AA15CR13

AS (2015) CR 13

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Thirteenth sitting

Tuesday 21 April 2015 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

3.       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 3.35 p.m.)

      The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Andorra, Austria, Finland, Ireland and Liechtenstein

      The PRESIDENT* – I remind members that the ballot to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Austria, Finland and Lichtenstein is now open again. The vote will take place in the area behind the Chair and will close at 5 p.m. I invite all members who have not yet cast their votes to do so. The ballots will be counted immediately afterwards in the presence of the two tellers whose names were drawn this morning: Ms Marković and Mr Destexhe. I invite them both to meet at 5 p.m. behind the President’s Chair. The results of the election will be announced, if possible, before the end of business this afternoon.

2. Changes in the membership of committees

       The PRESIDENT* – Our first item of business is to consider a change proposed to the membership of committees, as set out in Document Commissions (2015) 04 Addendum 4.

      Is this change to the membership of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights agreed to?

      It is adopted.

3. Time limits on speeches

      The PRESIDENT* – As colleagues know, Mr Reynders, Minister for Foreign and European Affairs for the Kingdom of Belgium and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, will now be making his statement and answering questions tomorrow afternoon at 12.15 p.m. To enable as many members as possible to speak in the current affairs debate, I propose that speaking time tomorrow morning be limited to three minutes.

      Is that agreed?

      It is adopted.

4. Questions to Mr Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

      The PRESIDENT* – The first item of business this afternoon is questions to Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe. A huge number of colleagues want to take part. I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds.

      I call Mr Agramunt, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – The situation in Ukraine remains a source of great concern to all of us. The part that the Council of Europe has been playing in the area has been extremely important. Do you believe that the Council of Europe has played any role in the Minsk Agreement? To what extent is the Council of Europe involved in the mechanism of that agreement?

      Mr JAGLAND – I cannot say that the Council of Europe had a role in bringing about the Minsk Agreement, but we can contribute to its implementation, either directly or indirectly. We will continue our good work, together with the Ukrainian authorities, to consolidate the Ukrainian State. We have just launched a new action plan for Ukraine – the broadest one in the history of the Council of Europe. President Poroshenko has invited the Council of Europe to put forward three members for the constitutional commission, and that underlines the trust that the Ukrainian authorities have in the Council of Europe. We will also be important in the decentralisation process, which is imperative for the whole Minsk process. On Friday, I signed an agreement with the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, who visited the Council of Europe. It means that the Council of Europe will deploy 25 experts in 25 offices in the regions or oblasts of Ukraine, to help the country with the decentralisation process. All those efforts will be important in moving the Minsk process forward. That of course is not the only thing, but it is an important part of the process in stabilising Ukraine and building a solid State. We can then try to find a solution to the crisis in eastern Ukraine.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker on my list is Ms Korun, on behalf of the Socialist Group. She is not in the room for the moment, so I call Ms Mateu Pi to ask a question on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms MATEU PI (Andorra)* – Secretary General, what effective, practical measures can be taken following the Luxembourg Court’s decision on 18 December not to approve the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights?

      Mr JAGLAND – There is not much that the Council of Europe can do for the time being, because now the ball is very much in the EU’s court. It must consider how it will respond to the opinion from the Court in Luxembourg. We have good contacts with the European Union’s leaders – I had a meeting with President Juncker and Commissioner Timmermans not so long ago – and we fully respect that they must have another internal discussion on how to respond to the opinion. However, two things are clear. First, the Lisbon Treaty is still valid and it states that European Union accession to the Convention shall happen. Secondly, the European Commission is still committed to the process.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Clappison, on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Next month sees the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe. We all know that that war caused so much suffering on all sides. How do you propose to commemorate that event?

      Mr JAGLAND – There will be a number of events around Europe and I assume that many of the members present here will take part. Next Sunday, I will go, with the President of the European Parliament, to Struthof, which was one of the worst death camps. President Hollande and President Tusk will pay tribute to all those who were killed there and will mark the liberation of the camp. As you remember, we commemorated in front of the Palais the liberation of Auschwitz 70 years ago. As you said, there was suffering on all sides and the Council of Europe must pay tribute and commemorate. We have to have empathy with all the people who paid with their lives: those who died in the camps; the civilians who were killed; and the 27 million Russian lives lost. We also know what happened all around Europe, so we will find the right way to commemorate all those who lost their lives during the Second World War and the First World War.

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

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I salute your attempts to bring the Council of Europe back into Ukraine as that is most needed. As we try to build the rule of law in Ukraine, will you comment on the attempt by the Ukrainian Government to ban the Communist Party and the recent decision by the Verkhovna Rada to ban a complete ideology and symbols that could be helpful?

      Mr JAGLAND – I am not a judge in such cases, so I can only refer to what the general view has been, which is that we have to be cautious about such actions. We had a case in Moldova that we reacted against and there have also been judgments from the Court. My message is that we should always be cautious about the banning of anything or any political party, but there can be circumstances in which that is needed.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The last speaker on behalf of the political groups is Ms Korun, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Ms KORUN (Austria)* – I am very sorry for my late arrival – I was held up by traffic. The enormous number of migrants who have been dying in the Mediterranean is of great concern and has been an issue for many years. We see Heads of State and Government and interior ministers expressing their shock and dismay, but such things continue. What do you think the Council of Europe and other organisations should do with a view, for example, to opening humanitarian corridors to enable refugee ships to reach Europe as well as ensuring that migrants’ rights are not just written down on paper, but followed through in practice?

      Mr JAGLAND – Many things should be done, but I am not sure whether they are possible. For instance, it is very necessary to go after the human traffickers on the other side of the Mediterranean, but we do not have any means by which to do that. Secondly, it is absolutely necessary to improve rescue operations in the sea. Thirdly, I have spoken in favour of better burden sharing by the European nations for those who arrive on European soil. For instance, when I was in Greece a year ago, I learned about the burden on the Greek State and Greek society. I went immediately to a summit and said openly in the plenary that the nations around the Mediterranean cannot be the only ones that take care of this problem, when it comes either to rescuing people in the sea or to receiving those who arrive on European soil. I ask for better burden sharing.

      Then we come to the fundamental issue: namely, how we can help to stabilise the nations around the Mediterranean. That is why we make a contribution, which may not be big, but is quite important, through our neighbourhood policy to help States around the Mediterranean. For instance, in Tunisia we are helping to build democratic institutions and a constitution. Far fewer refuges are now coming from Tunisia, probably because the situation is more stable. The Council of Europe contributed to building the constitution there and tried to get the political forces to co-operate for the future of Tunisia. But of course the situation in Libya is much more dramatic, and even more so in Syria. We do not have any contributions to make there for the time being, but the fundamental solution is of course to improve the social and economic situation and to build solid States.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – The situation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is becoming worse and worse. There was a phone-tapping scandal and a lot of debate about that. The opposition is boycotting the parliament and there are inter-ethnic tensions yet again. The European Parliament has tried to mediate. The United States Government is also concerned about the situation. As for the Parliamentary Assembly, we want to send co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee to Skopje. Secretary General, do you think you will personally intervene on this issue in what is a member State of the Council of Europe?

      Mr JAGLAND – We are following this very closely. What is happening in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is happening in the shadow of the other crises we are witnessing in Europe, but it is very serious and very worrying. I am glad that the Assembly is sending rapporteurs, and we will try to do what we can, but in the short term it is important to get the opposition and the government to work together. I call on the opposition to take up their work in the parliament again. I know why they left, but more co-operation between the main political forces is needed to bring the country out of the crisis. Of course we are also very worried about the scandals mentioned as they are not a very good sign for the state of affairs in that country.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – Some months ago, a separatist regime, established in occupied Azerbaijani territories and not recognised by the international community, committed inhuman acts, violating all international norms and principles, against Azerbaijanis Shahbaz Guliyev and Dilgham Asgarov. No attention has been paid to calls made by the international community, and they are still held hostage. Their families wait for your support. What concrete steps can you take as Secretary General to achieve their freedom?

      Mr JAGLAND – I am looking carefully into this, in particular the two cases mentioned. I am looking at what I can do, but if I tell you it probably will not work. I can assure you that I am looking into it.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – When Spain was going through its own crisis with boats transporting migrants from the coast of Africa to the Canaries, we managed to conclude economic agreements with those countries. Those agreements involved us investing in some regions in those countries. Back then, it was not the European Union or the Council of Europe doing this: it was Spain alone. We cannot expect Italy or Greece to solve the current problems on their own – it is simply not possible – so I would like to ask whether, over and above the need to weep about these terrible human tragedies, the time has now come for us to take steps to try to change our relationship with these countries, and to try to change the way in which rich countries deal with poor countries to prevent us from pushing them further into poverty. I am asking about North-South relations and whether there is any way in which Europe can try to bring about a new approach to relations between Europe and Africa.

      Mr JAGLAND – I truly agree with you, and the Council of Europe has made its contribution to that end. We launched our policy towards neighbouring regions and we have clear co-operation agreements with Tunisia, the Kingdom of Morocco and the Kingdom of Jordan. As I said earlier, we helped Tunisia to build its new constitution. We are also assisting the Moroccan authorities with reforms there, and the King of Jordan is also very interested in our assistance.

      We have not been able to increase our co-operation with other States because we have to be very focused and it has to be demand driven, but you are right: Europe has to have a wider perspective on what is Europe. I do not suggest that the Council of Europe or the European Union should take new members on board, but it is clear that those countries have the same challenges as we do, so we should have a broader perspective on how we can solve things jointly. That is why it is important that some of those countries also want to join some of our important conventions that address some of the main challenges, such as human trafficking. We are in a good process, and more and more people recognise that we have the same challenges and need to work together.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – Today, an exchange of views was organised on political prisoners in Azerbaijan. This event took place in an almost empty room. No European parliamentarian – especially from the Azerbaijan delegation – came. This absence on the part of all shows how hypocritical our Organisation is.

      Mr JAGLAND – I cannot comment on that, but what I can say is that we are working jointly with the Azeri authorities. We have established a commission, with experts from the authorities’ side, from the other side and from civil society, and we are looking into all the claims that are being made about political prisoners in Azerbaijan. The Venice Commission has looked carefully into the NGO laws in Azerbaijan and made some critical remarks. We are trying to change the NGO laws and we are working on concrete cases. Even more importantly, we have an action plan for Azerbaijan that focuses on the need for reforms in the judiciary. We were not in that room, but we are active in regard to trying to move things in Azerbaijan in the right direction.

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – I understand that the decentralisation of power is a key part of the broader political reform package in Ukraine and a priority area for the Council of Europe’s action plan in Ukraine. What is the status of this work? What are the next steps in facilitating the decentralisation of power?

      Mr JAGLAND – That is a very important question. The first step is to amend the constitution so that a decentralisation process can take place on a constitutional basis. Secondly, as I said, we are now contributing 25 experts to the regional offices that will be established to help to move the decentralisation process forward in concrete terms.

      We have raised two issues. First, there is a clear need for the amalgamation of municipalities, as there are far too many in Ukraine. I know that in Norway you are also trying to do the same. In fact, this is probably a necessary process in many member countries. Secondly, on the decentralisation of power, we believe there is a need for an asymmetric decentralisation of power – different powers to different regions – in Ukraine. There are many minorities and many regions, so it is probably not possible to have one kind of decentralisation for the whole country.

      This is, of course, for the Ukrainians themselves to decide, and I would like to stress that everything we do is with the full respect of the Ukrainian authorities. It is the Ukrainians who have to decide on their own future. We are there only to assist them. We can offer them our advice and expertise with regard to the constitution and new legislation. My special representative is still in place in the Verkhovna Rada to provide advice daily on new legislation. Decentralisation must be in the hands of the Ukrainians, but we can provide them with good advice and bring in the experience of good practice from other European countries. Many European countries have asymmetric decentralisation or devolution of power – for instance, we think of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland in the United Kingdom. European experience can be valuable to the Ukrainians.

      Ms MAGRADZE (Georgia) – My question concerns the situation in the occupied territory of Georgia, where there are many violations of fundamental human rights. It is a particular concern because no international organisations have access to this territory. We have information that the populations of the neighbouring regions to the occupied territory have a huge problem with the violation of their fundamental human rights. The situation is dramatic. My question is: what steps is the Council of Europe – in particular, the Secretary General – taking to address the grave human rights conditions in the occupied territory of Georgia?

      Mr JAGLAND – This is also of concern. I cannot say that the areas are totally closed to us. We have had experts there – the Commissioner for Human Rights has worked there to some extent – but we would like to have more access and that is what we are working on with the relevant authorities. We have been more able to work in Abkhazia than in South Ossetia. There is a general concern that such black holes exist with regard to human rights and the rule of law, where the Council of Europe does not have sufficient access. This was mentioned in my first annual report on the state of human rights and the rule of law in Europe. I know that this is extremely sensitive and difficult, but as a human rights organisation we cannot accept that certain areas are totally or partially closed to monitoring bodies. These areas are still under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. The Convention applies in these areas, so we should have more access to them.

      Mr HONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – First, I thank you, Secretary General, for your part in my liberation from a Moscow jail in March this year. The illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has created huge challenges for peace and security in Europe and in the whole world. The Committee of Ministers strongly condemned that annexation. In view of the fact that the aggressor country denies the implementation of the committee’s legally binding decisions, will you appoint a special adviser or envoy to consider the issues relating to the temporarily occupied Crimean peninsula?

      Mr JAGLAND – This is also a challenge. Sending experts or monitoring bodies to Crimea is difficult, as we do not have sufficient access. I have not thought about appointing a special envoy. The Human Rights Commissioner was in Crimea not so long ago. We have other opportunities to use other instruments, but it is extremely difficult not just from a political but a logistical point of view. Again, there is a lot tension around the fact that there are areas in Europe where the European Convention applies, but we do not have sufficient access.

      The PRESIDENT – I must now ask Ms Bilgehan to be the last speaker. We have to close the list as the Secretary General has other commitments and we had planned to finish questions by 4 o’clock. Ms Bilgehan, you have the floor.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – Secretary General, your launching of the Council of Europe platform for the protection of journalists at the end of 2014 ushered in a glimmer of hope for journalists, who are under pressure in a number of Council of Europe countries. What has been the follow-up to that initiative?

      Mr JAGLAND – It has already been implemented. The platform will be managed through an agreement between the Council of Europe and major journalist organisations in Europe. The agreement was that these organisations can put on to the platform cases where there are threats against journalists or the freedom of expression in the media. The platform has been launched and I would say that it has already been very successful. Much has been put on the platform already. As part of the agreement, I can use what is put on it to establish dialogues with the right authorities, or even raise it in the Committee of Ministers. For instance, there was a serious incident in Crimea, in which the Crimean Tatar television station was closed and faced difficulties, and we needed to raise the issue and contact the Crimean Tatars to discuss what we could do. It is a useful tool for us. I can also say that it is part of a joint strategy to be much more assertive about upholding freedom of speech, expression and the media and protecting journalists.

      The PRESIDENT – On behalf of us all, I thank you, Secretary General. This is the first time we have had this format of questions and answers only, which I think is a good one. I thank all those who asked questions and apologise for the fact that not everyone could ask their question. I thank you, Secretary General, for answering that variety of questions. I think we should keep this format; and hope that next time more time is allocated so that more members can ask questions.

      I know that you have other meetings, Secretary General, and so have to leave. Thank you very much.

      I remind colleagues that the vote is in progress to elect judges from Andorra, Austria, Finland, Ireland and Liechtenstein to the European Court of Human Rights. The ballot will close at 5 pm. I call on all those who have not yet voted to do so by going to the area behind the President’s Chair.

5. Announcement of the 2015 Europe Prize

      The PRESIDENT* – Colleagues, the next item on the agenda is the Europe Prize, which has been awarded jointly to Dresden in Germany and Vara in Sweden. I extend my congratulations to those two cities; both deserve a big round of applause.

(Applause)

6. Budget and priorities of the Council of Europe for the biennium 2016-2017

Expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly for the biennium 2016-2017

      The PRESIDENT* – The next item on the agenda is a joint debate. Our first speaker is André Bugnon, who will present the reports drafted by Rudy Salles on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. The reports are “Budget and priorities of the Council of Europe for the biennium 2016-17” (Document 13743) and “Expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly for the biennium 2016-17” (Document 13744).

      I remind colleagues that the whole debate, including the vote, must be wound up by 5 pm. I will interrupt the list of speakers at 4.55 pm to allow time for the committee representative to answer, and time to organise the vote.

      I call Mr Bugnon. Your total speaking time is 13 minutes, which you may divide as you wish between the presentation of the reports and answers to questions. Thank you for standing in for Mr Salles, the rapporteur.

      Mr BUGNON (Switzerland)* – Ladies and gentlemen, honourable colleagues, I am standing in for Rudy Salles, who, as you have just heard, unfortunately cannot be with us today, and on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs am presenting two reports for joint debate, “Budget and priorities of the Council of Europe for the biennium 2016-17” and “Expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly for the biennium 2016-17”.

