AA15CR21
AS (2015) CR 21
2015 ORDINARY SESSION
________________
(Third part)
REPORT
Twenty-first sitting
Tuesday 23 June 2015 at 10 a.m.
In this report:
1. Speeches in English are reported in full.
2. Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.
3. The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.
4. Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.
5. Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.
The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.
(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 9.55 a.m.)
THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.
1. Election of judges to the European Court Of Human Rights and election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe
THE PRESIDENT* – This morning the agenda calls for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Armenia, Latvia, Luxembourg and Monaco, and for the election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
The voting for both elections will take place in the area behind the President’s chair. At 1 p.m. the ballot will be suspended. It will re-open at 3.30 p.m. I shall close the ballot at 5 p.m. As usual, the count for each election will then take place under the supervision of two tellers. The following names have been drawn from the ballot.
For the election of judges, the names of Ms Durrieu and Mr Matušić have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s chair at 5 p.m.
For the election of the Deputy Secretary General, the names of Ms Fresko-Rolfo and Mr Karlsson have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s chair at 5 p.m.
I hope to announce the result of both elections before the end of the sitting this afternoon, but if necessary, there will be a second round of voting tomorrow to elect the judges to the European Court of Human Rights. I now declare both ballots open.
2. Address by Mr Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations
THE PRESIDENT – We will now hear an address by Mr Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations. After his address, Mr Ban Ki-moon will take questions from the floor.
Secretary-General, let me wish you a very warm welcome to this pan-European Assembly which brings together elected representatives of 47 European nations. It is a great privilege for us all to receive you today. It is also a special pleasure for me to welcome you to Strasbourg after having had the chance to meet you in New York a year ago.
This year, as we mark the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, we also celebrate the 70th anniversary of the creation of the United Nations. That anniversary is crucially important for the Council of Europe, which shares the United Nations political goals of consolidating peace, promoting international justice and fostering co-operation on the basis of the fundamental values that bind our societies together: democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Today, those values are challenged in many ways as new threats to international peace, security and development emerge. Intolerance, discrimination, hate, violent extremism and terrorism are on the rise, and we have to combat those together. The space for fundamental rights and freedoms shrinks dramatically when democratic political processes are challenged by authoritarian trends.
When His Holiness Pope Francis addressed our Assembly last November, he spoke in relation to the immigration drama about the globalisation of indifference. Since then, things have unfortunately become worse and we now see a shift from the globalisation of indifference to the globalisation of rejection. It is our duty to stop that trend.
The refugee drama and the migration phenomenon call for more solidarity and responsibility sharing. We need a global solution to this global problem, and the United Nations must have the lead. Secretary-General, you are the leader and you need our support, but Europe has to take responsibility, too. A new sustainable development agenda is needed to end poverty, reduce inequality, promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, combat climate change, build peaceful and inclusive societies and ensure accountability, respect of the rule of law and access to justice for all.
Since your election as Secretary-General in 2007, you have invested time and effort in leading the United Nations’ action in those areas as well as in many others. Your diplomatic efforts and skills in the field of peace-building and conflict prevention, as well as your commitment to humanitarian action, deserve our applause. You have been outspoken on human rights issues, taking clear and bold positions in support of the values we share. You have taken the lead on reforming the United Nations at a difficult historic moment in order to make the organisation more efficient and responsive to new challenges. We therefore look forward to your address with great interest, and I hope that our exchange of views will help us better identify the ways in which we can join efforts to address the many challenges we face.
I can assure you, Secretary-General, that the Council of Europe and our Assembly are eager to act as solid partners of the United Nations. You can count on our support and I now have the honour and pleasure of giving you the floor.
Mr BAN (Secretary-General of the United Nations)* – Madam President, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, His Excellency Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, members of the Assembly, ladies and gentlemen, almost half a century ago, U Thant, who was the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, took the floor before this Assembly and predicted that the Council of Europe would show that Europe, which in yesteryear was called the old world, could be a driving force in the new world. Today, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is one of the most effective regional human rights defence mechanisms in the world, and I am gratified to have the opportunity to address you at a time when new crises are breaking out and others still have not been resolved. In Syria, Iraq, Yemen, South Sudan and elsewhere, the suffering is huge.
The United Nations is doing everything it can to save lives and help restore peace wherever possible. It also insists on the principle of responsibility being abided by. The crimes that shock our conscience cannot go unpunished. Today, I ask that you take part in a global endeavour covering four interrelated issues: first, the restrictions imposed on civil society; secondly, migration; thirdly, the upsurge in violent extremism; and fourthly, the need urgently to create the conditions for a future that will bear a hallmark of viability. The action will succeed on each front only if human rights are respected on all fronts. As Secretary General Jagland said, the Council of Europe is a logical extension of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and I urge you to work to this end by bolstering your partnership with the United Nations.
(The speaker continued in English.)
Europe’s democracies have their roots in civil society – in the Solidarity movement in Poland, the ecological movement in Bulgaria, the singing movement of the Baltic States, and many others. Globally, democracy is on the rise, but in some countries around the world democratic progress is going backwards, democratic institutions are being eroded, judicial independence and press freedom are under attack and the space for civil society is diminishing, or even disappearing. We must raise our voices against those who block non-governmental organisations and human rights defenders. More than 50 countries, including in Europe, have passed nearly 100 laws restricting the operations and funding of NGOs. I urge the Council of Europe to join me in calling for an end to this curbing of essential freedoms.
Civil society groups, the independent media and human rights defenders are critical to addressing one of the gravest threats of our time – the rise of violent extremism. The United Nations is mobilising a wide range of countries and partners to address this scourge, and in this I believe that religious leaders are critical. I recently co-hosted a United Nations meeting providing a platform against intolerance. Crimes in the name of religion are crimes against religion. Threats posed by Daesh, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups might require security measures and even military action, but when counter-terrorism violates human rights, countries lose their moral standing and terrorists cheer, because they have been handed one of their best recruiting tools. Women are often the first target, and young people, even children, are being conscripted as fighters. Some young people might be vulnerable to radicalisation, but the youth are vital to our response. With our support, they can be a force against terrorism and the appeal of violent extremism.
We stand with Europe as it struggles to combat a rise in anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim attacks and discrimination. This continent, Europe, must stand for equality, opportunity and democratic freedoms, especially for religious and ethnic minorities, including the Roma. This November, I will unveil to the United Nations General Assembly a plan of action for preventing violent extremism. It will reinforce international unity around the shared principles that violent extremism seeks to undermine. I welcome the efforts of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to address this issue, including the question of how radicalisation leads to terrorism, and I commend the Council of Europe’s adoption of a political declaration, action plan and additional protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. I also welcome the Assembly’s No Hate Parliamentary Alliance.
Poverty, poor governance and human rights abuses fuel conflict and displace millions of people, and many risk their lives to migrate to safer shores. I am alarmed by the plight of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, especially in the Mediterranean and Andaman Seas, as well as the Bay of Bengal, and I call on you to advocate for the protection and rights of people who flee conflict, persecution, entrenched poverty and lack of access to decent work. We have a common responsibility to act before more lives are lost, which is why Europe needs safer, regular and orderly channels for migration and mobility.
I understand the challenges – I have seen them at first hand – and I welcome the expanded search-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean. I have also seen the value of legal channels, such as resettlement, family reunification and work and study visas. Last month in Ireland, I met resettled refugees. I shared my own story – of how I fled my home, when I was just a young boy, during the Korean war in 1950 – and I told them: “The world is with you. The United Nations is with you.” I count on Europe to lead in global solidarity, and I call on the Council of Europe to help those who look to Europe for protection from tyranny, lawlessness and deprivation. We must reject anti-migrant rhetoric and recognise migrants’ positive contributions to our societies. Globally, nearly 60 million people are forcibly displaced. This is an all-time high that needs a record response. Other regions with many more refugees are closely watching this continent. The United Nations will continue to work with you to defend the rights of migrants, uphold Europe’s values and promote better security for all.
More than 1 million Europeans live in a legal limbo in disputed territories where no government has effective control. States have an obligation to protect all people’s human rights – and so do de facto authorities. In Ukraine, more than 6 000 people have been killed in just over a year, and serious human rights violations and abuses persist, particularly in eastern Ukraine. Overall, the human rights of millions of people are affected. I call again for all possible efforts to press the parties fully to implement the Minsk agreements and achieve a political solution. Any peaceful resolution must be based on human rights protection, accountability and justice for victims in a sovereign, independent and unified Ukraine. This is crucial for sustainable peace. More progress on internal reforms and efforts to tackle corruption and past abuses will also be critical.
I thank the Council of Europe for joining with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to support Ukraine in developing its national human rights strategy. The next crucial step is to prepare a human rights action plan.
(The speaker continued in French).
It is human rights and the principle of human dignity that underpin our action in support of sustainable development. The millennium development goals have changed hundreds of millions of lives. We are now putting the final touches to a series of sustainable development goals that are conducive to eliminating poverty, increasing prosperity and protecting the planet for the benefit of future generations. The purpose of the extraordinary summit of the United Nations General Assembly, which will be held in New York in September, will be to trigger deep-seated change. I thank the European countries for championing this cause at the highest levels, including in the context of the Conference on Financing for Development which will be held next month in Addis Ababa.
Another of our objectives is to reach a new agreement on climate change here in France in December of this year. We must find a politically credible path which will manage to mobilise $100 billion each year between now and 2020. The progress of the green climate fund is a good sign. Governments must put in place policies, solutions and incentives to encourage the private sector to contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions. For Paris to be a success, there will be a need to develop a comprehensive development financing mechanism which may foster the adoption globally of economic practices that are compatible with keeping the rise in the planet’s temperature to below 2° C.
