AA15CR25

AS (2015) CR 25

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-fifth sitting

Thursday 25 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 10.05 a.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Current affairs debate: The need for a common European response to migration challenges

      THE PRESIDENT – I remind you that speeches this morning are limited to three minutes, but, in view of the number of speakers in this afternoon’s debates, I propose that we revert to four minutes’ speaking time for the debates this afternoon. Is that agreed?

      It is agreed.

      I call Ms Ionova on a point of order.

      Ms IONOVA (Ukraine) – I am affiliated to the Group of the European People’s Party. I voted by mistake for Amendment 12 to Document 13800. Please count my vote as against that amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – We take note of that.

      The first item of business this morning is a current affairs debate on “The need for a common European response to migration challenges”.

      The Bureau has decided that the debate will be opened by Mr Denemeç, and he has kindly agreed to do so. It is not only about our mission last week to Turkey but the whole subject of migration. I thank Mr Denemeç and the Turkish delegation for organising the mission, which was very successful. I also thank the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs, my predecessor Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, for all the support and hospitality we received. It was a very impressive mission and we propose to show some pictures on the screen about it during Mr Denemeç’s presentation. That is possible thanks to the very good work of the Council of Europe communications service, and I thank all who contributed. This helps those who did not have the chance to come with us, because it is important to see, as well as hear about, the problems. However, it is even better to go to the place and talk to people, which we did. So thank you very much to the Turkish delegation and the communications team.

      I call Mr Denemeç, who has 10 minutes.

      Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey) – I am grateful for this opportunity to speak.

      In her opening speech on Monday, President Anne Brasseur said that the migration issue Europe is presently facing is not so much a challenge as a phenomenon. She stressed that the distinction is important because a challenge is something one seeks to overcome and bring to an end, whereas migration will not go away.

      Indeed, international migration can be defined as a powerful tool for reducing poverty and enhancing opportunity. It is estimated that there are some 250 million international migrants, most of them bringing consistent benefits to both their countries of destination and their countries of origin through their labour and remittances.

      International migration has always existed and, obviously, it has increased with globalisation. The main challenge is how to best use the energy and skills of those who want to migrate in the international labour market in line with human rights law while ensuring that they become an asset, not a burden. We have discussed this question in the Parliamentary Assembly on many occasions on the basis of the reports prepared by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons on subjects such as the rights of migrants, questions of integration, and access to social benefits. The committee is currently working on an important report on demography and migration, which is certain to demonstrate the extent to which, in the long run, migration is inevitable and beneficial for ageing societies.

      Migration is not only about young people looking for a better life in another country. As well as voluntary migrants, there are a huge number of forced migrants – people who have been forcibly displaced from their countries of origin by war or other kinds of armed conflict, instability, persecution or violation of their human rights. They are refugees, and they are in need of and entitled to international protection. It has taken some 3 000 deaths of desperate people in the Mediterranean before European leaders, urged by public opinion, have decided to act. It is worthwhile to recall other figures that will give us an overview of the scope of the problem: according to European Union statistics, in 2014, 284 000 people were intercepted trying to enter the European Union illegally – nearly 25% were Syrians.

      There is no doubt that saving lives should be an absolute priority, and it should be noted with satisfaction that, since May, much has been done to avoid tragedies in the sea. However, saving the lives of those who have set off and preventing others from doing so by combating traffickers does not address the most important issue: ensuring the protection of those in need. Unfortunately, the problem of refugees will not disappear through the eradication of illegal migration. It is obvious that European countries should demonstrate more solidarity in sharing responsibility for refugees. Here in the Council of Europe, we stand for the protection of human rights. We should send a clear signal to European leaders, urging them to take up their responsibilities towards refugees. They should show more solidarity in receiving refugees on their soil and supporting those countries that bear most of the burden.

      United Nations officials have stated that the war in Syria has unleashed the “worst humanitarian crisis of our time”. The crisis has triggered waves of migration to neighbouring countries. According to United Nations estimates, nearly 4 million people have sought refuge in neighbouring countries. As one of those neighbouring countries, Turkey currently hosts 2 million Syrians. Our open-door policy for Syrians continues, without any discrimination on the grounds of religious or ethnic origin.

      Approximately 260 000 Syrians are accommodated in Turkey in 25 temporary protection centres in 11 provinces. They are provided with food, non-food items, and health and education services, as well as psychological assistance, vocational training and social activities. If they so choose, Syrians may move freely to any place in Turkey. In addition, more than 1.5 million Syrians who live outside the centres are under our protection regime and benefit from free medical services and education. They are also granted work permits. Last but not least, Turkey has continued to ensure that humanitarian relief reaches the northern parts of Syria through the zero point of the border, as well as through cross-border operations carried out by the United Nations in accordance with the Security Council resolutions.

      We call the centres “temporary protection centres”, rather than the detention centres we hear about in other countries. So far, we have spent more than $6 billion on Syrians in Turkey, but the contribution we have received from the international community is only $393 million US dollars – around only 6% of the total and below all expectations. The situation is not sustainable. The financial burden on Turkey of the humanitarian crisis is increasing every day.

      Ms Brasseur and a 26-member delegation of leading members of the Assembly, from 22 different countries, had the chance to observe conditions on the ground in Turkey on 14 and 15 June. They visited three container and tent cities where Syrians reside. They had the chance to talk to Syrians face to face, and saw with their own eyes that the figures that seem abstract on paper represent real human beings. As members of this august body, it is our fundamental responsibility to alleviate the plight of these war-stricken people. Increased co-operation between the member States of the Council of Europe is the only viable solution to these challenges, because the financial burden is huge. The ad hoc committee’s visit was a step in the right direction. I hope that it will pave the way for further international solidarity to address the plight of refugees in the region. Making frozen Syrian assets available, through the United Nations, to those who fled the country should be seriously considered as a way of addressing the problem. That would be Turkey’s proposal.

      We are all bound by the international law that we have developed. Granting protection to migrants and refugees is our common responsibility. Burden sharing is not only a legal obligation, but a humanitarian one. I call on members to mobilise their national governments to ensure that all member States of the Council of Europe come forward, substantially scale up their contributions to international humanitarian agencies and Syria’s neighbours, and open their borders for resettlement. This is a serious humanitarian tragedy, with repercussions for the whole of Europe and beyond. We must uphold our common responsibility. Please, it is time for action: there must be no more lip service.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you for introducing the subject, Mr Denemeç. We will now begin the debate. The first speaker is Mr Leigh, who speaks on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – I emphasise that we all recognise that this is a massive human tragedy, and our sympathies are with all the migrants caught up in this appalling situation. Nothing that I will say takes anything away from that, but the fact is that we must take action. To a certain extent, it is our responsibility to provide aid, given our actions in Syria, Iraq and Libya. We all know that, but we must take action. There is no point in simply talking about solidarity; we have to try to take steps to stop the flow of migrants into Europe. Our societies simply cannot take this level of migration, and our people demand that we take action.

      The fact is that this is a massive international conspiracy led by people traffickers and aided and abetted by naïve people who do not believe in borders. We must have secure borders, and talking in vague terms about solidarity will not do the trick. All that will happen if we let more in is that more and more will come in, which is not fair on them, and it is not fair on us. If we are determined enough, there are quite simple steps to take to deal with this problem and to reduce the pull factors.

      For a start, we should go back to the international maritime conventions under which if you leave the Libyan coast and our navy stops you 10 miles out from the coast, you are returned to that coast. It is simply ludicrous that people, at great risk to their lives, are crossing the Mediterranean and being picked up by our navies, knowing that they will be taken to Italy. We have to return to the traditional humanitarian, maritime practice of picking people up and returning them to where they come from, otherwise more and more will keep coming.

      We must enforce the Dublin Convention, which is not being enforced. Under that convention, you should be returned from the European Union country where you finally end up to where you entered the European Union. Only 3% are being returned, and the convention should be enforced. We should also enforce the Eurodac conventions. When you enter Italy, you should be fingerprinted. One would have thought that if you are a traumatised migrant arriving in Italy, you would be so happy that you would want to stay there. No, such people refuse to be fingerprinted, because they want to travel up through Italy to Germany, Sweden, France or Britain.

      We must enforce traditional maritime practice and return people to where they come from, and we must enforce the Dublin Convention and the Eurodac conventions. If we do not take action, more and more will come, and our people will hold us responsible.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Fiala on behalf of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The May factsheets from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees inform us that Turkey faces having to host almost 2 million refugees from Syria, while Lebanon has 1.2 million and Jordan has 660 000. Today, more than 16 million Syrians need humanitarian help. The United Nations has called for $2.9 billion of financial aid for 2015, but we are now in June and no more than about 20% of the funds have been raised.

      The world has over 60 million refugees. Sub-Saharan Africa has more than 20 countries with very bad conflicts. More than 300 million people are trying to emigrate to look for a better or more secure life somewhere else. The phenomenon of refugees is no longer a problem that can be solved only by dedicated individual politicians or committed individual countries; it is a global phenomenon and crisis that can be managed only by all of us acting together with a coherent strategy.

      The recent fact-finding mission to Turkey by a group of 22 parliamentarians from the Council of Europe, with our President, Anne Brasseur, has opened the eyes of many of us. We visited the host cities, as the Turkish officials call their refugee camps. I want to express my full gratitude to and respect for Turkey for its enormous effort in handling this incredible situation, which is a very big challenge.

      As we have heard, Turkey has invested about $6 billion all by itself, but received only about $300 million from the international community. Refugees get security, water, medicine, psychological aid and schooling for their children in the camps. Yes, they are living in containers and tents, but they are safe. We must admit, somewhat shamefacedly, that Europe is leaving Turkey to deal with that challenge almost alone. Germany has accepted 30 000 refugees from Syria, Switzerland 5 200, Sweden 2 700 and France 2 400, but most of our countries have accepted many fewer: Finland 850, Poland 100 and Great Britain 90. Such unbalanced burden sharing is a serious problem. I understand that the Schengen countries, such as Greece, Spain and Italy, face tremendous problems with refugees – not all is black and white – and such countries have my full respect for enduring so much.

      I want to motivate you all to find the common will to find a common strategy. On behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I ask member States to give Turkey strong support and to have a coherent plan for sharing the burden in order to face these challenges.

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

      Mr VITSAS (Greece) – Dear colleagues, when you go back to your homeland, please remember that nothing separates the Greek people from the people of all Europe, and please unite your voices for a Europe that belongs to the people – a Europe of solidarity, not a Europe of the speculators and the bankers.

      (The speaker continued in Greek.)

      Fortress Europe is an extremely costly policy. Since 2000, €1.6 billion has been spent on border surveillance technologies and software and €11.3 billion on deportations, while a staggering €16 billion has been paid to people smugglers. Above all there is the human toll – the human lives of more than 30 000 migrants.

      As Europeans, we are duty bound to undertake diplomatic initiatives to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Libya. The European Union 10-point plan, however, is basically about strengthening Frontex, which cannot do much other than deal with border controls, surveillance and interception and which has only a minimal mandate for rescue. Europe has to choose between building a fortress around its borders, which may of course mean letting thousands of people perish, and safeguarding their lives and giving them safe passage, while also showing solidarity with the countries enduring the greatest pressure from migrant flows.

      It is crucial to support front-line States such as Greece and Italy by adopting solidarity measures, including funding for rescue and reception, as well as arranging resettlement, because those countries cannot shoulder this heavy responsibility alone. In Greece, we desperately need both emergency funding and a programme for the resettlement of refugees. Europe needs to establish a new resettlement mechanism in relation to transit countries such as Turkey, Libya and Lebanon. Some 20 000 places have been announced, but that is not a sufficient response to the fact that millions of people are currently seeking refuge. Furthermore, there is the problem of repatriating refugees to their countries of origin.

      I call on the Assembly to invite the European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship formally to report to us on the measures that the European Union plans to implement to take in refugees, rather than leaving it to a handful of countries.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Strik on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Today, we are facing unprecedented numbers of refugees worldwide. Some 60 million people have been forced to flee their homes. Most become internally displaced, the vast majority of those fleeing their country stay in their region – for example, most of the Syrian refugees go to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon – and 5% seek protection elsewhere. The current numbers require an unprecedented humanitarian and political response, based on solidarity with the refugees and the internally displaced and with the regions that receive them.

      If European leaders fail today to make even the first small steps towards solidarity, that would reveal a lack of real leadership. The European response of trying to keep refugees away is morally unjust and does not offer any resolution. Strengthening border controls, building walls and combating smuggling do not help so long as refugees are not offered a safe and legal way to travel. Those things only make their routes more dangerous and more costly. Refugees cannot get a visa to reach a safe place, and that makes them dependent on the smugglers. Declaring war and destroying boats may fuel the conflict in Libya, and the smugglers will find new boats and new routes.

      What should we do then? First, we should establish a European rescue operation in the Mediterranean Sea. Secondly, we need common resettlement measures, starting with the 10% of Syrian refugees who are acutely vulnerable: orphans, the wounded or ill, the elderly and minorities. That would relieve some of the problems in the region and increase the chance that countries will not completely close their borders with Syria.

      We need to substantially increase our support to the region. There is a funding gap of more than $1 billion. Also, transit countries need our unconditional support, rather than us pressing them to take back immigrants who passed through their country. Finally, we need to tackle the root causes of conflicts, failed States and poverty and to create legal channels for labour migration.

      Politicians have influence on societal support for refugees and migrants. If you frame refugees and migrants as terrorists, people get scared, but if the global context is presented and people are told that we can and should show solidarity, you get a welcoming society. Chancellor Merkel is a shining example in that regard. Where the European Union has failed, the Council of Europe should step up. It is good that the Council of Europe is finally creating capacity on migration again. We should benefit from the close co-operation we have between destination countries and transit countries, both of which are represented here. We should also pay attention to the increasing level of migration in the east of Europe and the Balkan countries. There, refugees are increasingly becoming victims of criminals. A lot needs to be done, and I am glad that the Council of Europe has created more capacity for that.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Wach on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr WACH (Poland) – The problem of mass migration was reflected in a number of the questions that parliamentarians asked the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, on Monday. The same happened in the EPP group meeting on the subject, where our members presented their views and propositions. Those views sometimes differed greatly, but they always expressed concern about the urgent need to address the problems of the refugee influx in solidarity with member States and in an agreed, but fast way.

      The problem is much more pressing for the southern States and for those bordering the Mediterranean because of the refugees coming from North Africa, and for Turkey and some other States because of the refugees coming from Syria. The ad hoc committee of the Bureau’s visit to Syrian refugee camps in southern Turkey – namely, Kilis and Nizip 1 and 2 – provided us with an overview of the host countries’ problems in organisation, in financing and in securing the social acceptance of refugees. We also saw the problems that refugees have, even in the very well-organised camps in the Kilis and Gaziantep provinces of Turkey. The problem was raised of finding a legal way to use the frozen assets of Syria and other similar origin countries to give some financial assistance to host countries. It is our duty to work on those issues.

      In the EPP group meeting, we heard numerous voices calling for more solidarity and more sharing of the burden of the refugee problem among member States. We also heard that the only effective measure is to rescue refugees and migrants on boats at sea unconditionally, but to send them immediately back to the North African coast, as that is the only way to limit the refugee and migrant flow and to discourage and stop the smugglers.

      Generally, the short-term pressing problem is to agree how to share the burden of hosting the refugees and how to prevent an uncontrolled influx of people smuggled by organised groups of crooks. There is however a long-term problem of demographic explosion and the under-development of source countries, and that should be dealt with in an agreed and organised way by the international community.

      THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the speeches on behalf of the political groups. I start the speakers list by calling Mr Chaouki.

      Mr CHAOUKI (Italy)* – I will speak about Italy. We became acquainted with the numbers involved in the tragedies in the Mediterranean last October. Recent tragic events have at last prompted the European Union to act. In recent days, we have seen rather indecorous horse trading on who should share the thousands of refugees and asylum seekers arriving in Europe, and that is unworthy of the European Union. We are talking about human beings as though we are bargaining goods and merchandise. Unfortunately, that means the European Union is losing its spirit of humanity, which it has always had down the years. That is what I wanted to say in this important forum.

      What will they read about us in the history books when they look back at how Europe faced up to a human tragedy that relates not just to Syria and Iraq, but to entire regions of Africa? As we said at the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy meeting in Rome, we have to take an important stand. As the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we cannot sit back, say nothing and limit ourselves to coming up with declarations or statements on the subject; we need to understand the situation and see what we can do to restore peace, for example, in Libya. We in the Parliamentary Assembly can attempt to contribute to restoring peace in Libya. We have come forward with proposals on that subject together with some colleagues.

      We should be sounding the warning bells. We are talking about security, prevention and protection. We seem to be limiting ourselves to the kind of approach that has got us nowhere in the past. Rather than looking at migration as a contribution, we are seeing prisons emerging in such countries as Italy, Greece and Malta.

      We have to provide assistance on Europe’s southern shores, rather than just policing the southern borders, and we need greater co-operation between countries. We need to return to the humanitarian spirit that seemed to prevail in the past but which we seem to have lost sight of in our treatment of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

      Ms JOHNSEN (Norway) – In your opening speech, Madam President, you said that the current situation was not so much a challenge as a phenomenon. I agree. We must prepare ourselves for a situation that will go on for years – perhaps a generation. The pressure on Mediterranean countries, such as Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey, is huge. For example, the estimate of the number of refugees to Italy is approaching 1 million. We are appalled that criminals who profit from sending people on overcrowded and unstable boats – the so-called ghost ships – without aid, water or personnel are not prosecuted. That must be done. We all recognise the burden on Mediterranean countries.

      Madam President, you urged us to debate migration in our own national parliaments. We have had this debate in the Norwegian Parliament and, as a result of a long and tough negotiation, there was a compromise between government parties, the centre parties and the Labour Party, and Norway now plans to welcome 2 000 Syrians this year and 3 000 each year in 2016 and 2017. Under the agreement, financial aid will also be distributed to Syria and the neighbouring region. Norway contributes to the European Union’s taskforce, Triton, the aim of which is to save people in the boats. Last week, we saved 600 people from boats that were in a terrible condition.

      We can share the burden of refugees in Europe and send ships to the Mediterranean to rescue refugees, but we also need to address the root of the problem. We must prosecute the people smugglers and call for action not only in Europe but internationally. The United Nations must play a stronger role – migration is a global phenomenon that calls for global solutions. Meanwhile, young people in refugee camps are in a terrible condition. It is estimated that in Syria alone 52 000 teachers have been lost and 3 500 schools destroyed by bombing. This means we lose a generation. As we struggle to find solutions, a lost generation are at risk of growing up without education or the possibility of providing for themselves, leading to a spiral of poverty and social unrest in the region. These young people will be an easy target for criminals who recruit them. They will have no hope for the future and it will be easy for them to launch into terrorism. Education is a human right, so while we struggle to find solutions, the children and young people must be looked after. I urge European countries to address this.

      Ms SANTERINI (Italy)* – In this debate about European migration, we have heard about solidarity as opposed to realism but that is not how to frame this debate. The most effective European policies have always drawn inspiration from solidarity between States and people from other States. There is no political capital to be had from taking a purely national point of view. That is a short-term approach. We are talking about the very idea of Europe that we are seeking to affirm here at the Council of Europe.

      We are not here to defend Italy, Greece, Germany and Hungary, but closing the borders negates the very concept of Europe. We should be open, not shutting ourselves off in a selfish and nationally focused way. I hope that we can set an example to the European Council, which is discussing this very matter today, I understand. This is not just about European Union countries; other countries such as Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan are affected by the phenomenon. There is a climate of fear and prejudice that serves certain people’s interests by deflecting attention away from problems of unemployment.

      Perhaps not everyone knows this but, in the last year, in the 28 countries of the European Union, there was a match between the number of job vacancies and the number of requests for asylum. We should revisit the Dublin Convention and we ought to be able to resolve some of our problems in this way. For example, we must be able to seek people from abroad on the basis of formal sponsorship in the private sector. That might well reduce irregular migration flows. There are people already coming from countries such as Morocco, and we want to help them avoid ending their lives under the waves. We must not return to Fortress Europe, but create new co-operation policies. In that way, we will strengthen Europe, not weaken it.

      Mr ČERNOCH (Czech Republic) – The problem of illegal immigration is critical. What are the problems today in Italy, France, Austria and other European States? Let us face it – the cause of the problem lies somewhere else, and illegal migration is only a consequence of these causes. Quotas are definitely not the solution. They do not restrict the fatal effects of illegal immigration; they only spread the impact to other countries. The allocation of such a huge number of economic migrants will result in social tensions and security and health threats to the citizens of Europe. We should forget quotas.

      There are two questions that we need to answer: first, what is the problem leading to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, and secondly, how do we address the causes of migration? The answer to the first question is easier than the second. We must focus on enforcement. If we want to stop the disasters associated with illegal crossings to Europe – both for Europe and the migrants themselves – we need first and foremost to defend our borders. We must destroy the smuggling boats, we must stop the political superficiality and, in particular, the organised crime that governs immigration, and we must return illegal immigrants immediately. Only with such a firm and principled policy can we defend the safety of our families and children, as well as of the migrants themselves by preventing them from taking the risk of the dangerous voyage to Europe. It is more difficult to address the causes – the instability, chaos and disruption in the countries from which the migrants come. The West has not helped to create stability in these countries; on the contrary, consider how the situations in Libya, Iraq and Syria developed. We need to think about past events and draw the lessons.

      Solutions will be neither easy nor quick, so what must we do now? First, we should consistently distinguish war refugees from economic migrants. Integrating such a large number of economic immigrants is unrealistic and would result in a collapse of the social system in Europe. We should increase assistance to people in the refugee camps as well as to those in the countries from which they come. However, that aid must be effective. We will also have to request assistance from the wealthy Gulf States, led by Saudi Arabia. Non-Muslim minorities in the European Union can be received under three conditions: that the asylum process takes place outside Europe; that acceptance is voluntary and the security risk is eliminated; and that only refugees who are compatible with our culture are accepted.

      Finally, I repeat my appeal. In the future, we must address the causes of the problem of immigration. For the meantime, however, we must stop this massive immigration into Europe. We must forget quotas: we must prevent illegal immigration into Europe. If these people do not see right now that Europe can resist such an onslaught, the number of illegal economic immigrants will increase into the tens of millions, and then Europe really will have to fight for survival. Every politician is obliged to defend first and foremost their own citizens. We must stop this dangerous situation on both sides and reach out to the source of where the immigrants come from. That would make sense.

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – We are debating the need for a common European response to migration challenges. In the short term, the most important thing, of course, is to prevent further loss of life. Sweden is participating in that effort by providing a naval vessel in the Mediterranean. The tasks include saving lives and providing humanitarian assistance, ensuring access to protection and fighting unscrupulous smugglers and traffickers. Thousands of people embark on hazardous journeys by boat in the quest for a better future for themselves and their families. At the same time, the key component in resolving this crisis is to address the root causes, including poverty, conflicts and crises, unequal access to resources and violation of human rights. Another topic of utmost priority is solidarity and responsibility sharing. A common asylum system must be based on trust and sustainability. It must also be truly common in practice. Unfortunately, we are not entirely there yet.

      The situation in the world today is extremely worrying. We have not had so many people fleeing war and conflict since the Second World War. We must not forget that the number of asylum seekers coming to Europe has almost trebled over the past five years. Given the situation in neighbouring regions, the numbers will almost certainly continue to increase. The countries neighbouring Syria clearly cannot take responsibility on their own for all the refugees and have become overburdened. It is vital that we come up with a European response that is based on solidarity not only towards each other but with the people in need of protection. Solidarity must also be expressed with the third countries neighbouring the conflicts. They are often the ones that have by far the heaviest burden, hosting millions of refugees. We have a moral duty to show solidarity towards each other and towards our neighbours. The immediate crisis today is in the Middle East and in parts of the Horn of Africa, but tomorrow the crisis could be somewhere else – perhaps even closer to our back yard.

      We should also not forget our own history. Several European countries, including my own, have welcomed thousands and thousands of people from other European countries who were in need of protection. History gives us very good examples of swift action and sharing of responsibility. At the same time, mobility between people and countries brings positive effects in growth, trade, development and cultural exchange. Responsibility and solidarity go hand in hand.

      Mr EßL (Austria)* – The current situation is entirely tragic. Millions of people around the world have become refugees, particularly people coming from African countries and Syria, and I understand their wish to go to a country where they see the promise of a better life. Nevertheless, let us stick to the facts. We have to ask whether all these people really need to leave their home countries. We need to ask that because we in Europe are under a great deal of pressure and, in the short term, we may well be overwhelmed.

We want to afford protection to those whose lives are in danger and who face persecution. However, if they all want to come to Europe, we will not be able to cope. We cannot deal with everyone in the same undifferentiated way. We cannot accept vast numbers of economic migrants because of the consequences. We have prosperity and peace in some regions that could turn into crisis regions because of the effects of such massive flows. We have to work out where these refugees can be accommodated. Two thirds of those who reach us need to be returned to their home region because they do not have a legitimate asylum claim. In North Africa, for example, we need to create areas of security. We need the United Nations to come in and assist there.

      We should do everything within our power to reduce people’s perceived need to flee. We must also take a very harsh line on human trafficking. The smugglers who are behind this are earning phenomenal amounts of money by endangering people’s lives. They actually accept that many of the people whose money they take will die. So, to begin with, we have to help people in their home countries so that they can stay there safely. However, those who really need protection, whose lives are in danger, have to be helped on the basis of solidarity. In the European Union, it is just not good enough if 10 member countries receive 90% of the asylum applications and the other 18 countries receive 10%.

      Mr DI STEFANO (Italy)* – I appeal to members not to become embroiled in the ridiculous argument which seems to prevail here within the Council of Europe. Anyone dealing with migratory flows knows that the division of quotas is not the issue when it comes to asylum seekers; the problem is the reception facilities – how we can cope with the huge numbers of migrants arriving on our shores. The chair of the national asylum committee, the committee that processes requests for asylum in Italy, has provided two important figures. The first shows that in 2014, of the 150 000 people arriving on Italian shores, there were only 60 000 asylum requests. What does that mean? It means that the majority of those arriving on Italy’s shores have no intention whatever of becoming Dubliners, as it were; they have other interests. They do not want their asylum processed in Italy. Moreover, only 53% of those who file an asylum application are entitled to do so, and may therefore be granted asylum many years down the road.

      We need to address the issue from a different point of view and consider two dimensions. The first is how to combat the causes of migration. We are talking about the death of democracy in Europe if we believe that we can close our borders and erect walls, if we believe that we can tackle migration with arms when we are the cause of that migration. I have seen with my own eyes the border to France closed in Ventimiglia. I want to ask the French Government: when you bombed Libya, did you think about that? Did you think that hundreds and thousands of Libyans might want to flee the country? We have taken their oil and left them with boats, and we are now closing the borders, but countries such as France should be shouldering their responsibilities. Europe has failed when it comes to development in Africa. We should be talking about co-operation, but we are now turning our backs on the migrants who are arriving.

      The other thing we need to address is what we are doing on taking in migrants. We need to cater for them before we consider processing asylum requests and sharing the burden, which is really resting on just five countries. Migrants have to be able to choose where they want to go – for the purposes of family reunion, for example, or merely because they speak the language of the country they want to travel to. We talk here of countries wanting to erect walls. Hungary wants to opt out of Dublin III, but as I said the last time I took the floor in this Chamber, although this is the issue concerning us today, in future we will see countries wanting to opt out of various European policies, leading to the breakdown of the European Union, which is after all down to the banks, not the peoples.

      Ms GUZENINA (Finland) – Former Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb, who in the current Finnish Government holds the position of Minister of Finance, stated yesterday, very wisely, that when thousands of people are dying in the Mediterranean Sea, what one party in the Finnish Government thinks about it should be a matter of indifference. The burden must be shared in Europe. Mr Stubb was aiming his words directly at his government coalition partners, the True Finns. After the recent Finnish elections, an anti-immigration party, the True Finns, became the second largest party in Finland and ended up in the government. Although Mr Stubb is a Conservative and I am a Social Democrat, and although his party is in government and mine is not, we share the same opinion about human rights. I am very sad to say that in the Finnish Government at the moment this is not the case. We are not unanimous.

      The far right is gaining power all over Europe, but we must remember that it does not represent the opinion of all people. In fact, the majority of voters in Europe have voted for parties that are responsible and that respect international commitments and the law on human rights. Human rights should be respected no matter which parties are in power, especially in countries belonging to the Council of Europe. Our belonging to this great Organisation comes with obligations and those obligations should be respected.

      European Union countries are currently discussing how to resolve and share the burden of the Mediterranean tragedy. The deadline is at the end of July. I urge you all as parliamentarians to put pressure on your governments to be reasonable. Europe cannot turn its back on those struggling for their lives. As Ban Ki-moon said here on Tuesday: “Poverty, poor governance and human rights abuses fuel conflict and displace millions of people, and many risk their lives to migrate to safer shores.” He challenged us here in Europe to advocate for the protection and rights of people fleeing conflict, persecution, entrenched poverty or lack of access to decent work. Fellow parliamentarians everywhere, we have a common responsibility to act before more lives are lost.

      THE PRESIDENT – I am very glad to give you the floor, Mr Herkel, because I want to welcome you back to this Assembly.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Thank you for your kind words, Madam President. I also thank Mr Denemeç for this very timely debate. As has been mentioned, not only the Council of Europe but the European Council is dealing with this important problem today.

      Estonia is a small country in the Nordic part of Europe. For us, this phenomenon is quite new, as the President said, because our country was not the favourite destination of immigrants searching for a better life in Europe. However, as economic conditions get better and better, the problem is growing in our country too. We have memories from our history of mass deportations, the Estonian boat refugees on the Swedish coast in the 1940s and all the massive immigration during the Soviet era, which gave rise to an almost existential fear about how we would survive as a small nation.

      I fully understand how difficult this problem is for Italy, Malta and other countries, especially Turkey, which has a huge responsibility and a lot of problems with the war in neighbouring Syria. We must have solidarity. We have always co-operated within the framework of Frontex and other instruments. This is very important. From a rational point of view, it is important to combat the roots of the problems, not only the consequences. If we are talking about European Union quotas, from our position, it is important to base the size on a percentage of population and on our economic capacities. However, solidarity must be based on free will, not quotas, otherwise only far-right and radical attitudes will develop in society. Unfortunately there are already signs of that.

      Another important issue is the need to distinguish between economic immigrants and genuine refugees. It is also important to combat smuggling, because some people are benefiting from these tragedies.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – I would like to greet the rapporteur who is with us today. I was involved in the visit to Turkey and I know how committed you are to the work in this area.

      The tragic situation of migrants in the Mediterranean is a challenge for all of Europe. We have never seen such a global movement of people coming from so many hotbeds and so many crises. Indeed, crossing the Mediterranean has become the most hazardous journey in the world for migrants. This is therefore an unprecedented crisis. In the light of that, we need to find an all-European response. We must not forget, however, that by giving young people a future in their own countries, we can meet the challenge of migration. After all, many of these migrants are fleeing not only conflict, but poverty. The director of Frontex has recalled the fact that a journey to Europe for a migrant can cost between €5 000 and €7 000. That is a considerable sum of money. Whole villages club together to fund the journeys of their young people, hoping, of course, for a return on their investment. Strengthening co-operation and development aid – something that my country is very much committed to – is therefore vital. I hope that the international conference on financing for development in Ethiopia in July will allow us to make progress in this area.

      All of Europe must be involved in finding a solution to migration, and combating illegal migration is crucial to any progress. A major issue today is that it is not possible to work with Libya; most of these floating coffins leave Libya, which is now a country without a State. The operation launched in the Mediterranean this week by the European Union should be welcomed. However, we have to do more to fight organised networks, especially as some of them are controlled by IS, which sees this as another way of making money. We need to show solidarity. Although the Schengen rules must apply, we should recognise that the countries in the front line are now bearing too heavy a burden, which is creating difficult conditions for migrants and for reception areas.

      We need to find viable solutions, taking due account of financial and social difficulties on all sides and efforts that have already been made by certain States to receive migrants and refugees. I know that it is not easy, particularly when extremism is on the rise and those who are seen as outsiders are increasingly stigmatised. Yet how many of us and our fellow citizens are children or grandchildren of refugees or migrants? Dictatorships, poverty, wars and genocides have, at times, driven Europeans to leave their homelands, and that continues today in Ukraine. Europe is a standard bearer for values and ideals. Shutting ourselves in behind a wall would, in the light of our common history, be a betrayal of those values and would bring shame upon us.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – I thank you, Madam President, for your strong statement at the opening of this part-session. Your message was crystal clear, when you said, “Europe must also assume its responsibility. Respect for human dignity is a universal, fundamental value. Solidarity vis-à-vis the most vulnerable…is our responsibility as human beings.”

      Another colleague, Ms Tineke Strik, has provided us with several reports constantly warning us about the tragedy under way. It started with the “left-to-die boat”, in which 63 migrants lost their lives while drifting for 14 days within a NATO surveillance area. We were shocked, but obviously not shocked enough. The number of victims has continued to rise ever since. The Italian rescue program, Mare Nostrum, was reduced because other European Union countries were unwilling to share the costs. At the same time, the civil war in Syria and the brutality of the so-called Islamic State have led to one of the worst humanitarian crises since the Second World War, resulting in millions of refugees and displaced persons.

      The need for a common European response to the migration challenges is obvious. Unfortunately, the willingness to respond is not that obvious. In April, after hundreds of migrants lost their lives in less than one week, the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, stated that, “The lack of a…European…migration policy is now turning the Mediterranean into a graveyard.” He said that, instead of one common European migration policy, there is a patchwork of 28 national policies. He called for a common European effort in a spirit of solidarity and fair distribution of responsibility. It is not fair to leave the Mediterranean countries – nor Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, regarding the consequences of the war in Syria – to handle migration on their own.

      The Norwegian Government has been as reluctant as any other to step up its efforts. I am therefore pleased to say that our parliament decided to take up the responsibility. A Norwegian vessel is now operating in the Mediterranean and last week, in a broad agreement across traditional party lines, we decided to receive 8 000 more refugees and step up humanitarian aid; that is not very much compared with the needs. It is not my intention to brag; I simply want to remind everyone of our independent responsibility as parliamentarians when governments fail.

      Ms DOBEŠOVÁ (Czech Republic) – On behalf of the Czech delegation, I express my opinion about migration. Although the Czech Republic is not a direct destination for large numbers of migrants from Syria and other politically unstable countries, we have been helping Syrians and other people in need for years. Between 2012 and 2014, the Czech Republic and our citizens supplied humanitarian, financial and material help worth 120 million Czech korunas.

      In January 2015, the Czech Government approved an aid program for refugees in their home regions. It plans to earmark up to 100 million korunas annually within the programme. We are helping to support the infrastructure development in the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan. The Czech Republic is also helping the Medevac programme, which provides treatment that cannot be provided locally for ill children from war-affected areas or other areas in need. The total anticipated costs of implementing this programme are 50 million Czech korunas for the year 2015 alone. Our physicians are saving Syrian child refugees in Jordan.

      In 2014, about 1 000 people applied for asylum in the Czech Republic, of whom nearly 400 were granted asylum. We are facing the big challenges of migration from Ukraine. Since the conflict that erupted in Ukraine early last year, the flow of immigrants and asylum seekers from Ukraine into the Czech Republic has steadily increased. In case of the collapse of Ukraine, due to the war or economic chaos, we are ready to receive thousands of Ukrainian people in our country including our Volyn Czechs living in Ukraine. About half a million foreigners live in our small country at present. In that respect, I reject the compulsory quotas for refugees proposed by the European Commission; it is an ineffective solution.

      We should help in the areas from which refugees come to Europe. Such a solution would have a positive impact on the subsequent migration pressures towards the European Union, providing protection and good living conditions for refugees who, simultaneously, would not lose contact with their homelands or have to take the risky and often exhausting trips to Europe. However, the most important step is to stop the civil wars in Syria, Libya and Iraq, and to ensure a future and a dignified life for people in those countries. Receiving refugees in Europe is only a temporary solution. We must help them to find political solutions for establishing peace in their home countries.

      As politicians, we are responsible for our citizens and European citizens, and for asylum seekers. We can offer asylum seekers only so many placements as we are able to if we are to integrate and secure a good life for them in our societies.

      Ms MITCHELL (Ireland) – I welcome the opportunity to reinforce, as strongly as I possibly can, your call for action on Turkey and, indeed, the common call for a European response to migration generally. I was part of the delegation that visited the Turkish border camps and I saw at first hand the Turkish Government’s heroic work and enormous investment in order to give sanctuary and protection to Syrian refugees.

      I agree with the contention that migration must be tackled at source in countries of origin. Nevertheless, in Turkey alone, there are officially 2 million refugees but, unofficially, probably a great many more. Indeed, more will come every day. The camps are generously fitted out and well run, and they cater as best they possibly can for the refugees who have had to leave home, leave everything they own behind them and throw themselves on the mercy of their neighbour Turkey, as hundreds of thousands have also done in Lebanon and Jordan. We were full of admiration for the Turkish effort, but we were also ashamed, as an international community, by our complacency, our indifference, and our abandonment of one country to be virtually the only volunteer country to welcome unreservedly – at a cost of $6 billion to date – those fleeing the war in Syria.

      What we saw in the camps is only a fraction of the story. They are home to a quarter of a million people, but at least another 2 million have been absorbed in towns, villages and cities all around Turkey. In many cases the refugees outnumber the original inhabitants, and that puts incredible pressure on local services and local inhabitants. The situation has been called unsustainable, but it is much more than that. It is a powder keg that will explode if the international community does not come to the aid of the countries that are suffering the most intense pressure. I am not naïve enough to think that we will all open our doors as fully as Turkey has done, although we could certainly do more than we are doing in the face of this savage war. We could certainly help to share the financial cost of sanctuary with all such front-line countries. It is unthinkable that the citizens – often the very poor citizens – of places such as the Turkish towns and villages that we saw should be asked to pay the entire price.

      This debate must be a wake-up call for us all about the destabilising impact of migration. Yes, we must address the root causes; that is an inescapable imperative. However, unless major international effort is made to help existing refugees to restart their lives, to get an education, to get homes and to get jobs, more radicalisation and terrorism are inevitable. The potential for destabilisation is enormous, not only in Turkey but in every country. Migration has long-term implications for all the countries that are represented in the Assembly and many that are not. Migration is already changing governments in northern Europe. If we do not act together for reasons of international solidarity, we should at least do so out of self-interest.

      Ms TZAKRI (Greece)* – European migration policy faces several challenges, and we must unite to tackle illegal migration from outside Europe and problems with internal solidarity. The European Union has adopted the priorities of the 2014 Stockholm Programme. We have adopted strategic guidelines for 2015 to 2019 that provide possible ways forward. We must make better use of technology to monitor migration and deal with it appropriately. Countries are responsible for their own borders, and those at the edges of the European Union are clearly on the front line. However, all European Union countries must share responsibility for dealing with illegal migration. At present, our response is not effective. We need appropriate and fair resettlement programmes. Countries that bear a heavy burden of migrant reception strongly favour such programmes, but others are not willing to be involved in them. We are dealing with more than simply a moral problem. We must be pragmatic and find effective ways to tackle the problem, which goes beyond the borders of any one country.

      Europe has some policies to deal with migration, but we need funding. The United States spent $24 billion on border control last year, but Frontex has a budget of only €89 million. We spend some €50 million on coastguards, so we are not spending enough to deal with the challenge. If we do nothing, the gap between the privileged and those who have nothing will only increase, and the price will be paid in human lives. The issue does not have to be a divisive one; Europe can show that there is hope for a better future in the 21st century.

      Mr SÁEZ (Spain)* – Migration in the Mediterranean is not new, and it has two main causes. The first is the drastic reduction in official development aid for countries of origin, which drives up the numbers of people who flee their homes in search of a better life. Spain had to deal with the so-called Cayucos crisis in the Canary Islands in 2006, which was resolved by agreements with Morocco, Senegal, Mauritania, Nigeria and Spain through development, co-operation and a visa policy. The second reason for such migration is regional conflict, such as the Islamic State crisis, which has led to massive displacements of people towards safer areas in countries such as Malta. We must not only provide more resources but pay real attention to the refugees, who must be respected. Responsibilities must be shared. Spain and other countries are debating the possibility of sharing out the refugees and asylum rights to help places such as Turkey and Sweden.

      Europe must take five steps. First, it must tighten co-operation with third countries of origin and transit to create a comprehensive approach to migration and asylum policy in Europe. It must develop strategic agreements to deal with criminal networks. It must increase protection and asylum for refugees along the main routes, and it must provide safe options for people who need international protection in close co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

      Secondly, Europe needs a resettlement programme, which should include, if necessary, binding quotas. Other legal options should be explored, such as family reunification, private sponsorship and flexible labour agreements.

      Thirdly, there must be a summit between Europe and all the key African countries, to address the need to fight smuggling and trafficking; the need to guarantee access to protection and asylum; and the need to tackle deep-seated causes such as poverty, conflict and persecution.

      Fourthly, the European Union must develop a new neighbourhood policy for the South, with conventions and agreements to protect human rights and personal freedom in coastal States. Finally, Europe must step up co-operation with the governments of countries of origin to address the problem at the root, by providing aid for development, co-operation, job creation, the strengthening of institutions, the fight against corruption and the fight to uphold the rule of law.

      Mr PARVIAINEN (Finland) – Migration tends to be a divisive issue that raises many concerns among many of our citizens. Such concerns need to be addressed whether or not we believe them to be based on fact. We need to find answers that honour and strengthen core human rights. Migrants’ human rights can be properly fulfilled only if they are sufficiently integrated into the societies to which they migrate. Integration and inclusion do not come free and they require the tackling of practical issues such as language training, education and access to childcare, so that people can join the work force. We can and should seek consensus on integration regardless of what we think of migration.

      All possible responses to migration require not only political will, but resources. Long-term results will vary depending on how we divide our efforts. If we exhaust our resources on tightening borders, even using military force in extreme cases, we will have little left for integration and inclusion. No border control is perfect, however, and people will inevitably still arrive in our societies. Integrating such people is not free, but it may decide not only their well-being, but the long-term effects on economics and public finances.

      To respond to the current crisis, a wide range of tools is needed. There is no silver bullet. We need different policies that complement each other. First, we need to help countries of origin and transit on everyday issues such as the opportunity for work in refugee camps. It is an opportunity for co-operation between not only governments, but the public, private and third sectors. Secondly, we should co-operate to strengthen democracy and human rights beyond our borders to help reduce the risk of future crises. Thirdly, we need new and better legal routes for migration.

      Despite the many efforts to reduce the root causes of migration, Europe needs to find ways to share responsibility for the people who will make their way to our continent. Europe as a whole will benefit if we share the challenges and opportunities. A Europe with a comprehensive and holistic policy for handling migration could turn a challenge into an opportunity and an asset. Like most things in life, however, opportunities rarely come free. Decisions, actions and resources are urgently needed. I plead with members of the Council of Europe to take that message to their governments.

      Ms KALMARI (Finland) – We have had a good debate today, but while we are discussing the matter thousands of people are being forced to flee their homes and leave behind everything they own and love. These people are escaping violence and are forced to seek refuge. Many of them leave behind family members without knowing when, if ever, they will see them again. They are forced to abandon their jobs, livelihoods and businesses.

      The European Union has made decisions and adopted measures that aim to improve the situation. The focus is on addressing the root causes behind irregular migration from non-European Union countries, on dismantling smuggling and trafficking networks and on defining actions for the better application of return policies. Such measures are positive and sit alongside the work that is being done to help to create better economic and employment opportunities in Africa as a whole.

      When he addressed the Assembly on Tuesday, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, urged the Council of Europe to find a common European response to migration challenges. As a new member of the Assembly, I ask whether the Council of Europe should not play a greater role to solve the problem. I understand that this is the place where human rights should be advanced. I am thinking about the situation of children who have lost their parents. I am also concerned about young women, many of whom become victims of human trafficking and prostitution. We must ask ourselves how the problem would present itself if the victims were our own daughters.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – This morning, Islamic State killed several people in Kobane in Syria. The organisation is financed through the sale of oil. Are oil firms in our countries selling this oil? Could we impose a boycott on firms that are exploiting the situation by selling this cheaper oil from Islamic State? That relates to the issue under discussion today because we must thank the Turks for the $6 billion they have spent. Some people just talk; others are taking action, and those who do things have greater moral authority.

      Migration has affected humanity throughout history. It is a problem now and will be a problem in the future. It is logical because the basic human instinct is to try and survive. We would all do the same. The problem is that people are succumbing to this toxic ideology of hating others. We need migrants because our continent is ageing at an alarming rate. Our children may not be able to get their pensions because too few people will be working and contributing to social security systems. The issue must be tackled in an orderly fashion. Rather than the abuse and crimes of traffickers, the law should prevail.

      The entire international system has been called into question because it has not been effective. The people who vote for and elect us here are sometimes afraid. We must choose between the discourses of fear and hope. We must not succumb to fear but create hope for the people involved. I appreciated Alex Sáez’s contribution. We need new development policies and new ideas to be equal to humanity’s challenges, because no one is worth more or less than anyone else.

      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania) – I am grateful to the Turkish delegation for the visit to Turkey, which has opened the eyes of many politicians in this Assembly.

      Armed conflicts, religious wars and climate change have resulted in global migration and a flow of refugees on a scale not seen since the Second World War. We need to admit that Europe is facing a migrant crisis. The issue divides societies, creates tensions and could cause governments to fail. It is not a popular issue among politicians. It also gives rise to populist parties. Turkey is a good example of how to deal with refugees of war. It deserves more solidarity and financial support from the European Union. It should also be noted that Turkey is a buffer zone between Islamic State and Europe.

      The armed conflict in Ukraine led to 3 million displaced persons fleeing Donetsk and Lugansk. They lost everything, too – their homes and sources of existence – but unfortunately they still do not have refugee status. What could politicians from Europe and across the world have done to avoid this conflict?

      Why have our policies on integration, climate change, reproductive health and family planning failed? We should revise our policies and go to the roots of the problem. We should do everything possible to restore peace in conflict areas. We should give migrants greater prospects for a better life in their places of origin, and we should show more solidarity.

      I do not want to hear the news that young men, women and children are drowning in the Mediterranean Sea. That should not be allowed to happen and become a monument to European indifference and selfishness.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – The report underlines that this is essentially a humanitarian problem. Our popular press may try to demonise migrants as a swarm of locusts trying to come to our shores, but these are ordinary people facing extraordinary problems. Some flee civil wars, as in Syria. Some leave brutal regimes, as in Eritrea or Sudan. Others flee climate change, as in the Sahel. But the majority are people who just want to improve their lives and those of their children. They have the same aspirations as us.

      The blunt reality is that we in Europe cannot have an open-door policy. We cannot accept everyone who would like to come here. The Americans have found that in the push to el norte – people in the areas to the south who, because of global communications, see the bright lights, the jobs, the opportunities and the health services in the United States, and understandably want to go there.

      I want to highlight two problems. First, the report is realistic in looking at the upstream context – the push and pull factors. Many of these factors, such as inequality, if not incapable of resolution, are going to persist for a long time. We should give aid, of course, but however much we give, and however much we try capacity building and opening our markets to their agricultural products, the differences both economically and socially between those countries and ours will persist. The push from the Sahel countries because of desertification is also likely to persist. Does anyone think a short-term solution can be found to the troubles that afflict so many of those who flee Syria and Iraq, or that the tyranny in Eritrea and other countries will cease? As the report underlines, the push factors are therefore likely to continue.

      We should try all the report’s suggestions on the downstream context, but they will not solve the problem, because people are so desperate and also so versatile. This is perhaps marginally less difficult to deal with, however. We could destroy the boats, but there are major legal problems, and Russia will veto that at the UN. We can capture traffickers, too, and we can deal with the littoral countries by having camps where we can distinguish the asylum seekers from others. But the problems will continue. The conclusion must be that this is a global and, yes, a European problem. We need co-ordination and solidarity, but frankly it is in very short supply at the moment.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Thank you colleagues from Turkey, Germany, Italy and all our countries that are opening up and holding to our humanitarian responsibilities, because that is what this is all about. Refugee day is 20 June. Last year, more people than ever fled their countries – their homes. Some 60 million people have moved away from their countries, which is an all-time high, as the Secretary-General told us on Tuesday. Most of them are not knocking on our doors. Most of them are going to countries that are among the poorest in the world.

      We must remember that Europe has developed through migration. I remember when the European Union opened up to new members. There was a big debate in many countries about social tourism. I myself, and Sweden, fought that, because we wanted people to be equals; we wanted to uphold the principle of the equal right to movement, and that did not become a problem.

      We should remember that now, when talking about the current situation in the European Union. We should also remember what Ban Ki-moon told us about the human DNA and striving for a better life for our children. All of us should do that; we know that. We must also remember that none of us is illegal; we are humans, and we could, perhaps, be irregular, but we are not illegal.

      We must remember, too, when we talk about what is happening in the Mediterranean, that the freedom of the sea is what we are all looking for. We should not try to restrict the right to flee. We should learn the lessons from history. Let us keep Europe open. Let us tackle the problems we have back home, but not on the shoulders of those who flee for a better life or just to stay alive. We must also make sure soldiers do not fight against refugees on European soil again.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I thank Turkey for everything it is doing on this matter in the context of the Union for the Mediterranean. Our fact-finding mission visited a number of areas in Jordan and Turkey, and I was involved in that. If Europe took in the numbers that Turkey is taking in today, there would not be any need for this debate.

      We should change the terms of the debate. We are saying we need to beef up Frontex. If we do that, we will increase the price demanded by the traffickers. In other words, we would change the business model of traffickers and smugglers. If we ensured security of passage, we would take people out of the hands of traffickers and smugglers. If, as a tourist, I travelled to the wonderful island of Cos, I could get there for €10, but I would have to pay €3 000 if I was fleeing as a migrant.

      We try to make distinctions, but, as Ms Lundgren said, we should not be distinguishing between who is legal and who is illegal. I am reminded of Prime Minister Zapatero saying very clearly that everyone is his country was legal. We should stop talking about economic migrants. Are the people fleeing Syria, Iraq or Eritrea economic migrants? No, they are people fleeing their countries in search of a better life, or some form of security at least.

      We know that 200 000 people are now heading for the Mediterranean. How do we know that? Because it takes them two to three years to plan to flee. Families have to pool together money for the passage, and there is no going back. We need safe centres. We need to approach the issue with solidarity. Some people say that they do not want to have quotas imposed, but what about solidarity? Sweden has taken in some 100 000 refugees. If we turned around the concept of solidarity, we might realise that it is easier than we thought. We could turn around the migrant debate. We need to tackle it from a positive angle. If we did, we would make considerable headway.

      Ms MILADINOVIĆ (Serbia) – The reasons why people migrate are various, complex and changeable. The mixed migration flows that we are witnessing require more direct and co-ordinated work by the authorities responsible for different categories of migrants and asylum seekers, irregular migrants and victims of trafficking. Migrants are not easy to classify because they come from different circumstances and different backgrounds. Bearing in mind the difficulties they have to face while moving and living in exile, they are exposed to increased risk of trafficking.

      The western Balkans is a transit hub for smuggling, trafficking and illegal migration in general. The Republic of Serbia is located on the main and well-known transit line for migrants from Asian and African countries to Western Europe. The largest number of people use the land route through Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary. Over the years, the Republic of Serbia has been successfully meeting the challenges, but, as most countries are faced with large migrant increases, the authorities’ work has become increasingly difficult. Illegal border crossing trends in the region continue, especially across the Macedonian-Serbian border.

      I would like to make one key point: in 2008, Serbia had 77 asylum requests; since the start of 2015, there have been more than 28 000. The uncontrolled influx of foreign citizens and the lack of adequate European Union mechanisms has triggered a reaction in Hungary, which has announced the construction of a 174 km fence along the border with Serbia. Serbia initiated a regional conference, with the aim of finding a common solution to the problem.

      All aspects of the problem of migration must be formally framed, and co-operation, co-ordination and understanding between States should intensify. The Council of Europe can help, but it cannot solve the problem on its own. The European Union must get involved, as well as the United Nations, because migrants are coming from countries outside Europe. The causes behind the problems can be tracked down, but they are not the focus of our discussion, and the Council of Europe cannot resolve them. This topical and extremely complex issue demands the concerted efforts and actions of all relevant institutions – both those that are creating specific policies and those tasked with implementing them.

      Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – We are all affected by the current situation and the plight of migrants trying to reach Europe in search of a better life. I will focus my speech around two pillars: tackling the root causes of migration, and burden sharing in our concerted efforts to respond to this challenge.

      Members will recall Mr Mariani’s strong report on the situation in the Mediterranean, which we debated during the April session. One parameter that has not changed since then is the fact that the existing mechanisms and instruments to take in the ever-growing influx of migrants to Europe have reached full capacity. That, in turn, illustrates two undeniable facts. First, migrants are still fleeing their countries because of war and difficult domestic conditions. If we want to halt migration, those people need to feel safe at home and not want to leave. One has only to look at the dramatic situation in Syria, the Middle East and Africa to identify the root causes behind these huge migratory flows, as well as our responsibilities.

      Secondly, it is also undeniable that the mechanisms currently deployed by the international community, particularly the European Union, have proven inadequate, in terms of both resources and ambition. A correct reading of the situation, encompassing actions to combat the root causes of migration in the countries of origin, and especially in Africa and the Middle East, needs to be carefully thought out and combined with the creation of carefully defined legal entry routes, monitored by the European Union, for people who must be allowed to migrate to Europe – for example, refugees in urgent need of humanitarian relief, safety and shelter. Let us ensure that when we do grant entry, we do it correctly, taking into account people’s background, cultural diversity, social inhibitions and aspirations. We do not want to create ghetto societies within our existing societies; we want to consolidate the multicultural character and active involvement of all our citizens and strengthen the social fabric of migrant communities living in Europe by recognising that the protection of their human rights is just as precious and valid as our own human rights and security concerns.

      Finally, I want to discuss burden sharing, which, unfortunately, European Union countries have not embraced so far. If solidarity is still a key principle in the relations between our governments, it should become clear that some countries must commit more financial resources than others that are more exposed to migratory flows, such as southern European countries. A more equitable and fair distribution of resources and responsibilities should be the cornerstone of our concerted efforts and actions to alleviate this pressing issue.

      Mr DIVINA (Italy)* – We have heard some wonderful words, which we agree with and support, but nobody is actually confronting the problem. As an Italian, I must say that Italy is facing a migratory phenomenon that is unprecedented in recent centuries. If the number of migrants rises above a certain threshold, that will inevitably create tensions. There is the social issue that people living at or below the breadline in our States will feel threatened. There is also a degree of cultural aggression, given where such people are coming from, which leads to spontaneous reactions.

      Italy cannot do it anymore – Italy has had it; it has reached the limit – but people are pretending that there is not a problem. Ban Ki-moon’s words the other day were fine, but he wants to keep on managing the problem. There are calls for solidarity, but where is that solidarity in Europe? Italy seems to be cut off by the Alps. Austria, Switzerland and France are sending people back to Italy, citing the Dublin Convention and all the other standards. That is what is happening. Can we tackle the issue seriously, rather than using demagogic words or skating over the problem?

      It seems to me that Italy is at the crossroads. What can it do? It has not got the resources to tackle the problem itself. Will it be the fount of a crisis that engulfs the whole of Europe? Allowing everyone to go wherever they want to go will just shift the problem. If this is not tackled by Italy, it will be somebody else’s problem. There is apparently an idea to have a big reception centre, but only about 10% of people coming into our countries have asylum rights, while 90% of them could be deemed economic migrants. We cannot possibly accommodate them all. Europe is in crisis, Italy is in crisis, and we cannot respond to this. What will happen to the hundreds of thousands of African children being born? Are they all coming here? It seems to me that we are creating chaos in our own countries by viewing it as someone else’s problem.

      Ms KRONLID (Sweden) – Europe and the world at large are at present faced with a series of very grave crises and conflicts. Recent reports from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) indicate that about 60 million people worldwide are fleeing from conflicts and oppression or for other reasons. In Syria alone, close to 4 million people have had to flee their country; half of them are children, many of them severely traumatised.

      The gruesome deeds in Iraq committed by the terrorist organisation ISIS – I would not hesitate to qualify those actions as genocide – have forced an additional 2 million people to leave their homes. When faced with this catastrophe, in which the humanitarian needs near the epicentre of the crisis are so enormous, we in Europe seem to have got stuck in a debate about what help we ought to give to the comparatively limited group of people who have managed to reach Europe. Our assistance could reach many more if we focused on helping people more locally.

      We have failed to give priority to the existing legal ways, through the UNHCR, by which refugees can find a second home when it becomes impossible for them to remain in proximity to the conflict area from which they are fleeing. Because of that failure, merciless human traffickers are now able to exploit the desperation of many people for their own sinister purposes, and indeed to put those people’s very lives at risk. What we are witnessing is indeed a humanitarian disaster. I readily admit that it is not an easy one to handle, but let me suggest a few things that we could do.

      First, Europe must contribute jointly and generously toward humanitarian assistance to help the UNHCR in its vital mission to assist refugees on the spot. Countries such as Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey as well as the Kurdish part of Iraq, have shouldered a great responsibility in receiving many refugees. It is of major importance for Europe to compensate countries and regions that have so generously offered hospitality to many refugees from nearby areas.

      Secondly, we need to signal to human traffickers that what they are doing is criminal, while at the same time giving greater material support to the UNHCR so that refugees can turn to that agency, instead of falling into the hands of the ruthless practitioners of human trafficking. I believe that if we are to have a lasting and successful refugee policy, we must try to help as many people as possible in the most efficient way possible, and to orient our assistance toward the most vulnerable and the most exposed. I thank members for the good debate.

      THE PRESIDENT – I thank all the participants in the debate, especially Mr Denemeç, who introduced the subject.

      When we went with national delegations to Turkey, the idea was to see what Turkey was doing to deal with the situation of the refugees, and to take that back to be debated in our national parliaments in order to convince the public, parliamentarians and national governments of the need for solidarity. I and those who participated in our mission to Turkey will shortly have meetings with the presidents of the national delegations to convey to them that message and to provide them with evidence. I hope that that will lead to debates on the issue in our 47 member States, because everybody has responsibility for it. When we went to Kilis, a city in Turkey near the Syrian border, the mayor told us, “International delegations come and go – and nothing happens.” I therefore want strongly to express the wish that we can make the difference.

2. European Association of Communications Agencies Care Award

      THE PRESIDENT – I am very pleased to inform you that the Assembly’s short film “The Lake”, which encourages young people to speak up about sexual abuse as part of the ONE-in-FIVE campaign, has won a European Association of Communications Agencies care award for 2015. These prestigious prizes, which usually go to mainstream advertising agencies, aim to recognise excellence in social marketing. The organiser referred to our campaign as “an absolute breakthrough” for an international organisation. An estimated 6 million people have seen the film so far on a number of European TV stations, and about 1.2 million more have done so online. I congratulate the team behind this success.

      I now invite you to watch the film, with a view to sharing it as widely as possible. Its message lies at the heart of our mission to protect children.

      The film “The Lake” was screened.

      The award that the Council of Europe received for this film should remind us that we have to protect children. I congratulate the team. Let us continue to protect children; they need our protection. Thank you very much.

3. Free Debate

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to the free debate. I invite members to speak on topics of their choice. I remind members that the debate is for topics not already on the agenda. Speaking time is limited to three minutes. In order for there to be clarity in the debate, I ask each speaker to begin by identifying the subject about which they wish to speak. I call Ms Taktakishvili, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – The topic of my speech is the need to further protect minority rights and specifically religious minority rights. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has examined the possibility of establishing a general rapporteurship on the freedom of religion in our Assembly. The practice of following different topics is established. We have general reports on a number of issues – for example, the freedom of the media and the situation of human rights defenders – so why not have a general rapporteur to focus more on the necessity to protect religious minority rights and the freedom of religion in Council of Europe member States?

       Why is that more important today? We have some old challenges and new challenges in this area. We support the fight against terrorism. We have the recent challenges posed by the terrorist organisation known under the name Islamic State – ISIS – but its name does not mean it has anything to do with Muslims in Europe, who are discriminated against. We have to fight terrorism. While protecting victims and preventing terrorist attacks, we should not stigmatise the Muslim community.

       We also have to be more focused on fighting against anti-Semitism. Old challenges include the use of religious issues and religious sensitivities by national politicians at the political party level. We know that political parties use those issues to influence public opinion in a way that is definitely discriminatory. In a number of Council of Europe member States, there are alliances between governments and the dominant religious organisations. In such cases, there is a lack of protection for religious minority organisations and their representatives.

The final reason why we think that freedom of religion is relevant today is that there is at least one country in this Organisation that uses propaganda to influence foreign States’ internal policies. Sometimes, religious issues are used to propagate anti-Western propaganda, to say that the NGOs that protect the rights of religious minorities are foreign agents and to challenge national sovereignty and the traditional values promoted by the dominant Churches. That is why we believe in the necessity of establishing a general rapporteurship on the freedom of religion.

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

      THE PRESIDENT – I want to be strict on the speaking time limit to allow as many colleagues as possible to participate in the free debate. I call Ms Anagnostopoulou on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Ms ANAGNOSTOPOULOU (Greece)* – I will talk about human rights. It is considered that “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.” That is from the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I invite you to consider where we are in relation to that tremendous promise, which humanity made to itself after the end of the Second World War.

      Human rights seem to take second place to the requirements of the market and the fear of the other. Europe should be inspired by the principles of human rights. We have talked about the thousands of refugees who are holed up and concentrated in camps. They do not have the right to travel or to imagine a better future for their children. At this moment, the Kurds are fighting again in Syria against barbarous ISIS troops who are attacking them all the way to the Turkish border. Fighting broke out there again this morning.

      We are talking about the fact that there is no respect for the fundamentals of human rights, and that people are denying the existence of human rights. The programmes of austerity imposed for some five years on Greece have left an exhausted society and millions of people living in poverty, and that is shameful for Europe. The proposals made by my government, which was recently elected, have not been responded to favourably, and that is in defiance of basic human rights standards. The International Monetary Fund is allowed to set a series of rules in favour of the rich, but against the peoples of Europe. Destructive wars were one of the reasons why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made in the first place.

      Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – I want to speak about the threat in the United Kingdom to the integrity of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. I am probably not the only person who found it rather paradoxical that this week in Strasbourg we spent some time celebrating the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta – everyone spoke great things about what it did for human rights – while the Government of the United Kingdom has simultaneously been contemplating a number of possibilities either to diminish or terminate the influence in the United Kingdom of the European Court of Human Rights and the underpinning European Convention on Human Rights. I think most people here know that the last Labour government incorporated the Convention into its domestic legislation, and there is a wide consensus that this has been a good thing, not only for the UK but for the protection of human rights, yet the present government now plans to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with a British Bill of Rights, the contents of which are as yet unknown.

Last October, a Conservative policy paper raised the possibility of the United Kingdom’s withdrawing from the Convention. That would be a disastrous move. The Justice Secretary later said that he did not have that in mind, and we were told that the Foreign Secretary was not of that view, but within a day of those declarations the Conservative Party leader, the British Prime Minister, undermined that position when he said that the government “could not anticipate what it might need.” He did not rule out withdrawing from the Convention. I will be keen to get back to the United Kingdom Parliament, when I leave the Parliamentary Assembly at the next part-session, in order to defend the European Court of Human Rights. This is a major issue.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I had not anticipated commenting on Lord Tomlinson’s speech, but, having heard its contents, I feel obliged to do so. It is a bit of a cheek for somebody who is not elected by the people – he is an appointed member of the unelected House of Lords in the United Kingdom – to criticise the recently elected government for doing what it said it was going to do in its manifesto, which was endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of the United Kingdom. It would be a disaster for the House of Lords and Lord Tomlinson if he chose to abuse his position to defy the will of the British people. Prior to the Human Rights Act, which was passed in 1998, the United Kingdom had been actively engaged in this Organisation and promoting human rights. The Act and our commitment to human rights are not interdependent.

I was going to talk about something else. Following the excellent film we just watched, which illustrated the Council of Europe’s expertise in our core business, I want to draw attention to the recently issued pamphlet, “The Council of Europe and the European Union: Partners in Promoting Human Rights and Democracy”. At this time of austerity, it is important that we work in partnership with others. The leaflet sets out how the Council of Europe and the European Union work together with their different but complementary roles. It says that they can co-operate by sharing expertise, and it draws attention to the Venice Commission – the European Commission for Democracy through Law – which advises governments in Europe and beyond on constitutional and legal reforms.

The leaflet states: “The European Union participates in the work of the Venice Commission and regularly makes reference to its opinions. Regular high-level and day-to-day contact between the European Union and the Venice Commission has intensified in recent years, notably concerning constitutional developments in European Union member States, such as Hungary, and non-European Union members, including Turkey and Ukraine” – and, significantly, Tunisia, although that is not referred to in the pamphlet. The Venice Commission is one of the jewels in the crown of the Council of Europe. Why are we given to understand that the European Union is seeking to duplicate this fantastic Organisation? We need to raise awareness of the threat and the absurdity of the European Union trying to enter into the core business that we perform so well, particularly through the Venice Commission.

Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan)* – I am going to talk about refugees in Azerbaijan. For many years, Azerbaijan has been calling on the international community to assess the action taken against Azerbaijan by Armenia. I am talking about the rights and freedoms of Azerbaijani citizens that have been flouted through the occupation over many years of part of our land – not even their right to ownership of their property is properly recognised. My own town has been occupied by Armenia for more than 30 years. We were forced out of our homes, but people seem to have doubts about what really happened. People have many questions, and some even say, “What is Azerbaijan even doing here in the Parliamentary Assembly?” I was astonished to hear such a question. We are here to seek justice and find a just and fair approach to resolving these issues. We know that a great deal can be achieved here.

We have just watched a wonderful film about the future of our children. We want our children to live in a world free from war and with the prospect of a good future – we want that in our region as much as anywhere else. We want, through the OSCE Minsk Group, to move towards the peaceful resolution of these territorial issues. It is through those channels that we seek constantly to move forward. Tens of thousands of people from my community are still refugees unable to return to Nagorno-Karabakh – the place they lived in and where they want to continue to live peacefully, as they did before the occupation.

I appeal to colleagues to establish a dialogue with Armenian delegates to move towards a resolution. We need the sub-group on Nagorno-Karabakh to work on this and establish real dialogue. That is why we are here – for dialogue – and for that we want your support. We are here to bring peace to our region, which has a great deal to offer and can play its part in resolving the big issues we all face. No State in the world is without problems between the authorities and the civil population – these problems exist everywhere – but in my country there are hundreds of thousands of people unable to live in their own homes. They need that right restored.

Mr LE BORGN’       (France)* – I will be talking about the reversal of fundamental rights at the European Patent Office. More often than not, international organisations enjoy court immunity pursuant to the conventions that set them up or to headquarters agreements, and this immunity allows them not to be brought before the courts of the State or States where they are established. This is understandable, especially given their independence, but it should not mean the total, or almost total, absence of law. Thus, a staff member of an international organisation – and there are tens of thousands of them on our continent, beginning with the Council of Europe here – cannot be deprived of his or her right to be heard by a tribunal in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

      Likewise, pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention, the right to collective action must be guaranteed. This includes the right for a trade union organisation representing the staff members of an organisation also to be heard by a court or tribunal. One must be able to defend oneself individually and collectively. That is what the court of appeal in The Hague reminded the European Patent Office of on 17 February 2015, lifting its immunity – which is rare, almost unheard of, and in any event grave – in order to protect the collective rights of some 7 000 of those affected. Indeed, there can be no question of policies that breach the fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter, which develop the sanctuary of court immunity. Restricting the right of association, reducing the right to strike, preventing collective bargaining, depriving an organisation of any judicial remedy and not executing a court verdict – which, unfortunately, is what happened with the 17 February judgment – are thoroughly unacceptable developments. I avail myself of this opportunity of a free debate to assert that fact to the Assembly – as well as beyond it, to the Committee of Ministers, where our 47 member States are represented, including some 38 which are members of the European Patent Office.

      Two years ago, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted the report of our colleague, José María Beneyto, on the obligations of international organisations to answer for their acts in the event of human rights violations. In a similar vein to the Beneyto report, this issue respecting social rights, individual and collective alike, of staff members of international organisations should continue to be studied and, above all, strengthened. I know the European Patent Office and can well appreciate the value-added that it provides for the European economy. However, that is due largely to the sterling work of its staff members. I also know what its internal climate is like – the management by fear, the hurdles to collective action, the absence of recognition of whistle-blowers and the lack of checks and balances. I therefore call on the member States from which the European Patent Office draws its legitimacy to act, and it is their duty to act.

      Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia)* – On 3 October 2012, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 1900 on the definition of “political prisoner”. The resolution establishes five clear criteria to define when a person deprived of his or her personal liberty is to be regarded as a political prisoner. It was an important decision. Previously, the meaning attributed to the term “political prisoner” varied across different human rights defender organisations and countries, which created confusion and made it difficult to agree on the application of the term to different cases. When the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe – widely considered the united house of human rights and democracy for 47 European nations – has adopted a decision defining the term “political prisoner”, it is time to make use of that decision so that the rights of people deprived of liberty because of political motives are efficiently protected.

      I am proud to announce that it was for that purpose that yesterday, on 24 June, 14 prominent human rights defender organisations and seven parties with long-standing credentials in the struggle for the protection of human rights and democratic freedoms in Armenia decided to establish the Strasbourg Committee of Armenia. The committee will be based on consensus within the above-mentioned organisations and be composed of the most authoritative human rights defenders and prominent independent lawyers. It will decide on a case-by-case basis whether any alleged cases of imprisonment on political grounds correspond to the criteria put forward in Resolution 1900 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We have informed the Human Rights Commissioner, Nils Muižnieks, of this decision and he agreed that the opinion of such a committee will help him decide on the action of his office in different cases of abuse of human rights.

      I call on the Parliamentary Assembly to support this initiative based on its own decisions. I also hope that, in addressing problems of political prisoners, other countries will follow suit by creating a powerful network of Strasbourg committees across the member States of the Council of Europe in the effort to release all political prisoners.

      THE PRESIDENT – As I do not see Mr Nikoloski, I give the floor to Ms Pashayeva.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – On 16 June, the European Court adopted a decision on the petition entitled Chiragov and others v. Armenia, which concerns the case of a group of Azerbaijanis who became IDPs and cannot return to their native lands due to Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani lands. As a result of Armenia’s failure to comply with Resolution 1416, which this Assembly adopted 12 years ago, the IDPs appealed to the European Court. The decision clearly emphasises the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia and the violation of the human rights of the IDPs of Azerbaijan. Our Assembly should establish a mechanism to force Armenia to implement Assembly Resolution 1416 and the decision of the European Court.

      Two days ago, during the debate on the report on “The functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan”, we regretted the deletion of the sentence reconfirming that Armenia was occupying Azerbaijani territories. It was deleted because of suggestions from some of our colleagues who were against decisions and resolutions reached by international organisations such as the United Nations Security Council, the Parliamentary Assembly, the European Court and others. We also raised the issue at a previous sitting during questions to the Secretary General, Mr Jagland. He said that he was also working on the issue. As of today, however, Armenia has not released two of the Azerbaijani IDPs, Shahbaz Guliyev and Dilgam Asgarov. Their families are waiting for assistance from the Parliamentary Assembly and from each of you, dear colleagues. We urge our Organisation to step up the efforts to release them.

      I was elected as a representative from the Tovuz region, which is one of the regions bordering Armenia. Armenian armed forces continue to commit crimes against civilians without any international pressure to stop. Armenian armed forces opened fire in my constituency and completely burnt the house of the Nabiyevs in Alibeyli village. For more than 20 years, Armenia has continued to violate the Assembly’s principles and continued its occupation of Azerbaijani territories. More than 1 million Azerbaijanis still live as refugees and IDPs because of the occupation. Official Yerevan does not work with the rapporteur appointed by the Parliamentary Assembly but erects obstacles to his work. This action has been carried out by a member of our Organisation. We are supposed to support human rights but no action has been taken against the aggressor, Armenia. Is there not a double standard? In every part-session we discuss the Russian issue. Why do we not discuss Armenia, which continues to occupy Azerbaijani lands? We urge the Assembly to pay more attention to this issue and to support the proposal to hold a debate on Armenia as well.

      Ms SPADONI (Italy)* – Last Saturday, on 20 June, in Rome, there was a so-called Family Day where 400 000 people gathered in a square to protest against a Bill governing civil unions for cohabiting spouses and gay couples. The movement I represent, the Five Star Movement, always supports human rights without any distinction. We are therefore in favour of civil unions between persons of the same sex. We have always been committed to defending citizens against all forms of discrimination. We distance ourselves absolutely from any form of discrimination.

In recent days, we have seen a video doing the rounds on the web that shows Kiko Argüello. He said in his video that there were many cases of one type of gender violence – he was referring to femicide – and that this violence was said to be the result of male-female duality, but that that was not the case. He cited the case of Matthias Schepp in Switzerland who had killed his daughters for another reason. If he is an atheist, nobody confers on him the sense of existing as a person; he just has his wife. He feels nourished or sustained by the love of his wife, but if his wife abandons him, he makes an unimaginable discovery. He feels that there is no one there to love him and it is hell. He feels a death within himself so profound that his first reaction is a desire to kill her. The second reaction, because the pain he feels is both mystical and terrible, is a sense of existing in a black hole – “What can I do to make my wife understand the harm she has done?” – so he kills his daughters.

      Mr Argüello made this statement before a huge crowd, justifying the killing of children – or killing anyone, man or woman – but of course any true believer should regard such a statement as an insult. Murder cannot be justified in any way and certainly not on some flimsy religious pretext. The Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence entered into force in Spain last August. I encourage the Holy See, which enjoys observer status in the Council of Europe and the Gender Equality Commission, to sign up to the convention. It is important that Spain distances itself from what I have described. This is a true offence in the eyes of real Christians and we must all feel insulted by this offence against humanity.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I want to discuss the role of the European Court of Human Rights and the main idea of how peace and security should be maintained on the European continent. Why is this so important? It is important because we now have a lot of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights that discuss or are directly related to business conflicts involving billions of dollars, but how can we solve the problem of the main idea behind this Chamber: the protection of human rights and peace and security on the European continent?

      The European Court of Human Rights should have a special procedure that countries involved in acts of aggression, violence and the occupation of other territories have to pass through more quickly, but also more openly and directly. We have all the judicial procedures, beginning with the decisions of the United Nations and the final act of the Helsinki organisation, but we need to fulfil all these acts through decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. How can we compare a decision for one person with a decision for hundreds, thousands or millions of people who have become victims of such conflicts? We have discussed all this in long, long debates in our part-sessions, but I think the European Court of Human Rights can make more direct and open decisions, which will then play a central role in peacekeeping and maintaining security in Europe.

      Those countries that do not want to respect the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights or that do not make their decisions according to international law must not be the main countries in this Chamber. It is important that they should choose between protecting human rights and peace and security, and being aggressors that occupy the territory of others.

      Mr CHIKOVANI (Georgia) – I would like first to draw your attention to the grave events in Tbilisi on 13 June, when flooding and a landslide caused the deaths of about 20 Georgians and left hundreds homeless. A lot of global information and news agencies broadcast pictures of the Tbilisi hippo, thereby identifying the location of this grave tragedy as Tbilisi zoo. I thank all the governments you represent that extended condolences to my country. I particularly thank the President of the Assembly, who has voiced words of support and condolences. We also reach out to our friends – governments and others – for raising funds to restore whatever has been damaged. Of course we will never be able to restore the lives that we lost, but we are working hard in their good memory to recover the city.

      I would also like to draw your attention to some important issues and developments in Georgia. Georgia is currently seeing an unprecedented consensus among opposition parties, non-governmental organisations and other actors who have any say in Georgia’s electoral system. Only one actor – the ruling coalition, Georgian Dream – has rejected every suggestion we have proposed and gone ahead with their own declared intention of reforming the electoral system of Georgia. In doing so they have not rejected the idea that the electoral system needs reform, but have suggested they would like to do so in 2020, not 2016, thereby once again using the system that gives them a head start against the opposition parties.

      I would like to ask the rapporteurs of this Organisation, Mr Cilevičs and the newly appointed rapporteur, to pay scrupulous attention to this matter, because it is very important for Georgia’s development down the democratic path. If we do not want to see Georgia diverted from the democratic path and if we want this path to be solidified, we need this reform now and we need it to be made swiftly. There is an opportunity to do this, as reiterated numerous times by the Council of Europe and a number of international organisations that have observed Georgian elections in previous years.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – Shortly after the Georgian-Russian war and the Russian invasion of Georgia, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said these remarkable words. He said that the former Soviet Union is a common spiritual space and that the Georgian Government – he was the referring to the United National Movement Government at the time – is an anomaly in it.

      I think that quotation well reflects how much is really at stake when we discuss democracy in Russia’s neighbouring States. What is at stake is not only the fate of democracy in those individual States, such as Georgia or Ukraine, but something much larger, namely the future of the region overall, Russia included, because the very idea behind the current regime in Russia rests on the false assumption that fully fledged democracy is impossible in that part of the world and will destroy Russia. It is therefore in the vested interests of all freedom-loving Europeans to support democracy in Russia’s neighbours, specifically Georgia and Ukraine. If they are successful, these countries will make the possibility of a Europe whole, free and at peace a reality.

      Although Georgia has come far in the past few years, when the first ever elected change of government in the history of our region took place in 2012, the country unfortunately went backwards under the leadership of the oligarch, Bidzina Ivanishvili, who made his fortune in Russia. That matter has been discussed a lot in the Chamber.

      I draw your attention to the issue of pressure on judges. Almost the entire leadership of the opposition in Georgia is currently in jail or under prosecution, and the government is exercising pressure on judges. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) report mentions the political selection of judges. Only a few days ago, the Secretary of the High Council of Justice, Mr Murusidze, confirmed that the judge in the case of Gigi Ugulava – a former mayor of Tbilisi, and campaign manager for the United National Movement, who was arrested days before last year’s local elections – had a car accident in February, which resulted in a fatality. The government is blackmailing that judge to push for Mr Ugulava’s conviction before the constitutional court says, as is likely, that his second pre-trial detention term is unconstitutional and that he must be released. Anyone who cares about the things I have enumerated must react to this grave development.

      THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Sabella from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine) – I will speak about the report on Gaza commissioned by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which was issued on Monday 22 June. The report clearly illustrates the dramatic consequences of the Israeli war on Gaza in summer 2014. I draw your attention to a statement by Justice Mary McGowan Davis, chair of the United Nations investigation commission, in which she said, “The extent of the devastation and human suffering in Gaza was unprecedented and will impact generations to come.” Gaza, as well as the whole of Palestine, continues to suffer the consequences of Israeli occupation. There is no end in sight, as Israeli politicians prioritise illegal settlements and their expansion, and security control policies and measures over and above a negotiated, peaceful solution.

      We are heartened by the fact that Ms Eva-Lena Jansson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has been authorised to visit Gaza to prepare a report on the humanitarian crisis there. Palestine offers all it can to facilitate and expedite her visit. We only hope that Israel will follow suit. Tending to the wounds of our people will not resolve the long-standing conflict, or the Israeli occupation. More needs to be done on the political level. We welcome the efforts of France through the initiative of Mr Laurent Fabius, and the recognition of European parliaments and States. In the State of Palestine, we see this as a strong message to Israeli politicians that they cannot go on with occupation policies and obvious defiance of international consensus, conventions and resolutions, and that we must seek an end to Israeli occupation and endorse the establishment of a Palestinian State.

      Without a just and lasting solution, violations of human rights and the worsening of the humanitarian situation will continue, including the arrest of fellow parliamentarians. Khalida Jarrar is the latest example of ongoing violations and arrests of hundreds of our fellow Palestinians. We appreciate the efforts of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in seeing that an objective assessment is undertaken. We only hope that, with this assessment, more assertive and convincing measures will be applied on Israel in order to move forward on the road to peace and eventual mutual recognition and reconciliation. Without that, we will all continue to suffer, with negative repercussions for the whole region that will also touch on Europe, its citizens and institutions.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sabella. We have to stick to speeches of three minutes so I can now give the floor to our next speaker, Ms Naghdalyan.

      Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) – I will first give a short reaction to my colleague from Azerbaijan about there not being a single word about the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia. It is simply not true. Interestingly, my colleague from Azerbaijan conveniently forgot to mention the judgment against Azerbaijan on the same subject. Furthermore, there are a number of judgments against Azerbaijan where the Court called on Azerbaijan to release journalists, political activists and the director of the Council of Europe school in Baku. Apparently, those judgments are not of interest to my colleague from Azerbaijan who opts to disseminate false information about Court judgments.

      I have two messages to present to your attention. Recently, at the request of my colleagues from the Parliament of Nagorno-Karabakh, I sent you a statement by the factions of the National Assembly of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic about the future and the willingness of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to build their country in co-operation with this body, the principles and values of which are shared by them. It is unfair to neglect people because of the status of their republic. They are part of Europe; they are part of a young democracy, which can never become part of the country that is ruled by an inherited autocratic regime. The republic even conducted elections that, according to a number of international observers, fully met democratic standards. Nagorno-Karabakh needs us in the development and strengthening of its democratic institutions. All of you – leaders of the Assembly, chairs of the political groups, and representatives of 47 countries – please read the statement of the national assembly carefully and feel the desire of the people of the republic.

      Our Assembly could initiate direct contacts with Nagorno-Karabakh, irrespective of its status, aimed at promoting human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law. The Council of Europe has similar experience in other parts of Europe and the world. Let us forget about double standards for a while and let the humanitarian and democratic values lead us.

      My second message is about the initiative of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia. This year, we mark the centennial of the Armenian genocide. We are thankful to the countries and international organisations that showed support and expressed sympathy. It is important for us to feel that, finally, we are not alone, and that the international community and our friends stand by us.

      One hundred years later, the world is not safe from genocides. If the first genocide of the 20th century had been recognised and condemned, we could have avoided the occurrence of new crimes against humanity. As a nation that survived genocide, we feel a responsibility to launch an international campaign against genocides.

      THE PRESIDENT – Ms Naghdalyan, the time limit is three minutes for everyone. Mr Babayan is the next speaker.

      Mr BABAYAN (Armenia) – I would like to talk about the right to education of the population of unrecognised countries, which is an integral part of human rights. The populations of unrecognised countries are deprived of the right to take part in European educational programmes. Taking as a basis the Convention against Discrimination in Education approved by UNESCO in December 1960, I would like to focus the Assembly’s attention on the educational non-recognition of the population of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic, which is a serious obstacle that constitutes discrimination against them. The authorities of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic have created all the conditions necessary for the realisation of the educational rights of the population, but the people face unsolvable problems and obstacles beyond the Nagorno-Karabakh republic. There are 219 schools and five higher education institutions for the population of 143 000 people.

      Students in the Nagorno-Karabakh republic are outside the European educational system and they do not use the programmes guaranteed by the Bologna process. According to the UNESCO convention, the human right to education is one of the main provisions of UNESCO, and I expect to have the support of the European Parliament on the matter. I propose to create a working group in the Assembly on the educational rights of people who live in unrecognised countries.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Khader is not here, so the final speaker is Mr Kiral.

      Mr KIRAL (Ukraine) – The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve greater unity between its members to realise the ideals and principles that are the common heritage of member States, and to facilitate their economic and social progress. Economic issues, which can be common for member States, are part of the Council of Europe’s mandate, and they are an important factor in protecting human rights, social stability and growth. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had an economic committee, but for reasons unknown to me that committee no longer exists.

      My country, Ukraine, is on track to achieve serious structural reforms, in spite of Russian aggression. In just the last six months, 80% of this year’s targets were reached for the implementation of the association agreement, and the free trade agreement is on the way to becoming bilateral on 1 January 2016. The fight against corruption has become an exercise in doing, not simply talking. The national anti-corruption bureau has been established, and a national anti-corruption council is under construction. Decentralisation has already allowed local municipalities to reap 40% higher revenues to their budgets. Reforms to the energy sector are designed to de-monopolise it, which will create vast investment opportunities, and similar opportunities are being created in the infrastructure sector. There have been institutional changes. The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade dismissed 400 of its 1 200 employees. The number of departments has been decreased from 29 to 18. A large amount of work has started on deregulation, which has already led to simplified procedures; 50% of licensing was cut and an electronic procurement system will be introduced soon.

      Nevertheless, issues remain that are beyond the reach of the national government, and the Assembly is well placed to discuss and address those issues. It can demand that responsible European Union bodies take action and that new bodies be created if necessary. I have personal experience of some of the problems, one of which is poorly designed, co-ordinated and allocated European Union technical assistance. Most member States of the Council of Europe contribute to that budget, and they are interested in the end results. There is a lack of investment in the real economy; instead, micro-finance assistance is provided, which does not stimulate growth or necessary structural reforms.

      I call on the Assembly to integrate economic issues further into its work, so that the delegates may become trade representatives of their countries. I hope that we will be able not only to talk about human rights issues but to promote real jobs and real sectors in our countries.

      THE PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. I remind colleagues that texts are to be submitted in typescript, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.

      The debate is closed.

4. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 4 p.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday morning.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Current affairs debate: The need for a common European response to migration challenges

Speakers: Mr Denemeç (Turkey), Sir Edward Leigh (United Kingdom), Ms Fiala (Switzerland), Mr Vitsas (Greece), Ms Strik (Netherlands), Mr Wach (Poland), Mr Chaouki (Italy), Ms Johnsen (Norway), Ms Santerini (Italy), Mr Černoch (Czech Republic), Ms Ohlsson (Sweden), Mr Eßl (Austria), Mr Di Stefano (Italy), Ms Guzenina (Finland), Mr Herkel (Estonia), Mr Rouquet (France), Ms Christoffersen (Norway), Ms Dobešová (Czech Republic), Ms Mitchell (Ireland), Ms Tzakri (Greece), Mr Sáez (Spain), Mr Parviainen (Finland), Ms Kalmari (Finland), Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain), Ms Vėsaitė (Lithuania), Lord Anderson (United Kingdom), Ms Lundgren (Sweden), Mr Schennach (Austria), Ms Miladinović (Sweden), Ms Kyriakidou (Cyprus), Mr Divina (Italy) and Ms Kronlid (Sweden),

2. European Association of Communications Agencies Care Award

The film “The Lake” was screened

3. Free debate

Speakers: Ms Taktakishvili (Georgia), Ms Anagnostopoulou (Greece), Lord Tomlinson (United Kingdom), Mr Chope (United Kingdom), Mr Rzayev (Azerbaijan), Mr Le Borgn’ (France), Mr Zourabian (Armenia), Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan), Ms Spadoni (Italy), Mr Sobolev (Ukraine), Mr Chikovani (Georgia), Mr Kandelaki (Georgia), Mr Sabella (Palestine), Ms Naghdalyan (Armenia), Mr Babayan (Armenia) and Mr Kiral (Ukraine)

4. Next public sitting

Appendix I

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Brigitte ALLAIN*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON/Edgar Mayer

Luise AMTSBERG*

Athanasia ANAGNOSTOPOULOU

Liv Holm ANDERSEN*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN/Ion Popa

Khadija ARIB/Tineke Strik

Volodymyr ARIEV*

Egemen BAĞIŞ

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki

Gérard BAPT/Geneviève Gosselin-Fleury

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL*

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI*

Deborah BERGAMINI/Giuseppe Galati

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ/ Nellija Kleinberga

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN*

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI/Eleonora Cimbro

Piet De BRUYN*

Beata BUBLEWICZ*

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO

Elena CENTEMERO*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH/Helena Hatka

James CLAPPISON*

Igor CORMAN*

Telmo CORREIA

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN*

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Reha DENEMEÇ

Alain DESTEXHE*

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Namik DOKLE

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY/Petra De Sutter

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON*

Josette DURRIEU

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV*

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER*

Hans FRANKEN

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO

Tina GHASEMI/Boriana Åberg

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*

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/Eric Voruz

Michael HENNRICH/Volkmar Vogel

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Oleksii HONCHARENKO/Serhii Kiral

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Florin IORDACHE*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT/André Schneider

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*

Niklas KARLSSON/Eva-Lena Jansson

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*

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/Kerstin Lundgren

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI*

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES/Stella Kyriakides

Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA/Sergiy Vlasenko

Jacob LUND

Trine Pertou MACH*

Philippe MAHOUX/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Thierry MARIANI*

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

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*

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/Anne Louhelainen

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Florin Costin PÂSLARU*

Waldemar PAWLAK*

Jaana PELKONEN/Olli-Poika Parviainen

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT/Joe Benton

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Carmen QUINTANILLA*

Mailis REPS*

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ*

Alexander ROMANOVICH*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET

Rovshan RZAYEV

Àlex SÁEZ

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Milena SANTERINI

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE

Urs SCHWALLER/ Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Salvador SEDÓ

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Ömer SELVİ

Aleksandar SENIĆ*

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Bernd SIEBERT*

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK*

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV

Karin STRENZ

Ionuț-Marian STROE*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI*

Damien THIÉRY*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Antoni TRENCHEV*

Goran TUPONJA

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN/Hans Fredrik Grøvan

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY*

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Dimitris VITSAS

Vladimir VORONIN/Violeta Ivanov

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ/Damir Šehović

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER/Gabriela Heinrich

Morten WOLD/ Kristin Ørmen Johnsen

Bas van ‘t WOUT/Marjolein Faber-Van De Klashorst

Gisela WURM

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI

Leonid YEMETS/Svitlana Zalishchuk

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Egidijus Vareikis

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN/Vahan Babayan

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

Axel SCHÄFER

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Observers

Aleida ALAVEZ RUIZ

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Diva Hadamira GASTÉLUM BAJO

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Miguel ROMO MEDINA

Partners for democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Bernard SABELLA