      Document 13743 is a draft opinion on the budget and priorities of the Council of Europe for the biennium 2016-17. There is an explanatory memorandum for the report; I will sum up its salient points. The continent of Europe is faced with important challenges, as is the Mediterranean area. The Council of Europe has the authority, expertise and appropriate mechanisms to help our member States and partners overcome those challenges, but there has to be the political will on the part of member States, as well as a financial commitment. Member States want to make a commitment, but of course expect rigour on the part of the Council of Europe – that is understandable.

      In his first mandate, Mr Jagland put in place a raft of measures intended to increase the efficiency of the Council of Europe, using extra budgetary resources and stabilising salary costs. Those extra resources come from the European Union, with which we have joint programmes – for example, the Eastern Partnership and the North-South Programme. There are also some States, whether member States or not, that pay voluntary contributions. Those contributions are important because they allow the Council of Europe to carry out programmes on co-operation and assistance, but they are, of course, non-permanent and targeted, or earmarked, and so cannot be used to finance the Council of Europe’s traditional activities. Nor can they be used for investment needs, which are a sine qua non if we want to modernise and maintain the Council of Europe’s assets. Only the compulsory contributions made by member States allow us to finance that kind of maintenance and investment.

      We have zero nominal growth in contributions from member States for the biennial budget. If maintained, that principle will lead to serious problems for the Organisation. The extra budgetary resources cannot cover those problems; for 2020, the shortfall will be €22 million. That is why it is important that we adopt measures on budgetary flexibility, as already suggested by the Parliamentary Assembly – for instance, the carry-over of unspent balances from one year to the next or the setting up of a reserve for any unspent balance to make sure that it can be used subsequently. Currently, unspent money from a closed financial exercise should be paid back to the member States – that is the current rule, and it means that member States receive some money back from their contributions to the Organisation. We need to look at member States’ minimum contribution to the Organisation’s ordinary budget. Those, too, should be revised; 15 member States currently pay less than it costs to have a judge sitting on the European Court of Human Rights – their contribution does not even pay for that salary.

      It is important to look to the future. We have good news, with Turkey becoming a major contributor, joining Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Russia. By doing so, Turkey could bring an additional €20 million to the budget of the Council of Europe, meaning that the Organisation would be in a position to meet the many challenges it faces both internally and externally, although of course there is still the issue of the zero nominal growth. Turkey’s support is important because it would be a stable form of financial contribution that would help us fund some needs that the extra budgetary resources cannot be used to cover.

      In the light of the attacks on Copenhagen, Paris and most recently Tunis, we know that we have to concentrate on human rights – that should be the priority of the Council of Europe for the biennium 2016-17. Let us therefore do so. In the first report we ask the Secretary General to reintroduce financing for journalists who attend major events organised by the Council of Europe, including the part-sessions of the Parliamentary Assembly. Their presence should be funded, because it is important for the media to cover all the activities of the Council of Europe independently and freely.

      All the points I have raised are in the explanatory memorandum. It has been a great honour for me to submit them to you for your attention on behalf of the rapporteur, Mr Salles.

      I move on now to the resolution and report on the expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly and the budget of the Council of Europe as a whole. We must remember that the expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly depends on decisions taken by the Committee of Ministers concerning Turkey, which would become a major contributor to the budget. This is important news and will be of great importance for the next budgetary cycles.

      We must look at the contributions of other member States and the zero nominal growth increase. If we do not have an increase, we will have a problem. The Parliamentary Assembly may lose three permanent posts if salary costs are frozen. Let me remind the Assembly that, for 2014-15 – in other words, the previous biennium – the Assembly made €225 000 of efficiency savings and lost two posts. It is important to recall that. The situation is not resolved.

      The Committee of Ministers has still not decided on the Turkish request. Having said that, I believe its decision will be positive, but it must not lead to a reduction in the contributions paid by other member States. In parallel with the decision on Turkey, the Assembly will be asked to decide on two other points, the first of which is the number of seats to be granted to the Turkish delegation in the Assembly. Secondly, it must decide on the introduction of Turkish as a working language. If Turkish becomes a working language of the Assembly, it will need further appropriations to cover interpretation costs during plenary sessions and committee meetings – the Secretariat estimates that the cost will be €700 000. The introduction of Turkish as a working language must be seen in the context of an increase in appropriations.

      In 2016-17, the Parliamentary Assembly will continue its priority missions. In particular, we will look at the efficiency of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Social Charter. We will also look at the position of human rights defenders. We will have the follow-up to the Lanzarote Convention on sexual abuse, and the One in Five campaign, which comes to a conclusion at the end of this year. We will also look at elections monitoring and observation, Internet governance, cybercrime, co-operation with national parliaments and partners, and statutory elections and Convention-related elections. That will be part of our focus. We will also look at social media. It is important to conclude the Parliamentary Assembly’s work in that area. We need to modernise our tools and produce documents electronically to an increasing extent, which will allow us to carry out research using Internet tools.

      The Assembly will support the involvement of parliamentarians in those activities. I thank the Council of Europe for its awareness-raising campaigns in that respect, and particularly the parliamentary network for the rights of women to live without violence – “Women Free from Violence” – and the fight against corruption. I also thank the parliamentary network against hate – the No Hate Parliamentary Alliance.

      We have just decided on the migrants issue. The Parliamentary Assembly will continue with targeted measures, working with parliaments of our member States and our Partners for Democracy, ensuring that the Assembly’s recommendations are implemented in practice. We have a joint programme with the European Commission, which is part of the Eastern Partnership. We also have the partnership for the south-east and other joint programmes with the Commission.

      The Committee of Ministers’ decision on Turkey’s request will take effect in 2016. We need to look at the resources that will be necessary to ensure that Turkish can be included as a working language of the Assembly. For the details and the nitty-gritty, I ask delegates to refer to the draft resolution and the report. I call upon them to adopt the two documents.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Bugnon, for that presentation. You have four minutes remaining to answer questions. I have quite a long list of speakers. I call Mr Elzinga, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) – Every day, the European Union spends the total annual budget of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is a big organisation, with 47 member States, a list of institutions, monitoring bodies, conventions and partial agreements. In upholding our core values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, it is a grand and great organisation, but in financial terms, we are humble, small and threatened.

      The Council of Europe is confronted with many challenges in Europe to its important core values. It deals with those challenges in an efficient way, but instead of having enough means, the budget poses an extra challenge. On behalf of the UEL, I compliment the rapporteur but want to make this very clear: the budgetary stagnation resulting from our member States’ regrettable decision to continue to apply zero nominal growth could have dramatic consequences for the Council of Europe and prevent it from meeting its obligations. Further cuts to the Assembly’s budget might even endanger its functioning, according to the report.

      I compliment the Council of Europe for its creativity in becoming even more cost-effective and for raising additional resources. The Organisation has been able to leverage the limited budget with additional resources from member States, the EU and others. That is very good news for many extra projects, but other contributors hold ever more leverage over the Council of Europe, because the additional resources form an increasing share of the overall budget.

      That real threat to the Council of Europe could be solved relatively easily by member States, because their contribution is a relatively small financial burden, even in these troubled financial days, especially if we consider what more our beautiful Organisation could do in the face of the serious challenges we face for democracy, the rule of law and human rights. If we believe that the Council of Europe is worthwhile – of course we do – and if we think that the Assembly is important, and if we agree the current budget for the functioning of the Assembly, we must take action at home. When I look around on the occasion of the next budget, I do not expect to see a bunch of hypocrites. If we adopt the resolution, our delegations and our delegation leaders need to take the initiative and discuss the next Council of Europe budget in their national parliaments and come back with more structural resources for democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

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

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

      Mr MIGNON (France)* – This is not the first time I have taken part in a debate on the Council of Europe budget and the expenditure of its Parliamentary Assembly. Unfortunately, year after year, no matter what we say or do, the resources made available to us decrease. Not many representatives of the Committee of Ministers are here this afternoon to listen to what we have to say. Does that mean that they are not interested? It is up to them to ensure that the message is passed on. We are the representatives of national parliaments, and it is important that our message is conveyed to government representatives, whom the Committee of Ministers represent.

      Mr Bugnon made some excellent statements and everything is in the reports. The budget of the European Union Court of Justice is higher than the global, overall budget of the Council of Europe. I am not talking about voluntary contributions because we cannot live off those alone. When I talk about the global, overall budget, I am including the budget of the European Court of Human Rights, the budget of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the budget for pharmacopoeia and all the different tools available to us so that we can try to do our job.

      The question is: does the Council of Europe have a future or not? I am convinced that it does, but that means getting the resources. We need the money. We should not hear of pretexts to cut our budget. We have the right to operate. Considerable efforts have been made over the past few years to curb the Organisation’s operational costs. We cannot do more because, if we do, quality will drop and those who work for the Council of Europe will suffer. We are lucky that we have dedicated staff of the highest calibre who believe in the Council of Europe. That being the case, we need to pay them a decent salary. Unfortunately, there could come a time when we will no longer be able to do so. I ask the ambassadors – their excellencies – who are here today please to make sure that they listen to what we are saying. Please ensure that our message is conveyed to those who have the power to decide on those matters. We are parliamentarians. We represent the people. I urge those who are here to give us the resources that we need. Do not let us make further cuts. I know that the resources available to us are cut by stealth a little every year. I know that I am being very loud – I have a bit of a reputation in that respect – but it is on purpose because it is important for your governments to hear us.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Mignon. Our next speaker is Ms Vučković, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Ms VUČKOVIĆ (Serbia) – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Salles, for his excellent reports. As a former Chair of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, I have followed his work and commitment at close hand. We have had a few thorough debates on the budgetary problems and discussed possible ways of addressing the existing challenges. We discussed in particular the short-term and long-term implications of the principles of zero nominal growth of member States’ contributions. We realised and reiterated that if the application of this principle continued, it might significantly diminish our efforts, not for strengthening but for preserving the operational capacity of our Organisation, which incorporates investment needs and the high level of staff expertise that is crucial for our work.

      In the report, support has been expressed for the reforms that have been undertaken in the Council of Europe and this Assembly that aimed to expand the scope of our activities and to reduce some costs. We support the efforts that have been made to diversify the sources of funding by special fundraising activities. This extra budgetary funding should be continued and increased as a mechanism to finance the lack of budgetary resources. However, we must be aware that only with regular and continuing funding coming from the Assembly’s member States may we secure its regular and continuing activities. Therefore, it is of strategic importance that the political and financial commitments of member States are preserved and guaranteed. We reiterate support for the proposal for the budgetary flexibility measures that the Assembly has proposed to the Committee of Ministers.

      It is important to take into consideration the suggested list of priorities for 2016 and 2017, which refers to our strategic choices. Particularly important is the need to strengthen the European Court of Human Rights, with the aim of improving the effectiveness of the European Convention on Human Rights. For us socialists, the inclusion of the need to strengthen the European social charter as a priority field is mostly supported.

      We also support the involvement of the Council of Europe in fighting terrorism by developing new legal instruments as well as building on the tools we have established and nurtured during the decades – human rights, dialogue, education and culture – to fight prejudice, exclusion and intolerance. We also support the efforts and activities of various parts of the Council of Europe becoming more coherent and interlinked.

      We as parliamentarians and members of this Assembly have to make additional efforts to make our work here acknowledged and respected by our fellow parliamentarians in our national parliaments as well as by Executive branches, so that when deciding on national budgets and appropriations, the attempts to reduce our effectiveness by potential financial reductions are not accepted. This is important for our Organisation – but much more for our values and objectives.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Vučković. I call Ms Taktakishvili of Georgia to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – I congratulate the rapporteur on this very important issue – debating the budget is our core business. On behalf of the ALDE group, I wish to raise one specific issue concerning item No. 1 on the budget and priorities of the Council of Europe for the biennium 2016-2017. This deals with the freedom of the media and the liberty and freedom of journalists to decide to report on the activities of the Council of Europe. As you are aware, the Council of Europe’s good practice was to invite and fund journalists who were interested in covering its major events, including the sittings of the Parliamentary Assembly. However, due to budgetary restrictions and a number of other considerations, this funding was cut several years ago. The rationale was pretty understandable to us; although funding the journalists was perceived as one of the measures to raise awareness about the Council of Europe worldwide, it was not the right way to do so. To make our work more interesting for the public we need to have interesting and high-quality debates here. We need to pick the topics that are interesting for European citizens.

      I draw attention to the situation of journalists coming from countries under the monitoring or post-monitoring procedure. Those countries are not able fully to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the media, and unfortunately the journalists and media who are critical of their governments do not have enough financial resources. On behalf of the ALDE Group, I support the paragraph in the resolution that asks the Secretary General to consider restoring the funding for journalists who come from countries under the monitoring or post-monitoring procedure and to give the opportunity to the media that have limited income and resources and which are not dependent on their governments to report on the core business of the Council of Europe – human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Publicity for all the parliamentary sessions dealing with those countries should be of the utmost interest to the citizens of the Council of Europe

      I fully support the report, and my plea is to the representatives of the Secretary General’s office to consider restoring this funding.

      The PRESIDENT* – Would you like to respond at this stage, Mr Bugnon? As that is not the case, we will proceed with the list of speakers

      Ms DALLOZ (France)* – At a time when a number of countries are grappling with public debt and trying to reduce public expenditure, it would appear somewhat paradoxical for international organisations and therefore the Council of Europe to be excluded from these efforts. It is clear that the European Union could make additional efforts, but that does not constitute a valid excuse to do nothing here in Strasbourg.

      Unlike previous speakers, I totally subscribe to the principle of zero nominal growth that has been applied to the Organisation. I am delighted to hear in the excellent report by Mr Rudy Salles that during his first term in office the Secretary General was able to make savings of €15 million. The rapporteur says that these savings have been made in wages and salaries, but in what other areas have savings been made?

      The report also reminds us that the contributions of some member States do not even cover the annual costs of keeping a judge here at the European Court of Human Rights, which was estimated in 2011 to represent some €333 000 a year. That should be a minimum amount that member States are obliged to contribute. I had a look at the table of national contributions to the budget of the Council of Europe that the rapporteur referred to and I see that for 2014 the United States contributed more than a certain number of Council of Europe member States.

      It was back in 2007 that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe came out with a recommendation on this subject, but nothing has happened since. Could the rapporteur not come forward with a new scale of contributions so that we can get over the problem of inertia on the part of States? Certain situations are all the more anomalous in that there is a rather loose relationship in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe between the number of inhabitants and the number of votes. Certain countries could go the extra mile, especially as a small country does not necessarily equate with a poor country.

      In contrast, I welcome Turkey’s decision to contribute more to our Organisation’s budget. The rapporteur has drawn our attention to the danger, in terms of the Organisation’s longer-term funding, represented by the growing importance of extra budgetary resources, given the fact that they cannot be used for maintenance expenditure or funding new technologies. Failing to maintain buildings is a false economy; we would have to pay a lot in the long term. Voluntary contributions, although welcome, further add fragility to the budget if they are not placed on a long-term footing. Can you tell us the total annual amount of the European Union’s contribution to our budget and the proportion of that funding relating to co-operation programmes? I have heard that Mr Soros wishes to co-finance a Roma institute. Are there further plans to co-fund other institutes?

      In conclusion, I wish to thank the rapporteur once again and say that I am very much in favour of rigorous budgetary management.

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – I congratulate our French colleague on these reports, which make budget proposals for the next biennium, 2016-2017, for the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly.

      When drafting the budgets, further consideration should be given to aligning the key priorities with the main challenges Europe is facing. The emerging topics now high on the agenda – the situation in Ukraine; political instability in North Africa and the Middle East; frozen or protracted conflicts; and terrorist threats as a result of radicalisation and extremism – should be complemented with a prominent ethnic dimension, because there is a stringent need to have a sound dialogue between our ethnic communities. Only by putting more emphasis on these ethnic features can we be more effective in preventing conflicts and in bringing stability across Europe and the world.

      Preventing conflicts means also promoting the Council of Europe’s core values in its immediate neighbourhood, by associating the EU’s financial strength to the co-operation programmes designed to support democracy, the rule of law and human rights in these regions. As for the observance of the European Convention on Human Rights, the member States should improve their own legal system with a view to avoiding the backlog that has impeded for many years the functioning of the European Court of Human Rights. In doing so, we would need less financial support from Council of Europe member States.

      I think that a budgetary increase from Council of Europe member States, including by granting voluntary contributions, is closely related to the array of relevant and topical issues to be debated and to the tangible outcomes that are possible.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – I thank Mr Bugnon, who is standing in for Mr Salles, the rapporteur, for the committee’s report.

      I wish to raise a formal point on an important issue. In recent years, the report on this subject has been presented in the Standing Committee, a very important body in this House, rather than in the plenary sitting. That undermines public awareness of this very important report. Generally speaking, such very important annual reports are dealt with in Parliaments. For example, the Spanish Parliament holds the budget debate every October, and it is one of the most important and highly awaited debates. It is very important that members of this Parliamentary Assembly are fully conversant with the ins and outs – the reality – of the Council of Europe’s budget. Members should be aware of the reality of zero growth for that budget in recent years. This whole process must lead to better understanding of the underlying figures, so as to ensure that we are in a position to make representations to the Foreign Ministries back at home to step up national contributions to the Council of Europe.