(The speaker continued in English).
Parliamentarians have a real power to improve your countries and our world. You are living proof of the value of democracy. You are entrusted with safeguarding human rights. In Strasbourg, you find higher purpose as part of larger Europe. I count on you to bring this spirit back home, stand for our shared ideals and help shape our common future. Let us work together to make this world a better place – a place of justice, human rights and dignity for all. Merci beaucoup, and thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Secretary-General, for that very strong call. We heard you say that parliamentarians have real power. So I make an appeal to our colleagues to take this power back home to our national parliaments to convince our colleagues that we are part of the solution and that we need to share the values that we are here for, which are the values also of the United Nations. We need a strong voice in our national parliaments, so you are the ambassadors back home of the Secretary-General’s message which we have just heard.
The Secretary-General has agreed to answer some questions. I would like to start with questions from members speaking on behalf of the political groups. I call first Ms Durrieu, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Ms DURRIEU (France)* – We are all concerned by the current massive and tragic migration. You referred not only to that but to its causes, which include poverty, climate change and war. The international community seems always to react to this as an emergency – as something that it is trying to deal with. What should we do to prevent the causes of migration, and how can we work together to create well-organised, structured international co-operation that is effective in dealing with it?
Mr BAN – Thank you for your very important question. I have been urging the European Union and the countries involved in this migration that we need to look at the fundamental root causes of why these people are risking their lives on the sea knowing that they may die. They are simply fleeing war, persecution and the lack of a livelihood – a lack of jobs, a lack of opportunities. For them, it might not make a difference whether they stay or go out to sea. However, they believe that there are still better opportunities for themselves and for their children, and that is why they risk their lives. I know that it is a very serious challenge for Europeans. However, the countries in Europe are among the richest and most well-to-do. You have the capacity to share your prosperity with other, poor people. That is why I have been urging European leaders to look at the fundamental causes.
At the same time, the first priority is to save human lives and provide humanitarian life-saving assistance. As I said, there should be more regular avenues for migration, such as family visits related to integration, scholarships and proper job opportunities. That will reduce the numbers of people risking their lives. At the same time, the United Nations, with the help of the European Union, is working very hard to promote political stability in these countries. Some 90% of refugees are coming from or through Libya. It is therefore absolutely necessary that we promote political stability and security in Libya. We need to do all these things in parallel.
THE PRESIDENT – The next question is from Mr Agramunt, the leader of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Secretary-General, last week I visited a number of refugee camps hosting Syrians in Turkey, including Elbeyli and Nizip, accompanied by a number of colleagues from this Assembly. We recognise that Turkey is making huge efforts to support people fleeing the horror of the war in Syria. Surely there is a need for a collective force to support the people in the refugee camps, rather than just leaving them in the countries where they are. There are mafia bands transporting these people illegally. We have to do something about these bands and the boats they use.
Mr BAN – First, I thank those countries, such as Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt and some North African countries, that are generously accommodating millions of refugees from Syria. Turkey alone may have about 2 million refugees. This could lead to huge political problems, let alone socio-economic problems. The Turkish Government has been extremely kind and generous in bearing all these burdens itself, with very little help from the international community – I am told it has spent more than $6 billion so far. I myself have visited the refugee camps in Turkey. Even though maybe nobody is satisfied, at least they are being provided with schools, sanitation, water and food. These are very generous gestures.
I have been mobilising humanitarian support resources, particularly financial resources, with the help of the Kuwaiti Government, and for three consecutive years I have convened a pledging conference for Syrian refugees, but it is not only about Syrian refugees. In the case of Syria, we are talking about 4 million refugees, and there are at least 12 million people displaced inside Syria who need our support. As I told you earlier, there are now 60 million refugees who are out of their countries who need our daily support. The United Nations is trying to mobilise support to provide them with daily food, water and sanitation, and schools for young children. It is a huge problem, and our capacity to provide is becoming thinner. I really need the international community, particularly the European Union, which is why, for the first time, the United Nations is holding the World Humanitarian Summit meeting in Istanbul next year. I am counting on your generous support.
THE PRESIDENT – The next question is from Mr Denemeç, on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.
Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey) – Secretary-General, the world is going through turmoil, and our constituents are questioning the United Nations and the Security Council over their incapability to solve problems such as global migration caused by economic imbalances, the refugee problem caused by Daesh terrorists and the lack of responsive government in Damascus. Turkey is currently hosting more than 2 million Syrian and Iraqi refugees, and we have exhausted more than $6 billion, despite a lack of international support. Do you therefore think it is possible to use the Syrian regime’s frozen assets to address the needs of Syrians who are in dire need of humanitarian assistance?
Mr BAN – The question of whether to use Syria’s frozen assets to mobilise resources should be decided as a part of political discussions. We have not yet been able to address these issues. First we have to see the end of this horrendous crisis – a human rights, humanitarian and political crisis. That is why the United Nations is working very hard, through my Special Envoy, to create some political space while we continue working towards the end of violence, even temporarily, on humanitarian grounds. There are many issues that we have to resolve pending the resolution of this; that is why I am reaching out to the world to mobilise humanitarian resources. We have a moral responsibility to protect and to provide humanitarian assistance to those people, particularly the many women and young people who need urgent assistance from the international community. Let me tell you again that, while we are very much appreciative of the Turkish, Jordanian, Lebanese and Iraqi Governments, we have to join all our hands – all our resources – in providing humanitarian support.
THE PRESIDENT – I give the floor to Mr Destexhe, who will ask a question on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mr DESTEXHE (Belgium) – In the future sustainable development goals, there is no target for democracy and human rights. These words are not even mentioned. Why is that? My second question is this. In the millennium development goals, you had eight goals and 21 targets; now, in the SDGs, you have 17 goals and 169 targets. Is that current and realistic? Lastly, the question of population growth is not addressed. The population of Africa will double and probably reach 4 billion by the end of the century. If you do not address this problem in the SDGs, they will probably fail. I would like your comments on those three points.
Mr BAN – This is a very important question. While discussing and negotiating the sustainable development goals, as part of the aims of the sustainable development agenda for 2030, member States have identified 17 provisional goals, which are now the subject of negotiations, with 169 targets. Some issues have been raised about whether 17 goals are too many or too few and whether 169 targets are too many or too few. There are some concerns about that, but I can tell you that, during the nine months of the open working group that was conducted last year, people engaged in depth on the best way to address all the problems affecting human lives and our planet.
As the Secretary-General, I have established two or three high-level eminent persons groups on sustainability, and I have convened the United Nations system-wide meetings to get all views. I even reached out to at least 8 million people through social media, and 8 million responded to the United Nations to tell us what kind of a future they wanted to have. It is important to have a wide-ranging way of reflecting the views of the people – not only government officials or economists. We reached out to business communities, civil societies and plain, common citizens such as students, women, girls and vulnerable groups. That is the way that I reported to the General Assembly and it has been working.
The 17 goals cover all spectrums of our life: economic, social and environmental. They are people-centred and planet-friendly, asking how human beings can live harmoniously with nature and our planet. The goals cover all spectrums. Of course, I cannot say that they are 100% perfect; there is some room for improvement, which is why the matters are still under negotiation. Concerns and principles – about democracy and how we can live in a peaceful society that respects human rights – are clearly reflected and mentioned. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights already governs all our lives. Peace and security, development, and human rights are the three pillars that govern us in accordance with the UN Charter. Therefore, I believe that, although the goals might not be 100% perfect, when they are adopted by the leaders in September, they will be a visionary guideline for our life and planet.
THE PRESIDENT – The last speaker on behalf of the political groups is Ms Kavvadia, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Ms KAVVADIA (Greece)* – Solidarity is a fundamental principle of the Council of Europe. Do you believe that Europe is showing enough solidarity in the light of massive migration, the enormous crisis being experienced by countries in the southern hemisphere and the consequences of austerity? It seems that solidarity and justice – not to mention equality – are not dominant values in the world today. What is your view of the serious ethical, humanitarian, and moral – beyond economic – crisis that we face, and what its effects might be?
Mr BAN – Thank you for that important question about how to show generous solidarity in our system at a time of austerity. Generosity is much more valuable when solidarity is shown in a time of austerity. When society is affluent and people have enough, giving may be easy, but giving to people who need more support than you is more valuable and precious. That is why I appreciate the generous commitment and solidarity that the European Union has shown. Depending on how you view the situation, there may be some things that you are still not satisfied with. It is always important to have constructive criticism to motivate people more. I am sure that there are diverse opinions within the European Union and European countries about the way that you do things, how much you need to do and how you can do it. I think that you are doing the right thing at this time. The solidarity that you are showing through a comprehensive plan to address migration is welcomed by the United Nations. I count on your continuing support.
THE PRESIDENT – I propose now that we group three questions to allow more speakers to be heard. The Secretary-General can then answer each group of three questions.
Mr SCHWABE (Germany)* – Secretary-General, thank you very much indeed for your initiative on a World Humanitarian Summit. It would be useful if we could manage to put together $20 billion or even $30 billion a year for humanitarian aid. The question is how we go about doing that. We have important summits this year on the sustainable development goals and on climate change. What is your message to us? You lauded the European Union for its policy on climate protection but what do we have to do to encourage everyone to support the Paris conference?
Mr BOCKEL (France)* – Clandestine migration in the Mediterranean has led to one of the worst humanitarian crises since the Second World War, with more than 1 700 dead since the start of the year. What is the state of play in the negotiations with the European Union with respect to the planned naval operation against people smugglers on the Libyan coast requiring the agreement of the United Nations? What progress has been made and what difficulties remain? If we are to save lives, we must act.
Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – For more than 20 years, 20% of Azerbaijani land has been under occupation by Armenia. Some 1 million refugees live with the desire to go back to their lands. According to the norms of international law, Nagorno-Karabakh is an integral part of Azerbaijan. The United Nations Security Council has adopted four resolutions demanding unconditional and immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied territories. Unfortunately, those resolutions have not yet been implemented. We often see that some United Nations resolutions are implemented within hours but, in our case, it has been more than 20 years. The Armenians, however, are simply ignoring international law, statements of the leading countries and the resolution of the impasse. When will the resolution be implemented and what steps will be taken to force Armenia to respect the international law?
Mr BAN – In response to the first question, raised by Mr Schwabe, the World Humanitarian Summit will be the first ever summit on humanitarian issues organised by the United Nations. The reason is quite clear: we have been making humanitarian appeals on so many issues so many times, starting with Syria. There are many natural disasters such as earthquakes and flooding. Devastation, destruction and damage cannot be dealt with by one affected country, which is why we need to mobilise humanitarian helping hands. We have seen what we call donor fatigue. The money comes from a limited number of countries – mostly European countries, America, Japan and other OECD countries – and other countries are indifferent, unless the problems are happening right next door.
We must mobilise global support, because a handful of countries cannot deal with such devastation alone. In particular, helping affected areas to adapt to and mitigate the impact of climate change is a huge challenge, however rich and resourceful any one country may be. That is why we would like to address the matter comprehensively. We are in the process of regional consultation with major donors about targets and the best framework for delivering humanitarian assistance in a more consistent, coherent, structured and systematic way. That is our main proposal. We count on the support of the European Union. My message to the European Union is clear: you are the group of countries with the strongest power. You have risen up as global leaders with the United States and China. You are a powerhouse, and an engine of growth and prosperity. Therefore, we expect from you more and more support, engagement and leadership commensurate with your political, economic and social standing.
On the second question, I appreciate the fact that the European Council yesterday agreed on a European Union naval force operation to help to expand the search and rescue operation. I went to the Mediterranean Sea with Prime Minister Renzi of Italy and the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Ms Mogherini, and we saw how the naval operations are being carried out. Over such a large area of sea, it is difficult to spot the small boats that are loaded with hundreds of people. I have urged European leaders to expand their life-saving operations and to make human rights, saving human lives and delivering immediate life-saving assistance their top priorities. I welcome the decision to expand such capacity and we will co-operate fully. It is not the refugees or asylum seekers whom we have to regulate; it is the smugglers and human traffickers who must be brought to justice and punished.
On the question from the delegate from Azerbaijan, I am deeply concerned about the cease-fire violations that happen almost daily and cause fatalities in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, and on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I am also worried about the unhelpful and dangerous hostile rhetoric on all sides that further escalates tensions between the countries, and I urge both sides to find a peaceful solution. Any military confrontation, even if it is accidental, would be devastating not only for the two countries but for the entire region. I hope that at their next meeting, the Minsk Group co-chairs and the OSCE Secretary-General will encourage both sides to engage in more substantive and structured negotiations to find lasting solutions to the problem.
Ms SCHOU (Norway) – Unfortunately, some member countries of the Council of Europe that are also members of the United Nations systematically violate basic human rights. How can the United Nations and the Council of Europe co-operate better to defend democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe?
Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – When the Canary Islands experienced a refugee crisis, Spain resolved the situation with the transit countries, without the assistance of the European Union or the United Nations. Italy and Hungary now face the current crisis more or less on their own. The United Nations seems to be left by the wayside when it comes to humanitarian issues, although people always turn to it for assistance with political issues. Do you agree that facts are taking precedence over legal issues, and that more must be done to protect the rights of all human beings?
Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – I represent Georgia, a country in the Caucasus. The United Nations has been very active on security issues in our part of the world in the past, but it does not seem to be very active today. Why?
Mr BAN – Human rights are one of the three pillars of the United Nations. That is why member
States agreed to reform the former Commission on Human Rights, which was not regarded as being effective and efficient enough. In 2006, as part of an important reform of the United Nations, the commission was transformed into the Human Rights Council and the universal periodic review was introduced. All 193 member States, without exception, must undergo the universal periodic review, which is a very serious session in which all human rights-related issues are questioned. The European Union is most advanced in democracy, and it goes through that process along with all other member States. The first cycle has been completed, and the second cycle is in progress. Normally, a country will receive more than 100 recommendations, and it must undergo a review to determine whether all the recommendations are being implemented. At the same time, in parallel with the UPR system, the Human Rights Council has established commissions of inquiry when unacceptable human rights violations occur – when there is a clear and persistent pattern of such violations. That has happened in many countries, the names of which I will not mention here. Through that process, we are slowly but surely continually improving the human rights situations in all United Nations member States.
On the second question, from Mr Díaz Tejera from Spain, there are many ways of protecting migrants, refugees and those who seek freedom, jobs or just a better life. There are legal ways, political ways and moral ways. All those dimensions should be applied in protecting the human rights of such people. It is basic human nature to want to live in a safer or more prosperous place and to leave a better future for your children, so it is only natural that we need to do something.
On the third question, from the representative from Georgia, we have been concerned about the situation in the Caucasus region since the 2008 Georgian crisis. We sincerely hope that the issues are resolved through political dialogue, mutual understanding and respect for the United Nations charters and international law. I took note of the recent signing of the so-called treaties on strategic partnership between Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the Russian Federation, of the highly critical position of the Georgian Government and others in the international community and of the potential negative impact of such treaties on the Geneva international discussions. I hope that those talks continue to function on the basis of mutual respect and international laws and charters, so that the issues can be resolved as soon as possible.
THE PRESIDENT* – I thank the Secretary-General for being with us this morning. Unfortunately, we must now conclude the questions because Mr Ban has to leave us to take a train, and trains do not wait for anyone. I thank him wholeheartedly for having been so kind as to accept our invitation and for agreeing to reply to questions. He has kindly agreed to provide written answers to members who were unable to ask their questions. Questions should be submitted in writing, electronically if possible, by the end of the part-session, to the Table Office, which will forward them to the Secretary-General for a written answer.
(The speaker continued in English.)
I thank the Secretary-General with all my heart.
(The speaker continued in French)
I remind the Assembly that votes are in progress to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights and to elect the Deputy Secretary General to the Council of Europe. The ballots will close at 1 p.m. and re-open during the afternoon sitting at 3.30 p.m. before closing at 5 p.m. We drew lots this morning to choose the tellers, but, unfortunately, Ms Durrieu is unavailable at 5 p.m. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the first time that I have had to ring the bell and I am told that I should also use the gavel. I did not want to do that, but I am going to have to. May I please have your attention for a moment? Regrettably, Ms Durrieu is unable to act as a teller this afternoon due to other commitments relating to her report on Morocco. We therefore have to draw lots to choose a new teller.
(The speaker continued in English.)
Ms Schou has been chosen as the new teller for the elections.
3. Changes in the membership of committees
THE PRESIDENT* – Our next item of business is to consider a change proposed in the membership of committees. This is set out in the document titled Commissions (2015) 06 Addendum 2.
Is the proposed change in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?
It is agreed to.
On Monday morning, the time limit was set at three minutes, but given that only 18 speakers are on the list for the whistle-blowers debate, I propose that speaking time this morning revert to 4 minutes.
Is that agreed?
It is agreed.
4. Improving the protection of whistle-blowers
THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report titled “Improving the protection of whistle-blowers”, Document 13791, presented by Mr Pieter Omtzigt on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
I call Mr Omtzigt, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.
Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – This debate on the protection of whistle-blowers is in a way a continuation of two we had earlier in this Assembly. In April, we had a debate on mass surveillance. The revelation by Edward Snowden of the surveillance and intrusion practices of the National Security Agency and its European partners has triggered changes in law and practice, especially in the United States. That would never have happened without those revelations. Whistle-blowers warn against abuses, first internally, and, if that does not work, they go public. They deserve protection against retaliation by their employers and even more so against criminal prosecution. Just as important, and this is the best reward whistle-blowers can be given, is that the abuses and bad practices they disclose are properly investigated and stopped for the future.
If only FIFA had done that when whistle-blowers disclosed corrupt practices, for example in relation to the award of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, it would have done FIFA and all football players and football lovers a great favour. Instead, the abuses continued, and we all know what has happened in the past few weeks. Or think of the brave Greek statistician who passed the correct figures on the Greek deficit to Brussels for the first time without first passing through the democratic process in which the numbers would have been twisted to completely falsify the reality. He was a great patriot; he gave up his cushy job at the International Monetary Fund to help his homeland get the statistics in order and to start getting that situation cleared up politically. He ended up being threatened with prosecution for no less than high treason.
Yesterday, we heard about a number of other whistle-blowers. One was from the banking sector, and we all know what was wrong with the banking sector. This guy had blown the whistle on billions of pounds in drugs money being handled in London. On food safety, a lady at Nestlé revealed that 40 complaints had come in that children under the age of one had choked using a new baby food, but nobody did anything about those warnings. These people do not get rewards; they are sacked.
Whistle-blowers still do not have proper protection in many European countries. That is why we make these recommendations now, and those in the other report in 2009 when the Assembly adopted its first resolution on whistle-blower protection. In the meantime, the Committee of Ministers last year issued a recommendation to member States largely based on our earlier resolution, and it has done some excellent work. Our new report gives a few pointers where further improvement is needed. This is especially true for people working in the field of national security, which has unfortunately been excluded from the Committee of Ministers’ recommendation, while it was in our 2009 report, although little did we know how important it would be.
