AA15CR23

AS (2015) CR 23

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-third sitting

Wednesday 24 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 10.10 am)

      THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

      I call Mr Lund on a point of order.

      Mr LUND (Denmark) – I would like to make a personal statement. In yesterday’s debate on the Azerbaijan report, I tabled Amendment 9, but in the confusion I voted against my own amendment. That was not my wish and I know that I made a mistake. I simply wanted to state that I support my own amendment, even as it had been amended by a sub-amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – We take note of your declaration.

1. Consideration of the annulment of the previously ratified credentials of

the delegation of the Russian Federation

      THE PRESIDENT* – The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report titled “Consideration of the annulment of the previously ratified credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation (follow-up to paragraph 16 of Resolution 2034 (2015))”, Document 13800, presented by Mr Stefan Schennach on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, with an opinion from the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs (Document 13827), presented by Mr Egidijus Vareikis.

      It was decided on Monday morning that speaking time is limited to three minutes. On account of the number of speakers on the list, I shall suspend the debate at 12 noon to allow time for the maximum number of members to put questions to Mr Ivanić. The debate on the credentials of the Russian delegation will resume this afternoon at 3.30 p.m.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – It is not necessarily my personal passion that leads me to speak for the third time about the credentials of the Russian delegation, nor is it something that arises from my background or biography. This was not necessarily meant to be. It has to do with my being the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee. This report is one that I must present to the Chamber, and I must address this important issue. This is a conflict within a family – between family members, the Russian Federation and Ukraine – and my role is to find a way out of it.

      In January 2015, as members may recall, the Assembly decided that we would return to this issue at the June part-session to decide whether or not the credentials would be annulled. That is the crux of the matter. That is the issue that has to be addressed by the rapporteur and by the Monitoring Committee. The mandate we were given was to address that point.

      In January, the Assembly also took a decision regarding sanctions from 2014. It was decided that we would continue with those sanctions until the end of this year, 2015. As for the Russian side – how can I put this? There was a very rapid and emotional response on the part of the Russian delegation. They opted for a boycott of the Parliamentary Assembly. That is the path they chose and that is how things stand right now. These are the facts.

      So, what has happened so far? First, I refer you back to Minsk II. There had been a difficult, terrible war in eastern Ukraine and, at the very least, Minsk II brought that conflict to an end. The Monitoring Committee had lengthy and intensive discussions in camera with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) – Heidi Tagliavini in particular was responsible for the dossier. Together we talked about the opportunities afforded by the cease-fire and, of course, all the other demands integrated into the Minsk II agreement. We had a lengthy, extensive debate about these points. This is one of the longest and most complicated cease-fire lines, but I believe we have before us, more or less, an important international achievement.

      That said, there are other demands contained in Minsk II, and unfortunately these have not been met. In fact, if you look at my report, you will see that quite clearly, because I have described the situation in some detail. There has still been no withdrawal of foreign troops from the territory of Ukraine. This has to do with a basic demand made by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and is related to one of our major concerns. Ukraine must be placed in a position where it can have control over its own State territory – where it can control its own borders and make decisions about who is on that territory.

      In addition, you will notice that in this report we look at all sides to the conflict and we address a message to all sides. It is not just one side that has not fulfilled all the obligations. One crucial issue is the presence of heavy artillery and troops. The heavy weaponry must be withdrawn. We need clarity about war crimes – that needs to be elucidated. We also need clarification on the high number of missing persons – we have a report on that tomorrow. Six hundred have died – we know that – and 2 000 are missing, so we also need clarification on that crucial point.

      You will also find a clear position in this report on the fact that some members of our Parliamentary Assembly have been placed on a blacklist. This is absolutely unacceptable, whether it be current or former members of the Assembly. My position of principle is that when it comes to members of parliament, sanctions are misplaced and inappropriate. Sanctions must play an important role, but there is a role that governments sometimes cannot play, namely communication and dialogue. It is important to move towards communication and dialogue. If we fail to have political dialogue, interaction and exchange with one another, I am afraid we will have to fall back on the discourse of the Cold War – or, indeed, a more “alive” tension. Therefore, as members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we must do whatever we can to restore the parliamentary dialogue.

      Of course, the Russian Federation and the delegations representing it must understand that. They must be made to understand that, politically, they have to move. They have to do something; they cannot just wait. That is not enough. I refer back to my report from the January part-session, when I made that statement quite clearly. As far as the Council of Europe is concerned, some points really are red lines and these must be met. The Council of Europe must be in a position to set up and send a mission to Crimea to observe the situation in situ. What is the human rights situation in situ? We need a fact-finding mission. That must be facilitated. Some years ago, we were talking about Abkhazia and Ossetia and having the same kind of mission there, as you may remember. This is a really important point. The Council of Europe must be granted this.

      There is another thing that we must be assured of. We must be able to speak to any member who is behind bars. I am talking, of course, about Nadiia Savchenko, who is behind bars at the moment. We must be able to speak to her.

      These are points of principle and the Russian side must accept and move on them. We need to work together – the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Verkhovna Rada and the Duma – towards a dialogue. These are the crucial points, first and foremost, before we resolve any other issues, and there are many other pending issues. Therefore, I appeal to you all. Criticism must be clear and sanctions will continue until the end of the year; however, we will not annul the credentials that have already been ratified.

      Again it is important to bear in mind the ruling handed down by the European Court of Human Rights. Russia must meet its obligations. Individual citizens in the Russian Federation must be able to put their appeals to the European Court of Human Rights. Of course, work within the Committee of Ministers also needs to be allowed. I am grateful to the Monitoring Committee because the report received a broad majority of support. It would be a sign of strength if the whole Chamber supported the report with a strong vote in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Vareikis to present the opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – As the rapporteur said, the Russian problem is complicated. Last year and this year, we have had to deal with a rather unusual situation. We voted for sanctions and for some limitations on the activity of the Russian delegation. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs was asked to prepare a report to evaluate whether everything we did was in accordance with the rules and procedure. My task was quite bureaucratic but not political. I had to examine whether everything was done according to the rules. After the evaluation and consideration, I proposed a very short report – barely one sentence – on behalf of the committee, saying that everything written in the Monitoring Committee’s report complies with the rules of our Assembly. We have one amendment, which we will present later but, in general, the Assembly is behaving in the right way. I thank the secretariat, which did an important job.

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

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – The heart of the resolution is in paragraph 6, which states – as the rapporteur said when we were dealing with the resolution in the Monitoring Committee – that the Assembly commits itself to “an open and constructive dialogue with” our Russian colleagues and “not to annul…the…credentials of the Russian delegation.” The Group of the Unified European Left will be in favour of the resolution because in times of crisis, dialogue and parliamentary diplomacy are absolutely needed. We should talk with each other not only when things are smooth and easy, but especially when they are difficult and dangerous, and we live in difficult and dangerous times.

      The Assembly should not be a part of the problem, but the engine for finding solutions for the huge conflict that we now envisage in Europe. The Group of the Unified European Left has always opposed sanctions, not because we like or hate the Russians, but because we should maintain dialogue and because imposing sanctions has proved to be counter-productive. Today in the Assembly, we talk about Russia without any Russian colleagues present. That is counter-productive. I appeal to everyone here and to our Russian colleagues to stop maintaining and increasing sanctions. Instead, start to get rid of them to restart parliamentary dialogue and diplomacy.

      To begin with – I am very much in line with Stefan Schennach’s remarks – we need to get all members of parliaments off blacklists. I said to the leader of the Russian delegation, “Get our colleagues off your blacklist because we need them. Whether you like them or not, you have to be in dialogue with them.” I recall that a lot of members of our Assembly have been put on a blacklist by the European Union. The speakers of both houses of the Russian Parliament are on the European Union’s blacklist, as are the leader of the Russian delegation at the Council of Europe, Mr Pushkov, and a member of my group, Mr Melnikov. Let us appeal on behalf of them: do not make it impossible for parliamentarians to work, so get them off the blacklist. In that respect, I support the rapporteur and hope that he will support me.

      Let it be clear that the Group of the Unified European Left has always said that the annexation of Crimea is a violation of international law, but that does not mean that we then have to end our relations with Russia. We did not end our relations with Israel when it was attacking Gaza. We do not do so with Morocco despite the occupation of the Western Sahara, and we do not do so in relation to the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh. My group will vote against all proposals that make the language harsher and make it more difficult to restart parliamentary diplomacy and dialogue. We will vote in favour of not annulling the credentials, although I agree with Mr Vareikis that it would have been better to have followed the language of our own rules and procedure, confirming the already ratified credentials.

      THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Nicoletti, on behalf of the Socialist Group

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – When, at the beginning of the year, the Assembly decided to adopt sanctions towards the Russian Federation, it was not an easy decision. We all hoped that the situation would have evolved over these months in a more positive direction. In a political and legal community such as the one we want to be in, sanctions serve no purpose to exclude a member. They are an instrument to recall who we are and who we want to be. We want to be communicative peoples and States based on respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law – a community that seeks to found its cohabitation upon a dignified people’s dialogue and the reason of dialogue, not of strength.

      The reasons for sanctions are not to be doubted, because there have been serious and unacceptable breaches of international law: the annexation of Crimea, which is contrary to international law; the destabilisation of other regions in Ukraine; and the unacceptable impact on human rights through the preventive detention of Nadiia Savchenko, activists and NGO staff. There has been no progress on any of those fronts and, therefore, we agree with the balanced report that has been proposed. We agree to retain the decision that we took at the time but, together with the reaffirmation of our principles, we should recall the reasons for dialogue and democratisation of institutions as the only way to overcome the conflict. A large part of our crisis is due to the weakness of democracies.

      The Council of Europe is concerned with human rights, and we know that if there is no dialogue, people’s lives will worsen. We must energetically support the Minsk process – the dialogue between governments and parliaments – so the Russian delegation must be here with us. We must invent more creative ways to co-operate rather than limiting ourselves to recording progress or deadlock. Exceptional situations require creativity, exceptional energy and a renewed will to co-operate. The conflict is an internal crisis within our community, not something that comes from outside. Our project remains the European common home – a great project of great statesmen such as de Gaulle and Willy Brandt. Here in Strasbourg in July 1989, Gorbachev affirmed that that project was an objective of the Russian people. We must remain faithful to the expectations of European citizens and build that great European home; we must not resign ourselves to the building of new walls.

      THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Ghiletchi on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – One year and 100 days have passed since the Russian Federation illegally annexed Crimea. That has been 465 days of tension and confrontation, enormous suffering and summary killings, bombing and bloodshed, the destruction of villages and cities, and the loss of thousands of homes and human lives.

      Even if we all remain convinced that an open dialogue, in good faith, between the Assembly and the Russian delegation could help us to find a lasting solution, I am not convinced that we must enter into such a dialogue without preconditions. I am not talking about the long list of actions and demands that the Russian Federation must implement without further delay – a list that gets longer and longer each time we discuss the crisis and all the conflicts that Russia is involved in, including frozen conflicts such as Transnistria. I am not even talking about any lack of progress, although progress is important and in that context, I particularly draw the attention of the Assembly to Amendments 4, 8 and 15, which must be accepted. I am talking about one important precondition, which is peace.