      Why do I say that, at this time of crisis and of Europe-wide conflict? I do so because we have seen changes which mean that the fundamental values underpinning the Council of Europe have become more important and topical than ever. In these difficult times, when we face crises unprecedented since the Second World War, the role to be played by this Organisation is more important than ever.

      After eight years as a member of this Parliamentary Assembly, I must admit to you that this annual debate on budgets has given me the opportunity to discover some of the hidden parts of the Council of Europe that other debates do not reach. This debate gives us the chance to find out more about human rights defenders and those fighting hard for freedom.

      I wish to make one final comment. We are talking about increases in contributions from certain countries. In recent days, I have heard reservations voiced about the possibility of increased contributions from some countries leading to a new element of conditionality in how the Council of Europe treats those countries. I wish to remind all members that that has never happened in the past, and I am absolutely convinced that it will not happen in the future either. We are all committed to working independently, regardless of the member States we come from, with a view to upholding those values. So I wish to extend a very warm welcome to the mooted increase in contributions from Turkey. We all know, as the Turkish Government and delegation know, that we will continue with our hard work and commitment, which are essential for our community of like-minded States.

      Mr DIVINA (Italy)* – The report talks about our having a zero nominal growth budget for the first time. That has resulted from the efforts of a number of member States that have scant resources to allocate to international organisations, as they are all called upon to conduct policies of austerity in order to contain public spending at home. It is difficult to come up with a zero nominal growth budget, because wages and salaries cannot be contained unless the entire Organisation is restructured, as legitimate staff expectations of career prospects involve an increase in wages and salaries, rather than a reduction.

      I have listened to the previous speakers and it would appear that countries are generous in making voluntary contributions. We have heard that Turkey is prepared to pay about €20 million into the budget, but we do not say what it is going to get in return. Is Turkey hoping to have more political clout within this Organisation or representation that is more in line with its contribution? Does Turkey want to have a sixth working language within the Parliamentary Assembly? Introducing a sixth language, with all that that entails for translation and interpretation, would probably mean an increase in the Assembly’s budget of about €1 million every year. Perhaps that is not a correct reading of the situation, but can a country conduct lobbying activities by saying, “I’ll pay more but that means I will have more political clout within an Assembly such as this”?

      I wish to put a question to you, Mr President, and the rapporteur: is the aim of the Council of Europe to increase its own budget, or rather is it to try to interpret what the real needs are – those of our member States?

      Ms ZIMMERMANN* (France) – The rapporteur has done a precise and complete piece of work on the financial situation of the Council of Europe and of our Assembly, particularly on the priorities we have to establish as we make these budget choices. The principle of zero growth for the budget is of course laudable, particularly in these times of crisis, but it should not lead us to undermine the programmes at the very heart of the Council of Europe’s activities. So the Secretary General’s desire to refocus the Organisation’s finances upon our three pillars – human rights, the rule of law and democracy – is to be welcomed.

      We know that women are often the first victims of economic and political crises such as those that have struck our continent, and initiatives undertaken by our Organisation should not ignore that. I am pleased to see in the report on our Assembly’s expenditure that financing campaigns such as the parliamentary network for the right of women to live free from violence is among our priorities. The success of the Istanbul Convention even beyond the borders of Council of Europe countries shows that when the Council of Europe is given the resources, it can take large-scale initiatives that bring it the recognition that it deserves.

      The same is true of the work under the European Social Charter. That, too, should be developed to allow the rights of women and the fabric of the economy and society to be taken into account. It is a matter of regret that our Assembly’s work about women is often only in the context of violence. I hope that equality between men and women, which is at the heart of our three pillars, will be one of our budget priorities, because in most countries there are simply empty words that turn out to be devoid of meaning when it comes to salaries and governance in the world of work.

      I am convinced that the Parliamentary Assembly cannot and must not be made a victim of the budgetary rigour being applied to the Organisation as a whole. This Assembly has participated greatly – more than greatly – in the effort to make savings over the past few years. With the new challenges that we face because of the situations in the Mediterranean and the Middle East and in combating terrorism, we must not weaken the part of the Organisation that exists for dialogue and has succeeded in establishing a meaningful relationship with the key States through Partner for Democracy status. The measures aimed at strengthening the effectiveness and efficiency of the Organisation are necessary, but so is the very existence of the Council of Europe and our Assembly.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Zimmermann.

      It is already 4.52 p.m., so there is very little time left for members to cast their votes in the election of judges. The vote will close at 5 p.m.

      I now give the floor to Mr Büchel.

      Mr BÜCHEL (Liechtenstein)* – Financial resources are of concern to almost all our member States, because they have been scant for years now. This institution is no exception to that rule. We are obliged to manage our resources soundly, efficiently and responsibly, and if we look closely at the reports before us, we will note that the Council of Europe has done precisely that in the past and will do so in future. Indeed, overall costs have been brought down since 2005. In a way, we in this Organisation have set an example that could be a model for other organisations.

      If we want the capacity to act, it is essential that we ensure that we have the means to do so. I agree with the previous speakers that we should thank the rapporteur for the excellent and extensive reports. I also support the appeal that has been made to the Committee of Ministers, because the reports show clearly that financial resources have been restricted. I refer to paragraph 4 of the expenditure report, on page 3, in saying that it is important to ensure that we are not penalised for our efficient use of resources through the introduction of further cuts and savings. The Council of Europe simply could not survive if that were to happen. We need a responsible financial policy.

      There is a lot that I can support in the expenditure report, such as the reference in paragraph 9 to the focus on general policy measures and communication. The work done by the Council of Europe must be advertised and people outside this Organisation must be made aware of it. It is important to emphasise how important that work is.

      I make an appeal to the Assembly. Of course we need a modest financial policy, and we need to concentrate on what is essential while ensuring that we have the resources to do what we need within our margin for manoeuvre. We should not have unnecessary cuts and restrictions, but we need to focus on what is essential to ensure that we can still act efficiently in future. I thank the rapporteur for his excellent reports.

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – I thank the rapporteur for his well-written and thorough reports, which give us a clear understanding of the difficult financial situation for the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe as a whole. They show how that situation is forcing the Organisation to make tough decisions about priorities, at a time when expertise and the other advantages that the Council of Europe brings are needed more than ever before.

      This should not be a time when the only pan-European Organisation has to make hard budget cuts and tough decisions about priorities. On the contrary, more energy should be put into the Council of Europe’s three pillars – human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I therefore agree with the concern that members of the Assembly have expressed about the decision of the Committee of Ministers to continue to apply the principle of zero nominal growth to member States’ contributions to the budget for 2016-17. I believe that we should reconsider that decision in future, but unfortunately it is the reality that we have to live with.

      Against that background, Secretary General Jagland has set clear priorities for 2016-17, and I fully agree with the overall focus of his priorities. However, a better perspective on gender issues is missing from them, along with stronger emphasis on LGBT rights and initiatives to strengthen communication with civil society. Those are all fundamental elements of a well-functioning democracy and should always be included in debates on our budget and priorities.

      I mentioned better communication with civil society, and I underline how important civil society organisations are as partners of the Council of Europe, particularly in its efforts to strengthen equality and LGBT rights in member States, but also with regard to human rights, democracy and the rule of law in general. In difficult times such as we are experiencing now, good partners are even more important, because they mean that we can achieve more with fewer resources. I therefore call on the Assembly to ensure that we better recognise communication with civil society, the gender perspective and LGBT rights when we discuss our budgets and priorities.

      Mr DAEMS (Belgium)* – I start by going back to what our colleagues from France said. They asked where the members of the Committee of Ministers were, but I would like to ask where the members of the Assembly were. We are talking about the budget being the most important issue for this institution, but we should look at ourselves – perhaps 15% of our members are here for the most important debate for the so-called survival of our institution. If we do not start by looking at ourselves, we have no right to criticise anyone else.

      In French, they say, “savoir-faire et faire savoire”. If we do not succeed in convincing other people of the importance of what we do, how can we expect to get a large enough budget?

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      What we need to do is go to our own parliaments and explain what we are working on in this Assembly. The rule of law, democracy and so on are fundamental to our national parliaments as well. What would you do? Would you like our parliaments to give in and allow more budget for this institution, if we are not able to convince them of our added value? I am convinced of it; otherwise, I would not be here. I am trying to convince people in my parliament, because in my parliament I am putting down resolutions that are about exactly the same things as we have approved here, although they are not necessarily in line with my opinion. Often, I put resolutions in my parliament that I have voted against or abstained on here, but still they have been about the democratic decisions of this parliament.

      We know what to do, so we should let it be known; that is the first step. Once we are able to prove the added value of this institution, I think there will be no problem convincing people that democracy is priceless but that it comes at a cost, and that is why we need a budget. So why do we not try to do something about this ourselves, instead of – excuse the expression – weeping to the world and saying, “Oh, we have a problem.” Yes, we have a problem, but our basic problem is that we are not able to convince our national parliaments of the added value of this institution, although it offers tremendous added value. Again, democracy is priceless, but it comes at a cost.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – Soon after joining the Parliamentary Assembly – I have been a member for eight years now – I quickly realised just how much I liked the Council of Europe. One of the reasons I felt this sense of attachment to the Council of Europe was the fact that individuals can play a very important role here. In national parliaments, groups are far more important. Here, nobody tells you how you should vote; you can decide yourself which committee you would like to be a member of, with the support of the group and national delegations; and it is up to you how you carry out your work as a parliamentarian. In other words, this Assembly gives a high profile to individuality and individuals, as members of a delegation and a nation. However, membership of the Council of Europe also involves paying a fairly high price. Devoting so much time to work at the European level leads you to take risks back home in your constituency – risks that might have a price at elections. As I have said, work as a parliamentarian back at home is quite different from work as a parliamentarian for the Council of Europe, but in both cases our work on the budget is essential.

      We say in my language that we should live first and philosophise later, and it is impossible for us to talk about the rule of law, democracy and the principles of the Council of Europe if we do not ensure that we have the resources we need to live. We do not want to get caught up in any type of hollow, empty philosophy that exists in a vacuum. In the light of that comment, I commend the work of the rapporteurs and by Mr Salles. I most recently saw him in action in a meeting in Istanbul, when the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs held a meeting there.

      One of the important areas that the Council of Europe is responsible for is, of course, territorial disputes and we also have a role to play in debates on ideas and on the many emotional issues affecting people. When it comes to territorial disputes, we have a role to play in trying to solve conflicts; when it comes to ideas, we should be breathing new life into parliamentary democracy and human rights. And we should use these efforts to try to sideline and suppress the poisonous words of hate that come from some quarters.

      Finally, I would like to speak out in recognition of much of the work of this Assembly that is designed to improve the effectiveness of the Council of Europe. I commend the enormous quality of the technical staff working for the Council of Europe, and as the years go by the Council of Europe has succeeded in bringing in new blood and young people. All that remains for me to do now is to congratulate the rapporteur, all those working for the Council of Europe and, of course, other members of this Assembly for the high quality of our debates. I sincerely hope that in the future we will be able to have many more debates of this type and that we can use them to improve further the effectiveness of the Council of Europe. The people whom we are talking about today need our compassion, and we must remember that in all our efforts to try to tackle the problems facing the rule of law and democracy in Europe.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Díaz Tejera.

      The ballot for electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights is now closed.

      The counting of votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers, Ms Marković and Mr Destexhe.

      I invite them to meet at once behind the President’s Chair.

      The results of the election will be announced this evening.

      Mr Bugnon, you can respond to the speakers. You have four minutes left.

      Mr BUGNON (Switzerland)* – Thank you, President.

      I will take a number of questions en bloc. Many statements were made concerning the Committee of Ministers and the fact that it needs to ensure that the Assembly’s resources are not cut further. To be honest with you, in all structures there are always people clamouring for more money – it is part of the system. This is not the first time we have had stabilisation. We know that savings have already been made; Ms Dalloz spoke about €15 000 000 that has already been saved. As a finance manager, I agree that you need to be prudent and careful about how you spend the taxpayer’s money. That is fine; you can take off the frills, if you like. However, if you start cutting the core, you have a problem.

      Several speakers in the debate said that we do not communicate enough and I would tend to agree with that. Anyway, it is part of our human behaviour that we talk about what is not working. We say that the Council of Europe was not able to resolve this or that problem for this or that country, but what about the things we have done? You do not see what we have done on the ground. I have taken part in several missions observing things on the ground. We have taken the steps to advance the cause of democracy, which is something we need to discuss with our voters. In fact, I was wondering as members spoke: if the Council of Europe did not exist, if all these committees did not work and we did not observe elections, and if we did not have monitoring committees, what would Europe look like today? What if we had a Europe that did not know how to talk or discuss matters and we only used weapons or arms? What would that cost? What would be the price tag of that for our governments?

      Of course, I know that in some countries not everything is resolved – I grant you that – but since the end of the last war we have had stability and it is no coincidence that we have such good stability, which is good for economic growth. So, all in all and despite the crisis I think we are working pretty well.

      A number of speakers talked about communication. Mr Daems talked about the added value of the Council of Europe, and he is absolutely right that we need to blow our own trumpet and talk about that added value. A television crew is filming with the Swiss delegation; it is wonderful that they will be talking about the Council of Europe. Let us encourage that and encourage our media to communicate about the added value of the Council of Europe – about everything that we give this continent.

      On journalism, Ms Taktakishvili is right: journalism is part of communication. You cannot cut resources because some media do not have the financial capacity to come here and follow the work that we do. If we do not communicate about that work, people will think there is nothing going on here and that we are not doing anything. Again, a lot has been done but we are not communicating enough.

      Ms Dalloz spoke about the extra budgetary programmes. There is €45 000 000, all in all, for those programmes, with €30 000 000 funded by the European Union, but of course you should know that the European Union is actually carrying out missions of the European Union through the Council of Europe. The European Union is not doing the work of the Council of Europe. However, if the European Union did not do that work with us, it would have to do it some other way, so that is something that you need to remember as well about the missions that we accomplish together.

      Mr Divina asked about Turkey and whether it is normal for a country to become a major contributor and then increase the number of seats it has in the Parliamentary Assembly. The maximum number of seats is 18 per country. France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and Russia have 18 representatives because they have populations of more than 50 million. Turkey’s population is about 70 million, so it would not be logical of us to keep it from having that number of seats, to which it is entitled. This is not a question of blackmail on the part of Turkey, which has reassessed its partnership with the Council of Europe. It has said that it is prepared to contribute more. That also means that it has certain rights and would come to have an equal footing with France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the other nations that I mentioned. I encourage members to accept this budget and to communicate the point to the Committee of Ministers as well. It is really important that we do not make systematic cuts to our resources. There is not poor financial management. Of course we should not spend too much, but it would not be acceptable to take away too much from our core budget.

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

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Would the Vice-Chair of the Committee like to add any comments?

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – No, Madam President.

      The PRESIDENT* – That brings us to the actual text. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs has presented a draft opinion, to which one amendment has been tabled, and a draft resolution, to which no amendments have been tabled.

      I understand that the chair of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the amendment to the draft opinion, unanimously adopted by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Does anyone object? As there is no objection, I declare that the amendment to the draft opinion is agreed.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft opinion presented in Document 13743, as amended. I remind members that we need a two-thirds majority.

      The vote is open.

      The draft opinion in Document 13743, as amended, is adopted, with 86 votes for, 1 against and 0 abstentions.

      The result shows a majority much greater than the two thirds required. I congratulate Mr Bugnon, who has taken over from the rapporteur. We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution in Document 13744.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13744 is adopted, with 90 votes for, 1 against and 0 abstentions.

7. Humanitarian consequences of the actions of the terrorist group known as “Islamic State”

      The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the debate on the report entitled “Humanitarian consequences of the actions of the terrorist group known as ‘Islamic State’” in Document 13741, presented by Mr Jean-Marie Bockel on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. I remind the Assembly that it was agreed on Monday that speaking time in this debate will be limited to three minutes. I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.50 p.m. to allow times for replies and votes. Rapporteur, you have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate. I now have the pleasure of giving you the floor.

      Mr BOCKEL (France)* – Since our 2014 report on the subject, the situation of Syrian refugees has worsened considerably as a result of the rise to power of the group known as Islamic State. Today’s presentation of the report coincides with a sad anniversary: the Syrian conflict has now been raging for four years. The unprecedented humanitarian crisis has meant that 10 to 11 million Syrian civilians are refugees or internally displaced persons. Our debate is timely, as the warning signals are there to be read.

      The situation is urgent. In the past, there was some hope in some areas, but now all the warning lights are on. We have seen crimes against humanity in Syria, including ethnic cleansing and crimes with a pseudo-religious motivation – there have been recent calls to eradicate Christians. What is happening runs counter to the values that we embody, yet it is taking place in our back yard. Refugees are turning to us for assistance.

      We have had contacts with refugees and displaced persons, who are in a dramatic situation. We have been to the relevant areas; you yourself, Madam President, have visited refugee camps and met representatives of international organisations, as colleagues from other committees have. Some refugee camps in Turkey are outstanding from a health, hygiene, security and education point of view. Turkey is bearing considerable costs and says it is reaching the limit of available resources. Other countries with fewer resources are doing what they can when presented with an influx of refugees: we should salute the efforts made by Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere. I shall come back to European countries in a moment.