That protection in terms of national security is very important. I was really impressed by Mr Geiger, former chief of the German secret service. He told our committee hearing that the best way to impose legal limits on snooping is to have a sword of Damocles of well-protected potential whistle-blowers who will warn against any violation of the law. Our colleagues in the German Bundestag are just now finding out how difficult it is to supervise the spy agencies and to find out from outside what has been happening, even with all their rights and privileges as parliamentarians. They were eavesdropped on as well. I really respect them; at least they are having an inquiry.
On parliaments, the independent reviewer of United Kingdom anti-terrorism legislation published a critical finding last week. At once there was a media campaign claiming that some field agents had to be removed. We could not find any proof of that. Meanwhile, leading data safety experts have shown it is far more likely that foreign services hacked the National Security Agency (NSA) and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) directly, which they have done on several occasions in the past. Last April, we had the example of the Chinese, who hacked into computers and got the whole blueprint of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the new nuclear plane from the United States of America. Their own faults that they keep in the system are what weaken their national security. If they had listened to the whistle-blowers who said their protection was not in order and that there were backdoors through which the secret services of other nations, and maybe even terrorists, could eavesdrop, they would not have had that leak, and their own security would have been better, because the Chinese would not have had the blueprint of the fighter.
Let me just draw attention to one of the most important points in the draft resolution proposed by the committee, namely the need for a public interest defence against criminal prosecutions based on violation of secrecy laws. This Assembly already supported this requirement last year when it adopted Mr Díaz Tejera’s report on access to information and national security, which in turn endorses the Tshwane principles. This defence is vital for whistle-blowers. They must be protected against criminal prosecution if their disclosure is in the public interest. It seems like that should go without saying, but it does not. The United States Espionage Act of 1917, for example, does not foresee such a defence, and that Act is what is being used against whistle-blowers, suggesting they are spying for a foreign agent, but these people were telling the truth to the American population, and we could hardly term them foreign agents. Even if such a defence is allowed, a whistle-blower takes a risk, as he or she must convince a court that the disclosure was indeed in the public interest; they cannot disclose anything. They should at least be given that opportunity. If they are not, we should give them political asylum. In my view, this applies to Edward Snowden. He deserves better than to be obliged to stay in Moscow, where he got stuck, let us not forget, because the United States cancelled his passport and prevented him from travelling on to Latin America, where he had really intended to go.
I should like to interrupt my presentation here in order to have a little time to respond to the debate which we are about to have, and which I am looking forward to.
THE PRESIDENT – You have five minutes 43 seconds left. I call Mr Nikoloski on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – I thank the rapporteur for his excellent report. I fully agree that whistle-blowing is very important for promoting good governance, privacy, freedom of speech and the fight against corruption.
During the April session, we adopted a resolution on mass surveillance and concluded that such practices endanger fundamental human rights, including the rights to privacy, freedom of information and expression and the rights to a fair trial and freedom of religion. As stated in the resolution, these rights are cornerstones of democracy. Their infringement without adequate judicial control jeopardises the rule of law. Abuse of the work of the secret services and illegal wiretapping are a huge threat to modern democracies.
We agree that corruption also undermines the values of democracy and jeopardises sustainable development and the rule of law. In order to fight institutional corruption, it is necessary to introduce systematic protection of persons who report knowledge or suspicion of corruption or other illegal acts and unacceptable behaviour. The institutional fight is impossible without the regulation and protection of whistle-blowers. However, the protection of persons who report irregularities is a very complex issue and requires a multidisciplinary and comprehensive approach. A whistle-blowing reporting system is not implemented in many countries’ legal systems, yet the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers in their resolutions and recommendations invited all member States to review their legislation on the protection of whistle-blowers and to create an appropriate framework for their protection. Only a few member States have special, comprehensive legislation covering the protection of whistle-blowers, which gives systematic rules for those working in the public and private sector, covering impermissible and unlawful behaviour or serious risks in the broadest sense.
Following the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers as well as resolutions and recommendations adopted by our Assembly and the United Nations, I can say that we in the Republic of Macedonia are working on amending our law system to protect whistle-blowers. Taking into account the existing legal framework, the implemented system of integrity, international practices and, of course, recommendations and special reports, we have a positive approach to this issue. But in recent months, Macedonia has faced a big political crisis, with the publication of illegal wiretapped material by the president of the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia, Mr Zoran Zaev. For the past four years, all State heads, including the president, the prime minister, the president of the assembly, members of the government and members of parliament, have been illegally wiretapped. The materials have been published in press conferences outside the legal system. This is destroying not only the image of the country but the democratic and political system. Almost 50 members of the Parliamentary Assembly signed a declaration condemning the threats by Mr Zoran Zaev to the Prime Minister of the Republic of Macedonia and the involvement of foreign secret services in the illegal tapping of the phone calls of the highest political leaders of the country. The declaration stated that political arguments and programmes based on the vote of citizens are the only ways to win citizens’ trust. Most importantly, it asked for free and independent court trials, with the highest European standards and transparent procedure.
Along with the resolution on mass surveillance that we adopted in April, this report is our best chance to fight against this kind of abuse and threat to democracy. We hope for strong implementation so that there are no other experiences like ours in Macedonia.
THE PRESIDENT – I call Sir Roger Gale, who speaks on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.
Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – We recognise the importance of protecting the human rights of those who seek to expose wrongdoing in whatever sphere of influence they may be working. The rapporteur noted that had the whistle-blowers been listened to, the hosting of the World Cup might not have been handed to Qatar. He could have added that it might not have been awarded to Russia either.
There is a danger that the report seeks to recognise Mr Snowden as a hero, rather than as the traitor that he indubitably is. Mr Snowden has released material, particularly to Russia, that has placed in jeopardy the work and, in some cases, the very lives of those engaged in the fight against terrorism on behalf of each and every one of us. We have to remember that the ordinary people we all represent have rights, including the right to be protected against acts of violence and murder carried out in the name of IS, al-Qaeda and other extreme organisations.
As an aside, the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media recently held a seminar in Kiev to discuss the protection of journalists engaged in the reporting of insurgence and war. Events in Ukraine and, of course, in Paris at Charlie Hebdo are a stark reminder that reporters need the protection of the security forces as well.
With all that in mind, and in order to inject a greater sense of balance into the report, I have tabled three amendments, which I was pleased to learn were accepted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights this morning. The first of the amendments, on which we will vote later, refers to the case of Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered, and it recognises that the need for protection for whistle-blowers is not confined to the United States, the United Kingdom or the European Union, but applies equally to Russia and some other significant countries.
The second amendment reminds us that others have rights, as well as whistle-blowers, and the third calls on Mr Snowden to surrender to the United States courts and to democratic justice. I hope that the amendments will be carried by the Assembly as they have been carried by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Taktakishvili, who speaks on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – We are gathered here to protect democracy, human rights and the rule of law. How can we do so if we do not properly protect the whistle-blowers who make public certain serious wrongdoings by governments that are sometimes covered by secrecy laws? The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports effective national security policies to counter terrorism and its related concerns. At the same time, secrecy rules are sometimes abused in order to cover up serious wrongdoing, such as corruption among government officials, links with organised crime and illegal surveillance practices.
We need to enlarge the scope of whistle-blower protection by including the employees of both the national security services and the private companies that do related work. We must keep in mind the resolutions we adopted in 2010 and we should commend the Committee of Ministers, which last year adopted relevant recommendations for the protection of whistle-blowers. Nevertheless, my group would like to stress again that national security services and their employees should not be exempt from such protections.
We are concerned about Amendment 3, which says that Mr Snowden has to “surrender to the United States courts”. First, the report is not about Mr Snowden. We may hold differing views about whether he is a criminal or a human rights activist, whether he did well to release such an amount of information or whether his actions posed a threat to the fight against terrorism, which is a relevant fight in today’s world, but the report is about analysing the legal aspects. From a legal point of view, we cannot talk about surrendering; we can talk about the right to return to one’s homeland without the fear of undue criminal processes, which might be the case if the current secrecy process is upheld in Mr Snowden’s case.
We need to ensure that all whistle-blowers’ human rights are protected. Of course, we must also stress that whistle-blowers have to disclose information in accordance with the standards that we have developed that impose certain rules and limitations on such activities. Again, I stress that the report is not about Mr Snowden’s personality but about protecting human rights. That is why, on behalf of my group, I urge the Assembly to support the report, but not to support Amendment 3.
The PRESIDENT – I call Ms Johnsson Fornarve, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Ms JOHNSSON FORNARVE (Sweden) – I thank Mr Pieter Omtzigt for an excellent and important report. Whistle-blowers play an important role in our societies: they aid us in strengthening our democracies and help us to defend our freedoms of expression. Whenever an individual stands up to wrongdoings in their society, they do so at great personal risk. The range of activities that an individual might uncover stretches from gross war crimes to gross mismanagement, or from illegal mass surveillance to corruption. We could add dangers to public health or safety, abuse of power, and waste of funds to the list.
In Sweden, we have a law called Lex Sarah, which says that everyone who is active in care for elder people or people with disabilities has the obligation to report maltreatment in care. The name Lex Sarah comes from the nurse, Sarah Wagnert, who blew the whistle on abuses in the 1990s. Sarah is a good example of a whistle-blower who made a big difference.
