee that aims to improve the humanitarian situation. It is not Russia that cut off the supply of electricity to south-east Ukraine; we did not cut off banking facilities in the area; we did not stop paying pensions to the elderly there. The Russian Federation is not responsible for the attacks that people are trying to claim we are guilty of. Mr Ertuğrul Apakan, the OSCE’s representative on the ground, has set aside the claims that the attacks in Mariupol were caused by militias on the ground. That needs to be analysed and investigated. The deaths on a trolleybus in the Kiev region a few days ago were not the fault of the Russians either.

      Western European organisations are being fed a pack of lies, and that is not the way to resolve the situation. If we apply the high standards of the Council of Europe, we will be able to find the truth, resolve this very difficult problem, and improve the humanitarian situation in Ukraine.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – We need to find the main answers to these questions: why have thousands of people been killed in Ukraine, including Russians? Why have hundreds of thousands been wounded? Why have 1 million people been displaced? There is one answer: the Russian occupation. Who allowed the occupation of Crimea and eastern Donbass? The members of the Russian Parliament now in this room. They allowed President Putin to occupy territories of Ukraine, allowed the killing of people and allowed the shooting of civilians. All that is their responsibility. I do not think that without concrete, direct attempts by Putin, anything of this sort would have happened on Ukraine’s territory.

      What should we do? We must understand the figures associated with this tragedy. Crimea has a population of 2.1 million. Donbass had a population of 6.5 million, but now that it is occupied territory, the population is less than 2 million, so 4.5 million people from eastern Donbass are now spread all around Ukraine, or even the world. How can we support those people? First, the Ukrainian Government and Parliament are doing everything in proper order, even in current conditions. The central government has supplied electricity and gas to the occupied territories, even though it has received not 1 hryvnia or cent in return. Secondly, we pay every pension each day, but it is impossible for people to receive their pension when all the banks in the occupied territories are closed. We allow all pensioners to receive that money in the non-occupied territories instead. We have in our treasury more than 10 billion hryvnias for pensions for those who need them, and for children and mothers, but we cannot give that money because those territories are occupied by Russian and pro-Russian troops.

      Next, we must understand what is happening in these territories. Every day, there are communications in all cities that are not occupied. Last but not least, in Shchastya – the word means “happiness” – a small city where the weather is minus 15° C, Russian troops destroyed all electricity and gas supplies, so 5 000 people had to live in those conditions. That is just one fact.

      Thank you for the report. We need to resolve the situation quickly and withdraw Russian troops from Ukrainian territory.

      Lord BALFE (United Kingdom) – I am not sure that I will be too popular. We should start off by remembering the role that the European Union played in this dispute. It was ringing its bells when it chased Mr Yanukovych out of office. I have been in Ukraine many times; it was, and still is, a very fragile country. I draw attention to paragraph 21 of Mr Sheridan’s excellent report, which says: “According to an Amnesty International report…both parties to the conflict have been responsible for a pattern of indiscriminate attacks on populated areas, killing and injuring civilians and destroying their homes.” That is the sad reality. Ukraine has always had difficulties, and they have certainly got worse. It has not been helped by its recent decision possibly to join NATO, or some of the decisions by previous Ukrainian Governments. Clearly, as Mr Muižnieks indicated, both sides have to start talking to each other, respecting the Minsk agreement, and being tolerant.

      There is no will in the West to fight in Ukraine. I dare say there are people in Britain who would be quite happy to sell arms to those involved in the conflict – they are pretty happy to sell arms to anyone – but there is no will to intervene militarily. There is no will for body bags to come back to the UK in defence of Ukraine. We have to get to a position where dialogue is the end result. I visited Russia last year and, whatever we think of Mr Putin, I am afraid that the Russian people think quite highly of him. That was evident to me from talking to people from across a very wide range of the Russian population.

      We need to sit down as an international community. By all means, we must condemn what is going on, but we have to be even-handed about it; we cannot just say that we condemn one side or the other. We also have to recognise the contribution that the European Union itself made by constantly ratcheting up the pressure. The European Union meddled in Ukraine. I think Chancellor Merkel has now realised that and, of all the European leaders, she is the one to keep a very close eye on, because she probably has the most realistic view of how a solution can be found. I hope that the report – I thank Mr Sheridan for it – contributes to that process, but the real contribution will, ultimately, come through talking.

      Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – When we talk about the humanitarian situation in Ukraine, we cannot trust what we hear from Kiev or the media. The reason for what is happening in Eastern Ukraine is that the Ukrainian Government sent its army in response to a peaceful demand for greater regional powers and more rights in cultural and educational policies.

      On 22 February, a meeting took place of elected MPs of all levels. There were 5 000 people in the city of Kharkiv. When the demands were formulated, there was not a single call for even federalisation. Colleagues can check that fact – on 22 February in Kharkiv, 5 000 people peacefully demanded negotiations with Kiev about their rights. Do people have the right to live in a federation or even to have a status that they think they should have? That should at least be a matter of negotiation, but the Kiev Government sent the army to crush those demands and today we can see the result. I do not know of any other country in the world where those who ask for more rights or who want to live in a federal region would be crushed by the army, and that is exactly what has happened.

These people are not terrorists. If they were, we would have heard about a number of terrorist acts in the cities of Ukraine, but that has not happened – there have been no terrorist acts in any Ukrainian city. That is a fact that nobody can dispute. We in Russia know what terrorism is. We have had terrorism in Moscow, Pyatigorsk, Stavropol and all over our country. That was terrorism, but this is not: these people are fighting in defence of their land against an army that has come to crush their legitimate demands. That is the reason for what is happening.

We hear too often from the Ukrainians that people are bombing themselves, including when 15 people perished in Donetsk recently. They immediately accused the insurgents and said that they had bombed themselves. They say that people in Donetsk are killing themselves by shooting themselves in the face and strangling themselves. It was reported that 50 people perished in Odessa, but the non-official figure is up to 120. Has anyone heard any conclusion of any investigation into the Odessa killings of 2 May? We have heard nothing at all. We are told that they bombed themselves, which is nonsense.

I remind the Assembly that we need to face the truth. There is no Russian intervention in Ukraine; otherwise, the Kiev Government would have provided proof of the presence of the Russian army in Ukraine. We have not seen such proof and colleagues present have not provided it, either.

Ms FINCKH-KRÄMER (Germany)* – I have three points to make. First, I think that the number of refugees from the Donbass region – they are either internally displaced persons or refugees to Russia – is likely to be well above 1 million, as opposed to the 4 million mentioned by a Ukrainian colleague. Secondly, help is available from the State authorities and volunteers from both countries who are committed to helping the refugees. We should pay tribute to them. Thirdly, there is a third group of people who are very needy and who will need international support, namely those who continue to live in those areas afflicted by civil war in the eastern part of Ukraine. They need humanitarian assistance, according to international humanitarian organisations and to the four principles of neutrality, independence, not being part of any political party and humanity. I call on Ukrainian and Russian parliamentarians to make sure that that aid and support can be provided to people in Donbass.

I remind colleagues of two points. First, our task as members of parliament is not simply to defend the positions of our governments when they are in conflict with other governments, but to see what is important, correct and right from the other side’s point of view and to question the whole situation.

Secondly, there is one question that has not been addressed in Ukraine and Russia. About a third of the people concerned have close relations in the other country. We have to take into account the other side’s position. For many people, that means finding out about how the situation is affecting their brothers, sisters, parents, nephews and nieces, and other relatives in the other country. If we take that approach to finding a way out of the situation, I think we will gain international support. I urge colleagues to accept that that is the way to go.

Ms SCHOU (Norway) – I thank Mr Sheridan for his work and his important report. It paints a grim and sad picture of a people and country in dire need of help. When the report was finished in mid-December, the humanitarian situation for refugees and internally displaced persons in Ukraine was more than worrying, but some of us still allowed ourselves to have a small hope that the parties would find a way to return to negotiations and peace talks. That did not happen. Instead, there has been an escalation of violence and the situation has gone from bad to worse. News reports tell us of rocket attacks and fighting, with high numbers of civilian casualties and more people fleeing.

According to the UN and the OSCE, the conflict has now taken close to 5 000 lives and led to 1 million displaced people. It is a human catastrophe and I support the report’s call for the international community to continue to provide material and organised assistance. Norway has a long tradition of providing humanitarian assistance to people in need, and we have contributed a considerable amount in Ukraine. Among other contributions, we have provided €30 million of financial support, and we intend to provide the same amount annually for the next two years.

      The report is about the humanitarian consequences of the crisis. Nevertheless, I hope our discussion will be a valuable contribution to a political solution to the conflict, which, as I believe we all agree, is the only way to end the humanitarian catastrophe. If the solution is to be sustainable, Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected. Norway has condemned Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine. We stand wholeheartedly alongside our NATO allies and our partners in the European Union in our response to Russia’s violation of international law. Last week’s violence and provocative rhetoric were alarming. I therefore hope that all parties will live up to their responsibilities by returning to the peace process and by respecting and implementing the Minsk cease-fire agreement and protocol.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – I thank the rapporteur for his report, which courageously shows the degree to which the conflict in Ukraine has created a situation that is unacceptable from not only a political but a humanitarian point of view. Sadly, I fear that in the days to come there will be more internally displaced persons and refugees. While we debate the conflict, the bombardment continues, the list of civilian victims lengthens and the most fundamental human rights are trampled underfoot. It is simply unacceptable.

