AA15CR17

AS (2015) CR 17

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Seventeenth sitting

Thursday 23 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. Changes in the membership of committees

      The PRESIDENT* – Our first item of business is to consider a change proposed to the membership of committees, which is published in document Commissions (2015) 04 Addendum 5.

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

      It is agreed to.

2. Annual activity report 2014 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. We now come to the annual report by the Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Nils Muižnieks. I extend a warm welcome to you. I should like to say how much we appreciate your work. We regularly assess what you do. I have had the great pleasure of working with you – even this morning we had a very thorough exchange of views in my office. We learn from your reports that, in all countries, there is food for thought if not grounds for concern. Very often, the human rights situation deteriorates. Your work is therefore more important than ever. I know that you go into the field and discuss things with people. You are a diplomat, but you are also very firm when necessary.

      I thank you for all the work you perform and for the co-operation between you and the Council of Europe, which is very important. I am delighted you are here. It is with great pleasure that I yield the floor to you.

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights) – It is a pleasure and an honour to be here to discuss my third annual report. I had planned to give a slightly different introductory statement, but the ongoing migration tragedy in the Mediterranean Sea compels me to address the human rights aspects of the situation.

      As parliamentarians, you can play a crucial role in pushing your countries and Europe as a whole towards a more human rights-oriented approach to migration, and away from an exclusive focus on security. We know what a human rights-based approach to migration looks like: no pushbacks at land borders or at sea; European search and rescue; a European Mare Nostrum that does not leave the Italian navy to do all the work; legal avenues to reach Europe; easier family reunification; more resettlement of Syrian and other refugees; and true solidarity within Europe on taking responsibility for new arrivals. I published an op-ed yesterday laying that out. I hope European Union leaders meeting today can finally begin to move towards a human rights agenda in migration policy. It is long overdue.

      A second topic that has occupied much of my time and energy is Ukraine, which I visited four times last year. I have already participated in several thematic discussions at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the humanitarian situation, and especially on internally displaced persons, and so will not repeat what I have said in this Chamber, but I should like to say a few words about Crimea. I visited Crimea in September and continue to follow human rights developments there with great concern. I have seen no significant progress in investigating Article 2 and 3 violations and curbing the activities of the self-defence forces. Pressures on minorities, human rights defenders and media have not abated. Two leaders of the Crimean Tatars are still banned from the peninsula, while a third, Mr Ciygoz, whom I met in Bakhchisaray, was arrested and charged for offences allegedly committed before the political changes of last March. Crimean Tatar TV was recently shut down, and a number of journalists have been questioned – their homes have been searched – which has had a chilling effect on freedom of expression on the peninsula.

      Since last summer, almost all prominent human rights defenders in Azerbaijan have been detained on charges that defy credibility, or have been driven into hiding, including abroad. I visited several human rights defenders in detention in October. They face two kinds of charges, the first of which includes violations of onerous non-governmental organisation legislation that makes it virtually impossible to do human rights work. The second kind is arrays of far-fetched alleged offences, starting with espionage, drugs, inciting hatred and so on. That crackdown constitutes reprisals against those working with the Council of Europe and other international human rights organisations. They are our partners, and they are suffering for it.

      The crackdown has prompted me to intervene as a third party in five different cases before the European Court of Human Rights to highlight the systemic nature of the problem. They are not individual cases. There is a clear pattern and a clear problem. Two of the activists in those cases have just received incredibly long prison sentences for violating NGO legislation. Yesterday, Intigam Aliyev, who co-ordinated the Council of Europe’s legal training programme in Azerbaijan, and who was a lawyer in dozens of cases before the European Court of Human Rights, was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for violating NGO legislation. Last week, Rasul Jafarov who was behind the “Sing for Democracy” campaign before Eurovision, and who planned to organise a sports for democracy campaign before the European Olympic Games, was sentenced to six and a half years in prison. Such a crackdown is in my view absolutely unacceptable for a Council of Europe member State. These individuals must be released and reprisals against our partners must stop.

      On other country visits I tried to address a wide array of human rights concerns. Most common last year, in addition to migration and asylum issues were the rights of prisoners with disabilities and the rights of Roma. The focus in my work on disability rights was primarily persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities. The key problems I detected were that legal capacity legislation in many countries is not in line with the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There is excessive recourse to coercion in psychiatry and very frequently the violation of the right to live in the community through placement in large institutions. I recommend visiting psychiatric institutions in your country – these are very good indicators of the state of human rights.

      I tried to address the segregation of Roma children in separate, substandard special classes or schools, discrimination in housing, employment, and access to health care, but also a broader climate of anti-Gypsyism in Europe and the frequent hate speech and hate crimes directed at Roma.

      In the introduction to my annual report, I stressed the wider pressures on NGOs and media in the Council of Europe area. They are key actors in making the human rights system function. They face physical attacks, intimidation, smear campaigns, judicial harassment, administrative harassment and financial pressures of various kinds. Attacks take place surprisingly often. The new Council of Europe’s Internet platform for the protection of journalists shows that there are alerts almost every day, and not just in one or two countries. These attacks on journalists and human rights defenders are attacks on our democracies and they should be treated as such, with the utmost seriousness.

      A final issue I am dealing with is upholding human rights while countering terrorism. I have tried actively to participate in national and international debates on this issue, which has become very topical. I have urged countries to draw lessons from past mistakes: to go slowly in adopting new laws, to consult with their human rights structures, defenders and experts; to make sure that the laws are precisely worded so that they are not arbitrarily applied afterwards; and to make sure that human rights safeguards remain embedded in the legislation, including judicial control and supervision. Your report on mass surveillance will help me a lot in this work.

      Overall, the situation of human rights in the Council of Europe is quite grim. I see you as allies – I have met a number of you on country visits or here in Strasbourg, and together we have a lot of work to do to address these challenges and strengthen human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe.

      Thank you for your attention. I would now be happy to take your questions.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much for this very short report and for the tremendous work you have done. First I call Mr Franken, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – In Europe there are many unstable situations. That fact will be an important impediment to the Human Rights Commissioner being able to do his work. Does the Commissioner need special support from the Assembly to have more or better access to some special countries?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – For the time being, my countries are co-operating pretty well with me. As I said, I recently visited Crimea; this was possible only through co-operation with Ukraine and Russia, and I am very thankful for that assistance. I intend to do some other work in grey zones and conflict areas in the coming year, and I hope not to encounter any obstacles there. Until now there has been an understanding that the Commissioner’s work should cover the entire Council of Europe space, regardless of the circumstances on the ground. Thus far, this has taken place and I am convinced that it will remain that way. If I need extra assistance, be sure that I will call on you to help me.

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

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – I thank the Commissioner for his report. I appreciated the attention that he paid to social rights, especially in a time of economic crisis. This is an interesting demonstration of the indivisibility of human rights – social as well as civil. How can our Assembly and members of national parliaments contribute to better protection of social rights and the role of the European Social Charter in this process?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – First, not every country has ratified the social charter. Parliamentarians should take the lead in urging their countries, if they have not done so, to ratify the social charter and the collective complaints mechanism. Secondly, I put out an issue paper not too long ago on safeguarding human rights in times of economic crisis. The core recommendations are quite simple to summarise: first, when cutting budgets or trying to get your fiscal house in order, listen to your human rights structures. Involve them in budgetary debates – they are aware of the situation of the most vulnerable groups– on children, persons with disabilities and various minorities. Thirdly, make sure that the social protection laws are in place and that nobody falls through the cracks and ends up living in hunger or poverty. This is possible in Europe; we have the means to do this. Parliamentarians have a critical role to play here, but in co-operation, of course, with human rights structures and civil society. One of the dangers of austerity is that civil society has also been weakened so that it cannot play its role in reminding us of the needs of the most vulnerable in society. I hope that human rights structures and parliaments are making special efforts to engage civil society to strengthen it and to listen to its voice in these debates.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. Next speaker is Ms Mateu Pi, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe,

      Ms MATEU PI (Andorra)* – Your report is indeed very interesting, Commissioner. In your foreword you refer to an issue that was discussed here only this morning. You say that the Mare Nostrum operation was a political and financial burden and that the Triton operation is severely ill suited to needs. What solutions do you propose?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – Mare Nostrum was unsustainable for one country alone, but the amount of financial resources needed are completely manageable for Europe as a whole. The key thing is that Europe jumps in to co-ordinate and finance this. Triton’s financial resources are very small compared with those of Mare Nostrum. Its geographical scope is very small and its primary mission is not saving lives but border control. That is why I have urged a European Mare Nostrum, to save lives. Otherwise we will be faced with a huge graveyard on Europe’s doorstep in the Mediterranean Sea by the end of this summer. The death season has begun – people are moving, and they are dying. I do not think we can in good conscience sit and watch them die by the tens of thousands. We need to act now, and a European Mare Nostrum is part of the answer. I gave the other parts of the answer in my introductory remarks.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Lord Balfe, on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Lord BALFE (United Kingdom) – I would like to follow up on that question. It is undoubtedly true that the admission of large numbers of refugees to Europe is not a popular thing for politicians. It is also undoubtedly true that a large number of people are making a huge amount of money out of trafficking. Do you not think we need to go one step back and try to deal with the source problems that are leading to what is actually a very small proportion of the world’s refugees trying to cross the Mediterranean?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – There is confusion between trafficking and smuggling. Trafficking is moving somebody for the purpose of exploiting them. Most of the cases we are talking about are smuggling; people are paying money for transport – very often dangerous transport, very often deadly. They are paying smugglers because they have no legal avenues by which they can enter Europe. We must attack these smuggling rings – and indeed the cases of trafficking for sexual exploitation – but this is only part of the problem. Of course we have to work with the countries of origin, but it is the biggest tragedy that Syrians, for example, feel that they have no other way of getting to a safe place than by getting on a rickety boat, which may result in their dying in the Mediterranean Sea. When they arrive in Europe they receive some kind of protection status – refugee status or subsidiary protection – but we do not want to let them come here safely; we force them to take the most dangerous routes and then we give them protection. Why wait? Why not ramp up resettlements from places such as Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon? Why force these Syrians to take these risky routes? The same holds true in respect of a number of other groups at risk. Of course working in the countries of origin is part of the solution, but in places such as Syria we know that that is not going to happen in the very near future, so we have to look for other ways to ease the pressures and reduce the impetus of people to make these dangerous journeys.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Ms Katrivanou, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – Thank you, Commissioner, for your report and for all your work. What is your assessment of the allegations that have been made about Frontex and operational practices by member State guards? It has been alleged that they are not necessarily focusing on the safe rescue of people, with push-backs having been part of the approach – they do not promote safety and rescue.

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – In a number of member States that I have visited I have heard criticism of Frontex, with people saying that it often stands by and does not intervene in situations. Frontex’s operations until now have not been sufficiently transparent. Progress has been made; it now has a fundamental rights officer. I believe it needs such an officer – at least one, but perhaps many – at every operation where it is on the ground. There has also been some discussion about creating a complaints mechanism for Frontex, whereby people who believe that it has not done a good job can complain about the inactivity or the sins of commission of Frontex. The European ombudsman, whom I met only two days ago, is working on this and raising this issue actively. But Frontex can do only as much as member States allow it to do. Frontex needs to be held accountable, to be more transparent and to put human rights more squarely on its agenda – but so, too, do member States and their migration policies. As I noted in my introduction, most member States, like Europe as a whole, have a very security-based approach to this issue. I hope that these tragedies will push member States and Frontex towards a more human rights-based approach.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – A large number of us very much appreciate your commitment to protect children, particularly those in under-privileged situations. All of us in this Chamber feel strongly about this subject. With the benefit of hindsight, can you tell us what has happened in the past 12 months on combating the practice of children of immigrants being placed in detention centres? I am sure you have had some experience in this matter.

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS* – Thank you very much for your question. The detention of a child, regardless of whether the child is alone or with their family, is in complete contradiction with the best interests of the child. This can be a very traumatic experience, even if it is for a very short time. A number of States have prohibited the detention of children simply because they are migrants. In my reports on France and Hungary, I expressed regret that minors were still being deprived of freedom when they arrived at the border. In the Netherlands, minors are no longer detained. In the past they were systematically detained with their families, but after my visit to the Netherlands the Interior Minister pledged that this practice would be stopped. Alternative solutions have been drawn up in a number of countries – for example, in Denmark, where families with children do have the option of staying outside a reception centre. There is now an international campaign against the detention of children. The objective of the campaign, which I support, is to demonstrate that alternative solutions to detaining children are available. This is a real problem in a large number of the countries I visit.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – I thank you for your attention to Ukrainian problems, but I now wish to discuss the situation in Russia and the growing xenophobia there. Two months ago, some Ukrainian citizens were brutally killed in the area near Moscow. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ concerns about that were conveyed to Russian officials so that they could be investigated, but that was not done. Would you draw more attention to such events in Russia and the growing xenophobia there?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – This is a big concern of mine. I am talking about the growth in intolerance not only towards foreigners, but towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and others in Russia. My focus until now has been on trying to support those who are fighting xenophobia and discrimination – the non-governmental organisations, in particular. That is why I have spent a lot of time on the foreign agents law. I am concerned about developments subsequent to the writing of our opinion on that, and we are following up on it, because it has affected precisely those NGOs that are working against discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. Many of those organisations are on the foreign agents register and face various kinds of pressures. So I am concerned about this, but I see it more broadly. I see this as being not just against Ukrainians or one particular group; there is a broader rise in intolerance which is of concern. My first line of attack is to try to support the NGOs which are doing the hard work within Russia.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – Thank you, Commissioner, for your hard work in Georgia. My question is: are you planning, and will you be able, to visit two occupied regions of Georgia – Abkhazia and South Ossetia – and, in particular, to examine the situation of Georgians in the Gali region, which has specifically deteriorated in recent months? My second question is about the situation of human rights defenders in Georgia. Unfortunately, we have seen a number of lawyers working on high-profile criminal cases against the opposition being threatened with criminal investigation and we have seen the Prime Minister saying that the NGOs are acting subversively. Would you be willing to follow this situation closely?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I am following the situation closely and I will answer your two questions with one answer. I intend to follow up on my visit to Georgia by going there again at the end of the year to follow up on our previous work, part of which was about politicised or selective justice – or allegations thereof. So this also concerns defence lawyers, NGOs and others. I want to follow up to see what has been done and where work still remains to be done. I have committed to visiting the administrative boundary line and to go to Abkhazia as well. I am discussing the modalities with the Georgian authorities, and I hope that when I next visit you I will be able to report on human rights in Abkhazia.