Let us give a thought to the individual who has allowed us to discuss this important issue. Edward Snowden traded in a comfortable life in Hawaii to reveal the extent of the United States mass surveillance programme. Let us be clear about his intentions: he wanted to allow the public to decide for itself whether it wanted to live in a world where we are constantly monitored by the State. With great personal courage and eloquent analysis of the ramifications of mass surveillance, he initiated a global debate on a monitoring system that acts beyond both democratic accountability and the rule of law. No one would claim that there is no need for international co-operation to combat all forms of international crime and terrorism, but it must be done in such a way as to ensure the protection of human rights, especially the right to privacy.
Effective and enhanced protection for whistle-blowers needs to be brought in as soon as possible. That will involve the introduction of whistle-blower protection laws to cover employees of national security or intelligence services and of private firms working in that field, including asylum if they would be threatened in their home country. Protecting a whistle-blower such as Edward Snowden and others who dare to speak out is a question about what kind of society we want – one where we can quickly find out and identify any abuse of powers and can rectify them.
THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Le Borgn’ on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – I pay tribute to the work done by Pieter Omtzigt in his report on the protection of whistle-blowers, which picks up some of the same ideas and themes as those in his report on mass surveillance presented in the part-session in April.
Whistle-blowing in our society is characterised by freedom, initiative and responsibility. Whistle-blowers have an important watchdog function in our democracies and should therefore be supported and protected. However, as we are discussing this morning, we need to encourage them. The issue is about having the courage to speak up. Very often, their voices remain silent, although they would like to be able to speak out on the basis of their knowledge of information or facts. Why are they silent? Possibly from fear of losing everything – one’s work, one’s family, one’s country or even one’s life. Think for a moment about what happened to Edward Snowden, who was deprived of his loved ones and cannot return to the area where he was born, grew up and lived his life.
The Council of Europe has done much to protect whistle-blowers, which should be a source of pride. I am thinking of the Assembly’s Resolution 1729 and Recommendation 1916 of 2010. I am also thinking of the recent adoption by the Committee of Ministers of Recommendation 2014(7), which calls on member States to introduce a normative judicial and institutional framework designed to protect whistle-blowers. In my country, such texts have had a decisive impact on the legislative debate and on positive law. I pay tribute to the wealth of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which, on the basis of the right to respect for private life and freedom of expression, has shored up the protection of whistle-blowers, including in areas of national security and intelligence.
It is precisely in those fields that we must now pursue our efforts. The divulging of information to do with national security or intelligence is very often excluded from the protections enjoyed by whistle-blowers, and that is unacceptable. The same protections should be granted whistle-blowers in the area of national intelligence or security, including the right to asylum in any member State of the Council of Europe if there is a proven risk that they will be persecuted in their own country. Member States need to add to their national legislative arsenal with regard to whistle-blowers so that, where that is not already the case, it covers the staff of national security or intelligence agencies, including private contractors under contract to the State.
All that should culminate in a convention to be drawn up by the Council of Europe. For that reason, it is important for the Assembly to adopt Pieter Omtzigt’s report by a large majority and to back the draft resolution and the draft recommendation.
(Mr Rouquet, Vice- President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Brasseur.)
THE PRESIDENT* – The rapporteur does not wish to reply at this stage, so I call Mr Recordon.
Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – I thank the rapporteur, whose excellent report is very much to his credit. I believe that there is general support for the report, despite the rather outrageous comments that have just been made about Mr Snowden and which illustrate the complexity of the issue.
As a previous speaker said of Mr Snowden, whistle-blowers tend to become either arch-villains or heroes. I am reminded of a Norwegian example which was recounted in a book a few years ago. Someone had been in the SS and collaborated with the Nazis in order to blow the whistle on some of their activities, but it was very difficult for that to be recognised. One can understand such difficulties. Objectively, a whistle-blower is a traitor, but they are a traitor out of duty. The book’s title referred to the fact that it was the duty of that Norwegian man to be a traitor. A whistle-blower has to act in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. They behave in a way that they understand as correct, but others may find it difficult to recognise the value of what they are doing. That is certainly the fate that has befallen Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.
In the light of recent events and recent technological developments, many countries, including my own, are finally asking themselves whether the intelligence services should have extraordinary powers given the kind of surveillance that is now possible. In Switzerland, we are looking again at our legislation in this area and considering whether to review it. That is at the heart of what we must all now do: we need to look at these very serious issues, otherwise people will be left completely alone without any kind of legislative guidance. When it comes to national security and even to constitutional law, very difficult issues can arise if someone is wrong in their judgment of events or if their discernment is not entirely right. We therefore need to look again at our legislation and regulations as they govern our intelligence services, and we need to be rigorous in how we appraise their conduct.
When we look at rights and obligations, including under privacy laws, we need to review some of our provisions, particularly in relation to contract law, so that we can strike a proper balance between all the interests involved. For instance, workers who notice something truly shameful happening in their workplace should be able to alert the authorities and be heard appropriately without endangering their own livelihood.
Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – We all agree that the report covers a very sensitive issue. Essentially, it focuses on the fight against corruption and deficient management in both the public and private sectors. It concerns employees who draw attention to offences of corruption and other wrongdoing in their working environment, bearing it in mind that their role is of key importance.
The United Nations Convention against Corruption states: “Each State Party shall take appropriate measures in accordance with its domestic legal system and within its means to provide effective protection from potential retaliation or intimidation for witnesses and experts who give testimony concerning offences established in accordance with this Convention”. The Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption contains a binding provision which states: “Each Party shall provide in its internal law for appropriate protection against any unjustified sanction for employees who have reasonable grounds to suspect corruption and who report in good faith their suspicion to responsible persons or authorities.”
Unfortunately, many Council of Europe member States have not yet managed to provide appropriate, sufficient and comprehensive protection for those disclosing information to the public at large about wrongdoing and illegal conduct. That protection is important for every society that aims to develop and progress. Normative and efficient protection of those reporting their suspicions is key in the fight against corruption.
Many Council of Europe member States are yet to enact specific laws to regulate the protection of those exposing corruption. Instead, that regulation is often found in legislation relating to labour, criminal proceedings, the media and discrimination, so I particularly draw attention to the fact that on 25 November 2014, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Law on Whistle-Blower Protection, which took effect on 6 June this year.
The most important thing is protecting whistle-blowers from being put in an unfavourable position. The most common aspects that employers use to do that are employment procedures, work outside employment, education, training and professional development, promotion at work, disciplinary measures and penalties, working conditions, termination of employment, salaries and other payments, awards and severance pay, the allocation of duties and transfer to other posts. The Law on Whistle-Blower Protection should provide for the respect of those human rights guaranteed by the constitution of the Republic of Serbia that relate to freedom and security, freedom of thought and expression, personal data protection, the right to work and so on.
In all societies, especially transitional ones, the mere threat of corruption justifies the need to adopt a legal framework for protecting whistle-blowers that provides an efficient mechanism for the disclosure of illegal conduct and wrongdoing. Restoring people’s trust in democratic institutions is of high importance. The law in Serbia has created the conditions for the strengthening of the rule of law and an environment where laws are respected. The development of morals and the public denunciation of illegal conduct represent the basis for every healthy system of values. On the other hand, the improvement of legal regulations has to be followed by a general attitude change on the denouncing of corruption.
Mr KARLSSON (Sweden) – I thank Mr Omtzigt for a very good report and for his introductory remarks, which, as a football lover, I appreciated. I support Amendment 4, which was adopted by the committee this morning.
During the last session of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in April, the report on mass surveillance was adopted. Mr Snowden and whistle-blowing were discussed in it. The rapporteur, Mr Omtzigt, rhetorically asked, “Is Mr Snowden a saint or a villain?” Either way, I find the report that we are debating today – “Improving the protection of whistle-blowers” – to be of great importance.
Friday 5 June marked the second anniversary of the start of Edward Snowden’s disclosures. He clearly broke the law in revealing government secrets, but he did so for valid reasons and the outcome has the endorsement of the legislative and executive branches. In my opinion, Mr Snowden has done us a great favour by disclosing the mass surveillance conducted by many governments. As he stated in The Guardian: “The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to.”
In most political systems, we do not rely on the brave acts of individual whistle-blowers. Instead we have governments, courts and parliaments. We separate the power of the executive from the legislature and the judiciary. Most of us expect our governments to be open and to ensure that those with power, whether in the public or private sector, respect the rule of law and guard against human rights abuses.
Whistle-blowers often risk their lives when, for example, they reveal how defence and security services commit crimes against their own citizens and civil rights. Considering whistle-blowing in the wider context reveals the need to understand it as a democratic accountability mechanism that lets us know when our systems of checks and balances are failing for whatever reason. In some circumstances, whistle-blowing can act as the catalyst for reform and reveal the need to develop mechanisms of democratic accountability.
It is important to improve the protection of whistle-blowers. The legal and technical framework is crucial, as is judicial and parliamentary scrutiny to guarantee democracy and human rights. That is why the report is of great importance.
Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Mr Omtzigt has presented an important report. Democracy needs brave people. To blow the whistle against colleagues or superiors, or even the authorities of your country, takes a lot of courage. Whistle-blowers deserve encouragement and protection. Without legal protection, many whistle-blowers will fear reprisals and decide to keep silent. Edward Snowden has become a worldwide symbol of whistle-blowing, but as important are all those ordinary employees who report on illegal or unacceptable conditions in their daily work. In Norway, one in four employees believe they will be met with hostility from their superiors if they come forward, despite the fact that since 2007 we have had a legal provision protecting whistle-blowers.
International surveys show that about half the uncovered illegal conditions in working life are reported by whistle-blowers, so the importance of granting them safety is obvious. According to the Norwegian Working Environment Act, whistle-blowing is legal and desirable. All employees have the right to report and a duty to do so if misconduct leads to harassment, serious violations of safety regulations or physical working conditions that could endanger life and health.