      In January, when Mr Pushkov was in the Monitoring Committee for the last time, in his defensive speech he quoted the Bible, saying, “We all have sinned.” I have to admit that that is true. In biblical terms, we are all sinners, and there are no perfect members in our Assembly. It does not matter whether we are from Armenia or Azerbaijan, Germany or Greece, Moldova or Macedonia, the United Kingdom or Ukraine. What matters is our willingness to accept each other as we are, our openness to forgiving each other and our readiness to help each other to improve. Most of all, what matters is our firm commitment to living in peace with one another.

      It will be very difficult, but I believe I will be able to sit near a Russian "sinner" from next January – as long as he or she is only a "sinner" willing to repent, and not an aggressor ready to attack. That is why I believe that if our only goals are cease-fire or dialogue for the sake of dialogue, without any preconditions, we will fail. I emphasise that peace is what we need before we can all sit together in this Assembly.

      Last year, we commemorated 100 years since the beginning of the First World War, and this year we celebrated 70 years since the end of the Second World War. Most European countries celebrated peace, but some insisted on celebrating victory. Victories divide, but peace unites. As Carl von Clausewitz said, peace, not victory, is the real end of war. It is my sincere desire that our Russian colleagues will hear that message. Let peace rule in our hearts, since as members of one body we were called to peace. Let us all strive toward a long and lasting peace in Europe. Peace must remain a precondition.

      THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Walter, on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – This debate is not about President Putin or Mr Lavrov; it is about the 36 members of the delegation of the Russian Federation. We first debated sanctions against those 36 delegates in April last year, a debate in which they did not participate. They did not want dialogue; all they did was to hold a press conference outside the building. We are the ones who have wanted dialogue. They have offered no explanation, they have made no apology and they have shown no remorse for anything that their government has done. In fact, they have been cheerleaders for and supporters of Mr Putin’s policy.

      I remind the Assembly that we did not ban the Russian delegation from our proceedings. Once or twice last year, members of the delegation even turned up. Some of them came in January this year, when we discussed the matter again. They have decided to have no parliamentary dialogue. If I may correct my colleague Mr Kox, I, as the leader of the United Kingdom delegation, have a visa ban from the Russians. The European Union has not imposed a visa ban on Mr Pushkov. The United States and Canada have done so, but the European Union has not.

      Which other member State of this Organisation has its military forces illegally in three other member States? We can call Georgia and Moldova frozen conflicts, but the situation in Ukraine consists of active military intervention, the unilateral redrawing of borders and the annexation of Crimea. Those are all against the standards of this Organisation and against international law. For more than a year, we have had no explanation, apology or remorse from our Russian colleagues. We have the power in the motion we passed in January to annul the credentials of the Russian Federation. I support the rapporteur in saying that we should keep the status quo and keep the door open. The members of the Russian delegation are free to come, free to discuss the situation and free to enter into dialogue. I am ready to talk to them, and I hope that the rest of us are as well.

      THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Ms Zelienková, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms ZELIENKOVÁ (Czech Republic) – Today, we return to the question of limiting the rights of the Russian delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We discussed the topic at the end of January, when we concluded that Russia had done nothing to dispel our concerns about the situation in Ukraine. Crimea was still occupied, and the fighting in Donbass continued. What has changed since then? Nothing. Crimea is still occupied, and those who disagree are persecuted by the Russian authorities. The rights of Crimean Tatars are vastly violated; now, they do not even have the right to have their own TV channel.

      In accordance with the second Minsk agreement, there is currently a cease-fire in eastern Ukraine. However, it was cynically violated on the day of its signature with the massacre of tens of Ukrainian soldiers in Debaltseve. The cease-fire has been violated almost daily since then and heavy weaponry is being used. European intelligence provides information about the involvement of Russian soldiers in combat and the supply of technology from Russian territory.

      European Union member States were forced to prolong sanctions against the Russian Federation and were supported by countries that do not usually publicly criticise the Kremlin. Those countries now realise that the only alternative to sanctions is turning a blind eye to the massive violation of international law on the eastern border of Europe. The Council of Europe, the purpose of which is the protection of human rights, democracy and rule of law and to pursue European stability, must react in the same way. As the Council of Europe’s rapporteur on the political consequences of the Ukrainian crisis, I have seen how cruel and pointless this war is. The war is artificial, unprovoked and destroys land, lives and relations among people who once peacefully lived as neighbours.

      It is regrettable and totally incomprehensible that Russia is conducting a policy that endangers European security. We can only make assumptions about Russia’s true motivation. It is regrettable that Russia values its own interests more than the stability of the region and that its attitude has not changed one bit. Under such circumstances, there is no other possibility than to adhere to our previous position not to renew the Russian delegation’s rights in the Parliamentary Assembly.

      THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers on behalf of the political groups. Ms Vėsaitė is not here, so I call Mr Pozzo di Borgo.

      Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France)* – I welcome this exhaustive report from Mr Schennach at a time when our Assembly is called upon once again to take a decision on the delicate issue of the annulment of the previously ratified credentials of the Russian delegation. Reading through the report, I find that the reservations I expressed last January, when we decided to deprive our Russian colleagues of their voting rights until the end of the year, are confirmed. It is contrary to the spirit of our institution and of any parliamentary assembly anywhere in the world. Sanctions may be imposed on executives but not against parliamentarians.

      In summary, our Monitoring Committee observes that the situation has not changed or has changed very little, but nevertheless recommends that we do not annul the Russian delegation’s credentials. However, the absence of progress was supposed to result in such an annulment. That is difficult to accept and understand. Even worse, we are undermining the credibility of the Assembly’s work and are sending a terrible message. We brandish our wooden sabre and then pitifully sound the retreat on the ground that our decision has resulted in an impasse.

      The worst aspect of the matter is that the decision was foreseeable right from the start. By punishing our Russian colleagues, we deprived ourselves of the possibility of engaging in dialogue with them and have not contributed towards peace in eastern Ukraine. On the contrary, Russia is boycotting the work of our Assembly and the cease-fire on the front line gets more and more tenuous. We maintained dialogue with our Russian colleagues in the past, such as in Vienna and the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE. We even set up a meeting of the four countries that are supposed to contribute to the solution. Our Assembly, on the other hand, has not managed the political consequences of the conflict in Ukraine. Confronted with undeniable breaches of international and territorial integrity, our Assembly has adopted a dogmatic attitude that is too rigid and does ourselves a disservice. The risk that we will become irrelevant is great. Facts are stubborn. Our Monitoring Committee has been overtaken by the principle of reality. It justifies the non-annulment of the previously ratified credentials of the Russian delegation because we want to engage in dialogue with the Russian delegation. That is exactly what I stated in January. The draft resolution can be criticised on the same grounds. It puts the problem off until the beginning of 2016. We are politicians and not prosecutors, but the Parliamentary Assembly seems to have forgotten that. I am sorry, but we must return to reality.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I see that Ms Vėsaitė is now back in the Chamber, so I call her to speak.

      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania) – I regret that the Russian delegation are not among us today and that they suspended all official contact with the Assembly and rejected our request for dialogue. It seems that they have suspended their credentials themselves until the end of the year. Our discussion today is more about what is going on in Ukraine and whether Russia is complying with the demands set by the Assembly in its resolutions.

      The situation in eastern Ukraine is more than tragic. According to United Nations statistics, up to 1 June, more than 6 000 civilians have been killed and some 16 000 wounded. The actual number of victims is supposed to be higher as thousands of people are missing. Hundreds of thousands people have become refugees. This is not just about statistics. Every number shows the tragedy of real people – children, men, women – whose lives have changed dramatically and will never be the same. Moreover, the situation in eastern Ukraine is worsening. Provocations and the intensifying attacks of separatists might trigger another wave of open military attacks at any moment. The Minsk agreement is not being fulfilled.

      I notice with great regret and disappointment that Russia is still denying its participation in the conflict instead of trying to help to save the lives of innocent people. On the contrary, it seems that Russia is putting in efforts to make the conflict continue with the intention to make it difficult for Ukraine to recover. If we turn away from the Ukrainian authorities and leave them alone to solve the problem, we will betray the people of Ukraine who believe in European values and still hope to live in a democratic country with respect for human rights. We want Russia to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. The conflict has also had economic impacts on neighbouring countries such as mine. Resources are limited and must now be allocated to military purposes rather than to addressing our people’s needs. We hope one day to have what we badly want: peace in Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT – I remind colleagues that there are many speakers on the list and that we therefore have a three-minute time limit on speeches. Please respect that. I call Mr Neguta.

      Mr NEGUTA (Republic of Moldova)* – After the adoption of Resolution 2034, an important document was signed in Minsk on 12 February, which was approved by a United Nations Security Council resolution. It has the status of an international legal document. It is the Minsk II agreement, which is a compass for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine – there can be no alternative to such a resolution.

      The Minsk II document must be fully enforced. The first step was to make sure that active combat ended and that heavy weaponry was withdrawn. That has largely happened, although unfortunately shots are still being fired and there are even victims. However, there are no major battle lines or big battles. The two sides have been separated and there is no longer any contact between them, unlike previously. Kiev needs to have direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, and following a Russian proposal some working subgroups were constituted to look at various areas of regulation: economics, security, humanitarian matters, politics. I believe Russia is exerting the necessary pressure on the unrecognised administrations of the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. Constitutional reform must take place, the law on municipal elections must be adopted in these territories, and the law on amnesty needs to be approved.

      Allow me to explain my own point of view on the draft resolution tabled here today. I feel it is positive, but also somewhat one-sided as it only talks about what the Russian side should be doing. Few demands are placed on Ukraine.

      I turn to our dear rapporteur, Mr Schennach. At this year’s January and April part-sessions, we talked at length about a number of subjects including Nadiia Savchenko. In paragraph 5.3 of the draft resolution, you call once again for her immediate release. Nothing will change. We are here in Strasbourg and we are demanding this, but the Russian delegation to the Assembly and indeed all Russian members of parliament are currently in Moscow. The two sides are not listening to one another. In fact, all of us are only listening to the sound of our own voices. If we continue down this route, nothing will change. As a diplomat, I remain convinced it is better to have discussions than to issue ultimatums.

      The situation has improved. I suggest we decide to restore the rights of the Russian delegation, and then at the October part-session, the Assembly can meet in full composition and assess the Ukrainian conflict and the implementation of Minsk II.

      Ms SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER (Switzerland)* – Developments in Russia in the three main areas of democracy, the rule of law and human rights were already critical before the annexation of Crimea and the Ukraine crisis. The Council of Europe has debated on several occasions the ever-tightening restrictions on civil rights and freedoms in Russia, and whether there was adherence to democratic principles and the rule of law and whether human rights were being upheld.