      I drafted a report on IDPs in Europe, so I know how difficult it is for host countries or regions to address such urgent situations. The living conditions of those populations – whether Russian or Ukrainian speakers – are unacceptable, and with the onset of winter they will deteriorate further. After reading the report, I fear that the humanitarian situation will create tensions in the border areas of the combat zones. You will recall the difficulties in the Kharkiv region in Ukraine and the Rostov region in Russia. The IDPs and refugees could not go home because the war was expanding, and the days on which the guns were silent had become a distant memory.

      How many fatalities, refugees and dramas will it take for the parties to the conflict to understand that it is no longer a question of geopolitics and power strategies but of humans? Women and children are being forced to take to the road because of the language they speak or because they found themselves on the wrong side of an invisible border. Without lasting peace, the humanitarian situation will continue to deteriorate and human rights will continue to be trampled underfoot in Ukraine. The Minsk accords must be applied and the cease-fire must be respected. The separatists must end their offensive and Ukraine must end the successive waves of mobilisation of the past few weeks. Russia must convince the separatists to stop fighting. It must help with the de-escalation not only through its statements but through its acts, and it must condemn what is happening in Mariupol.

      My Russian and Ukrainian colleagues recently came to France twice for significant events: the celebration of the Normandy landing and the liberation of Europe, and the march for freedom of expression and democracy after the attacks in Paris and Brussels. Those are the values of the Council of Europe, and we parliamentarians must defend them.

      Ms KHIDASHELI (Georgia) – I thank the rapporteur for his unbiased report and Mr Muižnieks for the important information he presented. It is a difficult time for Europe. A member State of the Council of Europe has started yet another war – this time in Ukraine. All our prayers and efforts go to the victims of the war and those who suffer most from the Russian aggression and military advance. Europe and all other democratic forces will do everything in their capacity to stop Russia’s aggression, its military advance and its ongoing occupation.

      We have among us a State that every year occupies more of the territory of other sovereign States. It tries to rewrite international law, it kills and bulldozes whole villages – it has done so in my country – and it occupies and annexes the territory of other sovereign States. We should be clear that because of the war started by Russia’s ambitious, imperialistic goals, thousands have died and millions have lost their homes and are seeking help. The people who are dying or fleeing their houses are not hypothetical; they are the consequences of a war waged by one member of the Council of Europe against another.

      How many more casualties do we need to see? How many more people must die or flee their homes? How many more internally displaced persons and refugees do we need to see in the middle of Europe? How many more occupied territories or ethnically cleansed cities and villages do we need? It has happened in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, and there is a frozen conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Do we need one more example? Must one more state be attacked by Russia for us to stop talking in hushed tones and half-sentences? We must make our position clear to everybody – especially those in the Kremlin who dream about the restoration of the Soviet Union. Just as we stand together in the fight against terrorism, we must stand together in the fight against aggression, occupation and the annexation of independent States. In a single voice, we must tell the Kremlin to stop killing people and causing them to flee their homes, and to stop occupying the territories of other States. That is the best way to help the victims of the war and make their lives easier, if that is possible. We must use all our humanitarian efforts to prevent another humanitarian crisis in the middle of Europe.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I, too, thank the rapporteur for the report, which causes a lot of emotion. Last year, we talked about the tragic humanitarian catastrophe, which was exacerbated in the winter months. Mr Sheridan, the most striking thing about your report is that you concentrated on the human beings, who live amidst destabilisation and violence and who lack the rule of law. They are constantly harassed and threatened. Women, children and the elderly are most affected by the conflict. They cannot get any help, and there is no longer a Ukrainian bank. People are fleeing from violent armed gangs, because there is no rule of law.

      The Russians are dealing with hundreds of thousands of refugees, and we should also thank Belarus and Poland, which are further away but have taken in a large number of refugees.

      As one of the first Nobel peace prize winners, Bertha von Suttner, said, “Lay down your arms.” This destabilisation must end. There is no alternative to the Minsk agreements. On the basis of those accords, we should be able to have a cease-fire. With the help of the OSCE, the situation should be monitored. Ukraine must get back control of its borders. We must find a way to bring about a cease-fire, possibly with the help of outside forces.

      There are no schools. People’s houses have been destroyed. There is no heating. Those are crucial services. The military conflict is affecting all the people living in the area, including Luhansk and Donetsk. Millions of people are affected by the situation. There can be no military solution. There can only be a peaceful solution.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – The humanitarian situation described in the excellent report by Jim Sheridan is terrifying. A year ago, Ukraine was in the grip of a serious political crisis linked to internal dissension on whether it should realign itself towards Europe, but it certainly was not a war zone, which the Donbass is today. In a few months, the situation has deteriorated seriously and Ukraine is facing the most serious crisis that we have had since the end of the Cold War. It has to contend with the fact that part of its territory is the scene of fighting. The east of the country has separatist forces that were encouraged and armed by a powerful neighbour that has no hesitation in trampling on the firmly established principles of international law.

      The cost to Ukraine is enormous. It used to be the jewel of the Soviet Union. Now it is on its knees. Its economy is close to collapse. War is on the point of swallowing up all its modest resources. Swathes of the Donbass are in ruins. Thousands have died. Even more serious, the humanitarian catastrophe is the result of a destabilisation initiative undertaken to prevent a sovereign state from taking control of its own destiny and embarking on the reforms that it deemed necessary. Despite the fact that the presidential elections and parliamentary elections in October were properly run, reform in Ukraine has juddered to a halt.

      Even the concept of humanitarianism has been hijacked. Remember the supposedly humanitarian Russian convoy last August. When Russia gave the command for the convoy to cross the border without authorisation from Kiev, the Kremlin served up yet another fait accompli to the international community. The operation was carried out without any involvement by the Red Cross, which could have guaranteed the effectiveness and impartiality of the mission, which was supposed to be about distributing aid in the form of food, medicines and other basic necessities.

      Bringing material support to civilians in the Donbass, Russia tried to assume the laudable role of bringing humanitarian aid to the victims of Ukrainian bombing. What actually was Russia’s intention? Was it to use the convoy as a Trojan horse that could also contain military equipment for the separatists, or was it to have it as a target to be fired on by the Ukrainian army, so as later to justify direct Russian military intervention? The Ukrainians authorities were right to be muted in their response. That incident was criticised by the whole international community at the time and illustrates the Kremlin’s desire to underscore its authority over the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine. Alas, as in most wars, it is the civilians who are the first victims. Last September’s cease-fire brought down the level of fighting, but more than 1 000 people have been killed since it collapsed.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – The humanitarian situation in the east of Ukraine is terrible and it is important to discuss it today, so I am glad that we are having this debate. There is no doubt that Russia is violating international law and that, during this conflict, grave human rights violations have been committed on all sides. Torture, shelling of civilians – the list is long and the crimes are serious.

      I remind you what we agreed when we talked about the situation in the Maidan. Then, we all agreed that there should be no military solution and that the protests in the Maidan should not be dealt with in a military way. That was wise. We made a good decision. It is clear that there can be no military solution to the conflict in the east of Ukraine. Military initiatives by both sides have created a humanitarian catastrophe. It is important that we in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe play an important role by stressing the need for a peaceful solution and the needs of the civilians, by standing by our values of human rights and by promoting democratic reforms and decentralisation as a way urgently to stop the war and to pursue peace.

      It is important that we think about the situation of the civilians in the east of Ukraine not only in this debate but tomorrow, and that we always pursue peace and an end to the bloody war and killings. We must do our best for the civilians in the east of Ukraine.

      THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Chisu, Observer from Canada.

      Mr CHISU (Canada) – I thank you for this opportunity to speak about the humanitarian situation of Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons. I also thank the rapporteur for his report on this deeply concerning issue.

      I endorse the report’s resolution and add my voice to the Assembly's in calling on all sides of the conflict and on the international community to act according to its terms. Today, more than 2 million people remain in areas controlled by separatist forces, exposed to insecurity, serious human rights violations and inadequate living conditions. An estimated 5.2 million Ukrainian people live in conflict-affected areas; more than 600 000 are reported to be internally displaced; and more than 500 000 have fled to neighbouring countries. Most of those people left with few belongings and are in need of shelter, food and other assistance, placing pressure on the neighbouring regions. Many internally displaced persons choose to remain in the eastern regions of Ukraine in order to be closer to their homes, hoping they can return as soon as the situation improves.

      It is important to note that two thirds of internally displaced adults are reported to be women. I agree with the report's statement that, based on the numerous reports of serious human rights violations allegedly committed during the armed hostilities, objective investigation is required and the perpetrators must be brought to justice.

      It is important to mention, as the report does, that certain efforts were made by both Ukrainian and Russian authorities to respond to the needs of displaced persons. However, it also stresses that only a sustainable political solution based on respect of Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity can lead to the improvement of the humanitarian situation.

      I stress the importance of the international community continuing to assist and support those persons. From the Canadian point of view, the parliamentary elections and the formation of the new coalition government are positive developments that confirm Ukrainian support for a pro-reform and pro-European agenda and that have the potential to lead to lasting change in Ukraine.

      For Canada, it is important to maintain pressure on Russia to cease its aggression and destabilisation of Ukraine. At the same time, we need to continue to support Ukraine in undertaking the reforms necessary for its long-term stability, security and prosperity. I assure you that Canada will continue to do so, in co-operation with our partners and allies.

Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – There are more than 670 000 internally displaced persons in Ukraine. Every person living in the eastern area has had to leave their houses because of the bombing. International organisations and local volunteers are doing everything possible to help these IDPs. The volunteers are doing absolutely everything for Ukrainian citizens who now find themselves in the occupied area of Donbass, but terrorists give no security or safety guarantees to international humanitarian organisations, including the Red Cross.

In April, there will be a major international donor conference, with the objective of providing funds for the reconstruction of the Donbass. We also have the questions of housing insurance and the hundreds of thousands of IDPs who have had to flee this region and the occupied area.

This is not an internal conflict and not a civil war: it is happening because there has been outside interference. The villages that have been destroyed show evidence of Russian weapons. We have also seen Russian military forces in this area. After each humanitarian convoy from the Russian Federation, we find that there has been intensive fighting. The numbers of people who have been wounded and displaced – hundreds of them – increases day by day, including civilians near Volnovakha and Mariupol.

We have to face questions. Who is responsible for the thousands of people who have been killed and wounded? We call on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to look at the so-called republics of Luhansk and Donetsk, and other areas, as terrorist organisations.

Every day, the Ukrainian Government provides dozens of facts about the Russian troops who have been present and the Russian money being sent in, especially after the 12 humanitarian convoys that have gone to Ukrainian territory. We would like to invite Ambassador Zurabov to look at that proof, because for the moment, when we make that offer, you all refuse to come and look at the proof.

Ms L’OVOCHKINA (Ukraine) – I thank our rapporteur for his co-operation with the Ukrainian delegation and for this report, which addresses one of the biggest problems that we face now: the humanitarian situation.

Fundamental human rights – as well as political, social, economic, cultural and religious rights – are being violated in the conflict area. A huge number of people have moved to other regions of Ukraine or fled the country. A huge number are continuing to live in the territory where the conflict is happening. Living conditions in the so-called anti-terrorist operation area are unbearable.

The Ukrainian State established an economic blockade of these territories. The corresponding decision of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, approved by the President and implemented by the Government of Ukraine, stopped all social payments, including pensions. Schools and hospitals are not financed and banks are closed. Now a physical blockade has followed. People’s rights to travel between the ATO zone and Ukrainian-controlled territories are limited.

Internally displaced persons are also a problem. They are not provided with housing or employment, since the loss of control by Ukraine underlies less effective mechanisms for dealing with these issues.

Respect for the rights of citizens in Crimea, which is occupied by the Russian Federation, is a huge problem that we should address. Today, people lack freedom of speech and of assembly. National and religious minority rights are violated.

I represent the south and east of Ukraine, the trouble spot of the nation, and I can tell you right now that Ukrainian people are tired of war and constant danger and tired of not barely making their living, and their prospects for the future are unclear. Despite this, some politicians from the ruling majority continue to encourage war. I believe we should condemn this. The international community is giving a clear signal to all parties in the conflict that – and I quote our rapporteur – only “a sustainable political solution can lead to the improvement of the humanitarian situation.”

I believe that only a dialogue within Ukraine and internationally can ensure peace in Ukraine. However, I encourage all members of the Assembly participating in the vote on the credentials of the Russian Federation to keep the status quo. We might disagree on the means of reaching this solution, as we did in the Monitoring Committee; however, I stress that peace is the only solution for the crisis in the Ukraine.

THE PRESIDENT* – I cannot see Mr Frécon, so I call Mr Shlegel.

Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – As we know, refugees do not just pop up spontaneously. We need to talk about where they are coming from. A year ago, Ukraine underwent an armed coup. The governments of several European Union countries and of the United States are the direct architects of, and direct participants in, those events. As a result of their brazen interference, people came to power in Ukraine who are now being directed and controlled from abroad.

It is obvious that the European Union authorities and the United States Government are directly responsible for what is going on in Ukraine: for the political repression; for the persecution and killing of journalists; for the mass killings of civilians, including those who are being burnt alive; for torture; for the triumph of Nazism; for whipping up the flames of civil war; for innumerable acts of violent provocation; and for the use of banned types of weapons. They are responsible, because without their approval and support – without their direct military, financial and informational help and support – the current Ukrainian leadership would never have dared embark on acts of war.

You want peace in Ukraine? That is pretty easy to organise. All it would take would be one phone call from President Barack Obama to President Poroshenko, ordering him – I repeat, “ordering him” – to cease fire, and there will be peace in Ukraine.

We hear endless accusations against Russia – infinite numbers of unsubstantiated lies in the media and in international institutions – but hidden behind these is the desire on the part of the puppet masters in this dirty little game not to be held responsible, and further back yet lies the desire to start a full-scale war. And it is war that we are moving towards. We need to look this fact in the face.

Ask yourselves, “Is it for this that Europe is ready to trample on her most fundamental principles: human rights, freedom of speech, tolerance and pluralism?” Those are the things that will be sacrificed to this ardent desire.

As we know, when all hope of dialogue runs out, that is when the cannons start to speak. The Kiev authorities – or rather, those in the governments of the European Union countries and Washington – have not shown any desire for dialogue with those Ukrainian citizens who live in the east of the country. That is why we have millions of refugees. Why are all those people taking refuge in Russia? Why is it in Russia alone that large-scale support for these refugees is offered? Is it perhaps because some people are not so much worried about the future of Ukraine and the Ukrainians, but want to tear Ukraine apart in this quarrel with Russia? They want to find a way to make Russia into the enemy of Europe, to justify the sanctions and the military spending involved.

      Russians and Ukrainians are brother nations – indeed, we have often been a single nation – and we will remain as one, whatever happens. We have been through a lot together, and we can survive this too. We need dialogue now more than ever; without it, there will be chaos and war.

      Mr BOCKEL (France)* – This excellent report highlights a dramatic aspect of the current crisis: the fate of the refugees and IDPs. It underlines the violence of the past year and the need for the government to find a new way to govern the territory where Russian-speakers have their rightful place. It is not a question of legitimising the situation in Donbass. What has happened over the past year shows us the need for lasting partnership, both politically and economically. The association agreement that was finally signed should be a first step. Anchoring Ukraine in Europe should go together with structural changes to allow it to face the civil war.

      We Europeans who are in the European Union have a special role to play. Perhaps we underestimated the profound fractures in that country. We need to think about that and about the impact of the Maidan movement. The Council of Europe has undeniable expertise in consolidating democratic institutions. In Ukraine, that means encouraging greater involvement by populations in the east of the country in central decision making. Never forget that the secession of Donbass was partly the result of the Verkhovna Rada’s decision to impose Ukrainian as the sole language over the whole territory in February 2014. Our Organisation should help the government overcome the situation, build bridges and strengthen efforts to overcome the country’s divisions. The principle of Ukraine’s territorial integrity depends on the acknowledgment of the rights of all communities.

      The Council of Europe must also work directly in favour of peace between Kiev and Moscow. We bring together both countries here, and they have both spoken. Our Organisation should then play the role of mediator. Let us not apply the same logic as the European Union. We have worked since 1949 for the unity of the continent of Europe, which is now threatened by the conflict. We cannot simply accept 5 000 fatalities in a country that is a member of our Organisation, and it is inconceivable that we should simply accept 1.5 million people becoming IDPs in the heart of our continent. Those figures contradict the very existence of our Organisation. Let us therefore act to promote effective peace between the warring parties and sketch out a new and democratic Ukraine, open to its new partner and vice versa.

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

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – These are very hard questions, but everyone can find the answers. Are there 1 000, 10 000, 100 000 or 1 million refugees? How long should we wait before considering a situation as a tragedy: three months, five months, 26 years? Is a tragedy more terrible when it happened recently, or when it lasts every day for over 20 years? Everyone who has spoken today about the Ukrainian refugees and IDPs feels the bitterness of the disaster and, in so doing, has tried somehow to share the sorrow and be in some way helpful. However, to my mind, nobody can feel and share that sorrow as sensitively as the Azerbaijanis, for we have lived daily with such sorrows and witnessed the implications of a similar tragedy.

      With regard to refugees, the Parliamentary Assembly has conducted repeated debates and adopted numerous resolutions, but what has that achieved? Unfortunately, it has done almost nothing. It is clear that achieving victory over evil is always difficult. Today we make words about the humanitarian situation in Ukraine and the terrible living conditions of the army of refugees, which is growing daily, but we are living in such a complicated period – for Europe and for the rest of the world – that tomorrow another Council of Europe member State could be facing the same problem and be the subject of such a debate. Unfortunately, the likelihood of similar events taking place is great, and the reason is that we have allowed a precedent to be set. Unless more severe measures and more resolute steps are taken to prevent such undesirable precedents emerging, the process will continue and a chain reaction is inevitable.

      The number of refugees and IDPs in Europe is now significantly larger than it was in 2001. That year, Azerbaijan – a State with nearly 1 million refugees and IDPs, created by the Armenian occupation and the strong states that support it – became a member of the Council of Europe. The whole Azerbaijani population, including nearly 1 million refugees and IDPs, wanted the Council of Europe, along with other respected international organisations, to assist in untying this knot, and they believed that their hopes would be realised. However, an unreasonable, soft and indifferent attitude allowed the problem to remain without a solution for many years. The camps of tents became the birthplace of the children of refugees and IDPs, and a new generation was born with that status.

      The rules of history are merciless and cruel. If you ignore the problems of others, you will surely be punished. The tragedy that you could settle but ignore will boomerang and return to you as a new disaster – yesterday in Moldova, the day before in Georgia, the other day in Ukraine, afterwards in another neighbouring country, and some day in your own country. We do not wish things to be so, but we must be ready, for the logic of these developments is moving us in a similar direction.