      As part of the first report we went to Lebanon, where there are not really refugee camps but an informal structure that caters for about 1.2 million refugees in a country of some 4 million inhabitants. The country has become destabilised as a result. In some camps in Jordan, women are bought and sold and there is abuse of women and children. The situation is unimaginable in some areas. There are also the people who exist outside the camps. Thanks to the countries concerned and international organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and others, some of those people have access to financial assistance, medical care, educational opportunities or the labour market. However, the situation is mixed. We have met some people who are not even registered anywhere. There is a clash of various factions, so their situation is dire indeed. The picture is mixed; nevertheless, it is rather dramatic.

      I visited a camp in Turkey that I think you have also visited, Madam President. People turned to us to say, “Thank you for being here; obviously we exist in the minds of some people.” Above and beyond the material dimension, there is a sense of despair, with people calling on us or turning to us in the hope that we will assist them.

      I have not talked about the situation of internally displaced persons. There again, the picture is mixed, but often it is extremely difficult. For example, people in the Damascus suburbs are encircled by Islamic State militia and suffering the crimes meted out by that regime. Now they are cut off from any kind of humanitarian assistance. Then there are all the day-to-day problems of living as a refugee, such as health and hygiene epidemics in which diseases that had disappeared re-emerge.

      In terms of warning signs, I do not think that humanitarian aid and assistance were getting through at the beginning of the year. The UNHCR was in dire financial straits and on the brink of bankruptcy. That is also true of other international organisations, so this is an issue of international solidarity, not just European solidarity. Of course, not all refugees come from Syria. Refugees have left Libya on makeshift craft, which puts strain on the international community and on Europe in particular. There are issues such as security in the Mediterranean and what needs to be done to tackle traffickers who abide by no law. We have recently witnessed dramatic incidents in the Mediterranean, so Europe is certainly being called to account.

      I have referred to countries that are really bending over backwards to take in refugees. Many of those refugees want to travel to Europe, move to Germany or other countries and start from scratch. A lot of countries in Europe are doing what they can, but it is important that other countries are encouraged to do likewise. European Union and non-European Union countries should all feel concerned in a sense of solidarity. Countries around the Mediterranean such as Greece and Italy are on the front line and we need to assist them with receiving refugees. I shall not go into the technical, legal and material points listed in the resolution.

      The situation really concerns us. We can serve to relay the message of humanitarian urgency, but we need to get a political message across in terms of the conflict and the crimes being perpetrated. We are a political Assembly, so obviously the political dimension also concerns us.

      (Applause.)

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. That applause is well deserved.

      I call first Mr Gür, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr GÜR (Turkey) – I thank Mr Bockel, the rapporteur, who has brought this important issue to our attention again. Refugees are the forgotten people. You met people in the camps, Madam President. Thanks to Turkey, people were able to build lots of camps, but the refugees there are the small proportion who receive good service. Unfortunately, millions do not, and we should not forget those who still do not get any assistance from the world.

      The IDP problem is another disaster. Today, in Iraq and Syria, millions of IDPs face a humanitarian crisis, but unfortunately none of them gets any assistance from the world because of conflict and the brutal attacks of ISIS on Iraqi and Syrian people. Millions of refugees are waiting for our warm hand and millions of them, including women and children, need urgent support.

      In Kobane and Shingal, where Yazidi people live, millions of people have been forcibly displaced by that brutal and barbaric organisation, ISIS. In Kobane, the only real resistance against them in the name of humanity came from the Kurdish people, together with their supporters, who saved the lives of hundreds of thousands. Now, people want to return to Kobane to rebuild their city. That is why I call on all member States to have the courage to rebuild Kobane as a home for refugees. Two hundred thousand of them live in Turkey and hundreds of thousands of them want to return to their land, but they need assistance.

      As a final point, ISIS has not only committed crimes against humanity and war crimes, but destroyed our civilisation. Tens of museums and hundreds of pieces of our heritage have also been destroyed by that barbaric organisation. We must stop it, so I call on all member States to help us to help people to help the refugees and to stop these brutal attacks against humanity.

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

      Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – I would like to continue where our colleague finished. We are confronting barbaric terrorism by ISIS in Syria and Iraq. I congratulate the rapporteur, who focused predominantly on Syria, but this phenomenon obviously affects not just Syria but Iraq just as much. In the language of law, what confronts us is genocide against various ethnicities or religious faiths, including Christians.

      We talk about this issue, but we need to find radical solutions. Three important parallel actions need to be harmonised. One such action is management of the humanitarian catastrophe. It is described in the report properly in just one number – 200 000 deaths – and there are also millions of IDPs and refugees. Neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt are directly affected by that. The first conclusion of the draft resolution is that we need to increase the funds to the UNHCR. Let us do that so that it can manage the humanitarian catastrophe effectively.

      The second aspect is military. The only solution for ISIS is military. A military solution is required to restore the sovereignty of Iraq and Syria over the territories that are occupied by ISIS. International unity seems to be in place – more than 60 countries, including Iran, are on board at the moment. A good example is Hungary, which just last week decided to send 150 troops to protect the training mission sent by Germany and Italy. The Iraqi army and air strikes seem to have been successful, but we also need to talk about the long-term political solution. That is where the Council of Europe has an added ability. Human rights, democracy and the rule of law can come about with the help of the Council of Europe.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Schennach to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I too would like to thank the rapporteur on behalf of my group. I also congratulate him, although perhaps that is a difficult word in the circumstances. What we have witnessed is an almost unimaginable disaster. ISIS, and the Islamic bit of the name, is a fake: we are talking about terrorists who are conducting a very lucrative business – the sale of oil, although we have to ask who is buying oil from ISIS? They also deal in trafficking humans, especially women. They are also involved in ransoming kidnapped people. They are also selling antiquities and cultural goods. They actually have people going around the world peddling those goods.

      These terrorists are targeting everyone in the region – Syrian Christians, Shiites and Kurds are being killed indiscriminately. The killings are filmed, and they produce so-called snuff videos in which they glorify these bloody murders. ISIS uses modern technology and has managed to attract 10 000 recruits from Europe and 25 000 from the rest of the world using modern, up-to-date techniques. What happened in Yarmouk was diabolical – 16 000 Palestinian refugees were used as human shields. The air attacks conducted by the allies against ISIS have weakened the organisation, and ISIS is now hiding among local inhabitants in Yarmouk. On the ground, Peshmerga militia from Kurdistan and other militias are involved in the fight, and there are clear differences between different groups. There have been mass murders of different cults or groups of Muslims. The city of Kobane was razed to the ground. At one time, 500 000 people were confined to the city, and in the same way Yarmouk is now sheltering 16 000 people.

      We are talking about a horrific tragedy, without even mentioning the Syrian tragedy, which has led to 12 million people becoming refugees and displaced persons. This has been echoed elsewhere in the world, for example with Boko Haram in Africa. This is clearly a threat to human rights, democracy and the rest of the world. We commemorate the 100-year anniversary of the terrible event of the Armenian genocide, but as we do so we should not forget genocides elsewhere in the world.

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

      Mr HEER (Switzerland)* – I too wish to thank the rapporteur for his report. We thought it was impossible in the 21st century to be confronted yet again with the kind of genocide that is occurring in Syria and Iraq as a result of the actions of Islamic State. Mr Schennach has just drawn our attention to the awful events taking place, including the attempts to eradicate certain groups on the basis of their faith or their ethnic origins. We need to ask ourselves how things have been able to reach such a point. I was certainly no friend of Saddam Hussein or of Gaddafi, who were brutal dictators who were bombed and removed. The United States, the United Kingdom and France developed a strategy to get rid of them and do away with their regimes, but there was no exit strategy. We were left with chaos in Iraq, for example, and most of the IS terrorists are led by former members of the intelligence services or generals who served under Saddam Hussein and exploited the vacuum in the Middle East with a view to spreading their terrorism. The West certainly bears responsibility for failing to come up with an exit strategy.

      In any military conflict, the real victims are the civilians, and I wish to thank countries such as Turkey, Jordan and the Lebanon, who are bearing the brunt of the responsibility. Others in western Europe are confronted with the influx of refugees in our countries, but the brunt of the burden is being borne by those countries because they are taking in most of the refugees. We have to provide the necessary financial support so that those refugees can live in something like decent conditions, with, for example, children having access to schools.

      As for the future, we can bring about an improvement only if we promote the culture of peace in these countries. “Culture of peace” means having to involve religious leaders who see the good things in their religion – what unites us rather than the differences between Sunni and Shia, Jewish or non-Jewish. We need to use what is good in religions and in the religious figures who have the courage to stand up for what unites us. We need a greater degree of democratisation, we need education and we need to put in place the necessary infrastructure in these countries, and then perhaps we can look forward to a better future. Otherwise, everything looks pretty hopeless.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Denemeç to speak on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey) – I thank Mr Bockel for his report. He had the opportunity to observe the conditions on the ground during his fact-finding mission to Turkey. As the report rightly underlines, the international community should step up its assistance to address the needs of people fleeing the dreadful acts of Da’esh and the Syrian regime.

      I would like to stress that Islam, a religion of peace, does not correspond to acts of terrorism. It is unacceptable to use these two words together, especially to describe the most ruthless terrorist organisation history ever witnessed, so the Assembly should refer to this terrorist organisation as Da’esh.

      Turkey shares nearly 1 300 km of border with Syria and Iraq. Da’esh constitutes a direct threat to Turkey’s national security. As long as the Assad regime stays in power, stability, security and prosperity for Syria will remain obscure. Turkey has made it clear time and again that the international coalition’s air operations will not be enough. Bringing stability back to Syria requires a comprehensive, swift and action-oriented strategy. We have stated that Syria and Iraq should be treated as a single theatre in the fight against Da’esh. No-fly zones and safe areas should be an essential part of any such strategy. A comprehensive approach would also help us to ease the humanitarian disaster and the immigration pressure facing regional countries and Europe.

      There are three tracks to the Turkish Government’s humanitarian operations. First, we maintain an open border policy. Currently, there are more than 256 000 Syrians registered in 25 shelters in Turkey, whose needs are provided by the Turkish Government. Secondly, we assist the Syrians who live in various towns in the region outside those shelters. The third track pertains to extending humanitarian relief to the northern parts of Syria. Syria’s neighbouring countries, including Turkey, have so far assumed an unfair share of the humanitarian burden of the Syria conflict. They should not be left alone to cope with this humanitarian crisis. It requires a genuine historical partnership among all members of the international community.

      The PRESIDENT* – I understand that the rapporteur would like to respond later to all the speakers, so we will proceed to the list of speakers. Mr Rouquet, you have the floor.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – First, I salute the wonderful job that the rapporteur has done.

      The whole question of refugees in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon is an enormous challenge for those countries. They deserve our thanks and support. I was rapporteur on a report on internal displaced persons for the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. The situation facing civilian populations still present in Syria and Iraq is of enormous concern to me. As we know, the ground gained by ISIS has led to massive outbreaks of violence against the civilian population, in particular ethnic and religious minorities. This widespread violence has led to massive population movement, in particular for Christians and Yazidis in Iraq. As the new United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said recently, these atrocities give us some idea of what we can expect from the ISIS caliphate: a harsh and bloody world that offers no protection. In Syria, fighting between Bashar al-Assad’s army and the insurgents, followed by the progress made by ISIS, has also led to major internal movements of population. These internally displaced persons are often the weakest members of society – women, children and old people – and they cannot survive without our aid and help on the ground.

      Despite the difficulties stemming from these conflicts and the advance of ISIS – the destruction of all infrastructure in the country – we have to continue to support and help these populations. I welcome the fact that France, together with international organisations and Syrian civil society, has set up humanitarian aid channels to help those who have stayed in the country. That aid is targeted particularly on health and food, and amounts to some €21 million since 2011. This aid is a source of hope and support – something Syrians, who are now entering a fifth year of war, simply cannot do without. For IDPs in Aleppo or Irbil, any international help they receive is vital if they are to continue to resist. We cannot afford to forget them, despite the terrible situation facing refugees in neighbouring countries. Over and above the humanitarian crisis, it is essential – as was recently stressed in a report from the French Parliament – that we do our utmost to ensure that we can once again provide the conditions to enable the various different ethnic and religious groups to remain in their countries of origin. If these people were to leave, we would be witnessing an absolute victory for ISIS.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – The excellent but very sad report from Jean-Marie Bockel makes me think that the activities of Islamic State also have humanitarian consequences for European youth. I am talking about the “wannabe” jihadists in Syria and Iraq, whose numbers – unfortunately, many come from France – show that there is no need for us to wonder about the roots of this phenomenon. It is not new, but it is unprecedented in its scale. It poses a problem of public security, particularly when they come home again. It also illustrates family tragedies in so many cases.

      The large number of converts to Islam in their ranks shows us that it is not just a question of the radicalisation of some of the Muslim population in Europe. It is much broader than that; it is young people from the middle classes aged between 15 and 17 years old. We can talk about this being a generational thing. Some young people are signing up for jihad just as earlier generations of youth signed up for the revolution.

      This is not an expression of traditional Muslim culture. These candidates for jihad reject the normal frameworks of Islam with imams and mosques. Recent converts will have no Muslim religious culture. We must not forget, as we see in the report, that the vast majority of the victims of Da’esh are Muslims themselves. The revolt against the Syrian regime is behind this phenomenon, which occurred at a time when jihadism was actually in decline. Syria, by providing a conflict zone, also offered a new utopia. The motivation of many of the young candidates for jihad is not necessarily military. Some were revolted by the Bashar al-Assad regime and wanted what the great powers refused to do: to overturn the regime.

      Da’esh has understood that a fascination with violence is an integral part of western mass culture, and has understood how many young people are very susceptible to that violence. For the most part, these young people are rank amateurs, but they compensate for their lack of experience by posturing and dramatising their engagement, which has practically nothing to do with religion. These young people are the product of a western society, where image is king and you do not need to be in any way distinguished or deserving in order to be talked about. This is the contribution that I felt I had to make to this report.

      The PRESIDENT – I do not see Mr Iwiński, so I ask Mr Ariev to take the floor.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – The activities of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) have become one of the great challenges to world security. Before discussing the consequences, however, we need to look at the origins of this terror. Two contradictory versions are popular in discussions. There are those who support the so-called “Russian world” who blame the United States of America, explaining the growth of ISIL through the Syrian conflict, where Russia stands on the side of the Assad regime as the last Russian outpost in the region of North Africa and the Middle East. After the events of the Arab Spring, Putin was pushed out of the region, which the former Soviet Union supported for decades. It spent billions and only Assad stayed strong. But it is a primitive analysis that puts the United States of America under suspicion for ISIL support, explaining it as a fight against Assad’s regime. There is another view that makes much more sense.

      ISIL is one of the greatest dangers to the United States, as well as to its largest partners in the region, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The creation of an Islamic caliphate would jeopardise peace and tranquillity not only for Americans and Europeans; ISIL is a phenomenon that could lead to global conflict. As the Charlie Hebdo incident has shown, Europe is vulnerable to the ideas of radical Islam, which could trigger a large-scale crisis in Europe. France is home to more than 6 million Muslims, and the situation in Germany, Spain and Italy is similar. Let us consider the escalation of religious confrontation inspired by ISIL. Their intent is to drive a wedge between Muslims and Christians and create a base for directing radical Muslims in Europe to fight against European values and to work to radicalise moderate Muslims.

      ISIL’s main goal is to set fire to Europe from the inside and to build a belt of tension along Europe. Its activity aims at preventing oil and gas prices from falling, something that is extremely necessary for Russia now. Recent events in Yemen confirm Russian involvement there. Yemen’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs blamed Russia directly for delivering weapons to rebels, in a scenario with similarities to the Ukrainian conflict.

      Both versions of lSIL’s origins are subjects for discussion, but there can be only one conclusion – we must take strong, resolute and comprehensive decisions to protect Europe from possible explosive developments in the wake of events in Russia, North Africa and the Middle East. Millions suffer as a result of terrorism and ISIL is top among terrorist organisations. During the previous part-session we heard terrible facts about the cruel execution of Christians, Jews and Muslims. States neighbouring ISIL-controlled territories reported the biggest refugee streams ever seen. Has that been stopped? Not yet, and we must all work to stop it.

      Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – Every day we read appalling news about the barbaric atrocities of the so-called Islamic State. The report focuses on the humanitarian aspects of the disaster, and we are grateful to the rapporteur for his work. However, it is time to focus on the root of the disaster and unequivocally condemn Islamic State for genocidal crimes against religious and ethnic groups in Syria and Iraq.

      In Armenia, we have a beautiful Yazidi community, which makes a significant contribution to our domestic, cultural and political life. In Syria and Iraq, their brothers and sisters have recently been killed, raped, tortured and mutilated, regardless of age or sex, in a heinous campaign of mass murder of the Yazidi community reminiscent of the scenes of Ottoman atrocities during the 1915 Armenian genocide. The genocidal intent of Islamic State is clear. It is busy wiping from the surface of the earth religious minorities such as Yazidis, Yarsanis and Mandaeans who, in the judgment of those barbarians, have the wrong religion. Shiite Muslims are being killed as apostates of Islam. Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac and Armenian Christian groups are also being destroyed, by being given three choices: to convert to Islam, to pay the so-called jizya tribute or to die.