      Mr SCHWABE (Germany)* – Thank you very much for those clear words that you have, again, spoken about Azerbaijan. You have said that this is not just any old conflict; but one of great importance to the Council of Europe. I have two questions for you. First, do you have any hopes in connection with the European Games? Secondly, the situation of Leyla and Arif Yunus is not just a human rights issue, but a humanitarian issue, because both are experiencing severe health problems, so will there be any kind of humanitarian opportunity to help the two of them?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I certainly hope that humanitarian considerations would play a role in the decisions of the Azerbaijani authorities, but people should not be in prison for doing human rights work in the first place. I hope that President Hollande will raise those cases when he goes to Azerbaijan in the coming days.

I hope that when members of the Assembly go home to your countries, you will explain to your athletes the human rights problems in the country that they are going to, rather than ignore it. Of course, I am not in favour of mixing politics and sports, but sports competitions do not happen in a vacuum. It is clear to see that people who are friends of the Council of Europe and make our work possible are suffering because of their co-operation with us, and that cannot be ignored by athletes, politicians or businessmen. I hope that the event will draw the attention of the world community in general to the human rights situation in Azerbaijan, which is quite grave.

      The PRESIDENT* – I do not see Mr Pintado, so I call Mr Nikoloski.

      Mr NIKOLOSKI (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – Unfortunately, there is one country in Europe that still does not recognise national, cultural or language minorities, but recognises only religious minorities – Greece. Will you make a stronger effort to ensure that it recognises those minorities?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I would say that Greece is not completely alone in its approach towards minorities. In fact, I think Greece and Turkey have a similar approach, in so far as they have the Lausanne Treaty, which recognises certain minorities but not others. The country where we are right now, France, has a republican or equal citizenship approach.

      The issue of minorities in Greece is of concern. During my country visit there a while ago, I particularly considered the minorities that were subject to violent racist attacks, such as the Roma, Jews and others. I am pleased that the government moved against Golden Dawn and has begun to implement reforms better to attack racist crimes, but there is a lot of work left to be done, and I hope to follow up on that work soon. Issues pertaining to minorities, especially those that are threatened, will be very high on my agenda.

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – I have read your 2014 report carefully, and I congratulate you on your intentions on the Roma question and on combating anti-Semitism and racism. However, you do not focus in your report on combating discrimination against major ethnic minority groups in different member States. We need permanent improvement of relations between ethnic majority and minority and communities, but in some member States the situation is worse than it has been for the past decade. What do you propose for the coming period?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I try not to duplicate the work of the framework convention, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance or the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, but I try to reinforce their messages and conclusions in my meetings in-country.

      We are witnessing the emergence of what some people have called majorities that feel they are under threat. We might think that is an oddity – how can the majority be under threat? It has power and is in the dominant position in a country. However, that is fuelling some of the racist, xenophobic and far-right movements that we have seen. It is a product partly of the economic crisis, but also of the lack of political leadership from mainstream parties to ease fears rather than pander to them.

      My approach is to concentrate on political discourse. It is essential that politicians in power do not stigmatise certain groups and that they have an inclusive approach to all groups in society. It is also essential that political leaders stand up every time there is an attack on a minority group and say, “This is an attack on our democracy”. I am looking at both political elites and human rights structures. This will be an ongoing topic because of the rise of far-right movements and what France has called the “banalisation” of right-wing rhetoric against minorities and immigrants. I have a feeling that there will be a lot of work on the subject in future for me, and for all of us, and it will be high on my agenda.

      Ms KASIMATI (Greece)* – In your 2013 statement to the Council of Europe, you said that austerity measures undermine fundamental human rights, which have not been respected during the economic crisis. The crisis has now reached enormous proportions, and human rights are not being respected. The European institutions are operating in a grey area, because they are not respecting fundamental rights. My question is therefore about policies that do not respect either the rule of law or fundamental rights. Do you think that in negotiations with the European Union and the Greek government’s other creditors, you might play a more important role in preserving both our rights and the European acquis?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – That is an interesting idea. I am not really a participant in those negotiations, but I have tried to highlight the human rights consequences of some of the measures that have been imposed on countries receiving financial assistance or bail-outs. Very often, decisions have been repealed by constitutional courts and other courts because they are not in line with a country’s human rights obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter and elsewhere. It is essential that those providing financial assistance ensure that the decisions that they negotiate with countries, or sometimes impose on them, are in line with their human rights obligations, and that budget deals are human rights-proofed.

      The best places for such human rights-proofed deals are the national human rights structures of the countries themselves, such as ombudsmen or national human rights commissions. I have urged their involvement because they know better than I could ever know what the consequence of a law or a budget cut will be, and they will receive the complaints. I have tried to assist them by amplifying their voice and empowering them through co-operation with each other. I will continue to remain engaged in the matter, and I hope for a good solution in Greece that does not lead to even more hardship and suffering for the population.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I hope my question will not sound provocative, because it is a sincere question.

      Yesterday, in the debate on discrimination against transgender persons, the rapporteur said that the Commissioner for Human Rights has the right to ask the scientific and medical community to review the medical classification of diseases. Of course, we can disagree with what doctors say, but I believe that medical classification is a matter of science, not of politics. You have just said that you are not in favour of mixing politics and sport; what do you think about mixing politics and medicine?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I do not think politics and medicine should be mixed, but my predecessor put out an issue paper on the rights of transgender persons several years ago, and many of the conclusions remain valid. I will publish an issue paper soon on the rights of intersex persons. That is a new human rights issue, or at least a newly discovered human rights issue, because that population has been underground for so long. Of course we should involve the medical community in debates, but in the end, a person’s right to self-determination and physical integrity trumps any other concerns. I refer those who are interested to the work of my predecessor, which I understand was quoted quite a lot in yesterday’s debate.

      Ms BLONDIN (France)* – The offensive led by Moscow and Beijing against the legitimacy of liberal and pluralistic democracy is being waged on the battleground of values; thus, democracy is purportedly an import, the sole aim of which is to establish western domination. How can the Council of Europe act to thwart this sort of discourse and reassert the universal nature of democracy and human rights?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS* – I cannot really speak to China; it is outside my territory. However, for the 47 member States of the Council of Europe, I do not think there is much of a discussion. All 47 member States of the Council of Europe have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and are bound by its case law. Of course, values, traditions and culture may vary, but we have agreed on this common minimum standard of human rights. So, every time somebody tries to talk about cultural uniqueness with me, I say, yes, in certain cases where there is no consensus among member States on sensitive cultural or religious issues, the member States are given a wide margin of appreciation and the national authorities and judiciaries are better placed to judge whether the interference with the right is proportionate or not. However, where there is a consensus, and on more and more issues there is a consensus within the Council of Europe member States, there is no real discussion on the values. The values derive from the case law and the case law is binding on everybody. This is a platform that I use for my dialogue with authorities that begin to invoke specific national traditions, morality, cultural values and so on, and thus far it has worked pretty well.

      Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – Thank you very much for the great job you are doing on human rights in Crimea. Do you plan a future visit to Crimea? As you know, the human rights situation in Crimea now is catastrophic. Will you go this year, and do you plan any sanction against the Russian Federation if the Russian authorities forbid you to enter Crimea?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – Sanctions are not part of my toolkit; they are part of your toolkit. I cannot impose sanctions on anybody. As I have said, the Russian authorities facilitated my work in Crimea last September and I am confident that they will do so again. They were not happy with my report, so I think it is good that I go back to check if I made any mistakes. I will be working with them to do a follow-up visit. Not that much time has passed; it is only a few months since I published my report. So, I intend to go back and if I am not able to, of course I will be the first to tell you.

      Mr HONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – Thank you very much for your work. Today in the Russian Federation a number of Ukrainian citizens, including Nadiia Savchenko, who is a member of our Parliamentary Assembly, have been arrested and are being illegally held there. Are you in contact with your Russian colleague, what steps have you taken to help those people and what steps do you think you can take to help them?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – My mandate prohibits me from taking up individual cases, but I understand that there are now a number of cases of Ukrainians who have been taken to the Russian Federation and detained there. I discussed the issue this week with a number of different human rights partners from both Russia and Ukraine, and the information is very spotty on the exact number of people and their names; some of the cases we know about and others we do not.

      I intend to gather information to see how widespread this phenomenon is and on what basis these people have been detained, and to do some follow-up work on it. As I said, I am not allowed to take up individual cases, but if I see a broader pattern or a systemic issue that permits me to intervene, it will be part of my dialogue and my work in the region in the future.

      Ms KARAMANLI (France)* – In your 2014 report, with regard to your thematic activities you developed the issue of economic rights during an economic crisis. You noted that women are the first victims of that fragile situation and you underlined people’s right to health care, in order to guarantee their health. If we are reaffirming the right to accessible health care for people with the most modest means in a context in which there are fewer medical staff, less equipment and less health care, that means that this right is becoming a virtual right. Do you not think that it would be advisable to accompany your warning with a move to make certain rights enforceable by the community at large and by decision makers, and that we should move towards enforceability mechanisms for certain entitlements?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – Women have been among the groups hardest hit by austerity measures in a number of different contexts, not only in terms of access to health care but in terms of access to justice. Very often, we have seen services to support women victims of violence being cut in the context of the crisis. We have seen women, since they are usually the last hired, being the first fired, and their rates of unemployment tend to be much higher than those of men. Clearly, there is a gender aspect to the crisis, which has not received the attention that it deserves, and we not only need to human rights-proof budgets when they are being cut or when fiscal consolidation processes are taking place but to look at budgets through the perspective of gender equality. There is some good work being done in that area by certain national human rights structures.

      However, my own view about standard-setting is that we have a lot of good standards; what we are lacking is their implementation on the ground. Sometimes people invoke the crisis and austerity as reasons why the standards cannot be met, but I think that the damage has been disproportionate, especially for some of the most vulnerable groups, including women.

      Mr KVATCHANTIRADZE (Georgia) – It is all about Russia, dear Commissioner; I have a question regarding the restriction of human rights in the Georgian territories occupied by Russia. The teaching in Georgian in schools in those territories is being strictly limited, and the Georgian language is being discriminated against within the whole of the occupied territories, whereas the Russian language is being highly promoted. Do you think that, as the Commissioner, you possess the real and effective instruments to protect the rights of the population regarding this particular issue?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – As I mentioned earlier, I intend to do human rights work in Georgia later this year, including in Abkhazia, and of course minority issues will be among the issues on my agenda. Do I have effective tools at my disposal? I wish I had more tools. I wish my recommendations were systematically implemented by member States, but they are not.

      We have an impact when parliamentarians pick up on initiatives, legislative reforms and policy reforms, and push them within a country, or when Ministers tell me that an article I wrote or an interview I gave helped them to fight against bad proposals, or when good practices that I have identified in other countries are adopted in a country. But is that satisfactory for me? No, it is not. As I described in my annual activity report, I see the situation as being quite grim and it is not getting any better. So, my tools and my resources in and of themselves are not sufficient; we all need to work together. As I have said, I see you all as allies in this task; you can help a lot at the national level. That is why I look forward to seeing you in your country.

      Ms MAGRADZE (Georgia) – My question concerns the human rights of people with psychosocial disabilities. What is your stand on the involuntary placement and involuntary treatment of people with psychosocial disabilities?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – As I have mentioned, I have done a fair amount of country work on this issue. However, regarding involuntary placement and treatment in psychiatry I started looking at it in Denmark and Norway in particular. The interesting thing is that I think all countries in the Council of Europe and beyond are struggling to adapt to the paradigm shift required by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It has been very tough going. Legislation on involuntary placement or treatment must be non-discriminatory. There need to be objective criteria – not criteria aimed simply at people with psycho-social or intellectual disabilities. Member States should monitor involuntary placement and the use of coercion in psychiatry with a view to reducing them; the general principle remains that such treatment should be based only on the free and informed consent of the person involved, except in emergency cases, which should be quite rare. This whole debate should also be seen in the context of the reform of legal capacity legislation. The people themselves should participate in decisions on their treatment and fate. Far too often, they are deprived of that chance and others take decisions in their place. That is one of the issues that I have been looking at in many different countries.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – I thank you, Commissioner, for your important work. This morning we were discussing an additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. Member States are in the process of changing their laws to extend legal boundaries in respect of the criminalisation of terrorism. You had given some words of warning. You wanted clarity in the text and clear safeguards for human rights. I will be rising to your expectations.

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – I have not yet seen the final document. I understand that a number of additional safeguards were proposed by the Assembly to the Committee of Ministers, and I welcome that. There are explicit references to human rights.

      To me, the process is as important as the end result. I am glad that the process of drafting the additional protocol became open after an initial period of being closed and that NGOs could feed into that process. I also took part in a CODEXTER meeting, where I presented my concerns. I am glad that additional safeguards have been added or proposed. I look forward to seeing the final document. There is a key point to make about bad legislation proposed at the national level – laws that give carte blanche to the security services, as if we had not learned any of the lessons that Edward Snowden was trying to teach us about the dangers of mass surveillance. We have seen a weakening of judicial review and sometimes its abrogation altogether when it comes to surveillance issues. Very often, vaguely worded laws have been drafted that can be arbitrarily applied.

      There are a lot of risks. My call is to go slowly, to human rights-proof the legislation and not to erode safeguards and human rights and so repeat the mistakes made during the struggle against terrorism over the past 15 years. Such provisions only helped the cause of the terrorists and undermined the values that the terrorists are trying to destroy. We should not do their work for them. We have to combat terrorism, which is a serious threat to human rights, but we have to do it while upholding human rights. I see improvements, but the work is not yet done and I welcome the safeguards proposed by the Assembly to the Committee of Ministers.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your report and for answering our questions. The first sentence in your foreword to this important report is “2014 was a bad year for human rights in Europe.” The situation today has not improved – on the contrary. It is our duty to try to reverse this tendency together. Thank you again.

3. Drones and targeted killings: the need to uphold human rights and international law

      The PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the report entitled “Drones and targeted killings: the need to uphold human rights and international law” (Document 13731) presented by Mr Díaz Tejera on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. So that we finish by 5.40 p.m., I will interrupt the speakers list at about 5.25 p.m. I remind members that speeches in debates this afternoon are limited to four minutes. I call Mr Díaz Tejera, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – This report was begun by Ms Schuster, but I am taking it forward.

      Drones are a new weapon that poses new challenges to human rights and fundamental freedoms. There is a need to comply with the relevant norms in declared warfare. The aphorism would have it that all is fair in love and war, but that is not true; there are limits and lines that should not be crossed. Wars inflict collateral damage – that is a euphemism; we are talking about the deaths of civilians, and we need to draw a distinction between fighters and civilians. We have to do our level best to ensure that civilians are not harmed and go the extra mile to ensure that the principle of proportionality is constantly present in what is done and in the behaviour of fighters.