Despite the law, we have seen some nasty examples lately in both the private and public sectors where whistle-blowers have been sanctioned. For example, the murder of an eight-year-old girl was dismissed as suicide. If it had not been for one brave police detective who blew the whistle on the lousy investigation, the culprit would have gone free. Another example is a large corruption case involving a bus producer in Germany, a transportation company in Norway and the municipality buying services from the latter.
The law in Norway has made whistle-blowing easier and safer, but improvements are still needed. Especially alarming is that local public employees have reported on restrictions on their freedom of expression more frequently than others. Those restrictions are often instructed by their local politicians. Experts have recommended that we put into law procedures for handling whistle-blowing in a responsible manner, the possibility to report anonymously and further emphasis on safety for whistle-blowers. We should reflect seriously on that for the good of businesses, employees, those dependent on private and public services and democracy itself.
Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – With Mr Omtzigt’s report and the sterling work of the Secretariat, the Council of Europe is forging a comprehensive legal corpus on issues of security and freedom. The long-standing debate around Mr Snowden is like a child pointing at the moon. People are distracted by the fact that it is dirty and do not actually look at the moon. The question is not whether he has committed a crime; the important point is the disclosure of the electronic surveillance of millions of people that has nothing to do with security – for example, in respect of trade negotiations taking place in European Union countries.
This debate is about whether public servants are taking part in activities on the margin of the law or counter to the law. I join in the tributes to those civic heroes working in security and intelligence whose names and faces we will never know but who fight for the general interest. Alongside them, however, there are criminals. If there are criminals among the judges and parliamentarians, how can there not be criminals in the field of security? We are talking about human beings. We have to monitor and control them. We need to tell civil servants, wherever they work, that in carrying out their work they must respect the law. We all have to respect the law as a civil commitment.
There can be no fight against organised crime without protection for whistle-blowers. The word soplon in Spanish is pejorative. We should say “confidente informante”. It is essential that we receive such information if we are to support the rule of law. In that regard, I pay special tribute to the judges in Italy who have enormous experience in tackling organised crime and the mafia. They have done a magnificent job. I make particular mention of Falcone and Borsellino, who were both assassinated, and the many other people who have fought organised crime over the years.
I congratulate the committee, the rapporteur and the secretariat. We have added another piece to the Council of Europe’s body of law to support human rights, the rule of law and democratic freedoms. It is important that we support today’s report – it certainly has my enthusiastic support – which continues the great work that Dick Marty did as rapporteur. I pay tribute to the magnificent work he did in the Council of Europe.
Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – I want to tell you a spectacular story about a brave Georgian whistle-blower and distinguished police officer, Ruslan Baziashvili, who came forward to expose links between the Georgian Government and organised crime.
As members know, Georgia is currently undergoing a backsliding of democracy under Mr Ivanishvili’s regime, and there are well-documented instances of the government co-operating with organised crime bosses. As part of that, one organised crime boss, Mindia Goradze, was imported into Georgia – the previous government, which I supported, prosecuted many bosses effectively so that they were either in jail or abroad – and then the government made deals with him, which of course is against the law. The crime boss left his representative, Ramaz Devadze, in Batumi, and on 27 December, in a public place, Devadze murdered a young policeman, Tarash Mukbaniani
Instead of being arrested, the murderer, on the orders of the prime minister’s chief of security, was escorted to the Turkish border and allowed to leave Georgian territory. It so happened that the murdered policeman’s colleagues were on duty, however, and they arrested the murderer in a neutral zone. Mr Baziashvili gave us – the opposition party – data from the State border database certifying that the murderer was escorted by State representatives and left Georgian territory. It was a classic whistle-blowing case. Instead of those who gave these criminal orders being prosecuted, a case was opened against the whistle-blower, and he was dismissed and now faces jail.
Even though Georgian legislation, particularly article 12 of the law on freedom of speech and expression, specifically protects whistle-blowers – Georgia has a high standard for the protection of whistle-blowers – there are other instances of organised crime leaders coming to Georgia and of senior government officials co-operating with them, including for political purposes. I urge anyone interested in our part of the world and who cares about Georgia to keep an eye on the case of a distinguished police officer, Ruslan Baziashvili, and not allow his prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT – I do not see Mr Stroe so the next speaker is Ms Haider.
Ms HAIDER (Sweden) – I thank Mr Omtzigt for his very good report on improving the protection of whistle-blowers. It is an important report on an important issue. It stresses that protection should include persons working for national security and intelligence agencies and relevant government agencies, as well as private contractors. It also suggests that whistle-blowers be granted asylum in any member State of the Council of Europe, but that needs to be considered in accordance with national legislation on asylum. It is important that people feel safe when they blow the whistle, even if they work in national security and intelligence. I note that the Council of Europe has set up guidelines for staff members reporting on wrongdoing. That is a good example. The Committee of Ministers is calling on member States to create an appropriate normative judicial and institutional framework for the protection of whistle-blowers.
The Assembly also points out that information about State agents who have committed serious human rights violations should not be protected as a legitimate State secret. The Assembly should affirm the need for proper judicial and parliamentary scrutiny of governments and their agents in order to maintain the rule of law and democracy, especially in respect of the secret services. All member States should improve the protection of whistle-blowers, strengthen accountability and bolster the fight against corruption and mismanagement, both in the public and private sector. I also suggest that the Assembly adopts Amendment 4, which was adopted by the committee this morning, clarifying that asylum be given in accordance with national law.
THE PRESIDENT* – I do not see Mr Badea, so I call Mr Jónasson.
Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – I thank Pieter Omtzigt for bringing this very important issue before our Assembly again and again. I thank him for his persistence, which is exactly what is needed. We must discuss this issue again and again until we have changed laws and attitudes and created, as it says in the draft resolution, “an appropriate normative, judicial and institutional framework for the protection of whistle-blowers”. Yes, we want to create a normative framework. Such a framework will lead us further. Until now, whistle-blowers have been either victimised or heroised. We want them to be normalised. We want whistle-blowing to be seen as an integral part of democracy. Those who wanted to conduct the questionable TSA trade negotiations in secret no doubt resented WikiLeaks telling the world about them. I say thank you, WikiLeaks; I say thank you, Julian Assange. As one of the founders of WikiLeaks and due to threats and persecution by United States authorities, he has been seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for three years. The charges against him were raised in Sweden. I urge the Swedish prosecutor to carry out the interrogation in the Ecuadorian embassy, as has been offered.
Of course the intelligence services, not only in the United States but elsewhere, resent Edward Snowden’s revelations about their spying on us – on all of us, not just on suspected terrorists. I am convinced that most of us do not regard Edward Snowden as a traitor. On the contrary, we are grateful to him. Those who care about democracy and individual freedom should show our gratitude by offering Edward Snowden asylum and security. I support the proposals put forward by Pieter Omtzigt and will vote against all amendments.
THE PRESIDENT* – We have come to the end of the list of speakers. As we are a little ahead of schedule, if any colleagues wish to speak they still have the chance to do so by raising their hand. Are there any further requests? That is not the case.
I must make a couple of announcements. Colleagues will recall that there are two votes under way: one for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights and one for the election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The votes will close at 1 p.m. and resume this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. and last until 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted are invited to do so.
I call on the rapporteur, Mr Omtzigt, to respond to the debate. You have five minutes.
Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – I thank colleagues for all their nice words about the report. The report was written in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights after lots of discussion which improved both the report and the resolution. We had a couple of very interesting hearings, to which I have referred, with the former chair of the German Bundesnachrichtendienst. He gave us great insight into the fact that, even for the security forces, a form of whistle-blowing is necessary.
I completely agree with the final comments of Mr Jónasson: it is not a case of victimising or heroising; it is a case of normalising. I would add one thing, however: whistle-blowing should never be the norm. The norm should be that dissent is normal within organisations. When something is really going wrong there should be discussion within the organisation so that the problems can be resolved. Luckily, that already happens within most organisations. However, we still need whistle-blowing in organisations that are slightly dysfunctional.
My Georgian colleague, Mr Kandelaki, cited a case in which the police system was abused by a few policemen – not by all Georgian policemen. Another colleague cited a German-Norwegian case involving a problem of process. That is not normality, but when it does happen, we need those brave people who are whistle-blowers. Many of these people are paying for their whistle-blowing with their careers. Indeed, the incidence of suicide among such people is quite a bit higher than the general suicide rate because of the pressures placed upon them.
Mr Nikoloski started by mentioning something that Mr Snowden has revealed – that illegal wire-tapping in Macedonia is widespread. However, it is widespread throughout Europe. If it were only wire-tapping of terrorists and suspected terrorists and we wanted to find the circle around them, that would be one thing, but it appears that even Chancellor Merkel is a terrorist, because security services have been eavesdropping on her. Thousands and thousands of members of parliament have been victims of eavesdropping, not to mention all the normal, law-abiding citizens who have been included. We do not want that in our police.
Sir Roger Gale is right that the football World Cup might not have gone to Russia had there been whistle-blowing and had it been properly followed up. I am grateful to the British journalist who has been looking into FIFA for nearly eight years. For almost eight years, he has been meticulously researching what went wrong.
The protection of whistle-blowers will not weaken our protection against terrorists; in fact, it will strengthen it. I again remind colleagues of our report last spring. We discovered that the NSA was putting back doors in every computer system it could access. That enabled it to circumvent all the security and break into every computer. That was very handy for the security services, but the problem was that that was being used not only by security services, which we trust are trying to protect us, but by other nations that we do not trust and by foreign agents and terrorists, whom we certainly do not want to break into our computers. If that internal whistle-blowing had been successful and they had said, “Let us not do it. Let us not weaken our own systems”, we would be better protected from terrorists.