      All those actions clearly fall under the international legal definition of genocide. Islamic State should therefore be condemned for its genocidal acts against Yazidis, Shiites, Christians and others. Recognition of genocides and condemnation of both the genocide itself and its denial – regardless of when it happened, how large the numbers of people murdered were and the political motives behind it – is absolutely necessary to prevent genocide in future. It is also our moral obligation to commemorate all victims of these crimes against humanity, including the victims of the Armenian genocide, which, as Pope Francis rightly said, was the first genocide of modern history, the Jewish Holocaust, and the Rwandan, Bosnian and other genocides. I ask you, Madam President, to announce a minute of silence to commemorate all victims of all genocides committed in the history of humankind.

      The PRESIDENT* – Do members agree to Mr Zourabian’s request to hold a minute’s silence for all victims who have, unfortunately, passed away throughout our common history?

      (The Assembly observed a minute’s silence.)

      Ms SANTERINI (Italy)* – We know that the rise to power of Da’esh must be put in the broader context of the crisis in Syria and Iraq, which has been described by the United Nations as the most serious humanitarian emergency today. I thank the rapporteur for enabling us to focus on the issue. Europe often seems rather absent minded, but we are now focused. In the past four years we have seen the largest numbers of refugees since the crisis in the Balkans 22 years ago, with huge numbers travelling through Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. I will concentrate on two things: the number of refugees and the end of the peaceful coexistence of various faiths in the Middle East.

      We need to tackle the refugee crisis appropriately. We also need to appeal to the European Union to do likewise. We are all very upset about the number of people who have lost their lives in the shipwreck off the coast of Sicily, but we cannot tackle that problem separately or see it as separate from the issue we are discussing today. There are lots of Syrian and Iraqi refugees fleeing the crisis in the Middle East on makeshift craft. I received a letter from a Syrian family; the mother and a three-year-old child had died at sea, and the father and two other children survived.

      This year will see a record number of refugees. We need to ask Europe to share more of the burden and to show greater cohesion. In Italy alone, we have seen a 150% increase in the number of refugees. We should set national egotism and populism aside. We should not try to convince people to shut up shop or close our borders; no, we should make it possible for refugees to be recognised as such in countries of transit before they arrive in our countries.

      A far more serious consequence is the end of 2 000 years of peaceful coexistence of various faiths in the Middle East. Islamic fundamentalism seeks to destroy peaceful coexistence between Jews, Christians of all creeds, including Armenians, and Muslims. These are serious times for Christians. Only 25 years ago, some 2 million Christians were living in Iraq; today there are less than 500 000. Aleppo is a city that symbolised the peaceful co-existence of various faiths. We should call for a truce so that, as requested, the Syrian town of Aleppo can again stand as a symbol and there can be an end to violence. Aleppo is a symbol of the peaceful coexistence of various faiths and we cannot allow it to die.

      Ms MITCHELL (Ireland) – I thank Mr Bockel for his report. It is difficult to find language extreme enough to portray the extent of the humanitarian consequences of the actions of Islamic State or to convey the sense of urgency now needed in the international community to mitigate the most egregious of those consequences. In just over four years what began as a peaceful protest in Syria has left over 200 000 dead, with 3.5 million refugees and twice that number displaced within the country. The success of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has encouraged other jihadis to bring their own unique form of terror to the heart of Europe in Paris, to Africa in Tunisia, and to the Yemen. Undoubtedly, it will not stop there.

      Unfortunately there is now a consensus that there is no imminent prospect of a peaceful resolution to the conflict, so we know that the refugees and the displaced will not be returning home soon – in fact the likelihood is that there will be more refugees. However, if we are going to admit defeat in respect of effecting a quick end to the conflict, we cannot do so in respect of dealing with its humanitarian consequences. If we do, we will face the even greater challenges of destabilisation in host countries. Some countries have been generous – for instance, in offering resettlement programmes. Many of us could do an awful lot more, but the truth is that the sheer scale of the numbers involved means that even the most generous and open response from countries offering resettlement, refugee or leave-to-remain status can never do more than deal with a fraction of the displaced population. That places an even greater obligation on all of us at least to share the financial burden much more generously.

      With those countries now playing host to thousands, and in some case millions, of refugees, impossible demands are being placed on United Nations aid agencies to provide even basic food. UNHCR reports a catastrophic drop in its resources, even as demand for its services rises. On top of that, the rise of the value of the dollar has reduced its purchasing power by a full half.

      Finally, but perhaps most importantly, we must, as an international community, increase and indeed redouble our efforts to persuade both the Government of Syria and all insurgent forces to allow aid into the country, where conditions are so bad that the life expectancy of Syrians has fallen by a massive 30% in a mere four years – it has fallen from 79 years, which is typical of a western European country, down to 55 years, which is typical of countries such as Burundi or South Sudan. Tragically, much of the drop in life expectancy is due to the deaths of young children and youths because of the absence of food and vaccines – health supplies and services have almost disappeared. Many women have not left their houses in many months and children have not been to school.

      We cannot sit here comfortably, purporting to be an organisation dedicated to promoting human rights, and at the same time not do everything in our power – our considerable power – to ensure that the lack of funding for humanitarian aid is not a contributor to the death toll.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I thank the rapporteur for this important and timely report. It is known that one of the serious recent threats to international stability and security has been the destructive activity of the terrorist group known as Islamic State. The terrorists use the name of Islam, but they are far from the real Islam. I would even say that they are far from any religion, because kidnapping, killing people and destroying cities and cultural monuments are not related to any religion. Those activities are explicitly related to barbarism and international terrorism. Terrorism is a danger not only for the Christian world; it is also a great danger for the Muslim world.

      There is an explicit accusation of terrorist attacks in United Nations Resolution 1368 – they are a menace to the security of States of the world. In that regard, now and again appropriate safety precautions are being taken. However, the fact of terrorism is an obvious menace and threat. My country, Azerbaijan, is a tolerant and multicultural country, where people of different nationalities and different religions live in peace and friendship. Terrorist acts are against mankind and we consider them inadmissible.

      The Azerbaijani people are well aware of the notion of terror and have felt terrorism’s severe sufferings more than anyone here. We have faced an historical Armenian terror for the past two centuries. The last terror was more than 20 years ago, when Armenia occupied 20% of the territory of Azerbaijan. Armenian terrorists destroyed cities and cultural monuments and killed people. The Khojaly genocide, one of the most terrible massacres of the 20th century, took place on 26 February 1992. Hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians – women, children and elder people – were killed because they were Azerbaijanis. It is a great pity that the world community did not voice adequate qualification. That is nothing but a striking example of double standards in international relations.

      I completely agree with the conclusion and recommendation of the report. In the light of the growing numbers of acts of violence, the Parliamentary Assembly has a duty to condemn them and to call on governments to unite to order the protagonists to put an end as soon as possible to the massacres that are being carried out. I strongly believe that we must do so now. We cannot just speak and write about it.

      Unfortunately, in some cases, powerful State concerns make use of international terrorism for the implementation of their corporate and geopolitical interests. We can observe that with regard to the activity of ISIS. That is why our country believes that the prevention of the inadmissible actions of ISIS should happen imminently. On the whole, Azerbaijan supports all the efforts of the world community in the struggle with international terrorism and is actively represented in the process.

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

      Mr DIVINA (Italy)* – We do not need to be told what Islamic State is and what its atrocious crimes are. The international community has committed a series of errors, the most recent being to enact a virtual repeat of Afghanistan, where the Americans exploited the Taliban to help them against Russia. It has taken many years to restore a modicum of peace to that country. It was so important to the Americans to get rid of Assad that the international community gave its support to the so-called freedom fighters that formed the nucleus of the ISIS fighters who are now installed in Syria.

      We must try to stop that catalogue of errors. It may well be that Russia knows that part of the world better than most. The Americans destabilised North Africa. We tried to re-import democracy to that part of the world. Dictatorships were swept aside, but ordinary people did not benefit whatsoever. Libya is a prime example. When Gaddafi was in charge in Libya, people’s average incomes were €14 000 a year. Now they live in poverty and have fallen prey to ISIS terrorism. Libya is extremely close to Italy and the rest of Europe.

      We have decided to apply economic sanctions against Russia, but we are paying the price for them in Italy. We have seen a fall in consumption and our exports have fallen in certain sectors. Essentially, we are penalising ourselves. Russia is indispensable in the fight against Islamic State. It has a great degree of military capability and is intimately versed in Islamic fundamentalism – it had to fight its own battle against Islamic fundamentalism in Chechnya.

      It is important that we lift the European Union economic sanctions against Russia. The Council of Europe has done everything it can to drive Russia from the Assembly. That is a serious error that we should remedy. Otherwise, we will simply exacerbate a bad situation.

      Mr CHITI (Italy) – I should like to express my appreciation to the rapporteur for his efforts. I assure him that I fully support the key planks of the resolution presented to us.

      It is important that all our countries express their solidarity with, and their support for, urgent humanitarian intervention. We are contending with a plague. Faced with the scale of the humanitarian crisis, Europe – not only countries of the European Union, although I very much hope that the extraordinary Council takes effective steps – must rise to the new challenge.

At the same time, as has already been said by other speakers, we also need to prosecute the traffickers in human beings, the new enslavers.

      The last thing we must do is reorient our political priorities; otherwise I believe that our humanitarian efforts will come to nothing, and this will be a defeat for politics. We are not dealing with a clash of civilisations between Muslims and Christians who are armed with 21st-century technologies. Rather, we are dealing with extremists. Those who do not realise this are pushing them into the arms of Islamic State and in that way we are supporting terrorism.

      We are seeing an assault by terrorism on fundamental freedoms and human dignity. Ethnic and religious minorities – Muslims and Christians alike – are on the front line. We should support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and provide support for democracy. It is only by standing united that we can overcome barbarous terrorism and put an end to the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. Not only are they being persecuted individually, but this jeopardises peace across a whole swathe of the globe. We must therefore help countries such as Jordan in implementing democratic reforms and do what we can to put an end to civil wars in Syria and elsewhere. There is a vacuum at the heart of the State, and it is in this vacuum that the so-called Islamic State and its terrorist activities are thriving and flourishing.

      Finally, we need a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. There must be two States for two peoples because this conflict fuels tensions in the region and is exploited to fan the flames of conflict. If we do not deal with all these issues, it will not be possible for us to provide humanitarian assistance, and again this will be a defeat for politics.

      Ms HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – I thank the rapporteur for raising this issue and drawing our attention to the situation of Syrian refugees. However, I would like to draw the Assembly’s attention to the not-so-popular aspects of the refugee issue. These days, especially given the tragic sinking of several vessels headed from Libya to Italian shores, the issue of refugees and migrants from the Middle East and northern Africa has become hotly debated. There are calls to accommodate more migrants and refugees and to strengthen Australian-style preventive measures. Both are controversial, but the second merits more attention. We in the West have taught ourselves to react to humanitarian crises in the most humane ways but we miss a hidden aspect of the issue. Not all refugees are real victims of atrocities and not all seeking refuge on our shores are intent on adopting our values and integrating into our societies.

      We should not assume that anyone coming from a war zone and seeking asylum in Europe is an innocent victim. As Foreign Policy magazine boldly highlighted last week, Italian authorities are behaving in an extremely reckless way by allowing those refugees coming from Libya to move further north or enter the country without any checks, quarantine, registry or other safety procedures. As the publication indicates, many asylum seekers may be – and actually are – religious fanatics or even potential or active terrorists with intent to move to Europe and establish new cells there. According to accounts provided by the same outlet, many jihadists are already in Europe, having arrived via the same routes – Libya, Turkey, and so on. Sweden, Germany, Greece, Italy and France take in thousands of refugees, thinking that they behave humanely, while they venture into dangerous waters as the jump is fast and the move hectic.

      In contrast, Armenia, a tiny country with a strained economy, has accepted more than 10 000 Syrian refugees, almost all from Syrian religious and ethnic minorities – Christians who have lost everything from Aleppo to Idlib, from Kasab to Deir ez-Zor because of the actions of ISIS. Armenia has also opened its doors to victims of the ongoing Yazidi genocide in Iraq. However, nobody speaks of aiding my country to cope with the influx of real refugees who are the true victims of the genocidal war that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are waging against the natives of Mesopotamia.

      We need a more balanced refugee policy. Europe should not accept all the refugees from the Middle East in bulk and with no scrutiny, but a professionally high bar should be set. The existing numbers of Syrian refugees in Europe and the never-ending influx are a real threat that we are already unable to control. Policing potential suspects in the sea of unfiltered communities of refugee immigrants is an impossible task.

      An uncontrolled and hectic welcome to all refugees on the basis of European values of humanity is a threat to those very values and that cherished humanity.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I thank the rapporteur for his excellent report. He is right to point out that the situation has reached dramatic proportions. He has underlined the importance of humanitarian and political aid. I shall not dwell on the figures underlined on the number of fatalities and refugees but shall focus on the dramatic geographical enlargement of the conflict as a result of the advance of the jihadists.

      If we look at Syria, we see that the objective is Damascus, and in Iraq it is Baghdad. Great resistance is being put up but refugees are arriving in their masses in Lebanon and Jordan. The refugee camp that a number of us visited has turned into a town. Turkey has 2 million refugees; the increase in movement is dramatic. It is important to focus on how the jihadist movement has evolved – it is very complex. Da’esh is all about superiority; it is about a caliphate that uses the Internet very skilfully. Al-Nusrah, Islamic State, is a religious notion but there are rivals within the various factions. The real confusion that the jihadist movement can cause happened in the Palestinian refugee camp of Yarmouk in Syria, 8 km from Damascus, with about 150 000 refugees – there are now around 18 000. The jihadists suddenly arrived and were fighting against the government forces. In this camp were sympathisers with these two factions – Islamic State and al-Nusrah – and they joined forces to fight against the government forces. This is a good example of this religious war with different Islamic factions.

      There is a very serious point concerning Saudi Arabia and Iran. There are 150 000 troops and Shiites supported by Iran. Ten States support this operation – the United States is providing logistical support. This region is a real powder keg and it is of paramount importance that action is taken.

      Mr DESTEXHE (Belgium)* – Following what has been said by other speakers, I draw the Assembly’s attention to the situation in Lebanon. If there is one country that is not mentioned enough and which is threatened with a destabilisation crisis, it is Lebanon. As you know, colleagues, there are 1.3 million refugees in a country of 4 million inhabitants, so 25% – a quarter of Lebanon’s population – are refugees. Just imagine if in your country 25% of the population were to arrive in the space of a few months – foreigners taking refuge in your country. Obviously, this entails a major threat of destabilisation, so the situation in Lebanon is dangerous economically and politically and also in humanitarian terms. The refugee camps, and their state of poverty, are another cause of recruitment by Da’esh. The flag of this so-called “State” already flies above a number of refugee camps in Lebanon, and there has been a proliferation of military incidents.

      This humanitarian crisis is compounded by total political paralysis in Lebanon, with a failure to renew the assembly, which extended its own term, and with the term of the legitimately elected president ended some 11 months ago. I would like our Assembly to keep focusing on Lebanon, because it may be the next crisis and the next failed State. Countries of the European Union and the Council of Europe must support Lebanon. The World Bank has estimated that the financial impact of the crisis on Lebanon is at least $7 billion. We need to support Lebanon in humanitarian terms, and as politicians we have a role to play in helping it emerge from the political crisis which is also paralysing Lebanon today. I add that, according to my contacts – this remains to be confirmed – the Lebanese army is now the guarantor of stability and national unity, and perhaps we should contemplate providing support to it.

      Lastly, what troubles me with respect to the crisis generated by Da’esh is the lack of a solution or any prospect of one, both politically and militarily. Everybody is condemning Da’esh – that is excellent and we all do that – but what is the strategy, either to defeat it militarily or to find a lasting and enduring political solution? I see none in sight. Our role is also to urge States to have some approach to a political solution to the crisis.

      Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – First, I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Bockel, on an excellent report.

      Yesterday, the Council of Europe’s One in Five campaign posted on the tragedy of the ISIS child rape survivor belonging to the Yazidi tribe. This was one young girl recalling her harrowing experience, having been 12 years old when sold into sexual slavery. She was left with severe psychological trauma and in need of long-term medical care, but was living as a refugee. We are here today to discuss the humanitarian consequences of the actions of this terrorist group. We have often discussed humanitarian consequences in this Assembly, but we need to give thought to the plight of thousands of children in the countries destroyed by ISIS.

      Some 51% of the total number of refugees are children. As child rapporteur for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I cannot emphasise enough the need for us to raise awareness and to put pressure on everyone to address the devastating effects of the actions of this terrorist group on children and adolescents. We are talking about children who are witnesses to beheadings; children who are separated from their families; children who are turned into child soldiers; children who are turned into sex slaves; children being denied access to health care, education and safety; the victimisation of children and adolescents; and whole generations of children trapped in a terrorising situation.

      We praise the work of UNICEF, the World Health Organisation and all the non-governmental organisations on the ground. They are trying to take away some of the pain, but we need to do much more: we need to try to find ways of increasing the help provided; we need to provide immediate and long-term medical treatment for injuries sustained by children; we need to look at all the cases of child rape victims and give them access to care; we need to put in place prevention measures and care in respect of sexually transmitted diseases; we need to provide education; we need to try to reunite families; and we need urgently to turn our attention to child survivors, to help to reintegrate them and to provide support to their families and communities.

      We thank all the countries that are taking in refugees and we express the need to give them a great deal more support in order to address the needs of child survivors. Dear colleagues, we are here as the Council of Europe to raise our voices for children and to report the gross violations of their rights. This is happening outside our doors and this is changing the life of generations, so let us raise our voices, as those of children are often drowned in silence.

      Ms KANELLI (Greece) – Cui bono? I think everybody knows that Latin phrase. It is an unanswered question meaning “who has profited?” I congratulate the rapporteur on the report. If we look back over the past 50 years in this place, we see humanitarian interventions and discussions about refugees, displaced people and women and children being trafficked. This has been happening in different areas of the world over 50 years. Who has profited? We ask the people of the European countries with a broader idea of Europe to pay the price of being good-hearted humanitarians offering help, but the governments and the ruling classes are making money out of the blood; they smell oil, the price of weapons and so on.

      We have coalitions against other countries, exporting democracy, of which Europe has tremendous experience. But what are we exporting? Do we not know about religious wars in Europe? This is European history, so why are we exporting it? Do we not know about the result of colonialism? We are still colonial money-seekers in different areas of the world. What are we doing? We are seeing an imperialistic result – that is what is happening. We have a coalition – the United States and NATO with Saudi Arabia. Women have been deprived of basic rights there, but the coalition was useful. We go against the will of the people and their freedom to change their own societies. Then we discover the mistakes and then we export wars and a sick democracy. Then we import refugees and we go to ask for money to save their souls.

      We are paying the price of a crime. We Europeans – every one of us in here – have paid the price. Listen to us! We even vote the same way for Eurovision songs: with different interests in different areas and with neighbours sharing the terror. To stop terror, we have to stop wars. We have to spend money to stop all the wars, to stop divisions such as occurred in Yugoslavia and to stop creating monocultural, monoreligious societies. We have to get back to being Europeans again. If these are not the values, we cannot be the Council of Europe.

      8. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights: result

      The PRESIDENT – I have the pleasure and honour of interrupting the debate to announce the results of the first ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Andorra, Austria, Finland, Ireland and Liechtenstein.

      Andorra

      Number voting: 180

      Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 12

      Votes cast: 168

      Absolute majority: 85

      The votes cast were as follows:

      Mr Francesc Badia: 28

      Mr Pere Pastor Vilanova: 108

      Ms Patricia Quillacq Albajes: 32

      Accordingly, Mr Pastor Vilanova, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting from 1 November 2015.

      Austria

      Number voting: 180

      Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 8

      Votes cast: 172

      Absolute majority: 87

      The votes cast were as follows:

      Ms Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer: 102

      Mr Peter Lewisch: 8

      Ms Katharina Pabel: 62

      Accordingly, Ms Kucsko-Stadlmayer, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting from 1 November 2015.

      Finland

      Number voting: 180

      Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 14

      Votes cast: 166

      Absolute majority: 84

      The votes cast were as follows:

      Ms Pauliine Koskelo: 139

      Mr Jukka Lindstedt: 7

      Ms Anne Elina Niemi: 20

      Accordingly, Ms Koskelo, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting from 1 January 2016.

      Ireland

      Number voting: 180

      Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 14

      Votes cast: 166

      Absolute majority: 84

      The votes cast were as follows:

      Ms Siobhán Mullally: 32

      Ms Síofra O’Leary: 123

      Mr Gerard Quinn: 11

      Accordingly, Ms O’Leary, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting not later than three months after her election.

      Liechtenstein

      Number voting: 180

      Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 15

      Votes cast: 165

      Absolute majority: 83

      The votes cast were as follows:

      Mr Stephan Breitenmoser: 34

      Ms Brigitte Liselotte Ohms: 27

      Mr Carlo Ranzoni: 104

      Accordingly, Mr Ranzoni, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting from 1 September 2015.

      I congratulate all the judges and give them best wishes for successful work.

9. Humanitarian consequences of the actions of the terrorist group known as “Islamic State”: resumed debate

      The PRESIDENT – We now resume the debate. I give the floor to Mr Chisu, Observer from Canada.

      Mr CHISU (Canada) – Thank you, Mr President, for this opportunity to speak. I also thank the rapporteur, Mr Bockel, for his report on this important matter. As the report states, one year after the adoption of the Assembly’s last report on Syrian refugees, it is forced to note that the constant worsening of the situation is due mostly to the rise of the terrorist group known as Islamic State. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has reported that 4 million refugees have fled Syria, and that the situation of some 7.5 million internally displaced persons is worsening. Some 76 000 people died because of the conflict in 2014, including 3 500 children.

      Following the terrorist group’s expansion into Iraq in June 2014, Canada has been at the forefront of international efforts to address the situation in Iraq and Syria, and will continue to co-operate with its partners and allies in responding to this humanitarian crisis. Canada is part of the global coalition to counter ISIL, which includes more than 60 countries. Like most partner countries, Canada contributes to the coalition by providing military equipment and humanitarian supplies. However, it is also part of a core group of partners that are contributing military support to forces combating the terrorist group.

      Canada’s action to defeat Islamic State is in line with the global coalition’s five lines of effort, which are providing military support to our partners; working to stem the flow of foreign fighters; taking steps to stop financing and funding for Islamic State; addressing the humanitarian crisis in the region; and undermining Islamic State’s narrative. The global coalition partners have agreed that an unofficial sixth line of effort consists of ensuring the stabilisation of Iraq. It is important to note that the humanitarian line of effort will continue to be co-ordinated by the United Nations, with the total support of the global coalition.

      I stress that Canada is one of the largest humanitarian donors to Iraq and has provided $67.4 million in humanitarian assistance funding for displaced Iraqis and an additional $9.5 million for Syrian refugees in Iraq. In its efforts to ensure Iraq’s stabilisation, Canada has also set up a programme for religious freedom and countering sexual violence, and another related to security.

      Mr Bockel’s report calls on States to show solidarity and a sense of responsibility in response to the situation in Iraq and Syria, as well as in other countries affected by the crisis. Canada has heard that call and is acting accordingly.

      Mr FLOREA (Romania) – First, I would like to stress that the need for co-operation in the struggle against terrorism is absolute. We must improve our efforts to tackle instabilities before they have regional and global repercussions, and strengthened dialogue will help us to address a range of issues.

      We face a serious challenge on our southern borders. Across the Middle East and North Africa, ISIL’s violent ideology has poured oil on the fire of extremism and sectarianism that was already burning after the failed promise of the Arab Spring. The situation has become particularly tense with the recent upsurge of violence in Libya. The need for a comprehensive transition in Syria is becoming stronger by the day, and we should focus our attention on reaching a political solution while increasing efforts to gather the support of the regional actors. In the absence of their backing and involvement, no political solution is sustainable.

      The number of people in need of assistance in Syria and beyond continues to rise dramatically. People working for international humanitarian organisations and their partners in Syria are risking their lives to try to get help to those who need it most, yet their courage and innovation is not enough. Even as the region is convulsed by many other serious challenges, we must never grow used to the suffering of the Syrian people. No matter what else is going on, addressing the plight of Syrians must remain at the top of our agenda.

      Syria’s neighbours have shown remarkable generosity in taking in refugees, and we strongly urge them to keep their borders open. Every nation has a legitimate interest in screening the people entering its territory, but all nations must work to ease the restrictions that prevent the most vulnerable people from reaching refuge.

      Ladies and gentlemen, we should continue our efforts in supporting the national authorities of the neighbouring countries that are hosting Syrian refugees. To relieve the burden on Syria’s neighbours, other countries must welcome displaced Syrians in greater numbers. Neither ISIL nor the Syrian regime will disappear in the short or medium term. We have to avoid the collapse of State institutions in Syria. We also need to develop mid-term and long-term objectives, and to continue to plan carefully for the long-term “day after” recovery in Syria.

      The PRESIDENT – Ms Kronlid does not seem to be with us, so I call Mr Ardelean from Romania.

      Mr ARDELEAN (Romania) – Dear colleagues, I congratulate the rapporteur on this comprehensive and insightful report. This violent jihadist movement represents a clear threat to the very foundations of our democracies.

      During the first meeting for high-level officials and experts of the Working Group on Stabilisation that was hosted by Germany in Berlin on 18 March, international stakeholders reiterated their firm commitment to do their utmost to dismantle this terrorist entity. While military intervention is essential, it should be part of a wider political approach, with a view to tackling the underlying issues that enabled the Islamic State’s advancement. Both in Syria and Iraq, it is vital to stem any form of ethnic and religious marginalisation. The fight against Islamic State requires enhanced engagement with regional actors. Those actors, having mainly Muslim populations, are directly involved and, in the view of public opinion in the Middle East, are better placed to contribute to the fight against ISIS. Their contribution to the fight against the spread of jihadist ideology is of paramount importance.

      Dear colleagues, Romania fully supports the efforts undertaken by international and regional partners with a view to annihilating ISIS. Our contribution focuses mainly on stabilisation and on humanitarian pillars of support. This year, we will offer $150 000 in financial support to alleviate the situation of the Iraqi and Syrian refugees in the region. We have also decided to host 40 Syrian refugees in 2015; they will be transferred from Turkey in two groups of 20. In addition, we will grant $280 000 in scholarships for young Syrian students. So far, we have contributed $500 000 to provide relief for Syrian refugees.

      The attacks in Paris and Copenhagen prove that our evaluations of the foreign fighters were, unfortunately, correct. The magnitude of this phenomenon calls for increasing co-operation in security matters. At the same time, we should continue to work on countering radicalisation. Citizens who have travelled to fight in Syria and Iraq are becoming further radicalised there, and they may act as catalysts for extremism and terrorism when they decide to return to their home countries. That is why addressing both the root causes of their radicalisation in their home countries and their integration in those countries on their return from Syria and Iraq are of the utmost importance.

      Dear colleagues, the humanitarian situation in the Middle East requires our particular attention. The security environment in the region is worsening every day and we have to do our utmost to provide people there with shelter in the first instance and then with the prospect of living in safety.

      Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – Today we are discussing probably the most terrible events happening at the present time. Terrorists are no longer united in certain groups of criminals; now they declare themselves as a State. Where will the world go if terror spreads all over the world like an incurable infection?

      There is no doubt that in future both the export of instability and the escalation of conflicts in the Middle East will continue. The reason is the religious fanaticism of people with views that are absolutely different from real Islam. These are people who earn their living by terror, and who do not act according to religious ideas but according to violence and murder, defending themselves by claiming to be Islamic.

      The report gives the whole picture of how to support refugees and how to create an atmosphere of hospitality and comfort, but what is of utmost importance is that we make a joint decision about how to prevent the further spread of terror in the world and how to stop new flows of refugees.

      The root of the problem lies deep in history. My country, Azerbaijan, is one of the countries that suffers from the creation of a terrorist State on its territory. The situation is aggravated by the use of the territories occupied by Armenia for the purposes of drug trafficking and smuggling, transforming those territories into a lair of terror.

      Twenty years ago, if this Organisation and other international organisations had been more involved in addressing the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenian terrorists, including the massacre in 1992 of innocent Azerbaijani people in Khojaly just because of their ethnicity, and if our colleagues had expressed their concerns more obviously, there probably would not be a terrorist State now. In closing our eyes to one precedent, we generate another.

      It is not only certain territories in the Middle East that are subject to aggression but history and culture; the terror affects not only human beings but material culture. All of us have seen videos showing the demolition of historic and cultural monuments, and pieces of art. On occupied land in Azerbaijan, Armenia destroys and falsifies the cultural heritage of Azerbaijan. Mass destruction of historic and cultural monuments violates the Hague convention of 1954 on cultural property, and is also a violation of the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. However, we can see that laws, conventions and simple human values mean nothing to terrorists.

      Why is this happening? It is because there is no justice. There should be justice for all victims of terror, regardless of the scale of the spread of terror. It does not matter where terrorism takes place; no form of terror is acceptable. Neither Islam nor any other religion should ever be used as a tool of violence or war.

      There is no doubt that the threat of extremism is growing and it obviously reflects the inability of the world community to unite. The national interests of States sometimes prevail despite the common threat. It is necessary to start the process of achieving a new level of effective co-operation, which includes strong measures, a real estimation of the seriousness of events and immediate reaction.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Bereza is not here, so I call Mr Stroe.

      Mr STROE (Romania) – This is a critical time for the security of all our nation States. We now face new and very complex challenges to both our eastern and southern borders. In both cases, we face a radically changed and destabilised security environment.

      On our southern borders, apart from the serious humanitarian crisis that is developing in the region we are now confronted with acts of terrorism and extremism that put in danger the security of all Council of Europe member States. It is unacceptable that we have not yet reached any political solution in the Syrian conflict. Today, we must demonstrate our solidarity with the people of Syria and with the brave humanitarian workers and volunteers there; they urgently need our support.

      It is hard to imagine the economic, social and demographic impact on the economies and societies in Lebanon, Jordan, northern Iraq, Turkey and Egypt. The number of Syrian refugees registered in these countries has rapidly increased. As host countries, they not only face growing security risks due to the regional spread of the conflict but they do not receive the help they need to cope with the influx of refugees.

      One of the risks that continue to worry me the most is the growing threat of a lost generation of Syrian children. When we consider that half of all school-age Syrian refugee children and another 2 000 000 children in Syria itself are out of school, we realise that the number of young people at risk is staggering. They have already lost their childhood, due to the terrible war, and now they face losing their future. Even though humanitarian agencies have made progress in reinforcing national and community systems to give refugee children better access to education and protection, increasing poverty reverses those gains because it forces parents to take their children out of school. Given that it got only about 40% of its required funding in 2014, the No Lost Generation initiative needs considerably more support.

      Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia)* – Last year, the humanitarian situation throughout the Near and Middle East region continued to deteriorate because of the upsurge in the so-called Islamic State, which proclaimed a caliphate in the Iraqi and Syrian territories it controls. The organisation is considered the most violent jihadist movement in the world. An international coalition is intervening militarily against it. If everyone is against it, where is the financial and military support to tackle it coming from? Are some elements behaving duplicitously? There are certainly hypocrites who say one thing and do another and we should bring that to light.

      Islamic State jihadists are carrying out executions and offensives every day. Their crimes are truly a case of genocide. We already see the disappearance of whole communities such as the Yazidi people. The Armenians in the region have become the target of constant attacks by the jihadists, in Aleppo and elsewhere. The most obvious victims are Christians and others who do not follow the Muslim faith. Islamic State uses the same methods as the Young Turks did when organising the Armenian genocide during the Ottoman empire: they blew up the Church of the Martyrs where the victims of that genocide were laid to rest. In Libya, an Islamic organisation has called for people to give allegiance to the terrorists.

      The parallels do not stop there. Christians who do not submit to Islam or pay the jizya, or protection tax, have to die. Similarly, the Young Turks stigmatised Armenian Christians as unbelievers and they beheaded, burned alive and crucified their victims in crimes denounced by Pope Francis. We are seeing new genocides. Let us not deny the genocide of the Armenians and others; if we do, the next one will be all the more violent and terrifying.

      Mr SCHNEIDER (France)* – I congratulate the rapporteur. Some 3 million Syrians have fled their country – after the Palestinians, the largest ever number of refugees. Some 130 000 have been welcomed in Europe and I pay tribute to the European countries that have coped with this serious problem. More than 76 000 people were killed in Syria in 2014, of whom 3 500 were children. In all, more than 220 000 – the population of Strasbourg – have been killed in the past four years.

      The Da’esh continues to commit crimes against humanity despite the international coalition. Cultural and ethnic cleansing is destroying the cultural and religious wealth of Syria and Iraq. On top of the massacres, girls and women are being forced into slavery and religious fanaticism is classing people as sub-human.

      Having worked extensively in this Assembly on intercultural dialogue, I am fully aware of the importance of the values that the Council of Europe defends. When fanatics destroy centuries-old artefacts and target minorities including Shiite Muslims, they attack our values, memory and common heritage. Syria and Iraq are at the heart of the Muslim world, unlike Afghanistan – both are symbolic of a rich East. I am delighted at France’s initiative to call a meeting of the United Nations Security Council about the persecution of minorities.

      Amin Maalouf has written that eastern Christians are dying twice: first as human beings and secondly as a community threatened with extinction – and that could apply to other minorities in the region. Without Christians or Yezidis, this part of the world will have lost its memory and soul and extremists will have won the war. We have a difficult fight, involving humanitarian aid and managing the dramatic refugee situation. We have to stop Da’esh before it is too late.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia) – This is the umpteenth time we have discussed Islamic State atrocities. The organisation clearly represents a threat for both regional and international security. Our colleague Mr Bockel has talked about the consequences of its atrocities and the refugee situation. He has emphasised the Syrian problem, although previously we have talked about Islamic State atrocities in the north of Iraq.

      According to United Nations data, more than 215 000 people, including 11 000 children, have died during the war in Syria. Since the beginning of the conflict, about 6.8 million people have been forced to flee their homes. “Humanitarian disaster” is quite a soft way to refer to the situation. Countless children have been separated from their families. Some 2 million children require aid in Syria and more than 500 000 need it in neighbouring countries.

      Armenians in Syria are one of its most stable and influential communities, but they have greatly suffered. Like other Syrians, they have experienced the consequences and losses. Last year, Armenians in Kessab were brutally attacked and in September terrorists blew up the Church of the Martyrs in Deir ez-Zor. Given the Islamic State killings of Christians, my compatriots are clearly in danger because of their nationality and religion. Armenia has already welcomed more than 10 000 refugees from Syria and we are of course willing to continue welcoming our compatriots.

      There seems no end in sight to the chaos of the civil war in Syria. In the last section of his report, the rapporteur has put forward concrete steps to find a solution to the problems of Syrian refugees. Until the evil is rooted out, coping with its consequences will require unprecedented efforts, every day and every hour.

      Mr ZECH (Germany)* – I am very grateful indeed for the report, in particular because once again it shines a light on this conflict. All of us in the Chamber are politicians who live in the public gaze. Bertholt Brecht, the German author, said that there will be some in the shadows and some in the light, but obviously you can see only those who happen to be in the light. That is precisely what we have seen in Syria.

      Given that so many conflicts are taking place in Europe that we might wish to speak about, we urgently needed such a debate to ensure that the biggest humanitarian disaster we have seen in a long time takes centre stage once more.

      I thank the rapporteur for this thorough report. I have a couple of comments. The introductory statement suggests that the situation had deteriorated seriously and, after all, we are talking about our neighbours: from Strasbourg, you can be in Beirut in the space of three hours. We have seen something quite unprecedented: Lebanon, a country of 4 million people, has taken in close to 2 million refugees. That situation is hard to imagine unless you see it with your own eyes. We Europeans will pay a heavy price if we do not offer a helping hand to our neighbours in the present circumstances.

      A few weeks ago we had the conference on Syria in Kuwait, but I am sorry to say that we were unable to drum up even 50% of the funds that had been hoped for. Again, we will have to rely on private initiatives and NGOs. In my area, we have a private initiative by cabaret artists and theatre people through which humanitarian aid is being flown out to Lebanon. We should be helping NGOs to overcome diplomatic obstacles, particularly in those countries from which refugees are fleeing. We must make clear to Turkey and Lebanon that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them and that we are trying to work with them to find a solution to the situation.

      I take the view that the problem cannot be solved only in the countries concerned. We need to make plans for the future, because people will want to return home and subsequently we will have to work together to rebuild entire countries. That is why we are responsible for refugees and we should have Libya in our spotlight very soon.

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

      Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – The civil war in Syria and the assault of the obscurantist, murderous Islamic State have caused the largest humanitarian disaster since the Second World War. The tragedy is ongoing, without any prospect of peace. It is also constantly spreading and establishing itself as a regional state of affairs.

      Syria has suffered damages amounting to a 40-year loss of human development, and life expectancy has decreased by 20 years. Of the 12.2 million people who need humanitarian aid, almost 50% are children, while 2 million refugees under 18 years of age are at risk of becoming a lost generation. Refugees are increasingly exposed to trafficking and exploitation by criminal gangs. As the UN High Commissioner for Refugees stated, “as the level of desperation is increasing and the provision of protection shrinks, we are approaching a dangerous turning point.”

      Therefore, today, as we count the numbers of dead refugees and impoverished Syrians who do not have access to the most basic provisions, we should remember that the tragedy has root causes and guilty parties. Humanity is experiencing the consequences of the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the intervention in Syria’s internal affairs on the part of the West and the Gulf monarchies who financed and armed the Syrian opposition, part of which is organically connected to Islamic State.

      Turkey is also hugely responsible for fomenting the civil war and undermining Syria. Those facts should be clear to those forces who believe that they can eliminate the mistakes of past wars with new wars. The international community’s most urgent task is to provide a substantial response to the enormous need for humanitarian assistance and the huge influx of refugees. The report states clearly that international support for humanitarian assistance is insufficient with regard to the huge and growing needs on the ground, considering that available mechanisms have reached their limits.

      At the same time, as a representative of Cyprus, a country just 200 km west of Syria, I underline the need for enhanced support for the States that receive mass waves of refugees and asylum seekers on their shores. Burden-sharing must be pursued by all concerned parties. Europe and the Gulf have a responsibility to create legal entry routes for refugees so that they can safely seek protection and shelter. Otherwise, more and more Syrians will be stowed in rusty boats to escape the war and more and more of them will get lost in the Mediterranean, whose sea bottom is gradually becoming the wet cemetery of the modern world.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Downe, Observer from Canada.

      Mr DOWNE (Canada) – Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words, Madam President. It is a pleasure to see you again after we met in Luxembourg.

      I will not repeat the comments made by others, but I associate myself with many of their remarks. The situation in Syria is a concern for us all. Like my colleague from Belgium, Mr Destexhe, I want to draw particular attention to the situation in Lebanon.

      Last summer, the United Nations noted that 12 000 refugees were crossing into Lebanon every week. As of March, more than 1 million refugees were registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Lebanon, which now ranks first in the world on refugees per capita. Those are staggering figures. We must realise that that would be the equivalent of about a third of Lebanon’s population. There is growing awareness of the pressure that that places on Lebanon’s communities and authorities and the impact on public services, housing and employment. There are also indications that tensions may be growing between some host communities and refugees.

      The situation is also serious in other countries. The Turkish embassy in Canada informed me that Turkey hosts more than 1.7 million Syrian refugees. Since the arrival of the first refugees, 35 000 children have been born in Turkish camps. The number of Syrian school children exceeds half a million and some 600 000 patients have been treated in Turkey’s medical facilities.

      As the conflict in the Middle East continues, we can only expect more internally displaced persons, increased refugee populations and an even greater need for aid. Canada, in recognising the severity of the situation, has played a role that has included providing $67 million in assistance since the start of 2014. That funding supports a variety of initiatives, including: the provision of food and aid; the provision of education to children; and responding to sexual and gender-based violence.

      As parliamentarians, we must continue to work with our governments, NGOs and the international community to provide protection to civilians targeted by the conflicts in the Middle East, ensure the safety and security of displaced and refugee populations and assist those host countries most impacted by these conflicts. I conclude by acknowledging the significant efforts made by participating States and Mediterranean partners in providing much needed assistance, accommodation and protection for so many who have been affected by the violence.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Nikoloski to speak, but he is not here so I call Ms Pashayeva.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – It is a fact that the ongoing crisis in Syria and the emergence of new terrorist groups, notably ISIS, create serious threats to the region and abroad. No matter which ethnicity or religion they belong to, all the people of the region face violence. We have to concentrate our efforts on the humanitarian aspects of the crisis.

      Countries of the region have faced a humanitarian crisis. In Turkey alone, more than 3 million people have been given asylum, most of them women and children. We must appreciate this step by Turkey. I would like to deliver to our Assembly the requests, thoughts and voices of millions of Turkmen people living in Iraq and Syria, who have described the horrors they face in their everyday life. Some days ago, Turkmens living in Iraq and Syria sent me a flag covered in the blood of Turkmens who had been brutally killed, and they asked me to sound their voice of truth in our Assembly. Our members should pay more attention to humanitarian assistance to the refugees. Also, we have to pay special attention to preventing the access of potential new terrorists to ISIS or other terrorist groups by using neighbouring territories as transit.

      Some members of the Armenian delegation once again made several inaccurate remarks in their speeches about Azerbaijan and Turkey, as well as against Islam. Why did the Armenian delegation not stand against acts of terror committed in the 1990s in metro stations and on trains and buses in Azerbaijan, in parallel with the armed aggression against Azerbaijan? We have to be frank, dear colleagues.

      I represent a country that well knows the horrible results of terrorism. As a result of attacks in Azerbaijan by terrorist groups under Armenian patronage, we lost hundreds of people, including children. I can present photos of these horrors to all interested friends. Regrettably, at the time of those terror attacks, we could not get enough support from our European friends. No matter where, by whom it is done or against whom it happens, we have to take a serious stand against terrorism and we have to fight it. Avoidance is a double standard.

      Islam is a religion of peace and reconciliation. Islam does not permit any violence. Growing Islamophobic tendencies in Europe should seriously disturb all of us. We should not forget that trends of Islamophobia will just provide fertile ground for further development of radical groups. That is why we must also fight Islamophobia in Europe.

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – I thank the rapporteur, Jean-Marie Bockel, for his excellent work on and deep analysis of the humanitarian consequences of the actions of the terrorist group known as Islamic State. In Syria, Islamic State has several thousand additional members drawn from both Syrian nationals and foreign fighters. Owing to Islamic State’s Iraqi origins, a large number of its Syria-based senior operatives and leadership are Iraqi nationals. Fighters in both countries are able to pass freely across the border, which is no longer recognised by Islamic State.

      I fully agree with the rapporteur who underlines the fact that the Assembly should condemn the acts of violence and call on governments to unite to order the protagonists to put an end to the massacres that are being carried out. However, it seems as though these are all just words. In my opinion, one action we could take would be to involve peaceful non-European countries in the process. Non-Europeans, especially decision makers, would have a distance from the issue and could advise Europe, although their citizens see Europe as a destination for achieving better living standards. I fully and truly believe that the so-called Islamic States are not keen to listen to Europe today or ready to reverse the trend because of European demands.

      We should ask ourselves some vital and relevant questions. Why are European voices not heard? What impact have we made to reduce tension? What led to the fact that all are deaf to our recommendations? Why do we not send the people who have better authority than us despite their weaker economic power? What have we done to destabilise the situation in the so-called Islamic States?

      Apart from prolonging and increasing the supply of humanitarian aid, it would be advisable to identify solid, reputable and reliable non-European citizens who could conduct a dialogue with the leadership of the so-called Islamic States. Let us not feel that we have primacy over those leaders, but that we are able to sit down and discuss. In that way, we will reduce the influx of displaced persons to Europe. It is true indeed that we have better living standards, but let us end the superiority complex that has been felt in Europe for years.

      Lord BALFE (United Kingdom) – I add my thanks to the rapporteur. What amazes me is that we seem surprised by this. We are dealing with a crisis that has been manufactured by the West – by the United States and the British Government – by constant meddling in the Middle East and the Near East including the war in Iraq, which we started; in Syria, which we destabilised; in Iran, which we turned into a sort of hate-figure State; in Egypt, where we meddled with the so-called democracy; and in Libya, where we bombed a not very pleasant but at least stable administration into a State that is not a State at all. Now we step back and act amazed. Added to that, we have treated both Israel and Saudi Arabia with kid gloves when they have done things that were probably not in the best interests of the region.

      The first lesson in the Middle East is that we should stay out of it, and the second lesson is that it will only be sorted out by the States there. However, we cannot completely stay out of it because we do have a responsibility for the mess that we have largely created. We have two levels of problem. First, many of the brains of Islamic State are coming on aeroplanes from the West. We owe a great debt to the Turkish Government for sending back and sorting out some of the people who have been trying to cross Turkey to reach the Islamic State forces, and we should not forget that.

      Secondly, we have a large number of refugees who are there because they have been opposed by Islamic State armed with the best arms that Britain and the United States could supply to governments that then managed to surrender them to the terrorists. I wish that we would talk some common sense and stop wringing our hands about problems that we have created. If we want a future, we have to support the States already there. We have to stop our war against Assad and we have to come to terms with the Syrian regime. We have to come to terms with the other de facto governments on the ground in the area. We have got to take to heart Einstein’s dictum that repeatedly doing something that fails is a definition of madness. Finally, we should adopt a self-denying ordinance: do not do it again.

      Ms ANAGNOSTOPOULOU (Greece)* – Da’esh is not a terrorist group so much as a criminal group that uses religion as a cover. Its actions exploit weaknesses, problems and tensions in neighbouring States in the Middle East that have arisen as a result of American intervention. Religion and dogma are a means by which it develops its actions in a region where there has been an insoluble problem – the Palestinian problem. That is where it draws its strength from.

      Islamic State destroys everything in its way. It seeks to cultivate religious feeling for the purpose of turning it into a weapon and an instrument of hatred. It destroys the memory of multicultural society and multicultural co-existence. Islamic State is triggering a huge wave of emigration and the displacement of refugees throughout the Middle East region. Over and above the humanitarian assistance that we give, we must support the societies that have always existed and that are standing up to this barbarism – regions such as Kobane, where there was gender equality, a multicultural society and a resistance to barbarism. We should support such regions and display solidarity with them. We should welcome the large numbers of refugees who are currently on the shores of the Mediterranean and we need to take care of them.

      This is not an Italian or a Greek problem and it is not a European problem alone; it is a pan-European problem. For the first time, the whole of Europe must tackle this problem and embark on political action at a humanitarian level. That does not mean that we just need an aid policy and money. We need to decide on a solution to the refugee problem. We are seeing the trafficking of refugees. There is a cemetery of souls in the Mediterranean that poses a threat to the whole of civilisation.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. It is a pleasure for me to ask Mr Sabella to take the floor. Mr Sabella is from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine) – The phenomenon of Da’esh is complex and cannot be reduced to one factor alone. Internal societal factors, as well as regional and international factors, are responsible for the creation and the perpetuation of the phenomenon of Islamic State/Da’esh. The problem is not how to find the causes, but how to find the answers and solutions.

      Europe and the United States should stay clear of interfering in the business of the region, but the reality of the world today is that, whether we like it or not, we are all connected, one to the other. Accordingly, the solution to Da’esh does not lie simply with military action against Islamic State. We need to develop a whole system of responses that deal with, for example, the disintegration of States in the region, and with the educational systems in some countries in the region which do not promote, or which inhibit the promotion of, understanding others. We need to move away from the notion that you cannot be in a society if you belong to a religious or ethnic community, and we need to develop the notion of a citizen who is allowed to develop fully within State institutions and systems. We do not have that.

      There has been a failure to provide basic human security to millions of Muslims, Arabs and others in the region. The task is not simply one for Europe, and that is why I am not appealing to Europe. The task is really for us as Arabs, Muslims, Christians and other groups living in the region to look inward and work together to recreate the golden age of Islam. We were educated about the golden age of Islam, and at one time we were all proud of it. I hope it will come true.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sabella, for your very strong message.

      Ms TZAKRI (Greece)* – Today, we are debating the consequences of Islamic State. This is a very serious problem indeed, with 4 million refugees in Turkey and 3 million people in Iraq who need humanitarian assistance. Islamic State has caused 6.8 million people to flee their homes, and there has been ethnic cleansing. Time is marching on and the crisis continues unabated. It will only become much more all-encompassing and spread to Europe. It is claiming many lives and victims.

      I come from a small country that lies at the south-eastern edge of Europe. We respect human rights, democracy and equality, and we have to deal with the waves of refugees who are coming to Greece and Italy. In the first few months of 2015, there have been 11 000 arrests. This is becoming a tragic problem. In the ports, more than 700 arrests are made each day and the problem has become impossible for us to solve. We are very close to the Turkish coastline and, as we know, there have been very serious incidents in the water.

      It is impossible for one country alone to face up to this problem that is occurring on a daily basis. It is vital that Europe helps us, because the very serious threat we face will be a danger for Europe as a whole if we are unable to reverse it. It cannot be tackled by a few countries alone. We must organise proper reception facilities, and all European States need to share in the responsibility. There is of course a social cost that cannot be borne only by the provision of financial assistance. The European Union has a role to play. It cannot simply talk about this and deliver impressive speeches; it must take concrete action to clamp down on the trafficking of human beings. It should be European policy to supervise the sea routes used by refugees and immigrants. We cannot let the situation continue as it is. Some people are enriching themselves at the expense of refugees. The situation is serious and we must try to resolve it.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Tzakri. I now give the floor to Ms Al-Astal from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Ms AL-ASTAL (Palestine) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Bockel, for his comprehensive and important report, and want to raise an urgent issue. The humanitarian crisis and its consequences in the Middle East and North Africa, especially in Syria and Iraq, have reached an unacceptable level and are urgent matters. The most terrorist of all groups in the world, Da’esh, or IS, has taken control of large parts of Iraqi and Syrian territories and considers itself a State. It has begun systematic violence against and the killing of innocent people, ethnic discrimination, and mass executions and genocide, in horrible ways. It uses the Internet and social media to spread the horrible killing of its victims, and spreads a culture of violence and killing in the area. It also trains and uses children to kill and commit other acts of violence.

      As a result, more than 6 million families have been displaced from their homes and have become refugees in surrounding countries such as Jordan and Turkey, and other countries in the Middle East and Europe. Da’esh recently attacked the Yarmouk camp for Palestinians in Syria, killing many civilians and displacing others, and is using the camp as a base for its military actions. Thousands of children have been separated from their families and are exposed to all kinds of violence, sexual abuse and trafficking. Girls and young women are exposed to violence, such as forced early marriage, for protection and financial reasons. According to recent reports by international humanitarian organisations, more than 2.5 million refugee children in Syria and Iraq need urgent assistance and protection.

      I support all the recommendations of this important report. I call on all governments to look for urgent solutions to end the suffering of people and refugees in the area as soon as possible, to increase humanitarian assistance, and to combat and end the phenomenon of the violence of the terrorist group Da’esh and all other extremist violent groups all over the world. We support the spread of the culture of peace and justice, and the solving of conflict, especially the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Ghambou from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr GHAMBOU (Morocco) – If members will allow me, I will say a few words about my country, Morocco, which is not mentioned in the report. We have been the first, if not the only, nation in the region to urge the international community to address the situation of refugees and irregular migrants who have been displaced by the rise of terrorism in the Middle East, the Maghreb and the African Sahel. Once Da’esh began to take over larger provinces in Syria, we opened our borders to 1 000 Syrian refugees entering through the Algerian and Mauritanian borders, and provided them with the necessary humanitarian aid. More importantly, a good number of the 18 000 irregular migrants and refugees whose status we legalised at the end of last December were Syrian.

      We understand that our status as Partner for Democracy with the Council of Europe is not only a privilege; it gives us an ethical duty to address not only our national problems but regional challenges in places where the spirit of neighbourliness unfortunately does not exist. As Morocco cannot continue to address the enormous challenges beyond its borders alone, we welcome all positive recommendations made by the Council of Europe, based on a sound and global approach, as has been said before, that seeks to prevent and not only to react to the impact of terrorism on refugees and displaced persons. In addition to Syria, we should immediately start to think about how, together, we can stop similar crises taking place in Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Mali and all countries where the notions of sovereignty and central power are jeopardised.

      Inspired by the founding principles of the Council of Europe, Morocco’s new mission as a leading country in its region is to increase the space for democratic values and decrease the zones of violence and terrorism. We need to work together because Da’esh – or any other terrorist group, for that matter – is not simply a threat to the Middle East and North Africa. Terror strikes in the heart of Europe, as well; the attack on Charlie Hebdo is a telling example.

      There are some questions relevant to the topic we are discussing. Why do terrorist groups begin to recruit their members among the Muslim diaspora in Europe? More importantly, what attracts young European Muslims to the violence of Al-Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State? Both questions urge us to ask for more collaboration between the country of origin and the country of residence on all matters relating to migration, especially integration, which terrorist groups seek to destroy by all possible means.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Ghambou. I call Mr Yatim from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr YATIM (Morocco)* – I congratulate Mr Bockel on the quality of his report and on the relevance of the draft resolution therein. Tragedy is the right term to describe the humanitarian situation in Syria. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, some 200 000 people have been killed. In 2014 alone, 76 000 died, including some 3 500 children, according to Mr Bockel’s report. There are also many thousands of refugees. Syrian refugees are top of the UNHCR’s list. We are seeing unaccompanied mothers and children living in precarious conditions, subject to violence and having to resort to begging. They are exposed to disease and exploited by traffickers. Those are just a few of the problems they face. It is a lengthy list.

      To combat this dramatic situation, Mr Bockel’s report appeals for a resettlement programme, as well as a policy on humanitarian assistance and a shelter programme for large numbers of Syrian refugees. We pay tribute to him and join him in paying tribute to the States in the region for their generosity and their efforts to come to the assistance of the refugees. I endorse his appeal to the States of the Council of Europe to display solidarity and responsibility by increasing funds earmarked for humanitarian organisations.

      We should not lose sight of the fact that the tragedy is a consequence of a political crisis and a totalitarian regime that chose to respond with bloody repression to the popular aspirations of its people for the rule of law and social justice. That pushed opponents of the regime to the radical extremes, playing with religious differences and creating all the conditions conducive to the development of extremist and criminal groups such as Da’esh.

      The humanitarian crisis, too, is the logical result of political failure by the international community – its leniency and lack of resolve in dealing with the crimes carried out by the regime and terrorist groups in the area. Unless the political backdrop to the problem is resolved, the Syrian tragedy will continue, like other tragedies, such as the one off the Italian coast the other day. Let us hope that those things do not recur.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Yatim. I call Ms El Ouafi from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Ms EL OUAFI (Morocco)* – I thank Mr Bockel for his excellent job of work on a subject that concerns all of us. The security of the public in both the North and the South is at stake. On many occasions, we have said that terrorist groups do not represent the values of Islam – we must continue to repeat that they are clearly anti-Islamic. They have killed innocent people, and attacked civilians as well as public institutions. Those acts can never be justified.

      What is more, the Muslim faithful have firmly condemned the actions of the terrorists. That is why we should call the organisation “Da’esh” and not “Islamic State”. It is by no means any kind of Islamic State. There is also a risk that trust between Jews, Christians and Muslims will be undermined. As a Moroccan, I can assure delegates that, in a moderate Morocco, Christians, Jews and Muslims have always lived side by side. It is important that we do not run the risk of having an anti-Islamic discourse. We must not lump terrorists with Muslims. We are duty bound not to confuse them.

      As has been said, it is important in our strategy that we come up with political solutions as well as prevent terrorist actions. We must beef up European Union support for countries in democratic transition in the Arab world, including Morocco and Tunisia. Morocco is one of the rare countries to have introduced the legal instruments it needs to prevent and combat terrorism since the outbreak of those atrocities. We are one of the leaders in the region.

      The parliament is behind us. Legislation and paragraphs in the criminal code are designed not only to combat Da’esh, but to protect young people from being exploited by it in cultural and religious terms. To give a couple of examples, we have restructured the religious space in redefining the role of imams. Women have an important role in the reforms. Above all to combat extremism, female imams have a new role. They have called on their male counterparts to promote moderate Islam. A number of African countries have expressed a desire to draw on Morocco’s experience and programmes for combating cultural and terrorist extremism.

       The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms El Ouafi. I call Mr Ameur from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr AMEUR (Morocco)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report on the situation of Syrian refugees. It contains useful recommendations. The Syrian crisis and the waves of refugees continue. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees are locked in neighbouring countries. They are entirely reliant on outside assistance to survive, because the possibility of their integrating into saturated labour markets is very low indeed.

      There is a serious humanitarian crisis in the region. Throughout the world, there seems to be some degree of laxity, despite the fact that the crisis is getting worse. In the absence of a diplomatic or military solution, the crisis will continue, and the number of refugees will continue to increase. The security situation in a number of areas will get worse. The increasing despair felt by the Syrian refugees is causing them to try to travel even further afield, towards Europe. More and more of them are embarking on makeshift boats, a large number of whom come to a watery grave in the middle of the Mediterranean – there are mass graves on the bottom of the sea.

      The humanitarian crisis is serious. We need to do what we can to help the refugees. They are subject to being exploited because of their vulnerable situation. The situation could seriously destabilise the region and cause major security problems, which could spread throughout the world. That is why I support in the strongest possible terms the recommendations in the report.

      I call on delegates to show far more solidarity on the part of the international community. I call on all member States of the Council of Europe to provide more support to the international humanitarian organisations. I feel strongly that, if there are no clear political prospects, the Syrian crisis will continue to get worse. We need a long-lasting solution to the crisis. Europe must do more and solidarity needs to be shown at international level. The international community must stop showing incoherence and stop hesitating. The differences of opinion are not helping us to tackle the monster of Da’esh.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Ameur. Ms Leskaj signed up to speak at the very last minute, but I cannot see her in the Chamber.

      I call Mr Bockel, rapporteur, to reply. You have four minutes.

      Mr BOCKEL (France)* – We have had a wealth of debate, with interesting and diverse ideas. Each speaker has expressed their sensitivities and detailed the various aspects, including the humanitarian approach and the political consequences. Some have mentioned the geopolitical dimensions. We need to look at the ins and outs of the question. In the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we try to look beyond the immediate issues to the future. That was picked up in a number of the recommendations, which, as we will see in due course, are geared to our prime mission – dealing with the plight of the refugees. The political consequences must also be addressed.

      I could quote from 50 statements, but I would like to pick up on what our Moroccan colleague, Ms El Ouafi, said. She has grasped the issue very well and reflected on it from the point of view of Islam and Muslims, with a number of comments and criticisms as well as proposals. She has given us a piece of advice that I will follow: we must all do our level best to push back Da’esh and stand with the refugees.

      The PRESIDENT* – I thank the rapporteur for his excellent work. The general debate is closed.

      The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution to which seven amendments have been tabled. I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 2, 6, 3, 1 and 5 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Mr Bockel?

      Mr BOCKEL (France)* – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object? As there is no objection, I declare that the amendments to the draft resolution have been agreed.

      We now open the discussion on the other amendments, which will be taken in sequence. Colleagues have 30 seconds to speak on the amendments.

      I call Mr Gür to support Amendment 4.

      Mr GÜR (Turkey) – The Bureau recently adopted a declaration on Kobane. If we really want to help refugees, we need an interim corridor, so we support the amendment.

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

      Mr SELVI (Turkey) – We are strongly against the amendment, mainly because the mentioned declaration does not reflect the reality on the ground. It contains elements that counteract reports of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs on the situation of Syrian refugees. The report touches upon a very important issue: the humanitarian consequences of the ongoing crisis in Syria and Iraq.

      We thank the rapporteur once again for his hard work, but we should refrain from any attempt to miss the focus of the report and diminish its potential impact.

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

      Mr BOCKEL (France)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      I call Ms Katrivanou to support Amendment 7.

      Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – I suggest that this amendment should be adopted. Our committee accepted it and it is also accords with the suggestions of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the High Commissioner for Refugees and the IMO. The amendment shows that we have listened to their suggestions and those of the committee.

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

      The committee is in favour.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote, requiring a simple majority, on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13741, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13741, as amended, is adopted, with 67 votes for, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

10. Time limits on speeches

      The PRESIDENT* – Colleagues will recall that it has been agreed that speaking times tomorrow morning be limited to three minutes. To enable as many members as possible to speak in the two debates tomorrow afternoon, I propose that, in addition, speaking times tomorrow afternoon also be limited to three minutes.

      Is it agreed?

      It is adopted.

11. Next public business

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

      I remind members that Mr Didier Reynders, Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Affairs of Belgium and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers, will speak to the Assembly tomorrow at 12.15 p.m.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 7.55 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Andorra, Austria, Finland, Ireland and Liechtenstein

2. Changes in the membership of committees

3. Time limits on speeches

4. Questions to Mr Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Questions: Mr Agramunt (Spain), Ms Mateu Pi (Andorra), Mr Clappison (United Kingdom), Mr Kox (Netherlands),Ms Korun (Austria), Mr Rouquet (France), Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan), Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain), Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia), Ms Schou (Norway), Ms Magradze (Georgia), Mr Honcharenko (Ukraine), Ms Bilgehan (Turkey)

5. Announcement of 2015 Europe Prize

6. Budget and priorities of the Council of Europe for the biennium 2016-2017 and Expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly for the biennium 2016-2017 (joint debate)

Presentation by Mr Bugnon of the opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, Document 13743

Presentation by Mr Bugnon of the report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, Document 13744

Speakers: Mr Elzinga (Netherlands), Mr Mignon (France), Ms Vučović (Serbia), Ms Taktakashvili (Georgia), Ms Dalloz (France), Mr Korodi (Romania), Mr Xuclà (Spain), Mr Divina (Italy), Ms Zimmermann (France), Mr Büchel (Liechtenstein), Ms Schou (Norway), Mr Daems (Belgium), Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Amendment 1 adopted

Draft opinion in Document 13742, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13742 adopted

7. Humanitarian consequences of the actions of the terrorist group known as “Islamic State”

Presentation by Mr Bockel of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 13741

Speakers: Mr Gür (Turkey), Mr Németh (Hungary), Mr Schennach (Austria), Mr Heer (Switzerland), Mr Denemeç (Turkey), Mr Rouquet (France), Mr Fournier (France), Mr Ariew (Ukraine), Mr Zourabian (Armenia), Ms Santerini (Italy), Ms Mitchell (Ireland), Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan), Mr Divina (Italy), Mr Chiti (Italy), Ms Hovhannisyan (Armenia), Ms Durrieu (France), Mr Destexhe (Belgium), Ms Kyriakides (Cyprus), Ms Kanelli (Greece), Mr Chisu (Canada), Mr Florea (Romania), Mr Ardelean (Romania), Ms Fataliyeva (Azerbaijan), Mr Stroe (Romania), Mr Rustamyan (Armenia), Mr Schneider (France), Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia), Mr Zech (Germany), Mr Loukaides (Cyprus), Mr Downe (Canada), Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan), Mr Munyama (Poland), Lord Balfe (United Kingdom), Ms Anagnostopoulou (Greece), Mr Sabella (Palestine), Ms Tzakri (Greece), Ms Al-Astal (Palestine), Mr Ghambou (Morocco), Mr Yatim (Morocco), Ms El Ouafi (Morocco), Mr Ameur (Morocco)

Amendments 2, 3, 6,1, 5 and 7 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13741, as amended, adopted

8. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights: result

9. Humanitarian consequences of the actions of the terrorist group known as “Islamic State”: resumed debate

10. Time limits on speeches

11. Next public business.

Appendix I

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Brigitte ALLAIN*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON

Luise AMTSBERG*

Athanasia ANAGNOSTOPOULOU

Liv Holm ANDERSEN*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Egemen BAĞIŞ

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE/Chiora Taktakishvili

Gérard BAPT*

Doris BARNETT

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK*

José María BENEYTO

Deborah BERGAMINI/Giuseppe Galati

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/ Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI/Francesco Verducci

Andris BĒRZINŠ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Marc Spautz

Alessandro BRATTI*

Piet De BRUYN

Beata BUBLEWICZ/Michał Stuligrosz

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO

Elena CENTEMERO*

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI

Christopher CHOPE*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON

Igor CORMAN

Telmo CORREIA

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Reha DENEMEÇ

Alain DESTEXHE

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Namik DOKLE

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY/ Hendrik Daems

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE

Nicole DURANTON/Marie-Christine Dalloz

Josette DURRIEU

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV/ Andrii Lopushanskyi

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE/Lord Richard Balfe

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO/Mariia Ionova

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

François GROSDIDIER/Jacques Legendre

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS/Jenő Manninger

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/ Jordi Xuclà

Maria GUZENINA/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV*

Margus HANSON/Rait Maruste

Alfred HEER

Michael HENNRICH/Volkmar Vogel

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH/Marcel Oberweis

Oleksii HONCHARENKO

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER/ Barbara Rosenkranz

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ/Ingrid Antičević Marinović

Tedo JAPARIDZE/Guguli Magradze

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN/Hans Fredrik Grøvan

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Josip JURATOVIC*

Antti KAIKKONEN

Mustafa KARADAYI*

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Niklas KARLSSON

Andreja KATIČ/Matjaž Hanžek

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU

Ioanneta KAVVADIA/Liana Kanelli

Charles KENNEDY*

Tinatin KHIDASHELI*

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Haluk KOÇ*

Igor KOLMAN

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN

Rom KOSTŘICA/Gabriela Pecková

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID*

Marek KRZĄKAŁA/ Killion Munyama

Zviad KVATCHANTIRADZE

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides

Serhiy LABAZIUK/ Sergiy Vlasenko

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

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA*

Jacob LUND

Trine Pertou MACH*

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Ana MATO

Pirkko MATTILA/Mika Raatikainen

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Ana Catarina MENDES*

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/Armen Rustamyan

Piotr NAIMSKI

Sergey NARYSHKIN*

Marian NEACŞU*

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O’REILLY*

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI*

Sandra OSBORNE*

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Florin Costin PÂSLARU*

Waldemar PAWLAK/Marek Borowski

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Carmen QUINTANILLA

Mailis REPS*

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE/André Schneider

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ*

Alexander ROMANOVICH*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET

Rovshan RZAYEV

Indrek SAAR*

Àlex SÁEZ*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Milena SANTERINI

Kimmo SASI

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

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

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI

Damien THIÉRY

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Antoni TRENCHEV*

Goran TUPONJA

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Theodora TZAKRI

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI

Imre VEJKEY

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Dimitris VITSAS

Vladimir VORONIN*

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES/Tuur Elzinga

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Gisela WURM/ Nikolaus Scherak

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI

Leonid YEMETS/ Vladyslav Golub

Tobias ZECH

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, ‘‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’’*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Andrzej JAWORSKI

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Observers

Corneliu CHISU

Percy DOWNE

Michel RIVARD

David TILSON

Partners for democracy

Hanane ABOULFATH

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Nezha EL OUAFI

El Mokhtar GHAMBOU

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM

Appendix II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of the judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Andorra, Austria, Finland, Ireland and Liechtenstein

David BAKRADZE/Chiora Taktakishvili

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

José María BENEYTO

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI/Francesco Verducci

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Alain DESTEXHE

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Sergio DIVINA

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Tina GHASEMI

Andreas GROSS

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/ Jordi Xuclà

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Niklas KARLSSON

Tiny KOX

François LONCLE

Jacob LUND

Thierry MARIANI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Cezar Florin PREDA

François ROCHEBLOINE/André Schneider

René ROUQUET

Salvador SEDÓ

Damien THIÉRY

Klaas de VRIES/Tuur Elzinga

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Emanuelis ZINGERIS