      The issue is not just about using these norms in respect of these sophisticated weapons or about the deaths of civilians – there are also the legal problems and the new risks to human rights in general. For example, there is the use of the base in Germany. Drones deployed and loaded up there go on to be used in Afghanistan. Law suits are being heard in German courts about the use of that base to prepare explosive devices deployed in Afghanistan.

      What are we saying about the use of drones? We have had a number of hearings. We have asked the United Nations experts on counter-terrorism to express their views, and they have always said that supreme courts should have oversight and that weapons as sophisticated as drones should be evaluated by independent bodies. We are saying that the use of new technologies entails new risks and new challenges to human rights; we are not talking only about the use of drones during declared armed conflicts. When such armed conflicts and declared wars are not taking place, well known television series reinforce a toxic ideology that suggests that on certain occasions torture is sometimes necessary because evil and organised crime cannot be combatted by law alone. That particularly poisonous, anti-democratic ideology is gaining strength.

      With very sophisticated means we are also seeing reinforcement of the suggestion that you can murder by remote-controlled means and plan such killings. What we see is that when it comes to violations of human rights, we should not justify killing, but bring people before a judge. If you were to ask whether Bin Laden and Hitler had the right to a trial, I would say yes, they did, and the right to a lawyer. However, at stake here is the fact that fundamental rights do not have exceptions when it comes to their ownership. Everyone owns fundamental freedoms – that is in Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 – and what we are doing is reasserting what is obvious and putting forward concrete suggestions on how we will have that oversight in the highest courts and assessment by an independent body on the impact of such sophisticated weaponry.

      The committee has put forward a set of amendments that on the whole improve the text. I am grateful to their sponsors for that. We always need to be grateful and open to the opportunity to improve texts, so I thank the committee and the Secretariat for their endeavours and Günter Schirmer in particular, because an enormous amount of work went into creating the report. I have expressed my gratitude privately and now I do so in public. I will now give those who want to contribute to the debate an opportunity to speak.

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

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Díaz Tejera. You have seven minutes remaining. I call Mr Schennach on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I thank the rapporteur for shining a light on this issue. At the outset, let me quote a 17-year-old girl who last year was awarded the Nobel peace prize, Malala. Last year, when President Obama was invited, she said that she would have said to him that drones kill civilians. By using drones, essentially you play into the hands of the terrorists and that you should be sending education instead, because that would be more valuable. Those are the words of a 17-year-old girl.

      The statistics show that up to 3 000 people have fallen victim to drone attacks, but only 2% of them were military combatants. The rest were all civilians and in that number there was a horrifying proportion of guiltless, innocent children. Just look at where the drone attacks are carried out in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and the West Bank. I do not think that we should believe that such things are clinical, surgical strikes and it is with the greatest regret that I say that we must reject the use of drones.

      A special investigation is currently being carried out by the United Nations because military attacks that use drones are in contravention of international law. Drone attack technology was tested just a few weeks ago when a swarm of drones killed a whole host of civilians. We now see attacks that involve at least 20 drones, which is likely to lead to a multiplication of the number of victims. We must wonder why the investigations following drone attacks are classified as top secret and remain confidential.

      Just look at the situation in the Federal Republic of Germany and the lawsuits being brought by Yemeni victims. Look at the members of wedding parties targeted by drones when essentially all they were doing was celebrating a union of people. We saw essentially a whole wedding party wiped out when 74 people were killed by a drone. That is why, from the bottom of my heart, I support the report. I very much hope that it will be adopted unanimously so as to send out a very strong signal.

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

      Mr GARÐARSSON (Iceland) – I thank the rapporteur for this important report. The advantage – so to speak – of using armed, unmanned drones for targeted killings has led to a rapid increase in the number of drone strikes in recent years. While the use of armed drones is not considered unlawful as such or believed to constitute a human rights problem, their increased use, with considerable unintended collateral damage and deaths among ordinary citizens, undeniably raises serious human rights and other international law issues that must be addressed.

      The sophistication and availability of drones is expected only to increase and the financial cost of obtaining one is becoming less and less. That is likely to mean that combat drones will make up an ever larger part of the arsenal of an increasing number of States. At the same time, a great lack of transparency surrounds armed drone strikes.

      The report calls for: respect of the limits placed on targeted killings under international law; the laying down of clear procedures for authorising such strikes; constant supervision of the issue by a high level court; an evaluation by an independent body; and full and effective investigation into all deaths caused by armed drones. That is both appropriate and highly timely. The same goes for the recommendation that the Committee of Ministers undertakes a thorough study of the lawfulness of the use of combat drones for targeted killings and, if needed, to develop guidelines for member States on targeted killings with special reference to those carried out by combat drones.

      The increasing precision of drone strikes, which can now be based on accurate, up-to-date information, in fact provides an opportunity for compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law to be improved. It is evident that we can, and must, do better.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Lord Balfe, on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Lord BALFE (United Kingdom) – I thank the rapporteur for a very clear, well written report that brings to the fore what is really a new problem. What is new is not having weapons for the pursuit of various military purposes, but that such weapons are much more accurate, while the people releasing them are probably nowhere near the firing line. I took part in, shall we say, target-practice killings when I was in the army some 50 years ago, and it was clear what we were doing. Bullets are actually quite good at targeting people, especially if you are a reasonable distance from them. As the rapporteur has outlined in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the explanatory statement, the problem here is the way in which the drones are used. He says that there is one consideration that makes the use of drones special, which is that people will be less hesitant about using a weapon that does not involve exposing their own forces to death, injury or capture. That is the heart of this whole issue.

      As the rapporteur goes on to point out, if we can get this right, it provides us with a real opportunity to improve compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law. That is what I hope will come out of this. However, there is a dichotomy at the heart of this. On the one hand, we say, “Well, you shouldn’t use drones.” On the other, let me put a rhetorical question. What is the actual difference between an Israeli drone and a Palestinian rocket, other than the fact that one of them is not very accurate? The intent behind the launching of both is the same: it is to cause death to people whom you see as your opponents. We need to be careful in the way we talk about drones if we do not also take into account other weapons that are also used. Frankly, a rocket released from Palestinian territories is similarly an anonymous rocket. It is not a guided drone, but the person who releases it is not in any great danger. We need to keep a sense of proportion here.

      As the rapporteur says in the report, it is Israel and the United States that are the principal users at the moment, but he also mentions France using drones in Mali, and a number of other countries. It is undoubtedly true that if these weapons work as it is claimed they will work, they will be used increasingly for legitimate military purposes, and we will have to be careful in our legal analysis not to try to put drones into a category that cannot be sustained in reference to other weapons of war. Having said that, I welcome the report. The rapporteur has done a tremendous job and I look forward to us adopting the report – unanimously, I hope – and using it as a springboard to move forward.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Lord Balfe. I call Ms Werner, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Ms WERNER (Germany)* – Our thanks go to the rapporteur for this report. My group agrees with a number of the points in the report. I support in particular the recommendations in the report addressed to member States and observer States of the Council of Europe. Limitations on targeted killings must be complied with in accordance with international law and human rights. The national sovereignty of States should not be violated through drone missions. Even the principle of the so-called responsibility to protect should not be an exception.

      The German magazine Der Spiegel reported recently on documents from the American Secret Services that make it clear that the United States airbase at Ramstein is a centre for the American drone war. Ramstein is only 200 km away from this Assembly, but it is the command and control centre for combat drone sorties against Islamic terror. That is based on the documents in Der Spiegel which were classified top secret. The airbase at Ramstein is therefore indispensable in the deployment of American armed combat drones. I therefore support the amendments tabled by my colleague, Mr Hunko. Combat drone missions commanded from the territory of a member State should be observed and investigated by the member State. It is vital to comply with international law and human rights.

      Up to now, the federal Government has denied that drone missions are commanded from Ramstein or claimed to know nothing about it. Even yesterday, it maintained that stance. That contradicts several points in the documents from the Secret Services. The federal Government had, at the very least, knowledge of what was going on in Ramstein, but it deliberately turned a blind eye to it. Based on data provided by Der Spiegel, we cannot rule out the fact that armed drone missions were commanded from Germany in violation of international law. The federal Government should clarify whether that was the case and, if so, face the consequences from that.

      I call on all member States, including the federal Government and observer States immediately to prohibit drone missions from their territory. The southern Italian town of Sigonella may get another base to replace Ramstein, and that should be prevented by the Italian Government. Member States and observer States should not provide any intelligence-led information or other information for drone missions. That applies in particular to mobile phone data – according to the Der Spiegel article, it was used to target people in those fatal attacks. In the past, civilians have been casualties of these combat drone missions, so they are not as accurate as they have been made out to be. Member States and observer States should therefore renounce the implementation and support of these fighter drones.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Werner. Do you wish to respond at this stage, Mr Díaz Tejera? As that is not the case, I call Mr Voruz.

      Mr VORUZ (Switzerland)* – The report presented to us by Mr Díaz Tejera shows that there are serious shortcomings and several Governments are taking far too many liberties to justify their reprehensible behaviour. The drones to which the report alludes are armed and used as weapons, or they are used to carry out the targeted executions of individuals who are suspected of belonging to terrorist groups. The international fight against international terrorism is justified, but it does not justify everything. The use of drones contravenes international law and also impinges on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of States.

      Many powers, who are now lamenting the loss of their imperial powers, complain of that loss of sovereignty – Russia is one – and invoke international law at the United Nations. That is why the rapporteur is right to say that these violations must be condemned by an international tribunal. I support the draft recommendation and if it is adopted, the Committee of Ministers should spare no time in deliberating on what further steps to take.

      Mr LE DÉAUT (France)* – I pay tribute to the quality of the report that is being discussed today and the excellent proposals it contains. The report clearly demonstrates how the implementation of innovative technology can have serious ethical and legal ramifications, in particular when compared with our common European values.

      It seems clear from the outset that the possibility offered by armed drones – being able to strike an enemy from a very great distance – would mark a turning point in warfare practices. For the first time, attackers will be protected from any risk to themselves, while the target is reduced to being a shape on a screen. Failure to take on board preventive changes to the rules of international law in the fields of both humanitarian and human rights meant that there was every chance this would lead to the excesses and abuses we have witnessed, resulting in deaths.

      We should not forget that it is perfectly possible that this technology could fall into the wrong hands. In November last year, I organised in Paris, as President of the Parliamentary Office for Assessing Scientific and Technological Choices, a public hearing on drones and the safety of nuclear facilities. This technology is disquieting our population, given what has happened recently in France. We need to strike a proper balance between how these drones are used to avoid subsequent danger and risk, and the importance of respecting human rights and fair procedures. If we are not careful, these conflict lines may well be extended to the entire planet.

      I therefore fully endorse the resolution that has been put forward. I think, however, that we really need – and without further ado – to take this a step further by drawing the lessons from the situation we are currently facing. What I mean by that is taking on board future developments of drones in the form of robots that are able to take, in an autonomous fashion, a decision to kill. This is examined in the report. We are not talking about science fiction: unmanned military robots have already caused their first casualties, although these were accidents.

      There is no doubt that these machines are being developed in different countries. Some university experts in the fields of ethics or cybernetics justify their deployment by arguing that the risk of error or excess violence is greatly reduced. A meeting of experts was held in Geneva last week in which lethal weapons were discussed in the context of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Another meeting on this matter is due to be held next November. This is a very concrete issue that we really need to address as soon as possible.

      For this reason, I would like to table an oral amendment. I would like to add to the resolution a text that calls on all member States to support international negotiations that are ongoing, or are due to be held, with a view to approving a moratorium not on research but the use of such robots, and, more specifically, drones. They represent the greatest risk of abuses being committed. This moratorium would be aimed at giving the necessary time – perhaps several years – to conceive and put into place international rules governing the use of such arms. It is this preliminary step that was not taken on board for remote control drones that has caused us to be debating this subject today. My proposal is designed simply to draw the lessons from the past and not repeat this error.

      Mr CRUCHTEN (Luxembourg)* – I congratulate our colleague, the rapporteur Mr Díaz Tejera, on his detailed and precise report. He addresses in particular the legal problems and issues pertaining to the use of combat drones. In this regard, the report is comprehensive and asks the right questions. I will not dwell on or repeat everything that is rightly included in the report, but I would like to share with you a number of arguments that deal with the non-legal aspects, which are no less important, concerning the use of combat drones.

      Killer drones are sold as essential, high-precision military instruments, allowing for the much-vaunted surgical strikes that are supposed to hit the target without collateral damage. We are led to believe in the possibility of a clear war or conflict, which is not at all the case. Regularly, we have to face figures that contradict this theory. In The Guardian recently, we were able to read that in Yemen and Pakistan alone no fewer than 1 147 people had been killed by drones, when the total number of actual targets was only 41 individuals. We should therefore fear the increasingly frequent use of these drones for remote control killings. It is estimated that there have been some 500 strikes causing the death of 3 674 people through the use of drones operated outside Iraq and Afghanistan. How many of those deaths were collateral damage? How many were just innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time? The figures bear out the fear expressed by Mr Díaz Tejera of a lowering of the threshold for intervention.

      There is another aspect to this issue that is no less worrying. Imagine the constant flying, over your village, your house or your school, of remote control weapons-bearing devices which, like vultures, circle overhead when you know that these drones have only one purpose – to kill. The psychological consequences for the civilian population, especially children, are dramatic. At present, drones are remote controlled by military people who witness the carnage on their screens, lever in hand, as if they are playing video games. It is frightening, but what will be the next stage – autonomous combat drones detecting their targets thanks to infrared senses? We already know that the technology exists to make that feasible.

      All of this should not mean that we just look the other way. The report deals with monitoring supervision and responsibility at the time of strikes. I will support the resolution, although it is an inadequate step given the gravity of the subject. I none the less hope that this resolution will encourage all of those who are working at various levels towards international agreements to ban the widespread and arbitrary use of combat drones.

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

      Mr DOWNE (Canada) – Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words in this debate. I join with others in thanking the rapporteur for his work. His report is very good. He indicated that these are basically new weapons and new challenges to – in his words – fundamental freedom and how we set limits and lines that should not be crossed. His suggestions on oversight by a higher court and a review by an independent body are wise counsel. We should consider the report carefully and support it.