I am happy with the new legislation in France mentioned by Mr Le Borgn’, and with some of the better forthcoming legislation in Serbia, which Ms Kovács mentioned, and in Norway, to which a number of colleagues referred. I agree with Mr Recordon that it is sometimes a duty. Many of these people feel that when lives are at stake, it is their duty to cry out and say, “I want to make sure that this security risk or this health risk is being tackled.” Ms Christoffersen referred to the position in Norway, where one in four employees is afraid of retaliation. Believe me when I say that the situation is much worse in somewhat less free societies.
Mr Díaz Tejera, thank you for your very nice comments. This builds on your work on security issues in the security system. I referred to that in my opening speech. It is true that criminals are to be found even among judges. I have not found any among astronauts, but if you can point me in the right direction I would be very happy to look into it. It is true that, even in the secret services, we need a way of finding out when something is going wrong. I am convinced that 99% of the people there are doing everything and their best to protect us. We should also remember that although this debate has focused on whistle-blowing in the secret services, 95% of whistle-blowing occurs outside the secret services. It is not the main focus of this report.
Ms Haider, thank you for your amendment, which was passed unanimously, so we will not vote on it. It is a useful amendment – we always need to stick to our national laws – as is Mr Gale’s amendment on the Magnitsky law, because whistle-blowing on international corruption is extremely useful. The other two amendments were passed with very slim majorities in our committee, but I will urge you in a second to vote against them, as they weaken the report. We had a very balanced text, and I would like you to stick to it – I will be ready to explain in a second.
THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Clappison, as chairperson of the committee, do you wish to speak? You have two minutes.
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – A very brief word from me: I must congratulate Mr Omtzigt on his hard work and the enthusiasm he has brought to this report. It is an important report on an important subject. In the course of doing that report, Mr Omtzigt organised some hearings. Putting aside the case of Mr Snowden and dealing with just the other witnesses we had, what struck me in those hearings was the fact that, in taking that step as whistle-blowers – acting often, as they saw it, on conscience and on behalf of the public interest, saving other people in some cases – those people faced consequences for their economic status, their welfare, their health and their families. Some of the evidence was very moving, and our committee is following up some of the cases brought to us. It is clear from them and all the other examples we have heard about in this good debate that whistle-blowers can serve the public interest. They deserve protection. It is self-evident, and evident in the report, that the protection available at present is not as good as it could be. It is being improved all the time – that is to the credit of the nations concerned, including the United States, as has been said, but other nations as well – and this Assembly is playing a good role in pushing this forward and seeking the best possible protection for whistle-blowers, who in legitimate cases are acting in the public interest.
THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.
The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution in Document 13791 to which four amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation in Document 13791 to which no amendments were tabled.
I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1 and 4, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.
Is that so, Mr Clappison?
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Yes.
THE PRESIDENT* – Are there any objections? That is not the case.
Amendments 1 and 4 are adopted.
We come to the remaining amendments, which will be called in the order in which they apply to the text, as published in the Compendium. The speaking time for each amendment is 30 seconds.
We come to Amendment 2.
I call Sir Roger Gale to support Amendment 2.
Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – This amendment reflects the fact that human rights apply to everybody, not just to whistle-blowers. That is the reason it has been tabled. It had the support of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – The report does not deny that anyone has those rights – everyone does – but this amendment does something else. If, for instance, the whistle-blower says that the right to life is at stake, because of a health danger or a danger that someone may die – I told you about baby food – there may be a conflict of interest with other human rights, which could include the firm’s right to privacy. That conflict should be in the court, but we are now saying that the firm’s right to privacy could be above the right to life. That is not what we want, but that is what this amendment does. That is why I would like us to reject it.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 2 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 3.
I call Sir Roger Gale to support Amendment 3.
Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – It has been said that this report is not about Edward Snowden. It is not, but unfortunately the final paragraph of the draft recommendation does refer to Mr Snowden, which is why we have tabled this amendment, which I understand also has the support of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. It simply says that Mr Snowden should surrender himself to the democratic courts of the United States.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – It is not up to us to decide what is happening there; we are taking a legal view. That is the reason for having a very balanced text, which says that Mr Snowden should be allowed to be prosecuted by the United States.
because it has a democratic society and courts. However, it is not up to us to use words like “surrender”, so we are saying that he should be allowed to return, and then of course the courts can prosecute or not; that is the way things go. That is why I urge you to stick to the neutral language in our original report. This amendment was adopted by the committee, just like the last one – the last one by just one vote – but I urge you to reject it.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 3 is rejected.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13791, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 13791, as amended, is adopted, with 88 votes for, 7 against and 10 abstentions.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13791.
The vote is open.
The draft recommendation in Document 13791 is adopted, with 86 votes for, 7 against and 9 abstentions.
Congratulations, rapporteur.
5. Next public business
THE PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda which was approved yesterday.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 12.20 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights and election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
2. Address by Mr Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations
Questions:
Ms Durrieu (France), Mr Agramunt (Spain), Mr Denemeç (Turkey), Mr Destexhe (Belgium), Ms Kavvadia (Greece), Mr Schwabe (Germany), Mr Bockel (France), Ms Fataliyeva (Azerbaijan), Ms Schou (Norway), Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain) and Mr Japaridze (Georgia)
3. Changes in the membership of committees
4. Improving the protection of whistle-blowers
Presentation by Mr Omtzigt of report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Doc. 13791
Speakers: Mr Nikoloski (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom), Ms Taktakishvili (Georgia), Ms Johnsson Fornarve (Sweden), Mr Le Borgn’ (France), Mr Recordon (Switzerland), Ms Kovács (Serbia), Mr Karlsson (Sweden), Ms Christoffersen (Norway), Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain), Mr Kandelaki (Georgia), Ms Haider (Sweden) and Mr Jónasson (Iceland),
Replies: Mr Omtzigt (Netherlands) and Mr Clappison (United Kingdom)
Amendments 1, 4 and 2 adopted
Draft resolution in Doc. 13791, as amended, adopted
Draft recommendation in Doc. 13791 adopted
5. Next public sitting
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/ Edgar Mayer
Luise AMTSBERG/ Frithjof Schmidt
Athanasia ANAGNOSTOPOULOU
Liv Holm ANDERSEN*
Lord Donald ANDERSON
Paride ANDREOLI
Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA
Ben-Oni ARDELEAN/Ion Popa
Khadija ARIB/Pieter Omtzigt
Volodymyr ARIEV
Egemen BAĞIŞ
Theodora BAKOYANNIS*
David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki
Gérard BAPT/Geneviève Gosselin-Fleury
Doris BARNETT
José Manuel BARREIRO
Deniz BAYKAL*
Marieluise BECK
Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková
José María BENEYTO*
Levan BERDZENISHVILI
Deborah BERGAMINI*
Sali BERISHA*
Anna Maria BERNINI/ Claudio Fazzone
Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*
Andris BĒRZINŠ/Boriss Cilevičs
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Brian BINLEY
Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová
Philippe BLANCHART*
Maryvonne BLONDIN
Jean-Marie BOCKEL
Olga BORZOVA*
Mladen BOSIĆ*
António BRAGA
Anne BRASSEUR
Alessandro BRATTI/Eleonora Cimbro
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/Helena Hatka
James CLAPPISON
Igor CORMAN*
Telmo CORREIA
Paolo CORSINI
Carlos COSTA NEVES*
Celeste COSTANTINO*
Yves CRUCHTEN*
Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN
Katalin CSÖBÖR
Joseph DEBONO GRECH*
Reha DENEMEÇ
Alain DESTEXHE
Manlio DI STEFANO
Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA
Peter van DIJK
Şaban DİŞLİ
Sergio DIVINA
Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ
Namik DOKLE*
Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß/Mechthild Rawert
Daphné DUMERY/Petra De Sutter
Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*
Nicole DURANTON
Josette DURRIEU
Mustafa DZHEMILIEV/Andrii Lopushanskyi
Mikuláš DZURINDA*