      Nevertheless, there have been some successes in the Council of Europe in the last few years: the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe observation missions in 2007-08 and 2011-12 at the presidential and Duma elections; the many fact-finding missions to North Caucasus; and the readiness of Russia to accept the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and pay compensation, which is often linked to those judgments. In October 2013, the Council of Europe managed to open an office in Moscow. Unfortunately, that did not receive a lot of media coverage.

      The Council of Europe’s intention was never to exclude members or restrict parliamentary members’ rights even in the case of omissions or infringements of rights; our intention was instead to look at the potential of the Council of Europe and how such crises could be overcome. The Council of Europe’s instruments and methods could gain in significance in the Russian case. The Assembly is one such instrument and the longer we do not resort to using this instrument, the worse the polemic about the participation of the Russian parliamentary delegation will be, and that will distract us from Russia’s shortcomings, which would be regrettable.

      In its bilateral relations with many countries, Russia tends to skirt around human rights questions. That is why critical discussion with Russia in the Council of Europe is more urgent than ever. Russia is less likely to respond to incentives and sanctions than to direct critical dialogue. Our country has been trying to pursue this dialogue. In Geneva in the past few days, there was a human rights dialogue between Switzerland and Russia and the parliamentary friendship group invited colleagues from the Duma to a federalism seminar in Switzerland. The Council of Europe is here to build bridges, not rip them down. I ask colleagues to take these thoughts into account when considering the amendments.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The visitors in the gallery are very welcome here among us, but it is not normal for you to applaud, so I ask you to refrain from doing so. You are most welcome to the house of democracy, however. Lord Anderson is not present, so I call Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – I have a question: how many warnings do we have to make, how many Minsk agreements do we have to sign, how many resolutions do we have to adopt before we understand that Russia does not take into account at all the force of democratic and civilised societies? Russia completely ignores all the demands in Minsk agreements I and II and in the resolutions we adopted in April and January. I do not think anything will happen after we vote for the new resolution today.

      I want to inform you about the recent news on the Russian and Russian-backed terrorist side’s so-called implementation of the Minsk agreement. These are just facts. The terrorists constantly threaten OSCE mission observers. They continue shelling the positions of Ukraine forces and also civilians; over the three days of 12 and 15 June alone, Russian and Russian-backed terrorists shelled Ukraine forces over 310 times. The number of cease-fire violations increases day by day, as do the number of military wounded; we have no days when there are no wounded, but there are peaks, such as at the beginning of June and now. I am deeply upset by the decision of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs to propose “In the draft resolution, paragraph 6, replace the words ‘resolves not to annul’ with the words: ‘resolves to confirm’.” To follow that logic, why not make an award for the annexation of a territory and the brutal violation of international law? We have to learn the history of the Second World War, which teaches us to make no deals with aggressors. We must remember the history of non-interventionist politics: it failed, and in a few years there was a Second World War. We have to avoid that happening again.

      We have to decide whether Russia will ignore three resolutions. We have to annul Russia’s credentials – that would be fair and logical. We have to confirm that we are sitting in the home of justice and fairness; otherwise, we will lose the Assembly’s credibility. We have to decide that later, but now we must vote for the resolution, as a compromise.

      Mr HONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – We are speaking about inter-parliamentary dialogue with the Russian Federation; it sounds great, but let us speak the truth. I went to Moscow on 1 March, for dialogue. I am a member of parliament and a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Russian authorities did let me in, but only to arrest me, beat me, and keep me in the police station for many hours. That is how Russian inter-parliamentary dialogue works.

      The Council of Europe was organised after the awful war to prevent such wars in future, but now, the big war is knocking at our doors. What are we doing? It seems to me that Europe and the international community are sleeping. Yesterday, we heard Mr Ban Ki-moon’s speech, but there was no mention of Russia. Yesterday, I asked our Secretary General, Mr Jagland, about the report on the Russian Federation; he said that there are big problems in many countries. I do not know of any other member state of the Council of Europe that has annexed the territory of another member State. Is that at the same level as the problems in many countries? I do not think so.

      If we stay in this position, the end will be very sad. I want to ask you, Europe, to please wake up before you are slaughtered while you sleep. The problem is very big and important and the situation is very dangerous. On my tie is written, “God stop Putin”. Why? Because, at the moment, it seems to me that only the Lord can stop him, not the people who need to: the international community, the Council of Europe and the European countries. Everyone in this Chamber can play a part in preventing the big war that is knocking on our doors. Members should realise that, absolutely clearly, because if we look at January’s resolution, point by point, what has been done? Nothing. Russia just spits on it. Please be aware of what is happening, and let us act.

      Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – After what the previous speaker said, this is an appropriate time to stress how emotional this subject can become. What has just been said is very serious – of course, the situation is very serious – but if we continue to speak in those terms, it is the weapons that will end up speaking, not the Parliamentary Assembly.

      If we remain serene and look carefully at the geopolitical and economic situation, it is clear that both sides are obligated to engage in dialogue about democracy and human rights. That does not mean that we should not criticise the regime in power in the Russian Federation, although it seems that the leader was democratically elected, as was the leader in Ukraine. There are blacklists, with parliamentarians not allowed to travel in either direction, and we know that there are troops in Donbass. We can ask some more subtle questions about what is happening in Crimea, but the Tatars are being treated in an absolutely unacceptable way. There was a very serious incident in Odessa, and there seem to be some fascist tendencies in the Ukrainian regime, so we can criticise them as well, but that is not our job as a Parliamentary Assembly.

      We must go back to dialogue because that is the only way to reduce tension and bring the Russian Federation back under the influence of the European Court of Human Rights. Of course, it is not only about the Russian Federation; other governments should also be executing the Court’s judgments. For God’s sake, let us try to remain calm in a difficult situation, as has our rapporteur. Let us not precipitate anything. We should support this delicately balanced report. I really believe that we can return to working more normally at the beginning of next year.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – The best way to analyse the situation over the past year and a half is to look at our previous declarations and decisions. Because we will form this session’s decision on the basis of the Parliamentary Assembly’s January decision, I want to stress the main items from that decision. My colleagues will have more information about the occupation of Crimea and the violations of human rights there. My colleagues from Moldova will describe the situation when we had just passed the previous resolution calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria, which is part of Moldova, and from Georgia. I want to focus on nine items relating to the Ukrainian situation.

      First, the resolution called for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. What do we have now? There are 30,000 Russian troops in Crimea, and in the eastern territories of Donetsk and Luhansk, week to week, there are 9,000 to 15,000 more troops from the Russian Federation.

      Secondly, the resolution contained three items about so-called volunteers who got their blood money for shooting and killing people. The items call on the Russian Federation to stop this wave of volunteers. What do we see? I will give some details from Nemtsov’s report. Who are and who were the leaders of the so-called people’s republics in Donetsk and Luhansk? First, there was Alexander Borodai, who was prime minister of the Donetsk people’s republic. He is a citizen of the Russian Federation. Igor Girkin was the minister of defence for the Donetsk people’s republic. He is a Russian citizen. Next, Igor Bezler was the leader of the so-called militia of Donetsk. He is a Russian citizen. Arseny Pavlov was the leader of one of the most horrible, aggressive military groups in the Donetsk people’s republic, and published on his Facebook page an account of killing 15 people in the area of Donetsk airport. He is a Russian citizen. I could continue to give facts about these Russian citizens, who are the main people in charge of the terrorist people’s republics in Donetsk and Luhansk. The next very important point is to stop all efforts towards further escalations. The report is important in showing that our concerns must be dealt with item by item.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I thank the rapporteur. I hear what has been said and I understand the feelings, emotions and passions that have been expressed, but we must re-establish firm dialogue. I believe, or at least I wish to believe, in the necessity of firm dialogue.

      To respond to our Swiss friend, whose analysis I share, the Assembly was set up after the war to defend peace, human rights and the rule of law. What is now happening does not please me at all. There are nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad and there may be some in Crimea – they will be there soon, and Russian brigades are there already. There is a Russian aircraft carrier in the Black Sea and there are missiles in Ukraine. To allay the fears of Baltic countries and others, heavy weapons are being moved there, which I do not like at all. For the first time, we can say that peace is endangered on our very continent. That is patently obvious.

      We have to get out of this situation. I have no answer to provide, but I am trying to understand it. I am on my country’s defence committee, and I have to ask myself how we got into this situation. The genuine schism between Russia and other countries goes back a long way to the failure to anchor Russia in the Euro-Atlantic space. We are now paying for the consequences of that failure.

      There is a double threat to Russia. The first is to the west in the form of NATO and the United States. Russia has a strategic obsession in relation to the United States, whereas United States is not at all interested in Russia at the moment. The second is the threat from Sunni radicalism in the south, against which Russia has adopted a strategy that we have not yet sufficiently analysed and discussed. We have to anticipate a number of responses, given that we have missed other responses in the past.

      We have underestimated Russia’s power policy – its will for power. That is important because it has the third largest military budget. Contrary to what has been said, Putin wants to counter historical events, even though he has no direct experience of them. The Russians have a strategy and a clear vision. They have a double lock to master: on the one hand, it is the Baltic and Kaliningrad and on the other, it is the Black Sea and Crimea. There should have been no strategic surprise when the opportunity arose to swoop on Crimea. The Russians have diplomatic agility, but they are brazen. They have principles – respect of state sovereignty and frontiers – but they have trampled their principles under foot. I must say that we should renew dialogue: Russia is not an enemy; it must be a partner.

      Ms BECK (Germany)* – I learned a very clear lesson during my political career: the first right of victims is the right to the truth. I am referring to the years and years of attacks on Bosnia, when we saw on our television screens civilians being shot at in the city of Sarajevo. It was important for us to respond to what was happening, but it was really difficult because we wanted to remain equidistant.

      It is absolutely essential to fulfil our obligations and duties by seeing this situation as it is. We want to know what is going on, not to sweep anything under the carpet. I therefore call on all members of parliament in the Chamber to look at the picture provided by their national intelligence services. We must ask for evidence and see proof, because that way we can get a clear picture of what is happening in Donbass and clear evidence about how Russian forces are active in the territory of Ukraine.

      Speakers have said that we should maintain a dialogue with our Russian colleagues. I absolutely agree that that is an important demand. It assumes, however, that our colleagues will send us a tiny signal that they want a dialogue. Have any of them done so? I am referring to the fact that Nadiia Savchenko is behind bars. Have any of our Russian colleagues said that they find that unacceptable or said anything at all about it? The German Government’s human rights envoy has had to cancel a mission to Russia because he has been declared persona non grata. I deplore the fact that no signals indicating openness or transparency are coming from our Russia colleagues at the moment.

      We must not be naïve, but take due note of that matter because the Assembly’s authority is now being challenged and questioned. We cannot just yield our authority. That would be unacceptable. We must stand by our principles. The Council of Europe has a certain status and we have rules. If countries sign up to those rules and want to be involved in our work to promote democracy and the rule of law and to speak for Europe, then they are most cordially welcome to join us. However, if they send out the signal that they are absolutely not interested in such principles, we cannot be so naïve as to say that we will not react.