      In addition to the comments that others have made on combat drones, we have to think about where this debate will go. The impact of drones will affect many countries. I recently saw in the media that India is considering using drones for crowd control and arming them with pepper spray. We have to have this discussion and a foundation document, as someone referred to it, on how we are going to deal with the spread of drones around the world.

      As do many countries around the world, Canada understands the importance of holding government action to the highest standards of human rights law, both domestic and international. In Canada, citizens are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which our Supreme Court interprets as providing “protection at least as great as that afforded by similar provisions in international human rights documents which Canada has ratified.”

      In the context of the threat of terrorism, combat drones may be an effective way of killing individuals who want to kill our citizens and harm our country, while protecting civilians – provided that they are used lawfully and responsibly. I hope that this document will advance that discussion. I echo the rapporteur’s call for all Council of Europe member and observer States to ensure that the principles of international law are applied in the use of all drones.

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

      Mr RIVARD (Canada) – I thank the Assembly for allowing me to speak on the subject of drones and targeted executions, and on the need to ensure that human rights and international law are respected. I would also like thank the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and particularly the rapporteur Mr Díaz Tejera, for its most important report on this subject.

      Using armed drones for targeted executions raises a number of serious issues. One issue raised by the report – by no means the least important – is the risk of trivialising such interventions and the decision-making process that leads to the strikes. If they become commonplace, the acceptance of the idea of executing people without them being able to assert their legal rights will be more widespread. The report notes the advantages that drones offer, namely, the ability to carry out attacks remotely with no risk of injury or capture and the ability to launch an attack based on accurate and up-to-date information. Those advantages have led to an increase in drone strikes in recent years. The report also notes that, interestingly, hand-in-hand with the increase in drone strikes, the increased precision of strikes makes it possible to respect international humanitarian law and human rights more fully.

      The rapporteur has identified a number of legal issues raised by drone strikes. From those, I wish to highlight the following. First is the obligation to respect national sovereignty and territorial integrity. That entails the principle of the responsibility to protect that makes it possible to fight against terrorist groups such as Islamic State. Under international humanitarian law, only combatants are legitimate targets. Under international human rights law, which generally applies in peace time, execution or intentional killing by State agents is legal only if human life is in danger and there are no other means of eliminating the threat. Finally, there is a risk that the line between armed conflict and law enforcement will be blurred, to the detriment of human rights.

      Mr Díaz Tejera states that we need more information about the use of combat drones by States. That is why I support his recommendation to carry out an in-depth study on the lawfulness of the use of combat drones for targeted executions. I also support the drawing up of guidelines on targeted killings using combat drones, to draw to the attention of member States. Those international guidelines should reflect international humanitarian law and human rights law, and should enable us to remember the fundamental principles that underpin all such actions in our member States.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Rivard. As I do not see Ms Quintanilla, I call the rapporteur, Mr Díaz Tejera, to reply. You have seven minutes.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – I thank Mr Schennach, Mr Gardarsson, Lord Balfe, Ms Werner, Mr Voruz, Mr Le Déaut, Mr Cruchten, Mr Downe and Mr Rivard for their contributions. I am sorry that Ms Quintanilla was unable to take part. Their contributions only enrich the text. I will try to spell out some of the aspects of the issues raised.

      The text was produced in the light of the information available to us at the time of its drafting. After it had been finalised, intercept evidence was published. However, an amendment has been accepted that takes on board Ms Werner’s concern. As regards the concern raised by Mr Le Déaut, he should take note that, before his oral amendment was submitted, the committee had already discussed the issue and there is a suggestion that the text could be made even more compelling than it would be by adding the word “moratorium” – moratoriums tend to be in place only for a certain period of time. Instead of using that term, there is a suggestion that we add the word “robotic” after “automated” in paragraph 8.6.1, which would be a more robust statement. That is a noble proposal, which seeks to improve the text and conveys a concern that we all share.

      We have to work on the basis of the information available to us. It is doubtless true that some points have been made that are valid but are covered by defence secrecy; we simply do not have access to that information.

      Specifying what is a drone, a rocket and so on will bring about greater clarification, and requires more extensive comment on my part. If the idea is that the control or technological handling of drones affects things, as it is different from rockets and missiles, all I can say is that I reject the use of both. It generates this repugnant term, collateral damage. We are talking about human beings dying because a sophisticated weapon is not sophisticated enough. That happens in armed conflicts during declared wars. Planned killings are even more repulsive. The planning of the use of a drone to deal with an imminent risk to human life, the principle of proportionality and the suggestion that there is no other option are all covered by protocols that address the issue of sophisticated weaponry, but however well-established a protocol is, it does not authorise planned, targeted killing. That does not happen spontaneously in a fit of anger. It is planned, premeditated, programmed and scheduled. Executing people in that way breaches every possible protocol in existence.

      With respect to the thrust of the report, the function of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is to reaffirm human rights, the rule of law and parliamentary democracy. If I were working as a lawyer for some State service whose job was to provide intelligence or operational command in a combat operation, I would use my brain for that, but I am not here to produce legislation for a specific government or state. We are here in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to reaffirm the code of values of human rights, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Why? If we all do our job and all the reports, interventions and votes assert those values, we will be fulfilling, in its entirety, the raison d’être of this Assembly. Other people do other jobs. We cannot strike a balance of power or create checks and balances in every single walk of life. In all fields, there is such a balance to strike. Our job is to stress our task and our mission. That is why I appeal to delegates to support the amendments that we have approved in the committee. The Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights will speak about that, but we accept the amendments because we believe they improve the text. We always welcome amendments that perform that function. I call upon everyone to support the text. It is the upshot of nothing other than the need to deal with the realities. Nothing to do with human beings should be alien to us. It is not for us to generate scores of terrorists. The subject affects every one of us – no human being is exempt.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Díaz Tejera. Does Mr Clappison wish to speak on behalf of the Committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – I should briefly like to put on record our gratitude for Mr Díaz Tejera’s hard work, passion and interest in the subject, which we have just seen. The committee strongly supports him. We believe this is important work for the committee and the Assembly.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which four amendments have been tabled. It has also presented a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled.

      The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      We will start by considering the draft resolution.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 2 and 1 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Does anyone object?

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

      I call Ms Werner to support Amendment 3.

      Ms WERNER (Germany)* – I refer to what I said previously. The amendment states: “drone strikes facilitated by transmission…on the territory of member States must be investigated by the member States themselves”.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I have received an oral amendment from Mr Díaz Tejera, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which reads as follows: in paragraph 8.6.1 of the draft resolution, after the word “automated”, insert the word “(robotic)” in brackets.

      In my opinion the oral amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

      That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Díaz Tejera to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – There was a possibility of trying to find a paragraph to introduce a moratorium on robots on human rights grounds. However, we think the wording we have found makes the protection more robust – we have not confined it to a time condition for a number of years for a moratorium. It is much stronger in preventing the automated use of such weapons against human beings.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      I call Ms Werner to support Amendment 4.

      Ms WERNER (Germany)* – The amendment, which is about launching an Article 52 procedure, speaks for itself.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I gather that Mr Le Déaut wishes to propose an oral amendment, which would read as follows: “In the draft resolution, after paragraph 8.6.3, insert the following new paragraph: ‘It calls on the member States to support, in ongoing or future negotiations, the principle of a moratorium on the use of autonomous combat robots, until international rules on the operation of this new type of weapon have been adopted.’”

      In my opinion the oral amendment does not meet the criteria of Rule 34.7.a, which states that oral amendments must “make a clarification”, “take account of new information” or “lead to conciliation”. It therefore cannot be debated.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13731, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 13731, as amended.

      The vote is open.

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

4. Post-monitoring dialogue with Monaco

      The PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the report entitled “Post-monitoring dialogue with Monaco” (Document 13739) presented by Mr Jordi Xuclà on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

      In order to finish by 6.20 p.m. I will interrupt the speakers list at 6.15 p.m.

      Mr Xuclà, you have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between the presentation of the report and the reply to speakers in the debate. But first I welcome the President of the National Council. Sir, you are most welcome. You already know our Organisation, as a former member, and as soon as you took up your post as Speaker, we sustained a contact with your Parliament. At times it was somewhat tense, but that is the way we move things forward. I say that because I was Mr Xuclà’s predecessor, as Rapporteur on Post-Monitoring Dialogue with Monaco. It was an extremely rewarding experience for me. It is only by engaging in dialogue, by exchanging views, that one can make progress – by listening to one another and trying to understand one another’s point of view. It is not always easy but it is the only way we are ever going to find solutions. That is what we managed to do, and I should like to thank you for that. Likewise, I thank you for being here this evening.

      I take this opportunity of thanking the ambassador as well. Madame, I had excellent contacts with you when I was rapporteur, and we maintain a very good relationship now.

      Without further ado, I give the floor to Mr Xuclà.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – Eleven years ago, in 2004, Monaco became a fully fledged member of the Council of Europe. It was subject to monitoring for five years and that presupposed that it would undertake the necessary constitutional reforms to fully meet its commitments. For the subsequent six years it was under post-monitoring measures, and about a year and a half ago I took over from Ms Brasseur, the President of this Assembly, as the Rapporteur for Post-Monitoring Dialogue with Monaco.

      At the outset, it appeared to be a job that one might be able to complete in the space of a year. The process has been mutually beneficial because we have been able to improve the standards of the functioning of these Monégasque institutions in all kinds of ways that I shall elaborate on in due course. At the same time, it has also been hugely beneficial for the Council of Europe as a whole. We have had input from representatives from Monaco as well as from the Monégasque Government who have been deeply involved in a number of issues we deal with here, such as the protection of children. Members of the delegation have been extremely active.

      Although a couple of issues are still pending, we have been able to complete the process over the past year and we have now seen the ratification of the Convention on Cybercrime. It has also been possible to adopt a new law on the functioning and organisation of the National Council. This law has been inspired by the constitutional reforms of 2002 but it has been pending in the National Council since 2009. Essentially it had been on standby, awaiting some kind of agreement and solution. We heard the final vote on the law, which led to an increase in the capacity of the National Council. We are expecting that final Act on 16 and 17 June.

      Finally, the National Council also finalised the reform of the criminal code and the code of criminal procedure. It appeared impossible a year and a half ago, but it was vital for closing the monitoring process and moving to post-monitoring. This has to do with the National Council’s involvement in the ratification of international treaties which do not have any economic repercussions for the country. That is because the National Council was not supposed to be involved in dealing with these kinds of international conventions and treaties. At first sight, it appeared to be impossible in our dealings with the representatives of the National Council to resolve this issue, but I am pleased to tell you that on 25 November – I believe this was as a result of the visit by His Holiness the Pope and following a lunch with the ambassador – we had the Foreign Affairs Minister here in Strasbourg and something that had appeared impossible became a reality. The relevant authorities are currently working on all these international treaties.

      Not everything has been quite so straightforward, however, because it was also necessary for us to look at the ratification of Protocols 1 and 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights and of the revised European Social Charter. That required two meetings in Monaco, one of which was in camera and one of which was on the European Social Charter. Monaco’s decision to work on this is what has characterised the past year and a half; a conscious decision was made to analyse the situation and examine what was technically possible. Political passions, and perhaps some of the prejudices that had made it impossible for us to resolve some of these issues, were left aside. Two sessions with Council of Europe experts, in December and January, examined how reservations might work to make it possible to safeguard the singularity of Monaco, which had always been recognised right from the start – ever since Monaco became a member of the Council of Europe – and deal with the various commitments it had entered into. So we had a technical discussion, leaving political passions to one side. Experts in international treaties from academia, as well as Government lawyers, put their heads together and felt that reservations could not operate 100% in respect of Protocols 1 and 12. Notwithstanding that finding, and following an exchange of correspondence, the Government decided that it would continue to leave the channels of dialogue open in this regard.

      That is why we believe it is now time to put an end to the post-monitoring dialogue. We will not have to continue our institutional discussions on the European Social Charter. On 17 March 2014, when I presented this report to the committee in Paris, I mapped out two different scenarios, saying that we could maintain post-monitoring just because of this matter. The problem, however, would be that we might then encounter a lot of political pressure – this might be used as a political flag to wave in the country and it might then prevent the Monégasques from adopting the European Social Charter. I said that because I had intuited that that was what was already happening. We exchanged correspondence with Mr Roger – with the principal minister – and the decision was made to set up a working party, one that has been welcomed by the National Council. Thus, we have our recommendations in this report. I will also raise this issue in the Bureau tomorrow, as we would like to continue this work in the proposed working party. But within this Assembly, we have the involvement of Mr Nicoletti, the general rapporteur on the European Social Charter, and all those who have been dealing with the Turin declaration – we have had representatives of both the Government and the Opposition involved in the post-monitoring dialogue. As I say, they have been extremely active and they have declared their willingness to continue work in order to find the best possible solutions and to try to do away with any prejudices pertaining to any incompatibilities which might exist. I believe those are only of a technical nature. That is why we say that the post-monitoring dialogue should end and we will find a more creative way of proceeding. I thank you all very much for listening.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr Xuclà. I should now like to give the floor to those speaking on behalf of the political groups. The first on my list is Mr Le Borgn’, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – I shall take the liberty of starting this small speech by sending kind regards to our friends from Monaco, after their football team was eliminated yesterday evening in the quarter finals of the Champions League – I hope they will not hold it against me if I mention that.

      In 1998, the Principality of Monaco requested to join the Council of Europe and in 2004, after lengthy discussions, our Assembly expressed an opinion, in which it acknowledged the special situation of this country and noted that the Council of Europe should take account of it in interpreting the commitments Monaco would have to honour after its accession. That is exactly what Mr Xuclà is doing today in his excellent report, which records the specificity of a country covering barely 2.2 sq. km and having 36 000 inhabitants, only 8 000 of whom have Monégasque citizenship. It is to guarantee the very existence of this country that the latter benefit from preferential treatment in jobs and housing.

      Much progress has been made since 2004. Monaco has acquired full independence from France and has incorporated into its legal system many Council of Europe conventions. The report points out that Monaco has honoured or is about to honour four major commitments entered into in 2004: the ratification of the Convention on Cybercrime; the adoption of a new law on the functioning and organisation of the National Council; the reform of the Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure; and the involvement of the National Council in ratifying conventions and international treaties. In total, Monaco has ratified 45 conventions since 2004.