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – I welcome both Mr Sheridan’s reliable report and the recently prepared addendum, but even since then the humanitarian situation facing the refugees and displaced persons has significantly worsened. The reason is simple: unexpectedly, at the height of winter, the war exploded on several battlefronts across Eastern Ukraine. The devastating impact on the population’s human rights was presented clearly by Commissioner Muižnieks. The adoption in October of the law on IDPs is probably the only positive impact in this ocean of human tragedy.

      A very controversial decision was the suspension of pension payments and some social security payments to people residing outside the Ukrainian authorities’ control. Such solutions are leading only to the further isolation of those regions and exacerbating the hardship of the people living there, who have already suffered considerably. We should insist on changing that status quo. Frankly, nobody knows the real number of refugees and displaced people, but it is surely higher than 1 million. The most urgent issue for IDPs anywhere is always housing. For instance, collective centres are not suitable for severe winters. Also, around 1 million Ukrainians have fled to Russia, mainly to the Rostov region. We must intensify what has already been done to respond to such a huge influx of refugees and IDPs. The most dramatic situation is in areas not controlled by the Ukrainian authorities. We do not know the details of that situation. It could be comparable to the humanitarian situation during the war in Chechnya, which I witnessed years ago so many times.

      I fully support the rapporteur’s invitation to the Council of Europe Development Bank to take appropriate action. Solidarity is needed, at least to the degree that we used it a dozen years ago in relation to the humanitarian situation in Chechnya and Ingushetia. However, we are all aware that the best condition for practical solidarity is an end to the fighting, which is the heaviest we have seen, and agreement on a peaceful solution.

THE PRESIDENT – I interrupt the list of speakers to remind members that the vote is in progress to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The ballot will close at 1 p.m. and will re-open during the afternoon sitting before closing at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair. Please be so kind as to vote.

      The next speaker is Mr Šircelj.

      Mr ŠIRCELJ (Slovenia) – The report is excellent, but the figures presented in it are worrying. Again, we face humanitarian catastrophe in an area close to us, in which 5 000 people have died and 1 million people have been displaced over the past 12 months. What have we done about it?

I fully support the rapporteur's appeal to Council of Europe States to help the Ukrainian national authorities resolve the humanitarian crisis in their territory. Ukraine needs help but that is only one part of resolving the crisis there.

In the 2014 parliamentary elections, the Ukrainians decided to choose Europe. They chose parliamentary democracy and respect for dialogue, the rule of law and human rights. A political solution based on respect for Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity is key to long-lasting peace in the area.

The only way to bring the war and the consequential humanitarian catastrophe to an end is fully to implement the Minsk agreement. That agreement is essential in securing a peaceful solution, so all the parties involved in the conflict must make every effort to reach that objective. Parliamentarians must play an important role in this process to secure peace in Ukraine.

I thank the rapporteur for the report and for his work.

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Wach.)

      Ms GORYACHEVA (Russian Federation)* – I have mixed thoughts about the report and the draft resolution. Who is responsible for the humanitarian crisis and disaster in Ukraine? Understandably, not much is said about the root causes as the most motivational forces have been those of the United States and Europe. What about the scale of the disaster? More than 5 000 have died and 10 000 peace-loving citizens have been wounded. There are more than 1 million refugees and bombing has destroyed 3 000 homes, 200 schools and 50 clinics. When the Ukrainian army has retreated, mass graves of peace-loving residents who have been tortured have been found. If that is not genocide, what is it?

      Is this the kind of democracy that the West wants to instil in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria and now in Ukraine? Mr Sheridan, you visited Kiev and Kharkiv, but did you go to Donetsk or Lugansk? Did you go down into the unheated basements where half-starved people are trying to shelter from bombing? They are often old or children. Why is there not a word about this?

      What is the rapporteur decisive about? In paragraph 13 of the draft resolution, there is criticism not of the American hawks but of Russia for its alleged destabilisation and the presence of its military, but no fact supports this. If our army were there, it would have reached Lviv a long time ago. As we know from the mass media, when the Ukrainian military moved out of Donetsk airport, American weapons were found as well as a corpse in a NATO uniform. Who is responsible for the destabilisation and what is the root cause of south-eastern separatism in Ukraine? People were deprived of their right to use their mother tongue. Does that mean they deserve bombing? I can assure you that we will not betray our brothers in Donbass and Lugansk.

      We have 300 000 refugees in the Russian Federation; 143 000 are working, and 11 000 are being given medical care. Some 45 000 children are going to our schools. We have provided more than 50 000 tonnes of medicine and food aid. Who has done more than us?

      We, too, are suffering from the Ukrainian tragedy instigated with the assistance of the West. The dignified, industrious and independent Ukrainian people deserve something better. There is a well-known Ukrainian proverb, “It’s enough for the master to frown and his peasants will tear you apart.” The master is beyond the ocean, but perhaps Europe should make sure that the peasants cease to spill the blood of their compatriots.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Vėsaitė, as Mr Badea is not here.

      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania) – The speeches of the Russian delegation made me feel strange. We could be back 40 years ago, in the time of the Cold War, hearing Russian propaganda.

Why would the Kremlin continue this war? To make a corridor from Russia to Crimea? How many more lives will that cost? How many broken destinies? Perhaps Ukraine cannot manage this crisis any more. Perhaps there are two reasons for it.

The humanitarian situation is worsening every day. People are living without electricity and without proper food. Children cannot go to school. As Europeans, we should stop the conflict at its roots. Russian battalions are not on vacation at the Ukrainian border. Lithuania stresses the need to mobilise all possible international assistance for Ukraine, including that needed for short-term humanitarian and recovery requirements. I urge member States to invite those who come to our countries to take short-term jobs. There are businesses that are eager to go to Ukraine to reconstruct buildings and the energy sector, but we should create a guarantee fund. We welcome the recent decision of the European Commission to increase humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, which brings European Union emergency and early recovery aid, including contributions from member states, to €95 million. Stop this madness, stop the war and let us start the reconstruction.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The typed speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. I remind colleagues of the new rules adopted in Resolution 2002 in the June 2014 part-session. These rules include provisions which state that the texts are to be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted. We will resume the debate at 3.30 p.m. before we vote on the draft resolution and the amendments.

      I remind you that the vote to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of Bulgaria and Serbia is still in progress. The vote will close at 1 p.m., but you will be able to vote this afternoon between 3.30 p.m. and 5 p.m., so please make sure that you do.

3. Address by Mr Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland. After his address, Mr Higgins has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

      Mr President, Mrs Higgins, it is an immense honour for me to welcome you to the Chamber of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which brings together members of parliament from all over Europe to support human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

      Mr President, during your long and rich career as a politician, poet, sociologist, author and broadcaster, you have shown enormous commitment to these values. Therefore, your visit to Strasbourg is highly symbolic. As we are facing numerous challenges in respect of human rights in Europe and worldwide, we have to draw strength from the values that underpin the foundations of the Council of Europe. In your address to the European Parliament two years ago, you rightly stressed that the founding fathers of today’s Europe “sought not only to replace war with peace, but more importantly, to construct a vision of Europe’s people working together in an inclusive way”. Our Assembly is an attempt to make this vision a reality with democratically elected politicians, representing 820 million Europeans, working together to protect and promote our common historic, intellectual and cultural heritage.

      To succeed, we need the support of all member States and political forces across the continent. In this context, Ireland’s commitment to our values is exemplary – whether the provision of support to human rights defenders, the promotion of social justice and solidarity, or the development of North-South dialogue and assistance to our neighbours who strive to build democratic societies. But what is even more important is the commitment of individuals and leaders who speak out, with courage, passion and determination for human rights and democratic principles. It is no doubt for this reason that you were voted president with more votes than any other Irish politician in the past. You are not afraid of controversy. You warned that Ireland was “sleepwalking into disaster” with its high youth unemployment rates. I wonder what warning you might have for us today.

      You are not a stranger to this Assembly, having been a member from 2001 to 2003. Therefore, we are very much looking forward to hearing your address, which I have no doubt will be a major source of inspiration for us as individuals and for our work.

      Mr President, Mrs Higgins, I bid you “A Uachtaráin, céad míle fáilte romhat – a hundred thousand welcomes.”

      Mr HIGGINS (President of Ireland) – A Uachtaráin, Madame la Présidente, a Chomhaltai den Tionôl Parlaiminteach, Members of the Parliamentary Assembly, is mian liom buiochas a ghabhâil libh as ucht na deise a thabhairt dom labhairt leis an tionôl seo, tionôl a thugann le chéile toscairi parlaiminteach na 47 stâit Eorpaigh - institiûid a bhfuil rôl suntasach imeartha aici an daonlathas agus riail an dli a lâidriû ar fud âr n-ilchrioch.

      THE PRESIDENT – Excuse me.

      Mr HIGGINS – I am continuing in English.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr President. My mother tongue is Luxembourgish, and no one will understand it. We do not understand your language, but thank you very much for addressing us in your language at the beginning of your speech, and I tried to do my best to welcome you in your language, but I had to translate those words because I did not understand them myself.

      Mr HIGGINS – Well, it is one of the great achievements of the Council of Europe to support minorities and their languages.