Lady Diana ECCLES
Tülin ERKAL KARA
Franz Leonhard EßL
Joseph FENECH ADAMI
Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU
Vyacheslav FETISOV*
Doris FIALA/Eric Voruz
Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Antl
Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER
Axel E. FISCHER*
Gvozden Srećko FLEGO
Bernard FOURNIER
Hans FRANKEN
Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO
Martin FRONC
Sir Roger GALE
Adele GAMBARO
Karl GARÐARSSON
Iryna GERASHCHENKO
Tina GHASEMI
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Francesco Maria GIRO
Pavol GOGA/Ľubomir Petrák
Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES
Alina Ștefania GORGHIU/Viorel Riceard Badea
Svetlana GORYACHEVA*
Sandro GOZI*
Fred de GRAAF*
François GROSDIDIER/Jacques Bigot
Andreas GROSS
Dzhema GROZDANOVA
Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*
Gergely GULYÁS*
Jonas GUNNARSSON/Monica Haider
Nazmi GÜR*
Antonio GUTIÉRREZ
Maria GUZENINA
Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*
Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva
Hannes HANSO
Alfred HEER/Maximilian Reimann
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
Vitaly IGNATENKO*
Florin IORDACHE
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI
Denis JACQUAT
Gediminas JAKAVONIS
Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*
Tedo JAPARIDZE
Michael Aastrup JENSEN*
Frank J. JENSSEN/Kristin Ørmen Johnsen
Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*
Ögmundur JÓNASSON
Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ/Stefana Miladinović
Josip JURATOVIC*
Anne KALMARI
Mustafa KARADAYI*
Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Claude Frécon
Niklas KARLSSON
Andreja KATIČ*
Vasiliki KATRIVANOU
Ioanneta KAVVADIA
Danail KIRILOV*
Bogdan KLICH
Manana KOBAKHIDZE/Zviad Kvatchantiradze
Haluk KOÇ
Igor KOLMAN
Željko KOMŠIĆ
Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*
Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR/Matjaž Hanžek
Attila KORODI
Alev KORUN/Andreas Schieder
Rom KOSTŘICA*
Elvira KOVÁCS
Tiny KOX
Borjana KRIŠTO
Julia KRONLID*
Eerik-Niiles KROSS/Andres Herkel
Marek KRZĄKAŁA*
Athina KYRIAKIDOU
Serhiy LABAZIUK/Mariia Ionova
Inese LAIZĀNE
Olof LAVESSON
Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’
Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT/Pascale Crozon
Igor LEBEDEV*
Valentina LESKAJ*
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE
Georgii LOGVYNSKYI
François LONCLE/Catherine Quéré
George LOUKAIDES
Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA*
Jacob LUND
Trine Pertou MACH*
Philippe MAHOUX
Thierry MARIANI
Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík
Milica MARKOVIĆ*
Meritxell MATEU PI
Ana MATO
Frano MATUŠIĆ
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA*
Sir Alan MEALE
Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA
Evangelos MEIMARAKIS
Ivan MELNIKOV*
Ana Catarina MENDES*
Attila MESTERHÁZY*
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Jacques Legendre
Philipp MIßFELDER*
Olivia MITCHELL
Igor MOROZOV*
João Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK
Melita MULIĆ
Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ
Hermine NAGHDALYAN
Piotr NAIMSKI*
Sergey NARYSHKIN*
Marian NEACȘU/Titus Corlăţean
Andrei NEGUTA
Zsolt NÉMETH*
Miroslav NENUTIL
Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*
Michele NICOLETTI
Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI
Julia OBERMEIER*
Marija OBRADOVIĆ
Žarko OBRADOVIĆ
Judith OEHRI
Carina OHLSSON
Joseph O’REILLY
Maciej ORZECHOWSKI/Andrzej Jaworski
Sandra OSBORNE/Paul Flynn
Tom PACKALÉN
José Ignacio PALACIOS/Jordi Xuclà
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS
Ganira PASHAYEVA
Florin Costin PÂSLARU*
Waldemar PAWLAK*
Jaana PELKONEN
Vladimir PLIGIN*
Cezar Florin PREDA
John PRESCOTT/Joe Benton
Gabino PUCHE
Alexey PUSHKOV*
Carmen QUINTANILLA
Mailis REPS
Andrea RIGONI
François ROCHEBLOINE
Soraya RODRÍGUEZ
Alexander ROMANOVICH*
Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*
René ROUQUET
Rovshan RZAYEV
Àlex SÁEZ
Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni
Milena SANTERINI
Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza
Deborah SCHEMBRI*
Stefan SCHENNACH
Ingjerd SCHOU
Frank SCHWABE
Urs SCHWALLER/ Luc Recordon
Salvador SEDÓ*
Predrag SEKULIĆ
Ömer SELVİ
Aleksandar SENIĆ
Senad ŠEPIĆ
Samad SEYIDOV*
Jim SHERIDAN/Robert Neill
Bernd SIEBERT*
Valeri SIMEONOV*
Andrej ŠIRCELJ
Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Petras Gražulis
Leonid SLUTSKY*
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Olena SOTNYK
Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli
Yanaki STOILOV
Karin STRENZ
Ionuț-Marian STROE
Valeriy SUDARENKOV*
Krzysztof SZCZERSKI*
Damien THIÉRY
Lord John E. TOMLINSON
Antoni TRENCHEV*
Goran TUPONJA
Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*
Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*
Theodora TZAKRI*
Ilyas UMAKHANOV*
Dana VÁHALOVÁ
Snorre Serigstad VALEN/Hans Fredrik Grøvan
Petrit VASILI*
Imre VEJKEY/Rózsa Hoffmann
Stefaan VERCAMER
Birutė VĖSAITĖ
Dimitris VITSAS
Vladimir VORONIN/Violeta Ivanov
Viktor VOVK
Klaas de VRIES
Nataša VUČKOVIĆ
Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*
Piotr WACH
Robert WALTER
Dame Angela WATKINSON*
Tom WATSON/Jeffrey Donaldson
Karl-Georg WELLMANN*
Katrin WERNER/Gabriela Heinrich
Morten WOLD
Bas van ‘t WOUT/Malik Azmani
Gisela WURM
Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI
Leonid YEMETS/Svitlana Zalishchuk
Tobias ZECH
Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ
Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*
Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN/Rudy Salles
Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Egidijus Vareikis
Guennady ZIUGANOV*
Naira ZOHRABYAN
Levon ZOURABIAN
Vacant Seat, Cyprus*
Vacant Seat, ‘‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’’/Vladimir Gjorchev
Vacant Seat, Turkey*
Vacant Seat, Turkey*
Vacant Seat, Turkey*
Vacant Seat, Turkey*
Vacant Seat, Turkey*
Vacant Seat, Turkey*
Vacant Seat, United Kingdom/Lord Richard Balfe
ALSO PRESENT
Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote
Boriana ÅBERG
Christian BARILARO
Lotta JOHNSSON FORNARVE
Kerstin LUNDGREN
Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI
Bence TUZSON
Sinuhe WALLINHEIMO
Observers
Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA
Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA
Jorge Iván VILLALOBOS SEÁÑEZ
Ernesto GÁNDARA CAMOU
Miguel ROMO MEDINA
Aleida ALAVEZ RUIZ
Partners for democracy
Hanane ABOULFATH
Najat AL-ASTAL
Mohammed AMEUR
Nezha EL OUAFI
Bernard SABELLA
Mohamed YATIM
Appendix II
Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of the judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Armenia, Latvia, Luxembourg and Monaco and in the ballot for the election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe
Pedro AGRAMUNT
Jean-Charles ALLAVENA
Paride ANDREOLI
Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA
Ben-Oni ARDELEAN/Ion Popa
Khadija ARIB/Pieter Omtzigt
Volodymyr ARIEV
David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki
Doris BARNETT
José Manuel BARREIRO
Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková
Anna Maria BERNINI/ Claudio Fazzone
Andris BĒRZINŠ/Boriss Cilevičs
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová
Alessandro BRATTI/Eleonora Cimbro
Piet De BRUYN
Gerold BÜCHEL
André BUGNON
Christopher CHOPE
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN
Henryk CIOCH/Helena Hatka
James CLAPPISON
Paolo CORSINI
Celeste COSTANTINO
Manlio DI STEFANO
Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA
Şaban DİŞLİ
Sergio DIVINA
Daphné DUMERY/Petra De Sutter
Mustafa DZHEMILIEV/Andrii Lopushanskyi
Lady Diana ECCLES
Tülin ERKAL KARA
Joseph FENECH ADAMI
Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU
Doris FIALA/Eric Voruz
Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER
Gvozden Srećko FLEGO
Bernard FOURNIER
Hans FRANKEN
Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO
Sir Roger GALE
Adele GAMBARO
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Francesco Maria GIRO
Pavol GOGA/Ľubomir Petrák
François GROSDIDIER/Jacques Bigot
Andreas GROSS
Dzhema GROZDANOVA
Hannes HANSO
Alfred HEER/Maximilian Reimann
Oleksii HONCHARENKO
Arpine HOVHANNISYAN
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI
Gediminas JAKAVONIS
Anne KALMARI
Niklas KARLSSON
Haluk KOÇ
Igor KOLMAN
Attila KORODI
Tiny KOX
Borjana KRIŠTO
Eerik-Niiles KROSS/Andres Herkel
Athina KYRIAKIDOU
Inese LAIZĀNE
Olof LAVESSON
Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’
Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT/Pascale Crozon
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE
Georgii LOGVYNSKYI
George LOUKAIDES
Thierry MARIANI
Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík
Meritxell MATEU PI
Ana MATO
Frano MATUŠIĆ
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Sir Alan MEALE
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Jacques Legendre
João Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK
Melita MULIĆ
Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ
Andrei NEGUTA
Miroslav NENUTIL
Michele NICOLETTI
Judith OEHRI
Carina OHLSSON
Maciej ORZECHOWSKI/Andrzej Jaworski
José Ignacio PALACIOS/Jordi Xuclà
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Jaana PELKONEN
Cezar Florin PREDA
Gabino PUCHE
Carmen QUINTANILLA
Mailis REPS
Andrea RIGONI
François ROCHEBLOINE
Soraya RODRÍGUEZ
Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza
Stefan SCHENNACH
Ingjerd SCHOU
Frank SCHWABE
Urs SCHWALLER/ Luc Recordon
Aleksandar SENIĆ
Jim SHERIDAN/Robert Neill
Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Petras Gražulis
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Olena SOTNYK
Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli
Yanaki STOILOV
Ionuț-Marian STROE
Lord John E. TOMLINSON
Dana VÁHALOVÁ
Stefaan VERCAMER
Birutė VĖSAITĖ
Vladimir VORONIN/Violeta Ivanov
Viktor VOVK
Klaas de VRIES
Piotr WACH
Robert WALTER
Katrin WERNER/Gabriela Heinrich
Bas van ‘t WOUT/Malik Azmani
Gisela WURM
Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ
Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN/Rudy Salles
Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Egidijus Vareikis
Naira ZOHRABYAN