      We should think back to 2008, when we did not react to the war in Georgia. What did that mean in practice? Did it lead to greater openness on the part of the Russian delegation? Quite honestly, we made a mistake back then. I therefore argue that we should reclaim the authority of the Assembly and support the draft resolution.

      Mr HUNKO (Germany)* – In July 1989, nearly 26 years ago, the then Soviet head of State and head of his party, Mikhail Gorbachev, addressed this Chamber and described a vision of a common European home. In the following few months and years, there were very quick developments, including the reunification of Germany just a few months later. The Soviet Government, as it then was, agreed to that, and it withdrew its troops from East Germany. It also agreed to allow that half of Germany to join NATO.

      At that time, NATO pledged not to extend eastwards. The decision in the 1990s to extend NATO ever further towards the east is one of the bases of this conflict. The US foreign policy expert George Kennan said in 1997 that the decision of the Clinton government to extend NATO towards the boundaries of Russia was the “most fateful error of American policy” since the Second World War. He wrote: “Such a decision may be expected to inflame nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.” The major misjudgment of extending NATO towards the east was one of the bases of the whole conflict. The Russians have said again and again that Ukrainian or Georgian membership of NATO is a red line for them.

      If we are talking about solutions, it is important not just to condemn the annexation of Crimea – of course we should condemn it – but to look at exit routes. Should we be trying to avoid a major war? It is 26 years since Gorbachev’s speech in this Chamber. I suggest we invite him to speak here again in October. Please consider that. It would send a major and important signal and offer us the possibility of renewing relations with Russia.

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – The situation in Ukraine over the last year has serious implications for Europe at all levels. We have seen horrendous humanitarian suffering. The situation has economic consequences, and we have had a dramatic change in European security policy. The Minsk agreement is of great importance and we call on the parties to do their utmost to respect and follow up on it.

      In Ukraine, Russia has violated fundamental principles of intergovernmental relations and is challenging the very basis of the international legal order and international law. To not respond to that would be to compromise on the basic values of the Council of Europe, which are precisely the principles on which we all base our foreign policy.

      Sovereignty and equality are fundamental principles of international law, so I support Mr Schennach’s recommendation to the Assembly to continue the sanctions imposed on the Russian delegation in January. They send a strong signal to Russia that its actions are simply not acceptable and not worthy of a state that has signed up to the convention system of the Council of Europe.

      At the same time, it is my belief that our Assembly should always be open for dialogue. Not voting to annul their credentials entirely would maintain that position. Mr Schennach has made a wise recommendation, and I encourage the Assembly to support it. At the same time, we should continue to call on Russia to change its course, to stop supporting the separatists in eastern Ukraine, to respect international law, to comply with its obligations under the Minsk agreements and to take steps to rebuild confidence. If its members returned to their seats in the Assembly, that would be one small step in the right direction.

      Russia has not only tried to change Ukraine’s borders, but is preventing the country from shaping its own future. Ultimately, it is a question of Ukraine’s right to self-determination. Assisting Ukraine’s reform agenda therefore remains a priority. We should all do our utmost to support Ukraine in its efforts to reform the country and build a functioning democracy. That would probably be the strongest sanction that the international community could impose on Russia.

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr Seyidov is not here, so the next speaker is Mr Logvynskyi.

      Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – As has already been said in this Chamber, the credentials of the Russian delegation is an issue of our self-respect. When Russia joined the Council of Europe, it undertook to respect the basic principles on which the Organisation is built – to respect the rule of law, peace and stability. Russia annexed a territory of another member State and started a war in the middle of Europe. That war has already lasted for more than a year, and thousands of human lives have been lost.

      In addition, under the European Convention on Human Rights, which Russia ratified, it is obliged to enforce the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. We all know that unfortunately many States for different reasons protract the enforcement of the Court’s judgments, but Russia has gone much further. Several days ago, its constitutional court declared that the Court’s judgments are not obligatory any more. What more are we waiting for? Does anyone in the Chamber still believe in dialogue with Russia? Does anyone actually hope that a regime that openly demonstrates ignorance of the key rules of international law can be a partner?

      Russia believes that it is not bound by the judgments of international judicial bodies and that it can rob, kill, displace, kidnap and destroy with complete impunity, but we cannot allow it. We should oblige aggressors to compensate for the damage caused, so we must support the decisive actions of States that confiscate Russian Federation property, as was done in the Yukos case when Russia refused to enforce the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) judgment and pay compensation.

      The damage to the Ukrainian State just from the annexation of Crimea is more than €1 trillion, and we are unable to calculate how much the reconstruction of Donbass will cost. That is without mentioning compensation for human suffering, including the terrible suffering of the Crimean Tatars, who were displaced and went missing.

      I call on member States to use all possible legal means to stop aggressors by reducing their appetite and stopping impunity and anarchy in Europe. I invite members to support the motion and written declaration prepared by the Ukrainian delegation in that respect.

      Mr LOPUSHANSKYI (Ukraine)* – Today, we are once again examining the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation. We all know that none of the requirements in our last resolution in January has been respected. Since then we have a new instrument – the Minsk agreement that was signed in February. That document was to become the road map for the normalisation of the situation and the re-establishment of peace in the Ukrainian region of Donbass, yet the Kremlin continues to violate its commitment through the presence of Russian soldiers and mercenaries. The situation in the field remains almost exactly the same as back in January. Every day, Ukrainians are hearing of more lives lost among our soldiers and our civilian population. Those facts are glaringly obvious and no propaganda machine can hide them.

      I recently accompanied a delegation with members from all the political groups of the European Parliament to visit the small town of Shyrokyne. That is the last town before you reach Mariupol. There we saw the funnel-shaped traces of explosions from large-calibre artillery fire, which is clearly prohibited by the Minsk agreement. We have seen the ruins of houses, schools and pre-schools. Our rapporteur from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy visited the Ukrainian region of Donbass. We accompanied her, and she has clearly stated what she saw there.

      In this Chamber, we always talk about dialogue. That is our basic instrument and the main way of achieving the objectives that we set ourselves. Ukraine is faithful to that principle; we want a dialogue with our partners, but that is not possible without respect on both sides. Today, the Kremlin is doing everything it can not to engage in dialogue. It wants Europe simply to accept its conditions and imperatives. Do you see any members of the Russian delegation in the Chamber? No, you do not. They do not accept the ideas of engaging in dialogue and meeting the requirements of the Assembly and the civilised world.

      We must answer the question of whether we are prepared to accept the Kremlin’s ultimatum. Are we prepared to continue to support aggression?

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr Conde is not here, so I call Mr Bereza.

      Mr BEREZA (Ukraine)* – It has been suggested that we talk to Russia, but you can only talk to those who are prepared to listen, to try to understand and to answer. You can talk to a civilised counterpart, but how do you talk to someone who regularly says A and does B – someone who does the opposite of what they say? I am talking about the Russian Federation. Totalitarian regimes always play the anti-Semitic card – we remember the Holocaust, of course, but I think also of the assassination of Solomon Mikhoels, the Russian Jewish leader. Stalin also engaged in anti-Semitism of course. It is almost a hallmark of totalitarian regimes, but today Russia has gone even further.

The Russian propagandists do not limit themselves to the myth that Maidan was started by Jews. On 13 February 2014, there was an attack on several Jews and Russian citizens, and afterwards the propagandists claimed it was carried out by Ukrainian nationalists. Lavrov, the Foreign Minister, said the anti-government forces in Ukraine were using anti-Russian rhetoric mixed with anti-Semitism and that opposition leaders, supported by the west, were out of control and not acting in accordance with civilised standards. Yaakov Dov Bleich, a Ukrainian leader in New York, stated that he had expected such provocation because Russia wanted a pretext to invade Ukraine. This is not true: there are no fascists in Ukraine. The leaders of the Maidan movement protect the synagogues. At the time of Anschluss, the Nazis beat up Jews, and this is also happening in the Russian Federation.

      Ukraine is a single, united nation with no anti-Semitism. I am not sorry that the Russian delegation is absent, but I find it unacceptable that Russian armed forces are killing innocent civilians in eastern Ukraine, and doing so on the basis of outright propaganda.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – On 16 April, President Putin said, “I can tell you outright and unequivocally that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine”. That, of course, was a bare-faced and well-documented lie, but it is a lie that has been supported by the Russian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, whose members, as Bob Walter said, have acted as cheerleaders for Putin’s policy. The continued and active Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine – those of us who have visited are in no doubt that such an intervention exists – and the annexation of Crimea are in clear breach of Council of Europe and international law.

      Since April 2014, when members of the Russian delegation left this chamber to give a press conference before leaving Strasbourg, they have shown no desire to enter into the dialogue that some colleagues have called for. The report calls for the maintenance of the status quo and for keeping the door open for dialogue, and that is right. The Monitoring Committee has endorsed many of the proposed amendments, but not Amendment 12, which was proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights without a majority. The amendment seeks to confirm the credentials of the Russian delegation. I believe that that would send out entirely the wrong signal, and I hope that the Assembly will reject it overwhelmingly and support the resolution.

      Mr CHIKOVANI (Georgia) – We are discussing a report and a draft resolution on the consideration of the annulment of the previously ratified credentials of the Russian Federation, but neither the draft resolution nor any amendment mentions annulment, so we are not actually discussing annulment; we are discussing what choices we have. The rapporteur said it was not his choice to stand in front of us and talk about the Russian credentials, but we can choose whether we are ready and able to send a strong signal to the Russian Federation that this is not the way to continue.

      I also want to talk about the choices we all have, personal or otherwise. Georgians and Ukrainians did not choose to live in the neighbourhood of the Russian Federation, but we have chosen to be part of the Council of Europe, where human rights, the rule of law and democracy are the guiding principles. Our choice is to be European Union-associated States, not Russian-associated States. Our choice is to be part of the largest security umbrella providing the opportunity for every citizen to benefit, develop and work for a better life. This is our choice. That is why we stand firm. We want to make sure that the whole of European society stands together and chooses to stand against the occupation.

Yes, our Russian colleagues had a choice. They could have been here for our deliberations on how to improve the situation, but they chose to be back in Moscow to ratify the so-called international agreements with Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, thereby annexing parts of our countries. That is the choice of our colleagues who come here and talk about engagement. We agree that this is not the time for new wars in Europe. It is the time, however, for clear messages to be sent. If we do not maintain clarity, strictness and straightforwardness in this message, the consequences will be much graver. In 2008, we failed to stop Russia, and now we have the situation in Crimea. If we do not stop the Russians in Crimea, other countries will follow.

THE PRESIDENT – Lord Anderson, you were not in the Chamber earlier, so I give you the floor now.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Madam President, you are very kind. I bow before you as a penitent. I was out of the Chamber earlier, but I have heard most of the debate. I heard, for example, about our common European home. Surely we all agree with that aspiration; it is not us who have barred the doors to the common European home. I have heard us blame ourselves to some degree – for example, in respect of NATO. It was provocative and unwise to seek to extend NATO eastwards, contrary to agreements, as happened at the Istanbul NATO summit, but that surely does not justify the invasions.