      May I begin then by thanking you, Madam President, for visiting Dublin in June last year and for the kind invitation that you extended to me then to address this Assembly? I congratulate you on your re-election to the position of President and wish you and all the other members of the Parliamentary Assembly enduring stamina, imagination and moral courage, too, in continuing to build up European co-operation and the rule of law in response to the great challenges of our times. It is, for me, both an honour and a great pleasure to be in this Chamber, in this distinguished institution, the Council of Europe, which conjures up the very first steps of Europe’s moral and cultural reconstruction after the devastation of the Second World War.

      I am animated, too, by a particular sense of urgency and gravity, as all we elected representatives of the peoples of Europe are seeking to make our way through what must be described as a fragile moment for democracy. Ours are times when, again, we acutely need and appreciate the opportunities offered by the Council of Europe as a unique pan-European co-operation body. These are times, too, that require us to rekindle the values of human dignity and democratic pluralism that the Council of Europe upholds and fosters.

      As one of the 10 founding members, Ireland remains keenly aware of the important role that the Council of Europe has played in shaping our own path in European co-operation. The young Irish State remained neutral through the Second World War. It was, in the late 1940s, a somewhat poor country, geographically peripheral, and its foreign policy was very much coloured by unresolved issues with its powerful neighbour and former coloniser, the United Kingdom. Thus Irish participation in The Hague Congress and in the negotiations in London that culminated in the Council of Europe Statute in 1949 represented an important early engagement with the ideas and debates then coalescing about the shape and scope of post-war co-operation. Over subsequent years, our membership of the Council of Europe and our implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights have been fundamental in consolidating the rule of law and supporting positive social change in Ireland.

      Today, in the face of new challenges that overhang Europe, I deem it important to start by reaffirming my country’s solid commitment to multilateralism, and to the goals and principles that have guided the Council of Europe’s endeavours throughout the 65 years of its existence. Indeed, ever since its foundation, and with a renewed sense of purpose during the decade that made history after the end of the cold war, the Council of Europe has provided an essential catalyst. First, it highlights the fundamental principles of pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Secondly, it has worked on the setting of standards in the area of human rights through the European Convention on Human Rights and other legal mechanisms, and thirdly, it has confirmed the common goal of a freer, more tolerant and just society in Europe. That is an overall framework for which we must consciously and proactively care, and we must nurture it as an indispensable component of the architecture of stability, peace and trust that we have been building on this continent over the decades. It is a legacy of profound ethical significance that is admired and emulated across the globe, and we must be mindful not to let it unravel – rather, we must extend and straighten it.

      Before I come to those destructive currents, which in my view threaten to unravel our European systems of cohesion and co-operation, I acknowledge more specifically the Council of Europe’s immense contribution to the vindication of human rights in the fullness and indivisibility of their breadth. Of course the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocol – which my country signed in 1950 and ratified in 1953 – and the activities of the European Court of Human Rights lie at the centre of the work of the Council of Europe. I am delighted at the prospect of visiting the Court this afternoon – an institution so fundamental not only to the Council of Europe, but to European democracy in the broadest sense. Ireland’s deep regard for the activities of the Court and its role in strengthening democratic debate is reflected, for example, in our support for its webcasting programme. Since 2006, Ireland has voluntarily funded the webcasting of Grand Chamber hearings before the Court. By allowing free access to some of the most important proceedings that take place here in Strasbourg, that project not only enables citizens to better understand the Court’s operations and the rights that flow from the European Convention on Human Rights, but it also makes citizens aware of the manner in which the vindication of human rights can inform and invigorate democratic life and societal change in their own country.

      In the area of socio-economic rights, the adoption of the European Social Charter was a milestone in suggesting that human flourishing entails the effective enjoyment of social rights as well as civil and political rights. I am glad that Ireland has been a supporter of both the original and revised charter, and that it has accepted the collective complaints mechanism presided over by the European Committee of Social Rights. The Irish have also backed more recent initiatives aimed at strengthening the system of protection under the European Social Charter, including the Turin process.

      A further strength of the Council of Europe has been its emphasis on the role of culture in nurturing democracy. For the Irish, a nation attached to the preservation of its ancient Gaelic language, the adoption of the Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is but one example, and an important step towards the recognition of cultural rights throughout Europe. Taken together, the human rights structures of the Council of Europe present a model of efficacy and sophistication in the promotion and protection of rights and liberties, and demonstrate a firm commitment to the fundamental principle of the indivisibility of human rights, apprehended at once in their civil, political, economic, social and cultural dimensions.

      Our foundations are therefore more than adequate, but that is not to say that Ireland is blind to the possibilities that exist for enhancing the efficacy of the European Court of Human Rights, and indeed the Council of Europe. Ireland is supportive of the reform process undertaken by the Court, and we welcome the achievements that it has already secured in reducing the enormous backlog, which at one stage threatened its very functioning. More broadly, Ireland endorsed the decision of the 2005 Warsaw Summit to refocus on the Council of Europe’s primary mission – to promote human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe – and it has been a long-standing supporter of Secretary General Jagland’s efforts in that regard.

      While recognising the need for qualified, informed and positive reform, I wish to express my disquiet and concern at those endeavours under way in some quarters that risk undermining the very legitimacy of both the Court and the European Convention on Human Rights. Some of the criticisms addressed to the Court pertain to a wider political argument about Europe. Given Ireland’s particular historical, economic, political, institutional and territorial circumstances, the terms of the debate about Europe constitute for us Irish a very serious matter for concern.

      Let me state things clearly: the European Convention on Human Rights must remain the cornerstone of human rights protection in Europe. To those who might suggest that there is a tension between the principles of parliamentary democracy and the international protection of human rights, let us respond unequivocally that parliaments flourish in an atmosphere where rights are vindicated. Those two propositions must, I believe, provide the basis for our collective discussions, because the Council of Europe and Europe itself are arriving at a crucial juncture in their history. European co-operation currently faces a range of serious difficulties that must be – and are – of concern to all European citizens, and in a particular way to their elected representatives, including yourselves. Indeed, it is in your capacity as delegates of the national parliaments of Europe that I address you today, and it is by appealing to your experience and sense of responsibility as parliamentarians that I now turn to the alarming trends – some of a new kind; others the recrudescence of old ills – that currently imperil democracy, social cohesion and our shared future both within our national community and at a European level.

      As a former parliamentarian, honoured to have spent more than three decades serving in the Irish national Parliament, and including some years as a member of this Assembly from 2001 to 2003, I have the greatest respect for the work that parliamentarians perform to fulfil and respond to the needs and aspirations of the citizens who elect them, and for their practice of debating, differing and reaching accommodation on the important issues that shape our public world. The suggestion I wish to put before you today is that however grave the challenges we face, they also present parliamentarians with an opportunity to reassert the relevance of parliaments, their discourse, representations, and indeed their capacity to revitalise the project of European co-operation.

      The first challenge we face, as members of this Assembly are acutely aware, is the disquieting return to our continent of grave geopolitical fractures that carry disastrous human consequences. As we meet here this morning, armed conflict is continuing on the territory of a member State of the Council of Europe – Ukraine – with catastrophic repercussions for its citizens, as the report of Mr Sheridan, which was debated here just before I began to speak, powerfully recounts. Putting an end to military violence so as to enable people from all sides to return to their homes and communities and rebuild their lives, is at once a pressing and of course arduous task that calls for the resources, skills and patience of various parties. It is also clear that longer-term and deeply rooted differences must be tackled in a spirit of dialogue and co-operation, founded on justice and respect for fundamental rights. That is the test and that is the challenge for diplomacy.

      It is here that the Council of Europe has a clear and indeed imperative contribution to make, beyond the important initiatives that have already been undertaken by members of this Assembly and, of course, by you, Madam President, who have been so exemplary in your endeavours to maintain contact with all delegations and who uphold that delicate but essential balance between principles on the one hand and, on the other, openness and readiness to discuss the necessity of ending the havoc of the present destruction.

      A second, profound challenge to democracy and social cohesion arises from new forms of fanaticism and conflict whose ramifications reach out to the heart of our European cities. These threats were brought home to us most recently in Paris, where in the space of three days we saw freedom of expression and freedom of the press assaulted in the most direct and dreadful of ways, through the murder of a satirical paper’s entire editorial team, and a further four men coldly assassinated in an act of pure anti-Semitism.

      The task of responding to the root causes of such threats is of immense complexity. This is not just because these new forms of violence arise at the obscure intersection of global geopolitical tensions, individual trajectories and beliefs and complex structures of social inequalities; it is also because there are great risks inherent both in the very responses that might emerge from fear and anger among our citizens and in the obvious potential for political exploitation of those passions.

      I know that the ambassadors of the Council of Europe’s 47 member states agreed last week, under the Belgian chairmanship, on a decision to step up action against terrorism. The challenge, of course, is not confined to reactive responses; it entails understanding and addressing the motivations of those young people who are drawn to extremism and political violence. The challenge also extends, I believe, to those novel uses of technology and science such as cyber-attacks and remote extrajudicial executions performed by machines that blur the boundaries between war and peace and risk instilling generalised suspicion between and within our societies.

      I sincerely believe that the Council of Europe and this Assembly in particular must continue to play an important role in upholding the rule of law in the face of destructive forms of extremism, be they of a religious or nationalistic type, as well as State hubris. The Council of Europe has shown in the past that it has the ability not to lose sight of fundamental human rights – for instance, when the general atmosphere in the West had overtones of a new crusade. One example was the 2006 report by Senator Dick Marty documenting the participation, both active and passive, of some of the Council of Europe’s member states in CIA detentions and transfers – what were called “renditions”. Senator Marty’s report was of great international significance in recasting debates on the balance between counterterrorism and the protection of human rights. I myself recall referring to the report during debates in Dáil Éireann, our lower chamber. That was just one instance among many others when I could clearly see the great benefits that derived from close interaction between discussions and parliamentary work taking place in national parliaments and those in European and even global fora.