      I will be more nuanced than the report in respect of its assertion that the Government being exclusively responsibility to the Prince and not the National Council poses a real challenge to democracy in Monaco. That is undoubtedly true, but the dramatic situations in terms of human rights and democracy referred to in this Chamber throughout this week prompt me to moderate that overly strong assessment. My preference, like everyone here, is for a parliamentary system and although Monaco has a long way to go, we have to admit that human rights are respected there. The last two States in Europe where a monarch has real power, Monaco and Liechtenstein, raise substantially fewer problems in terms of our values than certain major States that have an elected ruler who has often emerged from a clan that pursues very dubious political practices. There are no political prisoners in Monaco, and the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights to be delivered soon on Monaco concerns an appeal from Paris Match, which was convicted of having published information on the private life of Prince Albert. That shows that everything is relative.

      As regards the revised Social Charter, it is likely that its formal ratification would have implications for the social covenant that underpins the country, which benefits from high social standards and high social norms. Unless an appropriate legal solution is found, the proposed solution in the report – the integration into domestic law of the guarantees of the charter – seems the best way of resolving this dilemma. As regards Protocol 1, non-ratification of it raises an undoubted difficulty of principle, as the only other State not to have ratified it is Switzerland. However, its ratification in its current form would call into question the very foundations of Monaco, and the path of reservations would scarcely provide the necessary guarantees, given the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. I hope that the working group will find a technical solution. As regards Protocol 12, what can I add to the observations of the rapporteur? Only 18 States out of 47 have ratified that protocol.

      In the light of those thoughts, the Socialist Group approves of the Monitoring Committee’s proposal to close the post-monitoring dialogue with Monaco, and shares in the principle that the Council of Europe is ready to continue to assist Monaco in its future reforms if necessary.

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

      Mr PASQUIER (Monaco) – I will say a few words in English, just to thank my friends from the ALDE group for allowing me to speak on behalf of the group. As a member of the opposition, this was the only avenue for me to speak here today.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      First, I thank our rapporteur, Mr Xuclà, and the Council of Europe’s staff for all the work that has gone into producing this excellent report. It underscores their ability to grasp the special nature of Monaco. I also thank the previous rapporteurs, Mr Slutsky and yourself, Madam President.

      Let me state unambiguously that I fully subscribe to the report’s analysis and conclusions. What are those conclusions? “Fair” and “could do better”. The “fair” is that Monaco has made real and irreversible progress since it joined the Council of Europe 10 years ago. For example, the grounds for administrative actions have changed, and nationals can now fill all civil service posts. It is true that progress in honouring our commitments has been rather slow, probably because Monaco’s accession to the Council of Europe has been a controversial subject. It was important not to exacerbate the fears of those who felt that we should be inward-looking and that Europe was a steamroller that would end up destroying the country. Despite the care that was taken, the national elections of 2013 gave us the result that we all know about.

      Against that backdrop, one can only welcome the fact that the rapporteur understood that recommending that Monaco emerge from post-monitoring dialogue would strengthen the hand of progressive forces. Some people brandish Europe in general, and the Council of Europe in particular, as some kind of bogeyman or a bone of contention that sows the seed of anxiety among ordinary people in Monaco. I hope that those days are over.

      Monaco is a prosperous country in which nobody is left behind. It is a country with a dynamic economy that is able to employ tens of thousands of people from neighbouring countries. We have no members of the opposition or journalists in prison, elections are fair and freedom of expression is respected.

      I will end by talking about the “could do better” part of the report card. Some people have feared that our country’s singularities are not being properly respected. There are also fears about housing and jobs being reserved for nationals. The rapporteur has grasped the situation well. There is a problem when it comes to discrimination against women in access to welfare benefits in Monaco, and people of the same gender – or sometimes even different genders – cannot have their union recognised under the law and are therefore deprived of certain welfare benefits. The government takes too many liberties when it comes to respecting the public finances as set out under the constitution and deprives the National Council of some of its prerogatives. The National Council does not have any right to amend the budget, for example. However, constitutional change is afoot, and the political group to which I belong has tabled Bills to correct some of those anomalies.

      The important thing today is that we maintain the constructive dialogue between the Council of Europe and Monaco that has existed in recent months and years. There is still progress to be made, I grant you that, but the seed that was sown when we joined the Council of Europe 10 years ago has borne fruit. I hope that we will continue to make progress and that you will offer us your advice so that we can deal with matters as best we can.

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

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report with clear conclusions.

      When we look at the countries that are under our monitoring procedure in 2015, it is vaguely ridiculous that Monaco should be one of them. It is a small State – just 8 000 citizens, as we have heard – and has traditions that might not suit all of us, and certainly not the republicans in the Chamber. The role of the Prince is not that different from the situation in a number of other monarchies, and it is clear that the people of Monaco like it that way and support that position.

      As the rapporteur points out in his excellent report, a number of technical issues remain to be addressed. However, when one considers the fact that the Monégasques in Monaco are a minority in their own country – just one in five residents of Monaco are Monégasques – one sees that we need to be a little more understanding of some of the challenges facing them. Those challenges are not matters for our monitoring procedure.

      We have to be balanced in how we look at the countries in the Council of Europe. Monaco is not a state where political activists are arrested in the middle of the night and nobody hears from them again; where journalists languish in jail for years on end; where freedom of speech is hindered in any way; where people do not have the right to a fair trial; or where there are political prisoners and other human rights abuses.

      I congratulate the rapporteur again on his excellent report and its conclusions, and I congratulate the people of Monaco and our parliamentary colleagues from Monaco on their patience. I hope that this afternoon, we will all support the rapporteur’s recommendation that we end the post-monitoring procedure on Monaco.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. The last speaker on behalf of the political groups is Mr Agramunt, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – First and foremost, I wish to address the President of the National Council. Thank you for being with us for this debate. I remind you that for the first five years, I was the rapporteur on the monitoring of Monaco. As we meet here today, three of the four people who were involved are present – you, Madam President, myself and Mr Xuclà. Unfortunately, for well-known reasons, the person who was my co-rapporteur, Mr Slutsky, cannot be here. The Russian delegation is not coming to the Parliamentary Assembly at the moment.

      I would like to take this opportunity to recall that it was on a day such as this one, in a plenary part-session of the Assembly, that we closed the monitoring exercise and opened the post-monitoring dialogue. Since then things have gone very successfully indeed, so I hope that with the Assembly’s agreement, we will mark a happy occasion today.

      Everyone has congratulated Mr Xuclà and I, too, congratulate him; in fact, I congratulate him even more than others have done. That is quite logical because I have been following his work very closely indeed. I have had opportunities to speak to him about this dossier, because, of course, it was of common interest to both of us. That is why I can really appreciate the enormous work that he has put into it, and the very detailed work that he has done to look at every single issue. In particular, he has worked with the Monégasque authorities to move forward. So I very much appreciate the work that he has done and I take this opportunity to say that.

      Quite clearly, Monaco is not a threat when it comes to human rights, co-existence, democracy, the rule of law, and so on and so forth; I think that is patently obvious for all to see. It is a country that is really an example or model to others. Monaco has a number of issues, or, if you like, specificities, that we should of course address, including the fact that it has a very small resident population. We also know that prices are very high on the territory of the Principality, which is why, of course, there needs to be some kind of scheme to help Monaco’s nationals to reside where they do; otherwise, they would have to go abroad, to France or elsewhere. We can perfectly well understand Monaco’s circumstances.

      That being said, we also know that a lot of progress and a lot of effort has been made by the Principality during the past 11 years, leading up to today. In fact, it would be good to look back for a moment and to consider how things operated at the time this process began, in terms of the democratic values that we have here in the Council of Europe. What was Monaco doing 15 years ago? We can consider that situation and then, of course, compare it to what Monaco is doing today. If you do that, you will see that there is an enormous difference, which is why I enthusiastically support the proposal being made today by the rapporteur, Mr Xuclà.

      The PRESIDENT* – I understand that the rapporteur, Mr Xuclà, will speak later, so I call Mr Mota Amaral to speak.

      Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – I begin my short remarks by congratulating and thanking the rapporteur, Mr Jordi Xuclà from Catalonia in Spain, for his excellent performance in the post-monitoring dialogue with the Monégasque authorities and for the report that he has submitted to the Assembly. Its conclusions and propositions are reinforced by the unanimous vote of the Monitoring Committee, under the chairmanship of Stefan Schennach from Austria.

      Monaco is a small European country with an old history of survival under difficult conditions in relation to its neighbours. Its accession to the United Nations and in a very different context to the Council of Europe act as a guarantee of its national independence.

      Observed from the outside, Monaco shines with wealth and glamour, but for its citizens the very success of their country remains a source of problems and even hardship. Like other small States, some of which are also members of the Council of Europe, Monaco must rely on very peculiar solutions for its political and social organisation.

      Provided that the fundamentals of human rights and the rule of law are respected, I suppose that national and local specificities should be understood, accepted and even admired as evidence of the variety of Europe, the freedom of European peoples and the strength of European societies.

      That is the case with Monaco, which is a peaceful part of our continent, and it looks unreasonable to maintain any sign of suspicion of it. It is better to recognise it as a fully fledged member of the Council of Europe.

      I am very happy to support Monaco, because my homeland, the Azores, retains close memories of the scientific explorations of Prince Albert I at the start of the 20th century. One of the best places for fishing in deep sea waters is called Princess Alice, and on my way to the airport in São Miguel Island every week, I always drive along the Prince of Monaco Avenue.

      As I have done previously, in the Monitoring Committee, I shall vote in favour of the draft resolution to close the post-monitoring dialogue with Monaco. Congratulations to Monaco, the Monégasque authorities and Monaco’s citizens, and good luck.

      Mr ALLAVENA (Monaco)* – Just over a year ago now, on 17 March 2014, Jordi Xuclà gave us a real lesson in politics. He could have stuck with the original drafting of the report, took note of the progress made in the past 10 years, decided that there were still things that needed to be settled and suggested that we continue with post-monitoring. I think that a lot of rapporteurs would have made that decision and I am sure that nobody would have criticised them for it. However, he chose a different approach, that of having confidence – confidence in terms of the relationship he has established with His Sovereign Highness during their encounters – and judged that a solution to outstanding issues could be found. I quote him from memory: “I ask you to trust His Sovereign Highness and not give anti-Europeans the opportunity to stage an aggressive debate on the outstanding issues”. That bold or audacious proposal convinced the Committee and led to a unanimous vote, with a view to putting an end to the post-monitoring dialogue.

      In the past two years, my colleagues and I have had time to explain the reality of Monaco to others, and to stifle or nip in the bud a certain number of prejudices. The kind of arguments that I have heard are, “Why ask Monaco to do things that we are not asking anyone else to do?”, or, “Why continue to spend so much time on the issue of Monaco when there are so many serious things happening elsewhere in Europe?” To those two questions, the Committee unanimously said, “Stop”, and I hope that this afternoon the Parliamentary Assembly will make a similar decision, and thus we would be able to send out a very strong signal.

      I take the fact that there are very people in the Assembly and that no amendment has been tabled as confirmation that Monaco is no longer really an item on the agenda of the Parliamentary Assembly, and that the time has come to take it off the agenda.

      I will conclude this brief statement by making two points. First, I express my surprise that today, in an organisation so deeply attached to democracy and the representation of minorities, according to our rules of procedure my colleague from the minority, Bernard Pasquier, was not allowed to speak out. In fact, he did speak out, as a result of a rather unusual decision taken by his political group, and I thank them for that. However, I think that the time has come to reflect upon this situation and remedy it. I do not believe that the motto of “do what I say and not what I do” is really a good one for the Parliamentary Assembly.

      Secondly, and to conclude, I most sincerely thank the various rapporteurs who, with such differing styles, have taken up the issue of monitoring Monaco’s commitment. Pedro Agramunt and Leonid Slutsky were the first rapporteurs to take up this issue, and we hope that Jordi Xuclà will be the last to do so, and will bring it to a successful conclusion.

      I am not someone who is hypocritical or pretends to forget things, Madam President. I think that we had a number of differences of view when you were steering the work on this issue. I do not know whether it was you or the Monégasques themselves who were responsible for what I would call a missed opportunity, or a meeting or encounter that failed to come about. However, if we look at the way in which, with talent and efficacy, you conduct the work of the Assembly, all we can say now is, “Well, it happened. It was an accident. It was just a shame.”

      To all four of you – the members of the Monitoring Committee and its chair, Stefan Schennach – I say thank you very much indeed, for having taken the time to examine the situation in my country and for having attempted to understand it. It was just over 10 years ago, and about a year after we became a member of the Parliamentary Assembly, which was something he had so wanted and finally attained, that Prince Rainier passed away, leaving to his son, Prince Albert, and the Monégasques a prosperous and functioning country. If Prince Rainier were looking down upon us today, he would be very happy with the work of his delegation, and with the confidence and trust in his country that I am sure the Parliamentary Assembly will show.

       Ms FRESKO-ROLFO (Monaco)* – I thank Mr Xuclà for his tenacity and hard work as rapporteur and his effort to understand the unique identity of our Principality and institutions, and of Monaco’s special situation as the second smallest country in the world. I am grateful that he has shown confidence in us by asking the Assembly to end the post-monitoring procedure in light of tangible advances since we joined the Organisation in 2004 – especially since 2013.

      Throughout its history in the Council of Europe, Monaco has always tried to find the best compromise. Its commitment to respect the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe standards has been upheld and we have ratified many Council of Europe treaties. We established a High Commission for the Protection of Rights, Freedoms and Mediation. We will soon vote on the law organising the functioning of our National Council and its rules of procedure and we have established a modus operandi allowing us to circulate information better between the government and the National Council on such issues. In spite of our lack of human resources, we have done all that within a reasonable period.

      However, in spite of our good will and achievements, our system of functioning is not compatible with some instruments of the Council of Europe – additional Protocols 1 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter, as revised. Those three instruments do not guarantee the protection of the main minority in Monaco – the Monégasques themselves. I risk repeating myself, but I say it again and again: we are unique in that the Monégasque community makes up only 20% of the overall population in an area of only 2.5 sq. km. We are a minority in our own country and that explains our position.

      We are not against Europe or change, but not all countries are equal when it comes to European principles. To guarantee jobs, housing and quality of life to our nationals and their children, our system is based on priority for them. That is a sort of discrimination, but in a positive sense; it is to protect those living in what is de facto an unequal situation. In spite of the impossibility of ratifying the three instruments, the government of Monaco intends to remain faithful to its commitments to the Council of Europe and co-operate in finding solutions. That is why I hope the Assembly will place in us the same trust as the rapporteur has shown in recognising our unique situation.

      We should no longer be in post-monitoring dialogue, for we continue to intend to honour all commitments that have the power to improve our institutions without putting in danger our political and economic balance and model for society. We do not see our national democracy, positive economic results, social model and quality of life for our compatriots and the foreigners who live with us as some intellectual conceit – they are a reality. Monaco is a sovereign State and we intend to continue to advance together, taking into account the conditions necessary for the constructive compromise that we intend to implement.

      The PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers. I call the rapporteur. Mr Xuclà, you have four minutes.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain) – There were a couple of references to Monaco’s institutional design and its constitutional matters. Both were also on my list of obligations and were discussed in 2004. I do not, of course, have the power to do more than I have. We have a good dialogue, in which we tell our partners that they should take good note of what the Council of Europe has to say on these matters – a good school for democracy, if you like.

      I have listened carefully to the speakers, some of whom mentioned the discrepancy factor. That has a lot to do with the internal debate. There will be debate in the National Council on some issues – the power to table amendments to budgets and the European Social Charter, for instance. Please carry on with your internal dialogue in the positive atmosphere that has prevailed so far. We have had common cause, and you have worked with the Council of Europe and me as rapporteur. Let us carry on in the same vein.

      Mr Allavena, I am not here to lecture you; I have tried to say what would be best. We have set up a mechanism that would allow us to carry on working on some of these issues. The door is left ajar; we do not want the post-monitoring process to get bogged down by issues that could be dealt with in another way. There should be no political confrontation. The solutions are viable. Colleagues, I urge you to continue with dialogue and an intellectual approach without preconceived ideas, to make sure that things are made simpler.

      I take this opportunity to thank my predecessor – Ms Brasseur, the President – who paved the way for me. Thanks to her work we were able to move forward. I also thank the rapporteurs involved in the five years of monitoring. I thank the authorities of Monaco for their approach. They have shown that the country wants to co-operate and sets great store by the Council of Europe. They have done their best to embark on the process of post-monitoring dialogue. The involvement of the head of state has been a good sign. I also thank the National Council for its positive attitude; Mr Nouvion, who is with us today, sent out clear signals about the continuation of the working group that will consider the solutions. Once again, the door has been left ajar. I also thank Mr Roger, the Minister of State who is not here today but has great experience.

      I have a few last words to say about the Monitoring Committee itself. I have had constant support from Mr Schennach, the chair of the committee. I am grateful to the entire Secretariat. Ms Caroline Ravaud, the head, has allowed me to relax a little as her approach is so rigorously intellectual. Ms Sylvie Affholder has worked with me throughout, finding creative solutions. We did a lot of work together in December, trying to establish what was technically feasible. The work has now ended, but we will always remember Monaco.

      Ladies and gentlemen, I have been a member of the Assembly for eight years now. Sometimes we have discussions, sometimes we have arguments, and sometimes there is a lot of rhetoric. That can happen with members of parliament, as we can be very parliamentarian in our approach, but in the past 18 months I have felt valuable and useful. I have been at the service of the Council of Europe and looked at the objectives that we have set ourselves and the future that we want to look towards. I thank you for that. I very much hope that you will support me in the vote. That will make very happy indeed on my name day – the day of St Jordi.

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

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Xuclà. Mr Schennach, you have two minutes to speak on behalf of the committee.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Germany)* – When one is chair of the Monitoring Committee, one sometimes has the impression that the agenda and the problems on it keep getting longer and longer, and that we are confronted with ever bigger challenges when it comes to upholding democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I am therefore all the more pleased that I have been able to wind up two things during my chairmanship of the committee: we have concluded the monitoring dialogue with Montenegro, which has gone from a monitoring to post-monitoring dialogue, and today we can put to an end some 11 years of monitoring and post-monitoring dialogue with Monaco – with mutual understanding, as Mr Xuclà just said.

      Through the years and months we have been able to sustain that dialogue to a very high level indeed. We have seen a rotation in rapporteurs, but when we look at Jordi we can see what demands being a rapporteur makes in respect of a monitoring or post-monitoring dialogue. I can only congratulate him on the work he has done since he took over from our President, Ms Brasseur.

      Bernard Pasquier and Jean-Charles Allevena, I thank you for your work. You come from a small country, but what is important is that you are very active in all the other issues on the Monitoring Committee’s agenda. In fact, it would be difficult to conceive of you not being members of the committee. You have had an opportunity to confront these issues at the coal face, as it were, in your own country.

      On the work done by the Parliamentary Assembly together with the Monégasque Parliament, the important thing is the confidence that we have shown in each other. We can certainly celebrate the fact that we are winding up the post-monitoring dialogue.

       I also thank the Secretariat. Once again, they have pulled it off. They have done a wonderful job and, as Jordi said, without them all of this work would not have been possible.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution, to which no amendments have been tabled, so we will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13739.

      The vote is open.

      This is a good day for Jordis then – Xuclà especially. I am happy as I come from San Marino, the least populated State in the Council of Europe, and this resolution was for Monaco, the smallest one. Congratulations to Monaco.

5. Debate: The reform of football governance

      The PRESIDENT – The final item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled “The reform of football governance” (Document 13738) presented by Mr Michael Connarty on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

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

      Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – The report has been about two years in the making. It is an evidence-based report, as I will indicate and prove later. It is not just a speculative report. It is a follow-up to two other reports that came before, looking at the governance at football. One special report was led by Madam President.

      First, I have so many people to thank, and I would like to do that quickly. The Secretariat of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media have been excellent in giving me support. I also thank: Madam President in her absence, because she was the person who aroused my interest in the serious question of governance in football; and Kent Härstedt of Sweden, who has probably left the Assembly, a former judo Olympic committee member and I think the president of the judo federation of Sweden. When I was the chair of the sports sub-committee of the Culture Committee, he raised with me the failure of international sports bodies to consider the human rights records of countries to which they award prestigious tournaments.

      I also wish to thank Clive Efford MP, the United Kingdom Labour Party’s spokesperson on sport. He displayed a great knowledge of the problems of football governance and recommended that I read the book “How They Stole the Game” – I recommend it to you, Mr Vice-President, and to everyone in the Assembly – which is about how the present organisation that runs FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) came to a position of power. Of course, I must thank the unstoppable investigative United Kingdom journalist and writer, Andrew Jennings, whose passion and unbridled anger at what calls the “FIFA mafia” has caused him to be unfairly banned from all FIFA press events to this day.

      For this well-researched and evidence-based report, I must record my thanks for the diligence and fine legal mind of Roberto Fasino from the Council of Europe’s staff. He has maintained a pleasant but diligent pursuit of the application of the principles of human rights that underpin the work of this Assembly. In addition, I hope that the Assembly will recognise the substantial and generous assistance of the United Kingdom Sunday Times journalists Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert, who opened their massive files of printed copies of emails and bank transfer evidence to me and to Assembly officials. When we asked whether we could have some of the documents, they said we could have all of them. They gave us every single document on a memory stick, which I have here. This report is not a speculative piece of journalism: it is an evidence-based criticism. The documents are now in the hands of the legal officers of the Assembly.

      I have seen the original electronic documents and I can tell the Assembly that all the recipients of money transfers, of which I have copies, thought that they were receiving those tens of thousands of dollars – it was normally $50 000, although sometimes $100 000 for some people – to buy their votes in support of the Qatar 2022 World Cup bid. The documents include such comments as “Thank the Emir for his generosity” and “We look forward to December 2010 when we can all celebrate Qatar’s selection to host the World Cup in 2022.”

      Even more importantly for the human rights remit of this Assembly, reference is made to evidence we took about the working conditions of construction workers building the venues in Qatar. Summer is coming in Qatar, and it will be 50º centigrade or higher. As in the past, overseas construction workers will be worked to death in Qatar. I do not say that to exaggerate; that is exactly what has happened. People are working 14-hour days in the most appalling conditions. We took evidence from the International Labour Organization and from Stephen Murphy, the general secretary of UCATT, the United Kingdom construction workers’ trade union, in December 2014, by which point more than 1 000 workers had died. Many of them had been given death certificates that gave the cause of death as “heart attack”. Why would that happen? So that the companies that brought the workers to Qatar would not have to pay compensation to their families. That is what is going on in Qatar and that is why we think it is important to expose both the corruption behind the bid and the human rights abuses.

      Qatar has said that it has amended the Kafala system, but it has not really done so. Mr Murphy told us that he went to meet a group of workers, housed 20 to a shed, who had not been paid for seven months. They were living on hand-outs from a Nepalese charity to feed themselves, with the promise that they would get their wages eventually. They were unable to protest because, under the Kafala system, they could not get their passports back to leave the country.

      The third part of our report goes back in a sense to where we began. We looked at the many recommendations made by FIFA’s own independent governance committee, some of which have been implemented. For example, paragraphs 67 and 63 explain that in future the whole congress will have a vote in the bidding process for hosting a FIFA World Cup, so that the small group of people who make up the executive committee cannot be manipulated through bribery and corruption. As the report says and the draft report recommends, given that there is evidence of bribery and corruption and appalling abuse of human rights in the country chosen for the 2022 World Cup, FIFA should “speedily open a new procedure for the award of the 2022 World Cup and ensure – by means including the adoption of new provisions – the establishment of adequate information and supervision machinery in order that this procedure genuinely guarantees equality between bidding countries and a final decision strictly founded on the merits of their projects”. FIFA has a system that it wants to adopt, but it has not used it in that case.

      FIFA said that it would only ever announce one choice at a time, but on 10 December 2010 it announced two, which people did not expect – although, funnily enough, in some of the e-mails to Mr bin Hammam, the authors seemed to know that it was going to happen.

      If the independent governance committee’s report were put into operation now, the current president could not stand, because it says that you cannot stand for a major position or a place on the executive over the age of 70, as in UEFA (Union of European Football Associations). Nor can you have more than two terms on the executive. That would remove many of the old men, to be frank, who control the organisation – and are continually accused of controlling it in a manner that is not fit, not transparent and does not lack corruption.

      In another odd situation, FIFA’s investigatory chamber, chaired by Michael Garcia, has to report to the adjudicatory chamber but that body never publishes the reports. Indeed, it has even reported the report on the Qatar bid incorrectly, and Michael Garcia resigned as a result. We need an end to this. The issue is not the personality of the president. All the moves that have been made to try to stop this debate today are misguided. It is an evidence-based report on human rights abuses and corruption – things that this Organisation should stand against. As I have said before, we should speak truth to power. If we are not willing to do that, we should not be in this Assembly.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Connarty. I call Ms Mateu Pi, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms MATEU PI (Andorra)* – We have before us a report that might strike you as routine and not particularly offensive, but it is nevertheless controversial. In theory, the report should not be problematic, because football is a societal phenomenon. It is a sport that attracts the masses who meet almost in communion from the five continents of the globe. I know what I am speaking about, because almost every child, especially young boys, believes that they will be a footballer one day. It is a sport that generates a lot of discussion and interest among millions of people around the world, week in and week out.

      Apart from national leagues and championships, we have the UEFA Cup and the Champions League, with two matches pretty much every week, and people are glued to their televisions screens. Millions of people watch football every day, including the fans who go to the games. What we are starting to discern here is that what might be seen as anodyne is actually not. To manage all that there need to be organisations, structures, States, financial appetite and interest. All this starts to emerge and come to light.

      The report was adopted by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media in January. Its content is disappointing – yes, Mr Connarty, I would say in terms of its content it is rather disappointing because it is not rigorous enough. We are here in the plenary of the part-session. You refer to the newspapers France Football and The Sunday Times, but that is all. What about hearings? There are a couple to which you refer, but very few. There is not much in terms of content.

      Some of the statements or allegations made by the rapporteur are now obsolete – they are already outdated. Between January and April there have been some developments, but they have not been taken into account. For instance, the Swiss federal laws have not been taken into account. I remind you that this matter is being addressed at the Swiss federal level. Things have moved on. The report has been tabled before the Assembly without the necessary sources and content that we require.

      This is an accusation levelled at FIFA, impugning its motives. FIFA has been accused of various irregularities in relation to vote-buying, broadcasting rights and organising World Cups. I agree with you on those points. There have been a lot of allegations. There is the Qatar issue, which you have already mentioned, and of course we have spoken much about that. Personally, however, I am not sure that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is necessarily the best forum through which to accuse FIFA. Do we have the standing?

      The report seems to distinguish between FIFA the bad cops and UEFA the good cops – the good and the bad. I am not sure that that is entirely accurate. It is very black and white. In this Chamber, we all need to speak objectively. I would argue that the report is rather subjective. The very least I would expect is a hearing with the President of FIFA, whoever that might be. That has not happened. We therefore have some doubts. Why is this report on our agenda, bearing in mind the fact that we still have not given the President of FIFA a hearing?

      There are issues concerning the resolution, in particular paragraph 13. We, as members of the Parliamentary Assembly, are telling the Qatari authorities what they should be doing and asking FIFA to revisit the mechanisms used to attribute the 2022 world cup to this particular country. I do not think that we are best placed to do that. For instance, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and other bodies have a lot more legitimacy to address these kinds of issues, and to issue recommendations or make requests vis-à-vis a country that is outside the Council of Europe and to a global organisation.

      Finally, if I may, I would like to refer the report back to committee in accordance with Article 37.1.d. of our rules.

      The PRESIDENT – We have to ask you, Ms Mateu Pi, whether you want to discuss referring the report back now or later.

      Ms MATEU PI (Andorra) – I think we can wait, so that we can legitimately allow people to express their points of view. I have expressed the point of view of the ALDE group. It would be suitable if we allowed the other groups, and members, to express their points of view on the report.

      The PRESIDENT – So we make it clear that the decision will be taken at the end of the debate. I now call Mr Walter on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteur not only on his report but on his persistence in moving this item up the agenda.

      I am not a great football fan. I think it is more than 10 years since I went to a football match. I am a supporter of rugby, which is supported by only about six nations in this Assembly: France, Italy, England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I am fairly passionate about that, as many in my own country are. When we have the World Cup in the United Kingdom in September this year, there will be 20 nations from across the world taking part, including Georgia and Romania. I digress. Rugby is a very different game. In fact, in my country football is regarded as a gentleman’s game played by hooligans and rugby as a hooligan’s game played by gentlemen.

      Why are the report and its revelations so important? Why are we discussing them here today? FIFA does not represent a minority sport. FIFA represents a sport in which there are some 209 national member associations from across the globe. If affects literally billions of people who are football fans from across the world. In fact, I could say that probably the majority of the male population of the world will follow the World Cup competitions. So that I am not accused of being sexist, let me say that I think a fair proportion of the female population of the world will also be following those competitions.

      The report is about governance, which affects all our peoples and all our populations. No country, no region, no city and no community is unaffected by the issues in the report. The issue – let us be absolutely clear – is corruption. We do not turn a blind eye to corruption in our own member States. We have a view on governance in our member States. We go out and proselytise about good governance in our member States. In an earlier debate this afternoon, we talked about good governance in Monaco.

      As parliamentarians we may not like it, but more of our population care about football than care about politics. If we want to reconnect with those people, we should take an interest in this issue. I congratulate the rapporteur and his interlocutors at The Sunday Times for exposing this corrupt practice. Contrary to what my dear friend from the ALDE group has just said, the rapporteur does have the evidence: he has the bank statements, he has the e-mails, and he has the letters of thanks from those who were bribed in this scandal. We should be looking not at just at the 2022 decision but at the 2018 issue too.

      Let us wholeheartedly commend the rapporteur. Let us stand up for the billions of football fans in the world. Let us stand up against corruption and support this report.

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

      Mr PANTZAS (Greece)* – I thank the rapporteur for his report. It is important that everyone understands the social and educational value of sport, and he has stated how important it is to have proper governance in the organisation of sport if we are to promote sport in all our democratic societies.

      I stress the fact that many sports organisations take decisions in secret, and very often their mechanisms and way of functioning have no provision for dealing with possible irregularities. It is essential that we combat corruption, not only in sport but in sporting federations and organisations. They should be managed in a spirit of clarity and transparency so that we can all see that their internal procedures and their management of financial resources are stable. There should be strict controls on their activities so that we can follow what they do – that is in their own interests. There should be mechanisms to avoid violation of the Code of Sports Ethics.

      FIFA seems unable to stop the stream of corruption scandals. It held some kind of inquiry into the selection of Russia and Qatar as hosts for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup finals, but we know only some of its results because FIFA did not publish the whole inquiry. It is obvious that that is part of its system of secrecy.

      Amnesty International, other international human rights organisations, including those supporting rights at work, the ILO and the Ambassador of Nepal should denounce the organisers. The conditions in Qatar amount to slavery. People working there as migrant workers have no identity and no rights – not even the right to return to their countries. When irregularities become the law, how can we talk about justice?

      The Council of Europe should have the right to intervene. We should hold an independent inquiry, and think about the possibility of transferring the World Cup finals if our recommendations are not followed up.

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

      Mr PINTADO (Spain)* – Mr Connarty, I was surprised by your intervention. I have read your report. It is quite harsh – in fact, I have never seen such a harsh one, although we have discussed this issue for three years in this Parliamentary Assembly. You have said some very serious things: you talked about corruption, vote buying, bribes and even a FIFA mafia, which is rather serious. If all those claims had been substantiated, surely they would have been brought before a court by now.

      The Council of Europe is here to defend democratic values. We work to come up with positive measures, making sure that we help our member States and different organisations. But we have come here to the Assembly today to say a number of things that are very serious indeed. I say this as a parliamentarian to you, as a fellow parliamentarian, Mr Connarty: with all due respect, I do not think this is a worthy matter. I agree with the spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe: there are papers that should be looked at more closely, so we should refer this matter back to the committee for more in-depth research.

      Mr Connarty, I understand that you are talking about an important issue. Football is a universal sport. Its social impact is incredibly big. I played football myself and I know that national and international organisations are very involved here. We talk about the lack of transparency in federations and the extent to which democratic values are being conveyed – that is connected to human rights. That is fine. But you have arrived at an extreme position – I refer to your statement. It is important to try to reach some kind of agreement, but in all honesty what you have said in this Chamber in introducing your report was basically a denunciation, in which you made allegations about specific people. We are saddened by this discourse, which is about countries that are not member States of the Council of Europe. It Is heartbreaking. We should show the required respect. We should do what we can, as the Council of Europe, to help a State that is not a member of the Council of Europe. We need to talk about the values of sport; in this case, it is football, but there are other sports that are very much attuned to what we do – it is all about our youth. We need to be clear vis-a-vis those sports as well.

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

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The report raises three important questions. First, it calls for a re-run of the Qatar World Cup 2022 bidding process, which took place in December 2010. Preparations are now far advanced, so how realistic is it to make such a demand at this stage, and who is willing to pay the enormous amounts of compensation?

      Secondly, the report stresses the need for constant concern about the improvement of governance and transparency in all sports organisations. As board member of a football club in the Norwegian premier league, I could not agree more. The Qatar process has already led to a change in FIFA: World Cup bids will no longer be taken by its executive committee, but by its congress.

      Thirdly, the report urges FIFA to make Qatar respect the basic rights of migrant workers. In fact, we can all do more in that respect. For example, the Football Association of Norway is frequently asked by NGOs, politicians and other partners, “What do you do to raise the question of workers’ rights in Qatar?” So as to be able to give a good answer to that question, it contacted Norwegian trade unions and FIFA itself, and sent its secretary-general to Qatar. He has observed the following. For decades, workers’ conditions in Qatar have been extreme. Norwegian State companies in Qatar have not been able or willing to bring about changes. Other competitions and World Cups have been arranged in Qatar, and lots of arenas and infrastructure have been built without any scrutiny. From the moment Qatar was awarded the FIFA World Cup the focus on it has been massive. That focus is now being used to make a difference.

      FIFA has taken several initiatives towards Qatar. A set of standards for workers has been set out through consultation with a series of stakeholders such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and international trade unions, as well as United Nations agencies such as the ILO (International Labour Organization). Workers have got their passports back. Semi-annual reports are made on new labour contracts, working hours, training, wages, housing, transport and so on. That will probably affect working conditions both before and after the World Cup, and will serve the interests of migrant workers in Qatar better than changing the host would.

      Finally, we should note that most contractors in Qatar are European – mainly German, British and French companies. The Football Association of Norway plans to invite representatives of the Norwegian Parliament to a meeting with FIFA to see for ourselves. Other nations could do that as well.

      To conclude, I quote the secretary-general of Amnesty International in Denmark, who said: “Actually, the World Cup is the best thing that has happened to immigrant workers in Qatar for decades.” I am glad to say that change is possible due to both external pressure and internal pressure within international football.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Christoffersen. That ends the list of speakers on behalf of the political groups. Does Mr Connarty wish to respond at this stage? As that is not the case, I call Mr Schneider.

      Mr SCHNEIDER (France)* – I congratulate Michael Connarty on his report. It is the result of a serious investigation in which all members of the committee were involved. His analysis is evidence based, and all the proposals have been discussed and explained at length. Why have we decided to concentrate on football governance? I say “we” because the committee made that choice. The answer is that football is the sport par excellence given its spread around the world and the fact that it permeates the globe. It reaches out to billions of fans but represents colossal financial and political interests. The report stresses the nexus between sport and the values of the Council of Europe – human rights, equality and the fight against all forms of corruption. A large part of the draft resolution is devoted to those questions.

      Our committee encouraged the rapporteur to include in the report the analysis of the thorny issue of the award of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, looking both at FIFA internal procedures and at the human rights dimension, particularly when it comes to migrant workers in Qatar. In fact, we have heard rather shattering testimony in that regard.

      The report is not an indictment of FIFA. Nothing in the draft resolution or the explanatory memorandum would enable anyone to state as much. On the contrary, the rapporteur says that FIFA, the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and UEFA are important assets and a driving force for change. To respond to something said earlier in the debate, the Sub-Committee on Education, Youth and Sport met Mr Blatter and his staff on two occasions in Zurich. A number of delegates in the Chamber attended those meetings. That is why we warmly encourage FIFA to bring its influence to bear, and to call on Qatar to comply with the ILO report. It is important that our member States spearhead efforts. I agree with what some have said, but let us not be hypocritical. We should not ask FIFA to do what we cannot or will not do ourselves.

      One question is whether the procedure of awarding the 2022 World Cup to Qatar was not vitiated in some way. Even within FIFA, voices have called for more transparency and stricter rules for candidate countries. All we are doing is relaying legitimate concerns. Do we have sufficient proof to say that there were underhand dealings? The answer to that question is a categorical yes. FIFA feels attacked but it should react and, when necessary, revise its procedures. As we have said, the truth is that FIFA has made considerable progress in recent years. The rapporteur said as much. Notwithstanding that much remains to be done, Mr Blatter told us that he wishes to reform the system. According to some, he is the only person who could possibly do that. If Mr Blatter is re-elected, he might want to thank us for our support for his endeavours to conduct reform, and for putting forward a series of specific proposals. In other words, we have made our expertise available to FIFA and UEFA.

      I invite colleagues to support the work of Mr Connarty and the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media because, together, we are fighting for a good cause.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schneider. I do not see Mr Kandelaki, so I call Mrs Fiala.

      Mrs FIALA (Switzerland)* – Under Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly, we can, even at short notice, decide to put a new item on the agenda or to delete one. From that angle, we should not be frustrated that our colleague Mr Michael Connarty, from the Socialist Group, unexpectedly added the report on the reform of football governance to the agenda for this evening. There were 76 votes in favour, 34 against and 12 abstentions.

      Admittedly, on two occasions, the Bureau clearly came down against the proposal, being of the opinion that it is not for the Assembly, in rather a dubious manner, to seek to influence the election of the president of FIFA, which is not our direct concern. Lobbying in this way and making such accusations are serious. For some time, critics have been asking whether sport issues fall within the remit of the Council of Europe at all. They ask whether we would be better advised to use the scant resources available to us to seek improvements in respect of the rule of law, democratisation and human rights within our member States, and to support such efforts. First and foremost, we should look at cases of corruption among our member States.

      If we want to look into questions of football, our natural partner in dialogue – our natural interlocutor – would be UEFA and not FIFA, which is a global organisation. I am convinced that we do no service to the credibility of the Assembly if we believe that we must interfere in the internal concerns of an organisation that does not really fall within our purview. The report goes as far as to suggest that the Assembly should prescribe to FIFA how it should manage its forthcoming elections to its executive committee.

      It must be said that the report is not sufficiently documented. The Council of Europe should have been given an opportunity to consider the situation quietly and calmly, and to come forward with draft amendments. The fact that no amendments have been tabled illustrates that we are clearly under pressure of time. In particular, I regret that, contrary to our original intentions, we have missed the opportunity of putting the acting President of FIFA, the organisation of which we are critical, on the spot. We have missed the opportunity to demand answers from him. In so doing, we are depriving him of the opportunity to clarify or rectify things. I do not believe that such a dialogue corresponds to best practice – we usually strive to uphold a standard of dialogue within the Council of Europe.

      For those reasons, I will vote against the report. I invite other delegates to do likewise. I appeal to you to support the motion moved by Ms Mateu Pi to refer the report back to the committee.

      Lady ECCLES (United Kingdom) – I welcome the fact that we are debating this report today. It is an excellent report, prepared with great skill by Mr Connarty, and it is good that it is taking place during this part-session. The principles we believe in are to ensure that the highest possible protection of human rights exists. We want to uphold the rule of law and fight against corruption. But what happens when we ask FIFA to help us do this? Some of us apparently think that this is not appropriate. Why is this so? It has been said that the statements in the report are not adequately substantiated, that our sources are not sure enough. The rapporteur has evidence to hand, as he has demonstrated. The problem is that the FIFA Ethics Committee has been offered information by the Sunday Times, decided that it had made sufficient inquiries and that these did not reveal enough to conclude that the Qatar bid was irregular. It is very clear that there is evidence of payments made, directly or indirectly, by Mr Bin Hammam to an astonishingly high number of key people connected with African football. What further proof would FIFA consider necessary before deciding that a bid was irregular? However, important though this issue is, the most important thing for us is to help save hundreds of lives in Qatar and to help protect the human dignity of thousands of immigrant workers there and in other countries.

      What do the opponents of this report have against these proposals? We recognise the power of FIFA as well as the power of the IOC and UEFA and we ask for their help and collaboration. I am informed that UEFA and the IOC were considering the inclusion of human rights standards as a condition for bidding countries even before the adoption of our report.

      If FIFA considers that there are too many countries which could be excluded, if it starts being strict in respect of human rights, then that is exactly why they should agree to work with us. However, it is important that our member States should stay at the front of this battle and not rely on FIFA to work on this question alone. We should tackle it together. Perhaps the problem is not that FIFA wants to protect the status quo as we know that it is already working in this direction. Perhaps the true stumbling block is that some member States know that their companies will be threatened with a loss of hundreds of millions if working conditions in Qatar are improved. Is this the real problem?

      Having explained why I have been disappointed, I warmly thank Mr Connarty for having done such an excellent job. Let me call on all of us who truly stand for human rights, legality and clean sport to vote for the draft resolution.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – On Monday, I was saying to one of my colleagues that even if you come from a small country without power, there is no other subject on the agenda this week that will attract as much attention as today’s debate.

      I do not know whether football is a sport where people can be angelic and pure, but it is not about that. It is because football has so much power that it generates this. What does it generate? Something national, which is very important.

      Where does the president of FIFA hail from? Ah, that is interesting. Football is an extremely powerful sport because it generates a lot of flux. Mr Connarty is very brave to raise this; the Committee is very brave; the Secretariat is very brave. How dare you raise such a matter, Mr Connarty? What on earth were you thinking of, questioning the all-powerful? How could you be so bold as to question the immense economic and political power of these people – power with a capital P.

      We have heard three spokespersons for three political groups. We almost do not need an Assembly because these spokespersons have said they do not like this debate. There was a Brit who said that there are good speeches and bad speeches, but a speech has never changed the point of view of a member of parliament. How many members of parliament do we have in each group? Let us do the maths. In that case we do not need a debate; we do not need to ask for the floor. We can even do it on Facebook, as it would be quicker, or write 40 characters.

      This is not about right or left, religion A, B or C, or nation A, B or C. I do not want to talk about that. Instead, I would like to talk about Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Who is entitled to fundamental human rights? It is not a nation or a religion but the individual. As individuals, are we showing respect for the work done by our colleagues, by the Rapporteur, by the members of the Committee who approved this report unanimously or the Secretariat which worked on it? I have an inordinate amount of respect for the technical team that works for the Council of Europe. It is highly skilled and qualified. Its people speak to me frankly, saying “I agree with you on this but not on that” and I say the same to them. Therefore, I call upon my colleagues to support this report. They have spent two years on this report. It has been a long process; you could have presented amendments had you so wished.

      Once again, the person entitled to human rights is the individual. It is not about nations, politics or religion. The entitled person is the individual, so let us claim that individual right to human rights in this Assembly of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I call upon my colleagues to enthusiastically support the report tabled by my colleague Mr Connarty because of his work and because the entire Committee supports it.

      Mr CRUCHTEN (Luxembourg)* – As someone from Luxembourg, I find it hard to talk about football following on from these great footballing nations, such as France and England, but our national team is not so bad, as our Italian colleagues can confirm.