Nevertheless, I generally agree with Stefan Schennach and the Secretary General. We are in a world of signals and passing messages, and I agree that in general we should maintain the status quo, but I travel in little hope. I heard colleagues say that we should appeal to our Russian colleagues to respect international law. Does one seriously expect that they will say, “Gosh, we hadn’t thought of that. Yes, we’ll comply”? Of course not. There is a new, aggressive nationalism led by President Putin and accepted, as Bob Walter said, by the members of the Russian delegation here, who act almost like a Stalinist monolith, as cheerleaders for their own leadership.

      Why did we take the decision in the first place? We took it because of the invasion of Crimea, and we took it because Russia was clearly destabilising eastern Ukraine. The Russians said that there were no Russian troops there. That was clearly a lie. I recall Mr Pushkov saying that there were no Russian tanks in eastern Ukraine. Well, the rebels in Donetsk and Lugansk must have bought them in the local supermarkets. It is absolutely clear that Russia brought those tanks over the border. We also took the decision because of the clear destabilisation of eastern Ukraine. What has happened since? Russia still occupies Crimea, which was not even mentioned in the Minsk agreement. There are very well documented human rights abuses in Crimea. Russia is still seeking to destabilise the eastern part of Donetsk, and so on. I accept, as the OSCE has said, that there are also violations on the other side.

      Dialogue, yes; but surely there are limits. I travel with colleagues towards the end of this year, following the decision, but I travel with little hope. Let us see what happens, but I fear that we shall be revisiting this so-called dialogue – this position – at the end of the year with little change, and we shall be faced with the same decision.

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – In January, we adopted the resolution requesting that the Russian Federation respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, release all prisoners and implement the Minsk agreement. It is necessary to note that not one part of the resolution has been implemented. The cease-fire regime has been breached more than 7 000 times. I work in the Minsk Group as a representative for Ukraine on humanitarian issues. We have had discussions there, but no progress has been made because the Russian Federation blocks all constructive proposals from Ukraine. The Russian Federation does not conceal its undoubted influence over terrorists but continues to sponsor and support them. Just after the signature of the Minsk agreement, Ukraine lost a considerable part of its territory. Vuhlehirsk and Debaltseve have been destroyed by Russian regular troops and tanks, and other Ukrainian towns have been bombed. The same has occurred in Shyrokyne, Marinka and other towns.

      Terrorists receive arms without any difficulty. Thirty so-called humanitarian convoys crossed the Ukrainian border from the Russian Federation. There were more than 3 400 trucks the contents of which remain unknown to Ukraine. Some 412 km of the border is not under control. At least 11 Ukrainian prisoners have been illegally transferred to Russian Federation territory. They are in Russian prisons. Remember their names. Nadiia Savchenko has been imprisoned despite 70 resolutions and appeals from international organisations and 30 notes from the Ukrainian Foreign Minister. Oleg Sentsov, Oleksandr Kolchenko, Oleksiy Chyrnyiy and Genadyiy Afanasiev have all been arrested in Crimea and are now in Russian prisons. Mykola Karpiuk, Stanislav Soloshenko, Valentyn Vygovskyiy and Sergyiy Lytvynov are also imprisoned.

      In Crimea, the rights of Tatars and Ukrainians are being breached. Today, just as in Nazi times, there is a diaspora of Tatars. The touristic Crimea is being transformed into a military camp and proving ground where terrorists are testing new arms. This year, we have noted the death of more than 7 000 Ukrainians, and 17 000 have been wounded.

      Ms TZAKRI (Greece)* – The crisis in Ukraine is a real challenge to relations between Russia and Europe and within the entire region. With the addition of events in the Middle East, we find ourselves in the middle of a triangle of insecurity. We therefore want to contribute to a constructive dialogue and work towards a solution. We now know that the sanctions policy will not lead to a political solution. Pressure will not lead to lasting solutions. We should opt for a diplomatic route instead. We need to adopt measures not in anger but with a spirit of constructiveness and desire to reach a solution. By imposing sanctions we are not being truly European. We need to depart from the past and seek a constructive dialogue. What exactly do we want to achieve? Do we want to isolate Russia? Do we want to contribute to an ever-greater humanitarian crisis – more suffering, more pain? Or do we want to draw Russia into the European security project, building mutual support and trust? Do we want to have Russia on our side, by our side? Or do we want Russia to be against us?

      Greece is in favour of Russia meeting its Minsk obligations – that goes without saying – but, at the same time, we would like to see some initiatives for greater and more constructive co-operation between, let us say, Russia and the United States. We would like to see sanctions, but sanctions that are conducive to dialogue, not sanctions that will block or end dialogue. The initiative taken by the international community should be continued but with a view to achieving a dialogue. We want to help Ukraine. We want to help it achieve administrative reform and a genuine decentralisation of powers.

      We are convinced that this economic war, which is following on from the real war on the ground, is leading us to a bottleneck. The militarisation of this region – this return to a Cold War climate – is absolutely not the right way to find a solution. On the contrary, there is now mistrust and division in the relations between Europe and Russia. We therefore have to change tack and come back to dialogue and genuine negotiations. The Russians should come back to the political community and the negotiating community.

      Ms IONOVA (Ukraine) – We have heard that the situation is becoming better, but that is absolutely not true. The situation is escalating. After the new Minsk agreement was signed, Ukraine has suffered huge losses. As Ms Gerashchenko said, there has been shelling on more than 7 000 occasions. More than 161 people were killed and 910 were injured. The cease-fire and search for a peaceful settlement are still not being respected by pro-Russian terrorists or by the Russian Federation, which is a party to the Minsk agreement.

      Russia is, in fact, an aggressor. Whose troops are on the territory of Ukraine? Whose weapons are the terrorists using? Ukraine is now a proving ground for modern Russian arms. That is why the dialogue with the aggressor has to be toughened up. I give you the example of one of the last fights that took place near Marinka. Ten Russian tanks and 1 000 terrorists were attacking Marinka, 300 of them from the regular Russian army. Ms Savchenko is still in a Russian prison and the number of Ukrainian prisoners in Russia has increased. After our resolution, Putin announced that it was his plan to occupy Crimea and it was his soldiers who were involved. This awful violation has been publicly announced to the whole world by a high-level State official.

      We were also deeply concerned by the meetings we had with foreign journalists, especially those from France 24, a French channel. They were deeply concerned that they were not given access to Crimea. Ukraine is a responsible State. That is why we demand the withdrawal of the Russian regular army and heavy weapons from the territory of Ukraine and control of the Ukrainian-Russian border. Then we can provide for local elections, but in accordance with OSCE standards, together with the international community. Russia is not only violating the Minsk agreement; it is violating the basic norms of international law, such as the United Nations Charter, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Budapest Memorandum. That is why we are talking about strengthening sanctions against Russia, because if Russia sees any weakening of the sanctions policy, it will go further.

      It is also important to say that it is not only Ukraine suffering at the hands of the Russian Federation, but the whole of Europe. This is a challenge for the entire system of collective security in Europe. Peace and democracy in Europe is now extremely fragile and can easily break down unless there are steps to take more restrictive measures against Russia. There is a real war in Ukraine, but I hope that diplomacy for peace is here in Europe and that we will overcome the aggression and war of the Russian Federation.

      Mr VLASENKO (Ukraine) – In this debate about the credentials, we are mostly debating whether the Russian Federation has satisfied the criteria in Resolution 2034 of this year. Paragraph 11 of the resolution was totally dedicated to the case of Nadiia Savchenko. In that paragraph, we as an Assembly declared that her imprisonment by the Russian authorities was a violation of international law amounting to a de facto kidnapping. As a result, we called on the Russian authorities to release Ms Savchenko within 24 hours and ensure her return to Ukraine.

      I remind you that Nadiia Savchenko was captured by separatists near the city of Luhansk in Ukraine on 17 July 2014. She was questioned by them and the video of her questioning uploaded to YouTube the next day. After that, Nadiia disappeared for several days. She was found by her defence lawyers in a pre-detention centre in the city of Voronezh in the Russian Federation. Some days later, the whole world heard the explanation of Mr Putin. He said that Nadiia had been arrested for crossing the border of the Russian Federation of her own will without any documents. What a cynical position. In October 2014, Nadiia was elected as a member of the Ukrainian Parliament from the Batkivshchyna party list. Since January 2015, she has been a member of this Assembly.

      After that, Russian propaganda started creating a lot of myths about Nadiia. I want to say a few words about these myths. They said she was guilty of criminal activity. I should stress that there is no verdict by any court, even in Russia, finding her guilty of any criminal activity. Have our colleagues from Russia forgotten about the presumption of innocence? No; they simply do not know what it means. Nadiia Savchenko’s defence lawyers have presented evidence of her innocence several times, but no one has responded. The Russian authorities have said that she is in jail for her crimes. She has been detained in jail for no reason, with no evidence and following no verdict – she has not been convicted – for one year, without the case coming to court. According to the law of the Russian Federation, that would be enough for, let us say, the smallest investigator to release Nadiia Savchenko, but there is no such will.

      As an Assembly, we said in paragraph 11 of Resolution 2034 that we demanded the release of Nadiia Savchenko in accordance with “the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe…and its protocol, according to which Ms Nadiya Savchenko, as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly, enjoys…parliamentary immunity.” What was the Russian authorities’ answer to these demands? The answer was totally in the Russian style. Basmanny district court did not recognise Nadiia’s parliamentary immunity and made a new accusation against her. That is dialogue Russian-style. We do not support that. Let us vote for this resolution.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia)* – Today, we should be saying more about what is happening in Ukraine, but unfortunately, although understandably, we are concentrating on what we have not done and what we might do to prevent the situation from deteriorating. Therefore, this is really a debate about the impotence of this Organisation. It is not a debate about the people who are suffering in Ukraine or the fate of Ms Savchenko, who has been imprisoned since January and who has lost the ability to reproduce, despite our calls for her immediate release within 24 hours after the adoption of our resolution. You yourself launched such appeals. Other eminent persons have gone to the Russian Federation to try to see what could be done. You met with the Speaker of the Duma, Mr Naryshkin, in Paris, but that dialogue resulted in nothing and turned out to be sterile. The time has come, therefore, to recognise the harsh fact that our ability to have dialogue with the Russians is virtually non-existent. There is no will on their part to engage in dialogue.