      More broadly, I believe that parliaments offer an important and privileged channel to increase public participation in and awareness of urgent foreign policy debates. The conception of professional diplomatic activity and raison d’état as being in conflict with emotional and moralist public opinion is, in my view, very flawed. Parliaments can and must hold governments accountable for what is said and done, or not said and done, in the wider world in the name of their citizens.

      This debate on whether foreign policy is an essentially executive function or whether it can genuinely accommodate democratic accountability is by no means new. It is interesting to note that, for example, among the issues reported back during the first years of Ireland’s membership of the Council of Europe was that of the relative strengths and prerogatives in this Organisation of the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. In 1949, the Irish delegate Séan MacBride remarked to his Parliament, the Dáil: “To a large extent the Statute which is presented to the House is designed to shackle the members of the Assembly but I feel that, with the passage of time, the members of the Assembly themselves will take things into their own hands.”

      Foreign policy is not the only domain where parliaments should, I suggest, reassert their relevance. Economic and fiscal policy is another essential area, and an urgent one, for proactive parliamentary activity and discourse. Indeed, the third, perhaps less directly confrontational but no less undermining, threat for the future of European democracy is revealed in the largely unquestioned leaching of power and authority from parliaments to the apostles of a narrow version of fiscal orthodoxy, an orthodoxy that seems predicated on the de-peopled version of the economy. Today, global financial markets, assumed to be self-regulating, and unaccountable bodies such as rating agencies, occupy a far greater space in contemporary media and discourse than do parliaments debating the fears and welfare of citizens. What has happened, we must ask ourselves, to the field of public economics and its discourse, for its decision-making structures, previously located in representative institutions, where differences based on declared assumptions were respected, to have given so much ground to a single version of expert knowledge about the so-called laws governing the economy? How have we let rating agencies, for example, acting as some kind of modern panopticon, not bound by any democratic requirements, gain such influence on the life-world and prospects of our citizens?

      What can be done? Parliaments both at national and European level must urgently claim back competence and legitimacy on economic and fiscal matters. In saying that, I am not negating the limitations that severe fiscal constraints, combined with intense global competition, impose on our elected representatives’ ability to craft a variety of policy options. What I am saying is that no single economic paradigm can ever be adequate to address the complexity of our world’s varying contexts and contingencies. The current status quo, whereby decisions that are the legitimate object of political debate and normative arguments have been abandoned to the automaticity of rigid fiscal rules from one corner of a dominating paradigm – even as economists themselves disagree over the theoretical soundness of such rules – is highly perilous for the future of our politics and our citizens. We need good economics based on pluralist models and connected and answerable to society.

      In that, parliaments matter. Centuries of effort have been invested by European citizens in securing the vote. It is to their elected representatives that citizens look for accountability, for the opening up of new collective possibilities lodged in sound policy options and for connecting them to wider horizons through their work in international fora such as this Assembly. Can we let go these hard-won advances? Have we considered the consequences of leeching this legitimacy, authority and capacity? It is my profound conviction that a strong case can be made for the centrality of ethics to our deliberations on economic matters. This requires no dismissal of any tool of economics, not to speak of the field itself. It is simply asking for a context for economics that is ethical. Indeed, questions of political economy can never appropriately be regarded as purely technical; they have, I suggest, an intrinsically normative dimension, and should therefore always be open to political discussion and dissension.

      My message is not a pessimistic one. National parliaments and supranational parliamentary bodies such as this can, I suggest, reclaim a central role in preserving the public world that lies at the heart of European democracy – that essential space shared by citizens, who must be free to debate in an open and pluralist manner, and whose children must have access to a pluralist scholarship, be enabled to imagine alternatives to the ideas and practices that govern their present circumstances, and project their future together, in their national communities, in Europe, or at global level.

      The Council of Europe has shown an impressive lead in addressing the fiscal questions of our time from an ethical perspective, as is demonstrated by the recent initiative of the Commissioner for Human Rights on the theme of “Safeguarding human rights in times of economic crisis”. If we are to respond to this crisis of democracy in a holistic manner, recognising the political, economic, social and cultural dimensions to the problems before us, you, parliamentarians, obviously have a most valuable perspective to offer. Every day, on the streets and in your advice centres, you encounter unemployment, poverty, and the feelings of alienation and insecurity expressed by those – particularly the young – who, as Jürgen Habermas put it, “have to pick up the tab for the impacts of a predictable dysfunction of the financial system on the real economy”, and who, “Unlike the shareholders…will not pay in money values but in the hard currency of their daily existence.”

      I reflect on what Theodor Adorno once said: “The need to let suffering speak is a condition of all truth.” This is also profoundly valid for political truth. The suffering that all of us elected representatives should endeavour to voice is not just that in our own parishes. We are invited to seize upon contemporary issues of global significance, such as climate change and the new sustainable development goals currently being negotiated in the United Nations. The choices that will be made at the end of this year on both agendas – in New York in September for the post-2015 development agenda, and in Paris in December for the climate change agenda – will have a real impact on not just the peoples of the south, but on all of us on the globe, including in the Western world. We are called upon to revise simplistic binary definitions of development, not just because elements of the South are now in the North, while some features of the North have migrated to the South, but because global environmental and social issues, such as the scale of the refugee crisis in Europe’s own neighbourhood, demand a complete shift in mindset and discourse.

      These great global challenges require all of us to take part, not in old and divisive North-South confrontations, but in conversation about our humanity and its future. They present our parliaments, should they seize the opportunity to assert their legitimacy and design clever institutional strategies, with a unique chance to reassert the relevance of parliament and to contribute to the fundamental task of crafting appropriate and morally grounded responses to our contemporary circumstances. We elected representatives are challenged to respond to the current historical moment through best practice in our national and European assemblies, but also as ethical subjects, conscious of our shared vulnerabilities, our solidarity and our interdependence with all those who dwell with us on this fragile planet.

      Let us not be daunted by the magnitude of the task. Let us rather bring as much work and competence to the project as we can. Let us build such bridges as will secure the trust and confidence of all our people by showing ourselves to be authoritative and responsive, including on fiscal and economic matters. Let those who have experience of parliament show that they can negotiate the pathways from national arenas to the complex supranational structures of decision making and power that we are now faced with. You have the mandate to do so on behalf of your electorates. I wish you well in seizing back the discourse about the defining economic and social choices of our time. This is an essential imperative if we truly wish to preserve the democratic system that was created for Europe after the Second World War, and which held firm as the division of the continent ended 25 years ago. In a way, we are invited to engage in no less than a cultural and ethical re-founding of the kind completed by the architects of European co-operation at the mid-point of the 20th century.

      Today again, from the flux of our diverse European histories, current problems, fears and aspirations, there can emerge a response that will accommodate what our collective memory has made endure, and that which the human spirit has invested with hope. Today again we are invited to reach back to a fertile tradition of rich scholarship, of moral instincts and of the generous impulses of European thought. We are also asked to take from the work of utopian and ethical visionaries, and are urged to be creative as we construct a realistic strategy for sustaining a culture of peace, democracy and human rights in Europe. We are required to be bold as we work together in co-operation, open to the world, caring for it in an inter-generationally responsible way – and all of this is possible.

      Mar focal scoir – to finish – the European Court of Human Rights has in one publication been described as “the Conscience of Europe”. Extending with poetic licence that label of honour to the Council of Europe as a whole, we might regard all of you here, in your various tasks and activities, as citizens of the republic of conscience, described by Irish Nobel prize writer Seamus Heaney in a famous poem that he wrote to celebrate international human rights day. The poem ends with the following lines:

      "The old man rose and gazed into my face

       and said that was official recognition

      that I was now a dual citizen.

      He therefore desired me when I got home

      to consider myself a representative

      and to speak on their behalf in my own tongue.

      Their embassies, he said, were everywhere

      but operated independently

      and no ambassador would ever be relieved.”

Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir – thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, President, for your most inspiring address to us, and for having stressed the role of parliamentarians, and our responsibilities. We shall remember that we need a centrality of ethics, as you rightly underlined, and that we are – I take this as a lesson – citizens of the republic of conscience.

      A number of speakers would like to put questions to you. The first is Mr Iwiński, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – Ireland has traditionally been a country of emigration, first of all to America. However, recently it also became an important country of destination, mainly for people from new European Union member States, particularly Poland. How do you see the role of your giant diaspora, and the integration challenges and dilemmas inevitably created by newcomers?

      Mr HIGGINS – As a young sociologist in the United States, the first great work on migration that I read was Thomas and Znaniecki’s work on the role of the Polish peasant in Europe and America. It was one of the great, seminal works on migration, based on the letters of Polish immigrants. We were very pleased in Ireland when the A10 group of countries, including Poland, joined the European Union. We had the great benefit, too, of many Polish people coming to live with us and contributing to our community, society and economy. I was very pleased that, after the economic contraction, they stayed with us. I had an opportunity to meet some of them when I visited Poznań for Ireland’s game against Croatia. We also met Polish communities, some of whom were so warm towards, and of great benefit to, some Irish people who had got into difficulty.

      The question is interesting, because what we have found with the Polish community in Ireland is that, whether they are learning Polish – some of our schools give them the opportunity to do so – or celebrating their own belief system in their own chapel, they have been able to place the richness of their own culture alongside our own. That is as it should be. The movement of people around our common, shared European home is of fundamental importance.

      On responding to what politely can be called the economic contraction, our own diaspora has been of great importance to us. In a practical sense, it was of immense value not only in helping to create the infrastructure for the resolution of difficulties in Northern Ireland, but in telling the world about the advantages of establishing business, research and development in the country with the largest cohort of young people aged between 18 and 25 who have finished third level education and are highly qualified.

Our diaspora is very important. Boundaries should never exist in relation to the human spirit. That is what we must do now: concentrate on our common shared instincts to deepen our humanity and express it in all the different forms of interaction we have with each other. I repeat that that is not utopian; it is highly practical and highly achievable.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr O’Reilly, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr O’REILLY (Ireland) – President Higgins, we are greatly honoured that you are able to join us today. I join President Brasseur in sincerely welcoming you to Strasbourg. On behalf of the EPP, I thank you for an insightful and thought-provoking address.

We were all horrified by the terrorist killings in Paris earlier this month, which represented a direct attack on the fundamental core of the Council of Europe’s mission. Equally, we were heartened by the unprecedented solidarity that followed. We know that a transnational and multi-sector response is needed alongside security, but what do you suggest as a holistic response to the current threat and what broad strategies should we employ?

Mr HIGGINS – Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to hear Ireland being so well represented in the Council of Europe.

In the short term, it is very important that we co-operate and share our information with regard to both reaction and prevention. It is also increasingly important that we look at what we have neglected. We have neglected the conversations that should have taken place between those who genuinely advance faith systems based on fundamental texts. In our failure to support moderate advancement and respect for the differences between faith systems and ethnic identities, we have created a kind of lacuna into which distortions of texts and those who would seek, like predators, to exploit fear have moved.

Yes, we must co-operate and be unequivocal in our defence of the values that are at the heart of the Council of Europe, including, obviously, freedom of speech and all the responsibilities that go with it, but we must also support those who genuinely have different belief systems – not just religious and spiritual ones, but political ones – and create a discourse of tolerance. Because that work is now urgent, it has to be proceeded with through the medium and long term. We might ask what strategies are available in our countries’ education systems to help us look at the stranger as someone with whom we share vulnerabilities on our fragile planet, and we must confront those tendencies that suggest that the stranger or the person who is different must be treated with aggression. We cannot be unequivocal about any of those tendencies in our Europe, if we are to uphold the values at the core of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Leyden, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr LEYDEN (Ireland) – On behalf of our president, Mr Jordi Xuclà, and members of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, all the Irish delegation and, indeed, everyone in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I extend to you, President of Ireland – Uachtarán na hÉireann – Michael Higgins and first lady Sabina Higgins, céad míle fáilte.

Having served as a distinguished member of the Council of Europe from 2001 to 2003, you are familiar with the Assembly’s work and that of the European Court of Human Rights. Your speech certainly outlined the situation extremely well – well done on that wonderful, inspirational speech. As one of the founding members in 1949, Ireland can be very proud to have been a small country that worked with the other nine to form the Council of Europe. You as president of our country are very proud of that, as are all of us.

You were a distinguished lecturer in sociology and political science at the National University of Ireland in Galway, where I had the benefit of hearing your inspiring lectures when I was an extramural student in the early 1970s, so thank you for your contribution to my political career. You were one of the most inspirational lecturers of sociology and politics in Galway.

Your record on human rights is well documented. One issue on which you and I worked together in the Irish Parliament was the future of Palestine and the establishment of an independent Palestine living in harmony with Israel. That subject is very close to your heart and your political work. Go raibh míle maith agat, Mr President.

THE PRESIDENT – I remind colleagues that they have 30 seconds to ask questions.

Mr HIGGINS – I did not cover that in my lectures, President.

I am very grateful for those good wishes. To begin at the end, I do not think that any of us could overestimate the importance of making significant progress on the issues in Palestine and Israel. This is a significant day, because the Secretary General is representing us in Auschwitz. We must move forward into a new space and have discussions that are supported by a secretariat, rather like we had in Ireland and Northern Ireland, so that it is possible to have continuity between one set of suggestions and another.

I would also suggest that 2015 is an incredibly important year. The meeting in Addis Ababa on the funding of the millennium sustainable development goals is very important and, as I have said, September is important. When I mentioned issues in the South and the North, I meant the large exclusions as a result of unemployment, poverty and so on. When I mentioned what had gone from the North to the South, I meant that developments on continents such as Africa and South America must include the people, rather than letting the benefits flow to an elite. Those are real issues. However, after Doha, and given the tones of the Delhi Declaration, we do not need a wasteful North-South confrontation. We need a clean sheet, and we must make proposals that are acceptable globally, which means that we must rethink our models. For example, previous proposals required some of the poorest countries to spend more on the interest payments on their debt than they were permitted to spend on health and education. Those days should be behind us. We are in a new place, in terms of our climate change vulnerability and our responsibility to the planet and to future generations. We must fulfil the sustainable development goals and, for example, eliminate preventable diseases.

      Our world is scarred by inequality, which is an issue that you often debate. Nobody in the social sciences would suggest that inequality is beneficial and necessary for growth. All serious writing in the social sciences suggests that the widening inequality gaps and all that flows from them are great impediments to global, European and national stability.

      THE PRESIDENT – The last speaker on behalf of the political groups is Mr Kox from the Netherlands, the president of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Mr President, there are also Irish members in the Group of the Unified European Left, but they allowed me to ask you a question. After the storms of austerity, the winds of change now seem to be reaching Europe. Yesterday in Greece, Prime Minister Tsipras was sworn in. Despite the warnings of mainstream politicians, he is seen as a signal of hope by many Greek people. The winds of change might soon reach your country as well, as many surveys show. Why did so many mainstream politicians turn a blind eye to the social effects of austerity and the political consequences of so many people losing their trust in democratic institutions? I am looking to you for an inspiring answer.

      Mr HIGGINS – If one looks back at world history, there were those who opposed the extension of the capacity to print and read books. They said that people would read not only the Bible, but Tom Paine, which would be very dangerous. I believe that it is increasingly important that all our citizens have the opportunity to understand economics and hear how choices are made.

      I cannot comment on the recent events in any country. However, all my speeches since I became president have been about the integrated nature of ethics, the economy, ecology and society, which are not abstractions. Equally, the public have not been invited on to the street. It is the responsibility of those who speak on their behalf to empower them with the capacity to read their world and their institutions and to ensure they can fully participate. Those who do not do that will have to react to the possibility of a great disquiet.

      In all my speeches, I stress the importance of having a pluralist education – I was a university teacher – and a pluralist teaching of economic theory. In the most so-called developed economies of the world, some of the greatest universities devote less than 15% of their students’ time to the history of the subject economics. We have seen an instrument become an excuse for a method, and, in turn, a substitute for a theory. It would be foolish to reject all economics and not to use all the sophisticated tools that are available to us, but it is essential that they are embedded in an ethical context.

      I could go much further than what your question suggests. It is possible, for example, for us to envisage a common European and global home in which we agree to transfer sovereignty to make certain values achievable in the future. However, in doing so, we must not forfeit our capacities, rights, duties and responsibilities to implement the content of the charter that has come from the Council of Europe. There is an opening for discussion and debate. Let us take all the possibilities of the charter and regard them as our common responsibilities. We can then exchange and pool our sovereignty to achieve security and stability on the bigger issues, such as sustainable development and climate change. All that is possible.

      THE PRESIDENT – I apologise for forgetting to ask Mr Selvi from Turkey to take the floor on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr SELVİ (Turkey) – In 2009, Europe entered the deepest recession since the end of the Second World War, and Ireland was among the countries that were shaken by the crisis. The economic assessments of international institutions indicate that Ireland is on the way to returning to a pre-recession level. The pace of the Irish economy’s recovery and its exit from the bail-out programme over the past two years is impressive. I congratulate you on it, and ask you for your comments on the speed.

      Mr HIGGINS – I am glad to say that the unemployment rate in Ireland has decreased from more than 15% to 10% and sinking. New jobs are being created, and Ireland’s export performance is good. The real economy – the agricultural economy – was positive, even during the contraction. However, that adjustment has required a huge sacrifice by the people of Ireland.

      In my speech I used the phrase “the de-peopled economy”. Economy is a description, but people comprise society, and the economy serves them. That was the view of many conservative and progressive economists, from Lord Keynes to Adam Smith and his theory of moral sentiments. Therefore, what we say about the economy should be embedded in ethics and the social context.

      In relation to your interesting suggestion, the Irish economy is not a driverless car; it has citizens aboard, and they paid a high price. It is not helpful to use Ireland as an exemplar of what others should practise. The Irish Government was in a difficult position and it made difficult decisions. We are all glad that the economy is improving in many ways. For example, its debt to GDP ratio will be 2.7 next year, and export performance and the unemployment figures are good. But there is still so much to do. The Irish Government and other parties recognise that emigration is still too high. There is a lack of opportunities to invest. It is not only a matter of fixing the flows between banks in terms of their assets. It is also a matter of getting an investment structure. This is a European problem. How can we ensure real investment in a real economy that will create employment and multipliers that will help local economies?

      Although it is a debate for another day, I would suggest that the different political groupings – I am pleased to have had questions from all of them – will face this issue. How do you protect the real economy, its social connections and the citizens who depend on it from speculative flows – the great cloud travelling around the world seeking to come to earth like toxic rain – that create bubbles, be they property bubbles or other types? How do you protect your people?

      It is crucial that those who make economic decisions are made accountable – as I said in the central part of my speech – but that is not the property only of the left. People throughout the world are concerned about that. How do we enable people to participate fully? That has implications for education. We are not in medieval times, when a single paradigm descended from God knows where and affected all people’s lives, so that they had to move like muppets. That is over. I am glad to say that throughout the world people are leaving that simplistic medievalism.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, President. We would have liked to continue to ask questions because I still have a long list of people but unfortunately we have to stop now. I regret that we cannot continue this discussion but I hope that in another forum we will have the opportunity to listen to you again.

4. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT – Voting in the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights is now suspended until 3.30 p.m. It will close at 5 p.m.

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

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

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

2. The humanitarian situation of Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons

Presentation by Mr Sheridan of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 13651 and Addendum

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

Speakers: Mr Németh (Hungary), Ms Taktakishvili (Georgia), Sir R. Gale (United Kingdom), Mr Hunko (Germany), Mr Voruz (Switzerland), Mr Ariev (Ukraine), Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain), Ms Duranton (France), Ms Zelienková (Czech Republic), Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation), Mr Sobolev (Ukraine), Lord Balfe (United Kingdom), Mr Pushkov (Russian Federation), Ms Finckh-Krämer (Germany), Ms Schou (Norway), Mr Rouquet (France), Ms Khidasheli (Georgia), Mr Schennach (Austria), Mr Fournier (France), Mr Villumsen (Denmark), Mr Chisu (Canada), Ms Gerashchenko (Ukraine), Ms L’Ovochkina (Ukraine), Mr Shlegel (Russian Federation), Mr Bockel (France), Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Mr Iwiński (Poland), Mr Šircelj (Slovenia), Ms Goryacheva (Russian Federation) and Ms Vėsaitė (Lithuania)

Replies: Mr Sheridan (United Kingdom) and Mr Mariani (France)

3. Address by Mr Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

Questions: Mr Iwiński (Poland), Mr O’Reilly (Ireland), Mr Leyden (Ireland), Mr Kox (Netherlands) and Mr Selvi (Turkey)

4. Next public business

Appendix I

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 12.2 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/Robert Shlegel

Brigitte ALLAIN/Jean-Claude Frécon

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Werner AMON/Christine Muttonen

Luise AMTSBERG*

Liv Holm ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB

Volodymyr ARIEV

Egemen BAĞIŞ

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Josep Anton Bardina Pau

Doris BARNETT

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/ Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO

Deborah BERGAMINI/Giuseppe Galati

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY/Lord Richard Balfe

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Philippe BLANCHART*

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Marc Spautz

Alessandro BRATTI*

Piet De BRUYN/Petra De Sutter

Beata BUBLEWICZ

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA/Olga Kazakova

Nunzia CATALFO*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH/Jarosław Sellin

James CLAPPISON

Agustín CONDE/Carmen Quintanilla

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Jonny CROSIO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN/Jenő Manninger

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Reha DENEMEÇ

Alain DESTEXHE

Manlio DI STEFANO*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK/Tuur Elzinga

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS*

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE

Nicole DURANTON

Josette DURRIEU*

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV/Andrii Lopushanskyi

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL/Edgar Mayer

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI/Charlò Bonnici

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV/Lidia Antonova

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Antl

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO

Martin FRONC

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Sandro GOZI/Eleonora Cimbro

Fred de GRAAF/Pieter Omtzigt

François GROSDIDIER/Jacques Legendre

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR

Gergely GULYÁS

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Maria GUZENINA/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI

Sabir HAJIYEV

Margus HANSON

Alfred HEER/Gerhard Pfister

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Oleksii HONCHARENKO/Svitlana Zalishchuk

Jim HOOD/David Crausby

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ

Tedo JAPARIDZE/Chiora Taktakishvili

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ

Josip JURATOVIC

Antti KAIKKONEN

Mustafa KARADAYI/Hamid Hamid

Marietta KARAMANLI/Rudy Salles

Niklas KARLSSON

Andreja KATIČ/Matjaž Hanžek

Charles KENNEDY*

Tinatin KHIDASHELI

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Helena Hatka

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR/Brynjar Níelsson

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN

Rom KOSTŘICA

Elena KOUNTOURA*

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID

Marek KRZĄKAŁA/Killion Munyama

Zviad KVATCHANTIRADZE*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Serhiy LABAZIUK

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN'

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

François LONCLE/Marie-Christine Dalloz

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA

Jacob LUND

Trine Pertou MACH/Nikolaj Villumsen

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI

Soňa MARKOVÁ

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Ana MATO

Pirkko MATTILA/Mika Raatikainen

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Eric Voruz

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA

Ivan MELNIKOV

Ana Catarina MENDONÇA

Attila MESTERHÁZY/Gábor Harangozó

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Olivia MITCHELL

Igor MOROZOV

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Hermine NAGHDALYAN

Piotr NAIMSKI

Sergey NARYSHKIN

Marian NEACŞU/Florin Costin Pâslaru

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI/Michał Stuligrosz

Sandra OSBORNE/Michael Connarty

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Waldemar PAWLAK/Ryszard Terlecki

Foteini PIPILI*

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT*

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV

Mailis REPS / Rait Maruste

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ

Alexander ROMANOVICH

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET

Rovshan RZAYEV

Indrek SAAR*

Àlex SÁEZ*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Milena SANTERINI

Kimmo SASI

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza

Deborah SCHEMBRI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE

Urs SCHWALLER*

Salvador SEDÓ

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Ömer SELVİ

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Bernd SIEBERT*

Valeri SIMEONOV

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV/Valeri Jablianov

Karin STRENZ

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI

Damien THIÉRY

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Antoni TRENCHEV

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS*

Mihai TUDOSE/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Goran TUPONJA

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Olga-Nantia VALAVANI*

Snorre Serigstad VALEN

Petrit VASILI

Imre VEJKEY/Rózsa Hoffmann

Stefaan VERCAMER

Mark VERHEIJEN/Tineke Strik

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Vladimir VORONIN/Maria Postoico

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER*

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Gisela WURM

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI

Leonid YEMETS/ Pavlo Unguryan

Tobias ZECH

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Levon ZOURABIAN*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, France/ Maryvonne Blondin

Vacant Seat, Republic of Moldova*

Vacant Seat, Republic of Moldova*

Vacant Seat, ‘‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’’/ Vladimir Gjorchev

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Mariia IONOVA

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Andrzej JAWORSKI

Elisabeth SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER

Jordi XUCLÀ

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Corneliu CHISU

Partners for democracy

Hanane ABOULFATH

Nurbek ALIMBEKOV

Mohammed AMEUR

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Nezha EL OUAFI

Elmira IMANALIEVA

Bernard SABELLA

Asiya SASYKBAEVA

Mohamed YATIM

Appendix II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Bulgaria and Serbia

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV/Robert Shlegel

Werner AMON/Christine Muttonen

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Josep Anton Bardina Pau

Doris BARNETT

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Ondřej BENEŠIK/ Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Andris BĒRZINŠ

Brian BINLEY/Lord Richard Balfe

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Mladen BOSIĆ

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Marc Spautz

Piet De BRUYN/Petra De Sutter

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH/Jarosław Sellin

James CLAPPISON

Agustín CONDE/Carmen Quintanilla

Paolo CORSINI

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN/Jenő Manninger

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Reha DENEMEÇ

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß

Nicole DURANTON

Josette DURRIEU

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL/Edgar Mayer

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Antl

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Hans FRANKEN

Martin FRONC

Sir Roger GALE

Iryna GERASHCHENKO

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Pavol GOGA

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR

Gergely GULYÁS

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Sabir HAJIYEV

Margus HANSON

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Ali HUSEYNLI

Vitaly IGNATENKO

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ

Antti KAIKKONEN

Mustafa KARADAYI/Hamid Hamid

Niklas KARLSSON

Andreja KATIČ/Matjaž Hanžek

Bogdan KLICH/Helena Hatka

Haluk KOÇ

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR

Alev KORUN

Rom KOSTŘICA

Elvira KOVÁCS

Julia KRONLID

Marek KRZĄKAŁA/Killion Munyama

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN'

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

François LONCLE/Marie-Christine Dalloz

George LOUKAIDES

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Thierry MARIANI

Soňa MARKOVÁ

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Ana MATO

Pirkko MATTILA/Mika Raatikainen

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA

Ivan MELNIKOV

Ana Catarina MENDONÇA

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Olivia MITCHELL

Igor MOROZOV

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Piotr NAIMSKI

Sergey NARYSHKIN

Marian NEACŞU/Florin Costin Pâslaru

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI/Michał Stuligrosz

Sandra OSBORNE/Michael Connarty

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Waldemar PAWLAK/Ryszard Terlecki

Vladimir PLIGIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

Mailis REPS / Rait Maruste

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE

Alexander ROMANOVICH

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET

Rovshan RZAYEV

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Ömer SELVİ

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Leonid SLUTSKY

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV/Valeri Jablianov

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI

Damien THIÉRY

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Antoni TRENCHEV

Mihai TUDOSE/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Goran TUPONJA

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Petrit VASILI

Mark VERHEIJEN/Tineke Strik

Vladimir VORONIN/Maria Postoico

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Gisela WURM

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Vacant Seat, France/ Maryvonne Blondin