      Football, and sport in general, has a very important part to play in the lives of many of our citizens. It is the big sporting events such as the World Cup which draw so much mass attention and countries which hold these events are coveted by others, particularly by their politicians. Sport becomes an instrument for populist politics. Apart from advantageous economic effects, the politicians from countries which want to organise these big events also hope for advantageous political effects.

      Let us not mix up sport, politics and human rights. This is something we hear a lot every time anyone tries political initiatives in support of human rights, but it is an illusion to think you can separate them. Sport, especially high-level sport, always carries a message. Ignoring the political and human conditions which surround sporting events is not an act of political neutrality but an act of indifference. It besmirches the values which we associate with sport – respect, fair play, refusal to cheat and outrageous commercialisation. A country or city which hosts a sporting event and the political individuals who want to profit from the prestige associated with it should be worthy of that prestige. The big organisations and international federations are well aware of what is at stake and what it means when a country is chosen. It is a sensitive and difficult decision, and for that reason these decisions must be taken in full transparency and must be entirely above suspicion of any kind of corruption.

      Unfortunately, the choice of Qatar for the World Cup in 2022 does not match those criteria, because there are all sorts of doubts and suspicions of irregularities in FIFA’s internal decision-making process. Documents published in, for example, The Sunday Times are nourishing the doubts and the suspicion that the decision is besmirched by corruption. By contrast, we see that there are people of integrity in UEFA and that many national federations are opposed to these corrupt practices. We must support all these people in these federations in their effort to provide more transparency.

      More important still is something of particular relevance to the Council of Europe: the fact that the people building these stadiums are working in inhuman conditions. These modern slaves for the most part are migrant workers subjected to inhuman treatment. They are badly paid, and are living in overcrowded and insanitary camps. That is an affront to human dignity and to the fundamental rights of these 1.5 million travellers. FIFA is a powerful organisation and if wanted to, it could exert a huge influence on countries that want to host competitions. It should use its power to demand of Qatar that it show some respect for human dignity.

      The report contains not only criticism, but encouragement for our national federations and for UEFA to continue to work for more transparency in decision-making mechanisms. As the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we should remind our international sports federations what their obligations are to human rights. For that reason, I support this report and the rapporteur, and the recommendation to FIFA to open up the process for bidding for the 2022 World Cup anew.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – In recent years, soccer, the game of millions, has too often been reduced to the profits of hundreds. Corruption and match-fixing have become matters discussed regularly, with criminal charges and other penalties following. We are now witnesses to new scandals, once again. The head of the German football league and Borussia Dortmund President, Reinhard Rauball, made a statement on the possibility of UEFA exiting FIFA if an investigation did not reveal the details of suspected corruption in awarding the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 World Cup to Qatar. Diego Maradona has also blamed FIFA for corruption, and we still do not have the answers while the investigative report of Michael Garcia remains confidential.

      The question lingers: how can we organise a huge international event in a State where the rule of law is absent, and where international regulations and legislation are ignored? Russia has shown itself to be that kind of State many times in the past year and a half. We have mentioned Qatar many times here, but unfortunately we skip the situation in Russia. The World Cup in Russia is an enormous challenge to all participants. FIFA Vice-President Jeffrey Webb has emphasised the threat of racism and doubted the possibility of holding a championship there. I would add chauvinism to that list, and there have been many cases of brutal attacks on Asian people. On Russian territory it is now dangerous to be recognised as a Ukrainian. Our citizen Roman Muzychenko was brutally killed two months ago in the Moscow region because he spoke the Ukrainian language. We are seeing an alarming growth in neo-Nazi attitudes in Russia, and nobody wants the World Cup in 2018 to draw comparisons with the second World Cup, which was held in 1934 in Mussolini’s Italy. I remind you that the first game there in Rome was held in the “Stadio Nazionale del Partito Nazionale Fascista” – the stadium of the national Fascist party. Of course Russian stadiums have other names, but it is a cause for concern that the spirit of the ‘30s is being fanned by the current Russian Government. Given the virulent anti-West hate and hysteria that is whipped up daily on Russian TV, who can guarantee the security of fans and team participants? It is not the police – the same forces who failed to notice the murder of Boris Nemtsov a few metres from the Kremlin in a top-security area.

      FIFA has a serious decision to make, but the first honest step has to be an investigation that will inform further actions. Millions who love this game expect fair play, and not only on the field. Paragraph 13.1 of the draft resolution calls for a “new procedure” for awarding the 2022 World Cup, but does not mention the 2018 World Cup. Why? That award is a subject where there can be blame, too. So I propose an oral amendment, to be supported by the rapporteur and the head of the committee. All football lovers want a true, fair, satisfying game, as I hope for tonight when my team, Dynamo Kiev, which I love, plays against Fiorentina in the Europa League – the game starts in a couple of hours. Interesting, competitive football is all I want, without corruption and stories of dirty dealings.

      Mr HONCHARENKO (Ukraine)* – I start by thanking the rapporteur for the work that he has put into this report. At the Council of Europe, we always defend fundamental values – human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Corruption harms all of those. Unfortunately, over the past few years corruption scandals have been part and parcel of big sporting events. We all recall that FIFA’s decisions on the World Cups in 2018 and 2022 were also marked by suspicions and direct accusations of corruption. Astonishingly, despite obvious signs of corruption in respect of the 2018 World Cup, Russia has curiously disappeared from the text of our draft resolution.

      However, there is another aspect to all this. The football World Cup is a festival of peace and unity for people from different countries, but Russia today is leading in aggression by instigating a war in Europe. The Putin regime, like all totalitarian regimes, loves grandiose sporting events, such as the Winter Olympics in Sochi. A few weeks after that, however, we saw the illegal annexation of Crimea. I consider that the 2018 World Cup was, quite simply, bought by Putin – what a disgrace! Russia should be stripped of the right to organise the 2018 World Cup.

      The PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers. I call the rapporteur, Mr Connarty, to reply. You have four minutes.

      Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – I thank everyone who has contributed to this very balanced debate. People may have come in with prior prejudices but they have expressed them very well.

      First, may I say to Ms Mateu Pi, who moved the first reference back, that had she looked at previous reports and why this report has emerged, she would have found that one of the leading members of her ALDE Group, the current President, Ms Brasseur, in a sense set the agenda for us? The things that were left over from her special report – I was a member in that regard, as were Mr Gross and Mr Schneider – still had to be dealt with. To those who said that we should have hearings, I say that had they read the report and the memorandum, they would know that we went to FIFA – we went to the mountain, because the mountain would not come to us. We also went to UEFA and the European Club Association. We quizzed them intently about the same principles. When I spoke at the Macolin meeting of ministers responsible for sport, the head of the IOC’s anti-doping organisation, a fellow Scot and a well-known person, also spoke. We talked about the question of human rights and the suitability of countries due to their human rights record. These things are on the agenda.

      May I say one thing to my colleague who referred to the FIFA mafia? He will recall accurately, I hope, that I talked about a rather high-powered and, shall I say, very frustrated journalist who used that term in a book that he wrote. I did not say that there is a FIFA mafia, and it is wrong to attribute that to me and bend the argument in that way.

      We talk about UEFA, but these principles are the same for everyone. The Qatar abomination has illustrated things well. My colleague from Norway made a very good speech, but I worry about the idea that it has been good for Qatar to be challenged because it has the World Cup, so we should ignore a State when we award it a festival of sport. We should look at countries before we award them.

      The report is balanced, and it is about the internal workings of FIFA. I have evidence of bribery and corruption – we showed it earlier to members of the media. It is not an accusation; the evidence is there, and sadly it is true. We need to challenge these things. People have asked why we would want to do that, because FIFA is about the whole world. FIFA is based in Switzerland, and the colleagues from Switzerland who spoke did not seem to recognise that they are harbouring an organisation that is allowing these things to happen. If we are to respect the human rights tenets of this Organisation, we should look at our own countries. If FIFA were in the United Kingdom, we would want to root it out, change it and make it do things properly, not just say, “Oh, well, it’s got something to do with the whole world, so it’s not our responsibility.” Of course it is. Having the United Nations in America does not mean that America can say, “Well, it’s about the world, so no organisation in America can challenge the way the United Nations operates.” It is about things happening in our bailiwick, as we say in Scotland.

      We are responsible if we turn our back on what is happening in Qatar and on the things that Mr bin Hammam did that give people the impression that he was buying votes for Qatar to get the 2022 World Cup. I take the point made by Mr Ariev. He has been telling us about the aggressive intent of Russia against his country since I first came here, and we did not listen until it was invaded. Maybe there is a lesson for us there.

      I want people to support the report. Let the people who are voting or standing for the FIFA presidency in the May congress take the report on board and work to implement it with all the strength they have. We should also urge other sports organisations to do the same.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Connarty. Does Ms Gambaro wish to speak on behalf of the Committee?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy)* – I just wish to say that the committee expressed its views on the report in January and adopted it unanimously, so we will vote in favour of it.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      Ms Mateu Pi has proposed that the report be referred back to the Committee. This motion can be agreed on a simple majority.

      On this motion, only the proposer, one speaker against, and the rapporteur or chairperson concerned may be heard. The proposer has already spoken. Does anyone wish to oppose this motion?

      Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – I want to oppose the motion. I know that the Swiss delegation, for some reason that I do not understand, went to lobby some of the political groups in this Assembly to call for them to refer the report back to the committee. I would have thought that the Swiss of all people, with the principles that they talk about, would have been arguing to have the report supported and implemented. It is not relevant to refer it back to the Committee, because we have debated it at length and we know the feeling of the people here. We should therefore oppose the referral back to the Committee.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy)* – The committee has not had time to consider the matter of a possible referral back to the committee. However, as we voted unanimously in favour of Mr Connarty’s report during this part-session, we are against the referral.

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will now vote on the motion to refer Document 13738 back to the committee. A simple majority is required. Just to be clear, those who wish the report to be referred back to the Committee should vote yes, and those who do not should vote no.

      We will now proceed to vote on the motion to refer Document 13738 back to the committee.

      The vote is open.

      The motion to refer back is rejected, with 16 votes for, 25 votes against and 7 abstentions.

      As the motion is rejected, we shall proceed as set out on the agenda.

      I have been informed that Mr Ariev wishes to make an oral amendment to the draft resolution, which reads as follows: “In paragraph 13.1 of the draft resolution, before the words ‘2022 World Cup’, insert the words ‘2018 and ‘.

      In my opinion the oral amendment does not meet the criteria of Rule 34.7.a., which states that oral amendments must “make a clarification”, “take account of new information” or “lead to conciliation”. It consequently cannot be debated. We will therefore move on to vote on the draft resolution.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13738.

      The vote is open.

6. Next public business

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

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 7.25 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Changes in the membership of committees

2. Annual activity report 2014 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

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

Questions: Mr Franken, Mr Nicoletti, Ms Mateu Pi, Lord Balfe, Ms Katrivanou, Mr Le Borgn’, Mr Ariev, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Schwabe, Mr Nikoloski, Mr Korodi, Ms Kasimati, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Blondin, Mr Logvynskyi, Mr Honcharenko, Ms Karamanli, Mr Kvatchantiradze, Ms Magradze, Mr Jónasson

3. Drones and targeted killings: the need to uphold human rights and international law

Presentation by Mr Díaz Tejera of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13731

Speakers: Mr Schennach, Mr Garðarsson, Lord Balfe, Ms Werner, Mr Voruz, Mr Le Déaut, Mr Cruchten, Mr Downe, Mr Rivard

Amendments 2,1,3 and 4 adopted

Oral amendment adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13731, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13731 adopted

4. Post-monitoring dialogue with Monaco

Presentation by Mr Xuclà of the report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Couyncil of Europe, Document 13739

Speakers: Mr Le Borgn’, Mr Pasquier, Mr Walter (UK), Mr Agramunt, Mr Mota Amaral, Mr Allavena, Ms Fresko-Rolfo

Draft resolution in Document 13739 adopted

5. The reform of football governance

Presentation by Mr Connarty of the report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 13738

Speakers: Ms Mateu Pi, Mr Walter, Mr Pantzas, Mr Pintado,Ms Christoffersen, Mr Schneider, Ms Fiala, Lady Eccles, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Cruchten, Mr Ariev, Mr Honcharenko

Draft resolution in Document 13738 adopted

6. 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/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN*

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS/ Eirini Kasimati

David BAKRADZE/Chiora Taktakishvili

Gérard BAPT*

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK*

José María BENEYTO*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Nellija Kleinberga

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Alessandro BRATTI*

Piet De BRUYN

Beata BUBLEWICZ*

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/Mónika Bartos

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*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON*

Josette DURRIEU*

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV*

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*

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

François GROSDIDIER/André Reichardt

Andreas GROSS*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Jonas GUNNARSSON/Lotta Johnsson Fornarve

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/Jordi Xuclà

Maria GUZENINA*

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV

Margus HANSON/Rait Maruste

Alfred HEER*

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH*

Oleksii HONCHARENKO

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN*

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Florin IORDACHE*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS/Dalia Kuodytė

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*

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/Boriana Åberg

Andreja KATIČ/Matjaž Hanžek

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU

Ioanneta KAVVADIA

Charles KENNEDY*

Tinatin KHIDASHELI/Eka Beselia

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Helena Hatka

Haluk KOÇ*

Igor KOLMAN*

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR*

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN

Rom KOSTŘICA*

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX*

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID*

Marek KRZĄKAŁA*

Zviad KVATCHANTIRADZE

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Serhiy LABAZIUK*

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE/Boriss Cilevičs

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES*

Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA

Jacob LUND

Trine Pertou MACH*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI*

Soňa MARKOVÁ*

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Ana MATO*

Pirkko MATTILA/Mika Raatikainen

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Eric Voruz

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Ana Catarina MENDES*

Attila MESTERHÁZY*

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/Titus Corlăţean

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH/Jenő Manninger

Miroslav NENUTIL

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON/Eva-Lena Jansson

Joseph O’REILLY*

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI*

Sandra OSBORNE/Michael Connarty

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS*

Ganira PASHAYEVA/Fazil Mustafa

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*

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/Andrzej Jaworski

Damien THIÉRY

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Antoni TRENCHEV*

Goran TUPONJA*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI/Georgios Pantzas

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*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Gisela WURM*

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI

Leonid YEMETS/ Vladyslav Golub

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ/Pavel Holík

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

---

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Percy DOWNE

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Michel RIVARD

David TILSON

Partners for democracy

Bernard SABELLA