      I cannot let what Mr Hunko said go unanswered. He seemed to suggest that the war in eastern Ukraine is taking place not because of the Russian Federation, but because of the expansion of NATO further than was promised. No, it is not NATO’s fault. This is not some invisible phantom of the West that wants to gain influence in that part of the world. It is the Georgian people, the Ukrainian people and other peoples who have gone out into the streets and said that they want a country without corruption, with respect for human rights and with governments that are not in the hands of mafiosi oligarchs, as was the case in Soviet times. It is the people who decided that they wanted to move towards NATO and the European Union and to have closer links. You cannot criticise those people for expressing their will. As for what you are suggesting today – that we should continue a sterile dialogue with Russia – that is really saying that people do not have the right to choose their international partners and that these former Soviet republics do not have the right to choose with whom they have close links. There are Ukrainians who lost their lives in Maidan in the name of that cause. It would be immoral to argue that the Russian Federation deserves to be treated on an equal footing with other member States, so let us take this decision today and come back to it in January.

      Mr VOVK (Ukraine) – As proved by a large number of well-known facts, Russia’s continued use of force against Ukraine clearly qualifies as a war of aggression under the UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, adopted in 1974, on the ”Definition of Aggression”. According to this resolution, “A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.” Sanctions against the aggressor State, imposed by the international community, become a tool of enforcement of Russia’s responsibility under international law. Keeping the principle of proportionality of sanctions is of great importance. The gravity of sanctions should be proportionate to the gravity of the violations and crimes against international peace and order. In that respect, I will emphasise a few fundamental issues.

      First, as Europe’s historical experience shows, the policy of appeasement, which is now widely popular again, is extremely harmful. Attempts at appeasement do not work; they further provoke the aggressor and lead to incitement or war. President Putin only understands force. Therefore, it is necessary to move on to full deterrence and containment of the aggressor and, in particular, to introduce new, tougher, economic sanctions against Russia.

      Secondly, we hope that, guided by the desire for peace, Europe will not impede the adoption by the United States administration of the extremely important decision to supply modern defensive weapons to Ukraine. All Minsk agreements are worthless without a strong, well-armed Ukrainian army, since those agreements will not be upheld by the aggressor State.

      Thirdly, in reality, Putin does not need the peace process in Minsk II. He wants the division of the world in a Yalta II. In his dream, Putin, like a new Stalin, with Obama and Merkel instead of Roosevelt and Churchill, hopes to achieve a new division of the spheres of influence in Europe and the world as in Yalta I. That cannot be allowed to happen.

      Fourthly, Russian aggression is undermining the nuclear non-proliferation regime, as Ukraine is the only nation in the world that gave up its huge nuclear weapons arsenal according to the Budapest Memorandum. Moreover, in resisting Russian aggression, Ukraine is, at the same time, fighting for Europe and its values. I call on you to annul definitely the credentials of the Russian delegation in January next year and to maintain the earlier sanctions now.

      THE PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. We will continue our discussion at 3.30 p.m.

2. Address by Mr Mladen Ivanić, Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina

      THE PRESIDENT – We will now hear an address by Mr Mladen Ivanić, Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. After his address Mr Ivanić has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

      Dear Chairman of the Presidency, I welcome you within these walls, which are not unknown to you. It is always a pleasure to welcome former members who reach new heights in their political career. I am particularly pleased to welcome you here on the occasion of the chairmanship of your country of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. For six months Bosnia and Herzegovina is leading the Organisation of 47 member States – a task that constitutes an opportunity, a challenge and a huge responsibility. Last month, in the framework of the Standing Committee meeting in Sarajevo, as well as two days ago in this Chamber, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of your country, Mr Igor Crnadak, presented the priorities for the chairmanship and we expressed our full support.

      The very title of your position – Chairman of the Presidency – is a sign of the specific rich cultural diversity of your country, but also of its institutional complexity. In that regard, the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers constitutes a window of opportunity. When I visited Sarajevo in March and in May this year, I could feel in my discussions with all interlocutors a strong desire to make this chairmanship a real success and to show the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the international community that despite disagreements that may exist, all political stakeholders are united around a European vision of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

      That is all the more important because the people of your country are striving for a change and for a European future. It is therefore encouraging that in February’s declaration on European Union integration, all political leaders and institutions of your country committed themselves to making progress in the institutional reforms, including towards the execution of the Sejdić and Finci judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Those pledges need to be fulfilled, not only because the Council of Europe, the European Union and the whole international community are expecting it, but because the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina are waiting for the reforms and need them. As I said in Sarajevo last month, compromise is not a weakness; it is a responsible attitude.

      This year, we commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre. For all of us, Srebrenica has become a symbol of memory, reminding us of the need to continuously defend our values and not to take them for granted. In that context, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers is an occasion for all of us to send a resolute message of peace and reconciliation in Europe, to prove that what unites us is stronger than what divides us, and to show that the values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law are stronger than hatred, violence and the dark ghosts of the past.

      I went to your country twice recently. I saw and felt complexity, contradictions and sometimes tensions, but I also felt hope and aspiration to change, as well as readiness to co-operate. Those are the most important requirements for progress. I assure you that you can count on our full support in the necessary reforms, and I am pleased to give you the floor.

      Mr IVANIĆ (Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina) – Dear Madam President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, allow me to express my gratitude for the opportunity to address you today. I am actually accustomed to calling you my colleagues because, less than a year ago, I was a parliamentarian myself. I had the privilege to meet and befriend many of you – exchanging opinions, discussing current events and even sharing common fears. I will keep those friendships for the rest of my life. I had the honour to serve as one of the acting Vice-Presidents of the Assembly.

      Today, I address you as the Chairman of the Presidency of a country that is chairing the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for the first time in its history. You are directly elected representatives of 800 million citizens from across lands stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the North Sea to the Mediterranean. You have a position of prestige, but also of immense responsibility. We started our chairmanship a little over a month ago determined to perform our duties with the utmost responsibility and dedication. We cannot promise to be the best chairmanship ever, but we can promise to do the best we can.

      Please allow me to tell you a few words about the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I will not read a written statement; I will tell you about it in my own words. The situation in the country is not ideal, and there is still a lot to be done, but the position is much better than it was 20 years ago at the end of the war. Compared with other difficult areas around the world, Bosnia represents some sort of success. The country is now at peace, it has not experienced ethnically caused problems for the past decade and it is slowly becoming a more or less normal country. It is far from ideal, and there are many challenges and differences, but we have slowly learned lessons and we know how to overcome those challenges. The new government and presidency decided to adopt the rule that they would speak in public only about compromises, not about differences. That has created a much more positive atmosphere.

      The approach of the international community has changed. Ten years ago, I witnessed key political figures in Europe send the clear message that after Croatia, there would be no more enlargement for years and years. Bosnia knew that the European Union was its only real hope and final destiny, so the knowledge that there was no chance of becoming a member State for decades halted internal reforms in Bosnia. To expect very sensitive issues, such as the case of Sejdić and Finci, to be solved was not realistic. Now, in the new geopolitical environment, we have a new European initiative. First, we will deal with the issues that are in the interest of all and implement economic reforms. After that, and before becoming a candidate country, we will deal with sensitive matters, such as constitutional issues and the Sejdić and Finci case.

      I hope that during the next week, we will have agreement on the reform agenda in the country. We have decided to implement that agenda during the next nine months, after which we will solve the problem that we call the co-ordination mechanism, which will allow us to have a single statement within our complicated structure when we negotiate with the European Union. After that, we will apply to be a member State. We know very well that the answer will not be positive until we have solved the problem of Sejdić and Finci, and our plan is to deal with that in 2017, the year after the local elections. The difference now is that we have a realistic prospect of becoming a member State, which was not the case before. I hope that that will be enough motivation for all the political leaders to agree, finally, on a solution to the problem so that we can become a candidate country by the end of that year. That is the only hope for the country. If we remain isolated, our internal differences will be very relevant, but if we are part of something broader, we will immediately relax the whole political situation and the internal differences will be less relevant. That is the plan. I do not want to create too optimistic an impression. There will be a lot of challenges, but for the first time, I think that both the European Union and the leadership of Bosnia and Herzegovina are serious about doing something. I do not even want to think about the alternative, because stability in the country is still very fragile, as recent events show clearly.

      The situation in the region is helpful. Croatia is part of the European Union, and Serbia is advancing strongly. Political relations in the region are much better than they used to be, which will help to support us. For Bosnia, good relations in the region are one of the most important preconditions of political stability in the country. I encourage all our friends from the international community to continue to support those positive developments. There are some possible difficulties. The region has not faced terrorist attacks in previous years, but last year and this year we have had some. That is now the main challenge for the region. I have spoken to colleagues from different countries, and we know that we must co-operate much better than we have done to deal with that problem. There are two preconditions for that. The first is that political leaders must strongly oppose radicalisation, especially that of their own people. If a Serb criticises the Bosnians or the Muslims, it will be counter-productive, but if that criticism comes from Bosnian political and religious leaders, it will have a positive effect. My duty is to criticise radicalisation within my population. We must all make such efforts to ensure that we have the political preconditions to fight against terrorism, and better co-operation between the intelligence services. I hope that we will continue to deal with that, because it is a common interest. The second issue is foreign fighters. The importance of citizens of countries of the region who have travelled to countries such as Syria and Libya to fight cannot be overstated. The fact that there are at least a few hundred of them there is a very dangerous development. It is a common problem, which we must tackle together.

      As I have said, however, there have been a lot of positive developments in the region. Twenty years ago, one could hardly have imagined that Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia would simultaneously chair two of the most important European organisations in the field of security, human rights and the rule of law – the Council of Europe and the OSCE – but that is the reality today. Not only do Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia chair the Council of Europe and the OSCE, but they co-ordinate their activities closely and in a straightforward way to offer the best response to the emerging crises that our continent faces.

      Some 60 years ago, the founders of the Council of Europe found the courage and wisdom to build the foundations of this Organisation here in Strasbourg, on the ruins of old Europe, to ensure that all would have peace, stability, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Unfortunately, recent dramatic events – the terrorist attacks in the heart of Europe, the humanitarian disaster in the Mediterranean and the fragile trust in Ukraine – remind us that human rights, democracy and the rule of law cannot and should not be taken for granted. The principles on which the Council of Europe is built are confronted with a crisis of the utmost seriousness, which threatens to shatter peace and stability on our continent. The question is what to do and how to overcome the crisis. The most recent report by the Secretary General on the state of democratic security in Europe gives us part of the answer. We need the full commitment of the member States fully to respect the Convention and the values of this Organisation; the use of the exceptional know-how and soft power of the Council of Europe to intensify the struggle against hatred, intolerance and radicalism; and the full commitment of the member States to ensure that democracy, human rights and the rule of law become an integral part of the European security system.

      With that in mind, I express my support for the Committee of Ministers’ recently adopted action plan to fight radicalism and terrorism as well as the adoption of the additional protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism relating to foreign fighters. We are all concerned that many young Europeans, both men and women, are joining terrorist organisations, most notably in Syria and Iraq. It is disturbing to think that such people number in the thousands. I therefore use this opportunity to invite all member States to sign the additional protocol as soon as possible. I strongly believe that the protocol should be open for signature in the coming months. The problems that we face today transcend international borders, meaning that they cannot be solved by individual countries. Only by working together in close co-operation with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe can member States successfully tackle such challenges.

