AA15CR20ADD1

AS (2015) CR 20
Addendum 1

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twentieth sitting

Monday 22 June 2015 at 3 p.m.

Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee
and
Observation of the parliamentary elections in Turkey (7 June 2015)

The following texts were submitted for inclusion in the official report by members who were present in the Chamber but were prevented by lack of time from delivering them.

Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee

Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – I wish to speak about the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, because we will be entitled to elect judges from the lists submitted by Armenia.

Our country is in desperate need of justice, and, since there is no independent judiciary in Armenia, many Armenians regard the European Court of Human Rights as the last resort if they want justice to be served. Among them are relatives of those who were killed on 1 March 2008, when government security forces used lethal force to disperse demonstrators protesting against electoral fraud. Among them are dozens of those who were later kept as political prisoners in Armenian prisons for years, simply for trying to exert their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly. Dozens of those cases are now in the European Court. It is vital for those in Armenia waiting for justice to be served to have judges here in Strasbourg who can deliver on their expectations.

The Armenian authorities made every effort to conduct a non-transparent selection of three candidates, filtering out independently minded and well-qualified candidates, and preventing them from standing for election in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Unfortunately, in the end, they succeeded. I have sent to all members of my group, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, a letter signed by 33 representatives of NGOs, human rights defenders and lawyers, dismissing the submitted list and asking for its rejection in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I fully support this demand by Armenian civil society and ask you, on their behalf, to boycott the voting on the Armenian list. The Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights recommended Armen Harutyunian, from Armenia, to be elected as judge. I want to inform this distinguished audience that Mr Harutyunian was the Armenian ombudsman at exactly the same time as the most egregious acts of the oppressive regime in Armenia were taking place, including the 1 March killings and the placing of opposition figures in jail for years on made-up charges. Back then, he did next to nothing to relieve the plight of political prisoners or to confront political oppression. In the election for him as judge, it is up to you to decide whether Armenia deserves such an affront.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) – Given the importance of the Court in the protection of human rights, the rule of law and democracy in the Council of Europe zone, I deem it necessary to respond to the spreading of groundless information and allegations concerning the selection of judges in respect of Armenia. Challenging the wisdom and integrity of the advisory panel and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Committee responsible for the selection of judges is inappropriate and questions the selection process. In the light of the above, accepting any accusation against the integrity of the Armenian candidatures without proper investigation of the allegations in line with prescribed rules and procedures means casting a shadow of doubt over a fair and merit-based decision-making process.

Another issue I want to raise today is the undesirable situation in the Assembly whereby it becomes a platform for confrontation and mutual accusations. Such conduct does not correspond to the nature and ideology of our Organisation. This Assembly is called to build bridges between delegations and to create an atmosphere of trust and confidence. However, some members persist in promoting an agenda inherited from the Azerbaijani regime.

Twenty years have already passed since the people of Nagorno-Karabakh decided their destiny by peaceful means: a democratic referendum conducted in compliance with the principles of international law and in accordance with current legislation. On 3 May 2015, the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh held its sixth parliamentary elections since gaining its independence. International observers from a number of countries took part in the elections. Their final assessment stated that the elections were transparent, competitive and fair.

As for a peaceful resolution, it would be fair to remind the Assembly that by joining the Council of Europe, Armenia and Azerbaijan committed themselves to continuing efforts to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by peaceful means only. Armenia's position is in line with that of the international community, as reflected in several statements adopted by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair calling for the conflict to be settled solely by peaceful means.

By giving further support to the Minsk Group, the Assembly could contribute to the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Our Organisation could initiate direct contacts with Nagorno-Karabakh, irrespective of its status, in order to promote human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law. The Council of Europe has similar experience in other conflict zones. Everyone in Europe should be under the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Observation of the parliamentary election in Turkey (7 June 2015)

Mr WOLD (Norway) – I had the pleasure of being a short-term observer at the election in Turkey earlier this month. I did my duty in Ankara and in the surrounding area. As far as I could see, the election was carried out in a proper manner, and both my colleague and I felt welcome at every polling station we visited. In Ankara, there were no riots or violence as far as we could see, although elections in Turkey assemble more people and campaigning is noisier than we are used to in Norway. It was nice to see all the elderly people turning up to the polling stations in the morning; there was an 86% turnout and we really felt that this election was all about the future and the further development of Turkey.

Although my observation team felt welcome and received all the information we required, I am sorry to say that my Norwegian colleague and her team had a series of bad experiences while fulfilling their obligation in Istanbul. Some people followed them by car and the team were threatened by the people at one polling station who clearly instructed them not to come back for the counting of votes. This is not how it should be, and the incidents were of course reported immediately. We also learned that a team of Swedish observers was threatened with guns. I am sorry to see such actions in a European election in 2015, and, tragically, two people were also killed in a terrorist attack at an election rally two days before the citizens of Turkey went to the polling stations.

The election in Turkey was a victory for democracy, and the liberal parties had most reason to celebrate. Even the relatively high threshold did not prevent the pro-Kurdish party from winning 79 places in the parliament. Four out of 10 Turks voted for President Erdoğan’s party, which is still by far the largest party, and regarded by many Turks as a guarantee of economic and political stability. They remember all too well the unstable political situation in the 1990s.

Turkey was almost broke in 2001. Today, it is a country that enjoys economic growth and if the growth in the gross domestic product continues, the Turkish economy could be one of the 10 largest economies in the world within the next decade. But many Turkish people are still unemployed, and the country needs to stay focused on the issue of economic uncertainty, which many families have to live with.

The election may get Turkey off to a new and good start in which co-operation for the good of the Turkish people must be the starting point.