      The Assembly, a direct representative of 800 million citizens, has an important role to play. Your activity in the establishment of the alliance of parliamentarians against hate speech, recent debates on discrimination in Europe, radicalism and terrorism, cybercrime and the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean and the decision to establish the status of partner for democracy for parliamentary delegations from neighbouring regions confirm your political wisdom and sense of momentum to react in a timely fashion. Since its foundation, the Council of Europe has amassed a magnificent system of conventions covering all walks of life. With the European Court of Human Rights and the unique system monitoring the implementation of its judgments, the Organisation has positioned itself as a global reference point in the domain of human rights. I want the European Union to resolve its procedural difficulties soon in order to become a contracted party to the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Commission for Democracy through Law – the Venice Commission – is a renowned international authority in the domain of constitutional law and its recommendations are sought after and applied even outside of Council of Europe member States.

      Over the past two decades, Europe has experienced huge political and institutional shifts. Despite those challenges, the Council of Europe, with its three main pillars of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, continues to have an important impact on the institutional architecture of our continent. It also regularly adapts itself to the circumstances and events of any given era and remains open to new ideas and co-operation with other European and international organisations. Today, 66 years after the inception of the Council of Europe, the threats to peace and stability may have taken on a different form, but the answer remains the same: human rights, democracy and the rule of law and respect for others and those who are different. Let us wisely use the capital that our predecessors have built up over the past seven decades in our best interests and those of future generations.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. Several colleagues want to ask questions. I call Mr Juratovic, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr JURATOVIC (Germany)* – Bosnia and Herzegovina aspires to join the European Union, which we welcome, but the country is currently in a difficult situation of nationalist democracy. In such a situation, personal rights should prevail over collective rights – I refer to Sejdić and Finci, for example – but young people in particular have no prospects. How long will people remain hostages to this situation? Are you sure that the political elite in Bosnia and Herzegovina really want to join the European Union?

      Secondly, boundaries in Europe cannot be changed, so Bosnia and Herzegovina has to live with its neighbours, which means that there must be mutual trust and reconciliation. On 11 July, will you be in Srebrenica apologising for the massacre or will you deny it? Will you encourage the Serbian Prime Minister Vučić to be present with you?

      Mr IVANIĆ – You have asked a lot of questions, so I will need time to give my real opinion. First, the real solution for Bosnia is a fine balance between ethnic and civic approaches. We cannot have a single, simple solution. The answer lies somewhere in between. If you are a member of the smallest ethnic group, you will fear for your identity, which is the case in Bosnia – Bosnians among the Serb majority or Serbs among the Bosnian majority. We have to find solutions in order to preserve identity and no one will accept separation. The real trick is somewhere in between. We need a fair solution based on compromise that will eliminate all fears. I honestly believe that we can find such a solution.

      The Dayton Agreement gave us a framework and politicians who are ready to make a compromise will always find a solution – if they want to. If they do not want to, a most beautiful piece of paper with “constitution” as its title is not a solution. Nobody will implement an idealistic piece of paper. The real trick for Bosnia is to be ready for the compromise, to understand the other side and its fears, to find a normal, realistic solution and to deal with matters on which we can agree and not disagree. Previous politicians took tough positions to get elected, so we also have to change ourselves. I believe that that is possible, but we cannot expect an idealistic political system in Bosnia these days. I believe in it, but it will require new generations that are not so close to the war and to the current situation. I am against a big bang approach as it would put us back in a situation with three different visions of the same country. I do not want that. I want to deal with issues on which we can agree in order to improve the lives of all citizens in Bosnia.

      There was no need to ask your second question, because I was in Srebrenica 10 years ago when I was minister of foreign affairs. We will see what will happen this time because, as you know, there is a crisis. Due to the arrest of Mr Orić, it is even possible that there will be no event. I did my duty 10 years ago when it was more difficult, but I have always said that such events must be about real respect for the victims and not about politics. They have been misused by all sides from time to time. Once we really and honestly go there in order to pay respect to the innocent victims, the event may be able to unite us. If it is politicised, as it is currently, it will be just a mechanism for further division. I am against that and will never take part in such activities. Mr Vučić is a serious politician and does not need my advice about what to do.

      THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Vareikis on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Mr Chairman, I remember you from many years back, since I have been working with your country. You have already said something I wanted to hear but I want to add to that. We as politicians are dreamers, and one of my dreams is to have you not only in your presidency but in the leadership here, so let us imagine that you are the leader of the Council of Europe. Your country’s experience is very painful, so what could you as leader of the Council of Europe suggest from your experience to solve our problems in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Ukraine or Russia?

      Mr IVANIĆ – It is difficult for me to give advice, but based on our experience I would say do not postpone finding a solution, because sometimes when you do that, the solution will never come. Also, the solution is to be found somewhere in between people’s positions – nobody will be completely happy and nobody will be completely unhappy. In conflicts, only these solutions can work, and it is important that there is a beginning point. Later there will be some further reforms and new solutions will be found, but if the search for a solution is postponed it can be very difficult to find one, and it might take decades. So, get involved, try to understand all sides, and find a solution that is in between. Our experience is that that can work. We are not an ideal society, but it is working and the people live more or less normally now. We need more jobs, but there was a framework which has given us a chance.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Binley on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – Mr Chairman, I appreciate your administration’s efforts to support citizens’ movements, which hopefully will assist democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. What plans to do you have in general to encourage further citizens’ movements in their endeavours, and what actions in particular might your administration take to help achieve greater investment not only in your nation but in the DITA factory in Tuzla which your citizens’ movements have recently moved back into production with the agreement of the bankruptcy trustees?

      Mr IVANIĆ – Last year, Bosnia was faced with huge protests and for the first time since the war the reason was not political or ethnic, but economic. They were really quite serious protests for the first time, and there are both positive and negative sides to that. There is pressure on all levels of the government to deliver on the economy, to create jobs and to change the focus from ethnic division to economic development. That was an extremely important message. People are tired of the old subjects. They desperately need something new and positive in their daily life. They need better schools and more jobs, and they do not want to deal so much with the issues of the past 25 years. This is the main message of that movement, and now all the government are thinking seriously about these things. What has happened at the DITA factory is part of all this. After years, that big factory has started up its production again.

      Because of these protests, economic reform is on the agenda. In Bosnia, to agree about something is not so easy, but after the last elections we agreed on the common statement of the presidency which was approved by all parliamentary party leaders and was unanimously adopted in parliament, and we will, I hope, agree next week about the reform agenda. So there will have been two serious agreements in eight months. That is a positive sign, and it is a result of the pressure of the citizens of Bosnia on the political elite to change the subjects, and to deal not so much with the different constitutional discussions and to focus more on real-life problems – the economy, the lack of jobs, the fact that the younger generation leave. The country will lose that generation very soon if we continue with the same approach. So there is new hope, and we must deliver on that. That is the best possible support we can give this movement.

      THE PRESIDENT – Now I give the floor to Ms Beck on behalf of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms BECK (Germany)* – In 2013, there was a census. To this day, its results have not been published. Can we expect them to be published? We understand that many citizens did not opt for an ethnic category, and this has to do, of course, with the ethnic division of the population. Perhaps we can move on from that, and instead of having division have something that brings us together as citizens and people in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

      Mr IVANIĆ – In the last 20 years, the census was always a very sensitive issue, in my opinion without any specific reason. The results of the census will not have any influence on the Bosnian Constitution. We have three members of the presidency regardless of the census numbers. We have a Council of Ministers which is composed with equal parity regardless of the census. The numbers of MPs from the different entities is not linked to the census, either. So the census does not have a real political influence, but for local politicians it is good to be tough and to fight for their point of view and their interests, because if they represent a majority, they are the key. That is the logic.

      The real reason why this has still not been published is simple: how do we count the citizens who have been out of Bosnia for more than six months? Are they citizens or not? That is the main issue now. As always, all sides staked out their position in their corner and now it is difficult to escape from those corners, but I hope we will soon overcome that.

      It is all very simple and some first results have already been published. We know roughly what the figures are. There is no big change and I do not understand why there is any dispute, because, as I said, the census will not have any influence on the governmental structure in Bosnia and Herzegovina. So for me this is purely a technical issue for technicians, not politicians. I hope that will be the case, and until now we have not had politicians involved in that discussion.

      There is some sort of promise that we can expect the results by the end of this year. I hope that will be the case, especially as representatives of the European statistics institutions are very much involved in this in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Kox, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Mr Chairman, we had the pleasure of meeting last year in your country, when I had the honour of chairing the mission to observe your elections. You were still a candidate then, and now you are the chairman, so there is a future for us.

      Although the elections were well organised, nearly 50% of citizens did not participate, and many of those who did vote did not think that their votes could influence policy after the elections. I concluded that the growing mistrust of the function of democratic institutions might even threaten the stability of your country. We agree on the need to improve the trust of citizens in your democratic institutions, but that is easier said than done. What is your main focus to overcome this crucial problem for Bosnia?

      Mr IVANIĆ – The turnout in the last Bosnian elections was around 54%, so it is not so small compared with other European countries. Part of the reason is that we compare the number of voters to the number of IDs that we have issued. Some Bosnians outside the country have IDs, but they are employed in other countries, so they will not vote. They have the right to vote because they have IDs, but they are not there because they live in another country. Because of that, the turnout looks lower than it is in reality.

      Nevertheless, I agree with your main message that they still do not believe that their vote counts. A lot of people say that everything will remain the same, whether or not they vote. Bosnia is still not really a democratic society, and that is linked to the question of individuals. We have had the individual right to vote only for the past 20 years – just a few elections. There is still the influence of the communist times, when, whether or not people were voting or thinking, everything was the same. We have to convince the people that the institutions are important, because there is still a mentality that believes that the politicians are more important than the institutions.

      We need huge reform, and we need the time for that, but I am quite optimistic, because the situation is improving every year. Even the fact that I won after being in opposition for 10 years is, if I may say so, a positive sign. Bosnian society is slowly becoming more politically mature, but we need at least a few more elections before the people understand that this is really important. I hope that I will do my best in that direction.

      THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers on behalf of the groups. I call Mr Le Borgn’.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – I would like to question you, Mr Chairman, as both the president of your country and a connoisseur of the Assembly, about the difficulties in implementing judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. It is a recurrent and fundamental question, because it is a challenge for the Council of Europe in so far as it affects our very credibility. What are your proposals on this matter, and will it be a priority of your country’s chairmanship?

      Mr IVANIĆ – Whether or not we like the decisions, we have to implement them. That has to be a basic rule. Bosnia and Herzegovina has received some decisions that even I do not like, but if we break the rule, there is no sense in this institution existing. If some countries can say no, what is the basis for the existence of the Council of Europe? My position, therefore, is that we have to follow the rule.

      I had to implement some decisions in Bosnia and Herzegovina that were not acceptable to me at the time, but it is simply the rule, and we have to stick to it, without exceptions. The Sejdić and Finci case was one of the most important decisions for us, and it was painful, difficult, sensitive and very challenging for us politicians. Perhaps some of us who implement that judgment will not be re-elected, but we have to do it because it is the basic rule of this institution. We simply have to do our best in that respect.

      I ask all parliamentarians to go home and ask the authorities in your countries to implement all the decisions. No one else can send that message in the countries that have not so far implemented the Court’s decisions.

      Mr MANNINGER (Hungary) – We welcome the efforts of the chairmanship in the field of intercultural dialogue, the religious dimension of which is of the utmost importance. Will you summarise the chairmanship’s priorities and activities in this field, and how the young generation will be involved?

      Mr IVANIĆ – For us, this is important for two reasons. The precondition for political stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina is good relations between the different religious communities. I must say that we have had a positive development there, which was perhaps most visible when the Pope visited Sarajevo. His visit was welcomed by the leaders of all four main religious communities in Sarajevo. Since we have those religions across Europe, we believe that such good relations are a precondition for the political stability of Europe. We have problems with the radicalisation of different religious communities, which we have to prevent. The best way to do so is to discuss it and understand the other side. That is why we decided to hold a conference in Sarajevo to emphasise the need for better understanding as a precondition for political stability not only in Europe but for us. So we were a little selfish in having that priority.

      Ms MULIĆ (Croatia) – I have two questions. First, as a member of the presidency elected by some Serbian constituents, what is your position on Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik’s continuing calls for an independent Republika Srpska and the dissolution of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

      Secondly, next month we will remember 20 years since the Srebrenica genocide. There is a Serbian arrest warrant out for Naser Orić, the commander of the defence of Srebrenica, who has already been before a tribunal in The Hague, so he has basically been imprisoned under Serbian law that is not in accordance with international law. What is your comment on that?

      Mr IVANIĆ – Let me start with the second question on the Naser Orić case. For one community, Orić is a hero; for another community, he committed a war crime. How can we have a common approach? It is very difficult. Orić was arrested in Switzerland. I do not think that any of us can influence the Swiss judiciary. It is independent, and it will make a decision based on the arguments. Who can influence it? I think this is an artificially created problem. If we influenced the judiciary in any case involving individuals from all sides, we would never deliver anybody. Can you imagine how many cases we would have in the future?

      I have not commented on this case during the past 20 years because I really believe that if politicians start to make such comments, it will be the end. This is purely a judicial matter that has to be solved by Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Minister of Justice, the Swiss Minister of Justice and the Serbian Minister of Justice. For politicians, the best way to create an atmosphere is to say, “I am a tough defender of my people.” Because of such a position, we cancelled the visit of the Serbian President to Bosnia and Herzegovina. For me, it is always better to speak directly about the problems, not to take such steps. Doing so might be welcomed by your people, Ms Mulić, but it would create a very negative atmosphere in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

      I think it is best not to say what I think about Milorad Dodik given my position. I have to say that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we still have three different views on its future. If it is the view from Sarajevo, it is Bosnia without the entities. If it is the view from Banja Luka and the Serbs, it is an independent Republika Srpska. If it is the view from the Bosnian Croats, it is perhaps a third entity. If you ask the people separately, those will be their answers. Such answers are not realistic – they would create a war again – so we have to find a compromise. We need to speak not about that, but about the economy: can we export milk to the European Union or not, how can we create better perceptions of the country and how can we encourage investment?

      I will never be put in the position of having what we could call old-time discussions about who is for this and who is for that. I will always try to find a solution in between. I will protect my people, but I will never attack the other ethnic groups. We have that in common – I cannot protect the identity of my people by not co-operating with the others – and this is the solution. Nobody can expect me not to be a Serb, because I am a Serb, but I think that we can find a compromise. If we are to think about the future and have a normal life, we must not make ourselves so important that everything has to depend on us.

      You can see in my statements the various influences of this Assembly, and that I am trying to be quite strict in my answers.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – You were in Azerbaijan two weeks ago, Mr President. Azerbaijan and Bosnia and Herzegovina have friendly relations and various common projects. I sincerely thank the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the resolution adopted by the House of Peoples on the Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan and the Khojaly massacre, and on recognising and respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Can we expect the active participation of your country in resolving this conflict during Bosnia and Herzegovina’s chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers?

      Mr IVANIĆ – We are trying to be a friend of both Azerbaijan and Armenia. We have really good relations with both countries. I was recently in Baku for the opening ceremony of the European Games. I have to say that quite a few positive projects are supported by Azerbaijan. In particular, the investment to create at the inter-entity border line a company that will employ people from all three ethnic groups is quite a positive sign. At the same time, we have quite good relations with Armenia, which we are trying to develop even more.

      My real opinion is that we may be able to help. Small countries faced with a conflict are not always strong enough to deliver a solution, but since we do not have any hidden agenda, perhaps sharing our experience will help them to find a solution. However, the final implementation of such a solution is, in the end, for the two countries. As long as there is no agreement between these countries, nobody else can impose a solution, and especially not Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is a relatively small country and is not that influential. We will continue to develop good relations with them and to do our best to find a solution, because that is in the best interests of us all, but especially of the citizens of these two countries.

      Mr HANŽEK (Slovenia) – According to information from various non-governmental organisations, the leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina have consistently failed to implement the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. One well-known example is the case of Sejdić and Finci of 2009. A similar one is the judgment in the Zornić case. In its recommendation in the last interim compliance report, the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) characterised the very low level of compliance as “globally unsatisfactory”. There are reports from various international organisations about daily pressures on the media. Mr President, please could you explain to us what the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina are doing to improve the situation and to meet minimum standards of human rights?

      Mr IVANIĆ – You have heard my general opinion and general strategy on the Sejdić and Finci case. I am more optimistic that we will implement the decision, because there is a price: Bosnia’s status as a candidate country. That condition did not exist before.

      Yes, we do have some other problems on minority rights and human rights generally. For example, how can it be that hundreds of Serb students cannot learn in the Serbian language in their communities in the federation, and, vice versa, some Bosnian students cannot go to school and learn their language? Some will say that that is because of money and lack of resources, which is the case, and some will say that it is a political decision, but the issue exists, and we still have to solve it.

      I agree that media freedom is not very good in Bosnia, but that is a common responsibility. The managers of all public services are appointed with the agreement of the international representatives in Bosnia. At the time, that was seen as positive and democratic. The managers had some sort of political approval from the High Representative and the team there. Also, politicians in Bosnia simply use the media as a tool to be re-elected. I am against that approach, but that is the reality.

      For the first time, we have invited the OSCE representative on media freedom to visit. She is from Bosnia, and the only country where she was not involved was Bosnia. It is only thanks to the new government that she has been invited. That is part of the solution. It is not perfect, but we have an interest in supporting that work and continuing with it, because it is in our best interest to have human rights at the highest possible level. I will do my best in that. Young people in the public gallery and in Bosnia have to have the chance to live in a normal society. I cannot guarantee the best situation, but I can guarantee that I will do my best.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Chairman of the Presidency. I thank you on behalf of everyone for how you answered the questions. You were outspoken in recognising that you have problems in your country and that you have to find solutions together. We will support you in finding those solutions.

      I particularly appreciated your strong commitment to the principles of implementing the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. That is what we all have to do. You were a member of the Assembly, and that helps us all in understanding what the Council of Europe is about. Thank you very much, Chairman. We wish you all the best personally, but above all for your country and your citizens.

3. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda that was approved.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed 1 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Consideration of the annulment of the previously ratified credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation

Presentation by Mr Schennach of report of the Monitoring Committee in Doc. 13800

Presentation by Mr Vareikis of opinion of Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs in Doc. 13827

Speakers: Mr Kox (Netherlands), Mr Nicoletti (Italy), Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova), Mr Walter (United Kingdom), Ms Zelienková (Czech Republic), Mr Pozzo di Borgo (France), Ms Vėsaitė (Lithuania), Mr Neguta (Republic of Moldova), Ms Schneider-Schneiter (Switzerland), Mr Ariev (Ukraine), Mr Honcharenko (Ukraine), Mr Recordon (Switzerland), Mr Sobolev (Ukraine), Ms Durrieu (France), Ms Beck (Germany), Mr Hunko (Germany), Ms Schou (Norway), Mr Logvynskyi (Ukraine), Mr Lopushanskyi (Ukraine), Mr Bereza (Ukraine), Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom), Mr Chikovani (Georgia), Lord Anderson (United Kingdom), Ms Gerashchenko (Ukraine), Ms Tzakri (Greece), Ms Ionova (Ukraine), Mr Vlasenko (Ukraine), Ms Taktakishvili (Georgia) and Mr Vovk (Ukraine)

2. Address by Mr Mladen Ivanić, Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Questions: Mr Juratovic (Germany), Mr Vareikis (Lithuania), Mr Binley (United Kingdom), Ms Beck (Germany), Mr Kox (Netherlands), Mr Le Borgn’ (France), Mr Manninger (Hungary), Ms Mulić (Croatia), Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan) and Mr Hanžek (Slovenia),

3. 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/Philippe Bies

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*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Egemen BAĞIŞ

Theodora BAKOYANNIS/Nikolaos Nikolopoulos

David BAKRADZE

Gérard BAPT/Geneviève Gosselin-Fleury

Doris BARNETT

José Manuel BARREIRO/Agustín Conde

Deniz BAYKAL*

Marieluise BECK

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Chiora Taktakishvili

Deborah BERGAMINI

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/ Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Boriss Cilevičs

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI/Eleonora Cimbro

Piet De BRUYN*

Beata BUBLEWICZ*

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON/Luc Recordon

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/Jenő Manninger

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

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Antl

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER*

Hans FRANKEN

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ștefania GORGHIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI/Khalid Chaouki

Fred de GRAAF*

François GROSDIDIER/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Maria GUZENINA

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV

Hannes HANSO

Alfred HEER/Maximilian Reimann

Michael HENNRICH/Volkmar Vogel

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Oleksii HONCHARENKO

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Florin IORDACHE*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

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*

Haluk KOÇ*

Igor KOLMAN

Željko KOMŠIĆ

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR/Matjaž Hanžek

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN/Andreas Schieder

Rom KOSTŘICA/Marek Černoch

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/Sergiy Vlasenko

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/ Sir Edward Leigh

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Julia OBERMEIER*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O’REILLY

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI*

Sandra OSBORNE*

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*

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*

Milena SANTERINI*

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE

Urs SCHWALLER/ Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Salvador SEDÓ*

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Ömer SELVİ

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Bernd SIEBERT*

Valeri SIMEONOV

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Egidijus Vareikis

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/Tore Hagebakken

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY*

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Dimitris VITSAS

Vladimir VORONIN*

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ/Damir Šehović

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON/David Davies

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER*

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*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

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

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

Anne LOUHELAINEN

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Bence TUZSON

Observers

Ms Aleida ALAVEZ RUIZ

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Ernesto GÁNDARA CAMOU

Ms Diva Hadamira GASTÉLUM BAJO

Mr Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Miguel ROMO MEDINA

Partners for democracy

Ms Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Nezha EL OUAFI

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM