AA15CR27

AS (2015) CR 27

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-seventh sitting

Friday 26 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.

(Mr Walter, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

I call Mr Schennach on a point of order.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I wish to request a correction of the Official Report regarding the Russian credentials debate. I was misunderstood or misquoted. I was reported as saying that belief could shift mountains. I did not talk about theology but about dialogue. If our Russian colleagues read this, we would not want them to be confused or misled. It would be excellent if the Russian Church did not become part of the problem but part of the solution. Can you please delete “theology” and put “dialogue”? I do not know how the verbatim report got that wrong.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schennach. Your point has been noted and we will ask the editor of the Official Report to make the correction in the various versions of the report.

1. Recognising and preventing neo-racism

THE PRESIDENT – The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report titled “Recognising and preventing neo-racism”, Document 13809, presented by Ms Milena Santerini on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

I remind members that speeches in debates this morning are limited to four minutes.

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

Ms SANTERINI (Italy)* – We are often forced to witness and stand by impotently in the face of hate crimes, which are frequently considered isolated cases, such as the massacre in Utøya in Norway in July 2011, the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in January and, more recently, the killing of eight people in Charleston in the United States. Those were very different events, but they are united by deep-seated hostility to a presumed enemy – somebody with different coloured skin, ethnic background, religion or culture – but when such events occur, civil society sits up and takes notice.

There is a growing underground climate of prejudice, intolerance and low-intensity racism that we have not recognised or prevented. In Europe, we are witnessing an increase in all forms of intolerance – anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia and anti-Gypsyism – linked to historical and political phenomena. In recent years, the economic crisis and geopolitical instability in the Mediterranean, Middle East and some African countries have exacerbated hatred towards migrants and led to an upsurge in xenophobia and an aversion to Muslims, as well as more traditional hostility towards Jews and the Roma.

In the report, we do not refer to a hierarchy of so-called races in a biological or scientific sense. This “race-less racism” might seem an anodyne form of intolerance, but it is just as pernicious as traditional forms of racism because it is based on the idea that cultural differences are irreducible and it is therefore impossible to live together in a complex society. The aim is to legitimate and fuel discriminatory language and behaviour. This cultural conception of racism leads to the exclusion of individuals and groups perceived as different. Racism is increasingly being normalised and downplayed. We are seeing less reticence in people’s language, which is simplified, discriminatory, insulting and often aggressive, and directed towards immigrants and historical minorities – the Jewish communities, people of different faiths and the Roma, for example.

In drawing up the report, we looked at the phenomenon of racism in areas of Germany and elsewhere that have far lower levels of migration than other parts of the country. In such places, the Islamic minority seems to be perceived as a threat. In Italy, for example, the Roma and Sinti still live in ghettos and camps, and although they have left behind past traditions, they have not yet been able effectively to integrate in Europe, which is why there remains persistent hostility towards them. The report also looks at cases of anti-Semitism in France, where the number of anti-Semitic acts doubled in 2014, and in Belgium, where the attack on the Jewish museum in Brussels in May 2014 shone a light on anti-Semitism as a national problem. That is why we need to pinpoint different forms of racism, realise it is a complex phenomenon that sometimes operates at an underground level, and try to find ways of tackling it on various fronts.

      What is particularly worrying is the prevalence of hate speech in the political arena and on the Internet. That is why political leaders in Europe should be aware of their responsibility not to exploit fear and division among their people against migrants, as has often happened in recent months when we have seen waves of refugees fleeing war and violence. Xenophobia fuels a populist discourse that leads to the break-up of European unity, which is a crucial value that we should champion and defend. That is why we must ensure that politicians do not exploit it for political ends. The Council of Europe’s No Hate Parliamentary Alliance against hate and racism – an initiative of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for which I thank the chair; I was subsequently appointed rapporteur – is one that we could promote at national level.

      When it comes to the Internet, countries are encouraged to ratify Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the additional protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime. It is also vital that we call on Internet service providers and social networks to put in place guidelines and criteria to identify and criminalise hate speech on the web. It is important that the moderators and mediators establish a dialogue with those who are responsible for hate speech, with a view to preventing it.

      Some time ago, the European Court of Human Rights created the legal instruments to prohibit and sanction all expressions of racism including hate speech. It is important that all citizens be prohibited from systematic and discriminatory hate speech. There should also be compensation and reparations. We must have not only law-enforcement measures but criminal sanctions with an educational dimension. Cultural, social and educational instruments to raise awareness among European citizens are a far more effective way of combating intolerance. That is why we recommend action in schools. Teachers should be trained in intercultural learning and given the tools to understand the current trends in racism and different forms of intolerance, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia and anti-Gypsyism. Neo-racism is changing; it needs to be closely analysed. We are seeking to live together in dignity in the countries of the Council of Europe and have guidelines in a White Paper that can be used in school curricula to address education problems. By teaching history and keeping alive the memory of genocides of the past, we can together understand how various forms of extreme violence develop, often starting off as subtle forms of discrimination. That is why we must take preventive action before it is too late.

      No amendments have been tabled to this text. I am very happy that that is the case in one sense, because I assume it means that most colleagues can endorse the results of this very long process. At the same time, however, I very much hope that, in the debate this morning, there may be criticisms or other contributions that will help us continue our thinking on this very important subject.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Santerini. You have approximately five minutes remaining at the end for your summing-up. We now move on to the debate, starting with the speakers on behalf of the political groups. The first speaker is Mr Badea, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party. You have four minutes.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – As the spokesperson of the EPP and in my own right, I congratulate Ms Santerini on this initiative, on this excellent report and on the way in which she has described all the problems that are arising throughout Europe in this respect. Neo-racism has replaced the hierarchy of races that was the basis of traditional racism, and now it also encompasses a hierarchy of cultures. However, both forms seek to feed various types of discriminatory behaviour. As the report says, the economic crisis and political instability in North Africa and the Middle East are some of the main causes of the explosion of this very dangerous phenomenon.

      If you have read the political speeches of these groups over the past few years or watched the Internet to get an idea of this phenomenon, you will have noted an unbridled desire to gain disciples to their causes. That has led various politicians to exploit the fears of citizens for electoral ends. In particular, they are trying to exploit the fear of immigrants, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and discrimination against the Roma population, and these fears are growing in the population. Such fears are a breeding ground for politicians, who feed on them and produce so-called solutions that are totally incompatible with basic tenets of democracy which we thought were permanently well grounded in society.

      One eloquent example of this is the reaction of an Italian Member of the European Parliament from the Northern League. In referring to the suicide of a Romanian prisoner in an Italian prison, he said: “A Romanian committed suicide in prison? Well, why should I care? That means we just save a lot of money. If all these Romanians were to go back to their country I would be delighted.” Another example of great concern is the Pegida movement – Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West – which has arisen in Saxony in Germany. Its leaders promote the notion of immigration based only on qualitative criteria. Strangely, that part of Saxony has the lowest percentage of foreigners in the whole of Germany, yet it seems to be fertile ground for that movement.

      Freedom of expression is, of course, considered an essential value of a democratic State. However, if it is abused to spread hate messages, it does a great deal of damage to the peaceful co-existence of citizens. Combating such phenomena is essential. We should be campaigning against these phenomena, and we should use everything we can to do so. We need to support dialogue between organisations that represent the groups targeted by acts of discrimination, and we should be working with the States concerned and promoting improvement in legislative work in member States of the Council of Europe, especially through signing and ratifying Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights and the additional protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime. I very much wish you every success, Ms Santerini.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Erkal Kara, who speaks on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – Today we are witness to an upsurge of racism, an ideology that runs counter to democratic principles, the rule of law and human rights. It stands in opposition to all the values ​​that are at the heart of Europe.

      Ms Santerini’s report draws a clear distinction between traditional racism and contemporary racism, which appears in all sorts of new forms, based for the most part on cultural differences. Neo-racism has become a complex phenomenon, manifesting itself in various ways, most often on the Internet, in the form of hate speech. Social networks have become an important forum for debating and publicising human rights. However, they also have their dark side. All the hatred and frustration of our world pour on to them unchecked, often perfectly legally. The problems arise when this discourse encourages discrimination, malice or violence against certain groups.

      It is important for politicians to stop using xenophobia as a tool in electoral campaigns. They need to be aware that any discourse that is offensive to a group or to particular individuals might be perceived as a justification for discrimination and violence. This is a mistake that will cost us dearly, and it is harmony in Europe that will pay the price. Combating hate speech is our shared responsibility. Politicians and political decision makers, as well as public institutions, all have an important part to play. We should concentrate on preventing manifestations of neo-racism by insisting on the deconstruction of stereotypes and prejudice through education and raising awareness. First and foremost, however, we must provide a clear account of the origin of the problem and implement the necessary legal reforms.

      Neo-racism is unfortunately not an abstract concept. In today’s world it leads to violence in the lives of many people. Our first duty is therefore to protect the victims of violence and hatred and to guarantee them access to effective justice. Together we must fight to prevent such atrocities and ensure that they can never be repeated anywhere in the world. Above all, we must not stop stressing that diversity is the greatest source of wealth that Europe can boast of.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Fiala to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE).

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – Ms Santerini has written an important report and, unfortunately, has had to take into account the current state of research and draw realistic conclusions. I thank her very much for that.

      Rising racism, xenophobia, hate speech and anti-Semitism cannot be tolerated. They must be prevented, avenged and punished through disciplinary means, because, together with a lack of law and/or a miserable economic situation, they can become the soil of extremism and lead to neo-Nazism, as we can see in some member States. Racist cruelty against minorities – Jews, Roma, Muslims or immigrants – and discriminatory behaviour and speech are complex phenomena. To prevent them we need to take action early – I would say in school. We especially need people who stand up against them and live in solidarity with the victims.

      As a member of the Swiss national taskforce against racism, as well as in the name of ALDE, I am aware that populists often defend verbal slander and insults against minorities on the pretext that freedom of expression and freedom of opinion are fundamental rights in a democracy and must be well protected. Very bad racist jokes, statements and comments are made unopposed and without consequence. It is important to emphasise that racism is not an opinion. To be a racist is not to be protected within the law, but is accusable and criminal.

      If we want to keep our countries safe and protect our interior freedoms and human rights, we must encourage parents, teachers, societies, politicians and judges to condemn xenophobia and racism, to nip things in the bud and to stand up against them without hesitation. If populism is not countered, it can lead to worse. We can see a bad situation growing in Greece, Germany, Hungary and other member States. Neo-Nazism starts slowly at first, but now frightens Europe and all our member States. We must adopt a common strategy of counter-actions and find answers.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Werner to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Ms WERNER (Germany)* – I thank the rapporteur on behalf of the UEL for this report. We agree with many of the points you have made.

      For some time now in Europe, we have seen a general shift to the right. In many European countries, such as France and Hungary, this has led to electoral success for extreme right or populist parties, and over the past few months there have been major racist, xenophobic and homophobic mass mobilisations throughout Europe, with thousands of people demonstrating. For example, for weeks, tens of thousands of people demonstrated every Monday in Dresden against refugees. In 2014, attacks on asylum seekers’ hostels in Germany numbered 162, which is three times as many as the previous year. These examples show us one thing very clearly. Racism and hate speech have become more and more frequent in society and are in danger of becoming acceptable. We need to stand up against this, which is why this report is so important.

      Ms Santerini, you talk at some length in your report about legal measures that can stop hate speech. You focus on how they can sometimes clash with freedom of speech, but for me one thing is clear: publicly expressed hate speech is something we must take a stand against and challenge. The focus should not really be on using legal means to combat this kind of thing; we should focus on the civil commitment of those campaigning against racist hate speech. We need an anti-fascist resistance that will rise up from European society. The various groups that are the victims of discrimination need to get together and work across borders. Politicians should take measures to support civil society groups and associations that are actively campaigning against right-wing extremists.

      Let me emphasise again how important it is to give people a political education. That is the most effective instrument against views that are hostile to democracy or to certain groups, as various studies have proved. Political education can stop the normalisation of hate speech and allow us to recognise the phenomenon of hate speech and act accordingly. We should therefore extend political education in our schools and also in training for adults.

      Ms Santerini, you are right to say that the downturn in the economy is one of the causes of the spread of racism and other anti-human thoughts. Many people look to groups that are discriminated against for a scapegoat for their own poor economic situation. So while it is important to stress again the need for political education, we must also attack the economic system. An economy based on the principle of competition will always produce poverty and marginalisation. We need a society based on solidarity, where it is not the interests of the economy but the interests of people that are at the fore. Only in this way can racist attitudes finally be done away with.

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

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – I thank the rapporteur, Ms Milena Santerini, for an excellent report. Racism is a complex phenomenon linked to a number of factors, and the battle against it must be waged on several fronts: legal, social and cultural. Although open racism is rather uncommon, unconscious racism is widespread, generating hostile attitudes and tendencies of which the individuals concerned are oblivious and that are therefore more difficult to identify and counter.

      In addition to legal instruments designed to prohibit and punish all expressions of racism including hate speech, we must fight intolerance using cultural and social instruments. Education and information must play a crucial part in training the public to respect ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. Solidarity with, and between, the groups that are victims of racism and targets of hate speech contributes significantly to countering all forms of racism and discrimination.

      I have many friends who have been threatened, one of whom is called Aisha. Every year politicians and organisations go to Almedalen on the island of Gotland in Sweden to discuss different topics. Aisha went there to talk about women’s shelters. Racist party members waited until she was alone before asking her why she lived in Sweden and so on. She has lived in Sweden for many years but came from Eritrea. They continuously questioned her in a threatening way. Aisha reported it to the police. She did not feel good after the experience but, at the same time, she was very angry and said, “Now I must start to work in a political party and talk about this question, so we can change the attitude among people.” She is now a member of the Social Democratic party in Sweden.

      Another case is that of Sofia, who works for a project called Football for All. Football hooligans, together with Nazis, threatened her on the Internet. They also pinned a photo of her to her manager’s door with a knife; of course, she was afraid. They said that they did not want a feminist destroying the values of their football clubs. Sofia took time out but, after several months, she will now start work again with the same project but in another organisation.

      The emotional dimension of neo-racism must be emphasised to identify ways of preventing and combating it that are not just cognitive or rational, but based on people’s experiences and feelings. Consequently, civic and political education cannot just inform or pass on cultural ideas; it must develop a moral awareness and an empathy that leads to the recognition of everyone’s rights. It is necessary for the Parliamentary Assembly to urge national authorities and civil society to be extremely vigilant. Preventing and combating racism, intolerance and xenophobia should be a priority for the member States of the Council of Europe. Politicians should take the lead in preventing and combating racism, including cultural racism and this report will be a good instrument in that work, so vote yes today.

      THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers on behalf of the political groups. The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does Ms Santerini wish to say anything at this stage in response to the political groups?

      Ms SANTERINI (Italy)* – No, I will speak at the end of the debate.

      THE PRESIDENT – We will move on to the list of speakers. I call Ms Heinrich.

      Ms HEINRICH (Germany)* – I thank Milena Santerini for her excellent report, which clearly identifies the phenomenon of neo-racism. The report gives us a thorough run-down of the phenomenon in many countries of Europe. It is important to describe neo-racism because, under the guise of freedom of opinion, it is sometimes difficult to discern what constitutes neo-racism. The phenomenon takes the form of discrimination, disparagement and hatred – some groups allegedly being incompatible with a given culture. We sometimes hear those things here.

      Neo-racism starts with hate speech and moves on to demonstrations of the kind that we have seen in Germany, which were described in some detail. Supposedly, that constitutes freedom of expression but, later down the line, it can lead to violence. Neo-racism is a diverse phenomenon and its supporters think it offers the prospect of being able to protect the existing values of a majority of society; however, we will have to join forces to ensure that such kinds of opinions do not take over. We must not allow neo-racist views to be used for tactical reasons to downplay the phenomenon, which is why we must clearly distance ourselves from right-wing populists who are riding the wave, setting out to catch votes, and repeatedly claiming to speak for the silent majority, making neo-racist language more and more socially acceptable.

      Europe is not determined by prejudice and exclusion. It sees itself as a community of values, standing for diversity in a multicultural society. If we do not view that as an opportunity and objective, the European ideal will die. Intolerance, discrimination and prejudice, under the cloak of freedom of expression, endanger democratic and plural societies in Europe. The Friedrich Ebert Stiftung commissioned a study in 2011 about devaluing others, which describes hostility towards certain groups of people.

      The report arrived at some alarming conclusions and identifies the phenomenon. Neo-racism is not targeted exclusively at groups on the fringes of society, but at some in the mainstream. Hostility towards groups of people is widespread throughout Europe. The study contained many recommendations that largely tally with those that have emerged from this report. Neo-racism is a social attitude that must be tackled using social instruments. We need to counter hate speech on social networks and ensure that education conveys the opportunities in diversity. That is the only way that we will overcome hatred in people’s minds. We need to look at the emotional side of the phenomenon. For many years now – I am talking about Germany, in particular – we have been offering human rights education in schools but, apparently, we have only been addressing the cognitive aspects so far. We need to reach people more effectively as we need to work together to tackle this phenomenon.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – I appreciate this excellent report, which offers some important ideas from a cultural viewpoint, as well as from the point of view of studies and cases and, indeed, urgent measures that we must take to stem a phenomenon that we should never underestimate. The report underlines, quite rightly and in an interesting way, the difference between neo-racism and the traditional racism that, unfortunately, our continent has already been aware of. It is important to think about that, because racism in previous centuries was based not on science but on the idea of decadence and the decline of society. If a society felt that it was ailing, it looked for causes of the causes of its disease. Instead of looking at its own weaknesses, it focused on people who were different or outsiders and decided that they were bringing disease, decadence and impurity into society, so hygienic measures would have to be taken against them. As we have seen throughout the 20th century, the language of racism is almost medical. Even today, the language of neo-racism and hatred has the same connotations of fear and disgust, as the great philosopher Martha Nussbaum would say, regarding minorities who are seen as a danger to our health. We must have the strength and courage to express implacable opposition to the language of neo-racism.

      Think about the effects that such language must have on the weakest in society. Think what children must feel if those around them treat them as a threat or a source of disease just because they have a different skin colour or belong to a certain religious group. It is not acceptable for us to allow people to live in fear. Liberation from fear is one of our greatest aspirations in the battle for human rights, which is why it is essential to fight for equal respect for all. Every human being should be considered as encapsulating an infinite moral dignity. Anyone who degrades someone else demeans themselves. We must do everything we can to implement the measures in the recommendation. To express everything that we want to be, we need to combat neo-racism with greater courage and greater intransigence.

      Mr JAKAVONIS (Lithuania)* – This is a timely moment for the Assembly to tackle this subject, because Nazism and racism are becoming a problem for Europe. I hate Nazism, especially because at the beginning of the Second World War, my mother’s parents were shot by German fascists. However, this subject, with which I have been concerned for many years, must be tackled carefully. In many languages, the words “Nazi” and “nationalist” mean the same thing, and we must be careful not to make mistakes or indulge in speculation.

      In Lithuania, Nazi and Soviet symbols are banned, but the swastika can be found at many of the country’s archaeological sites as the ancient symbol for fire. It is often part of folkloric emblems on, for example, national costumes. Some people offer the justification that the swastika and the ideology of the Third Reich are completely different things. However, Russia uses the word “Nazism” in international organisations to whip up emotional support in discussions about Ukraine and the Baltic States, and it is important to make it clear that during the Second World War, Lithuania did not co-operate with Germany. There was not a single SS division from Lithuania.

      Even in the West, many people do not know that the partisan war against the Red Army was not just a wartime thing; it continued for 10 years after the end of the Second World War. The Soviets say that they liberated us from Nazism, but they always forget to add that they then forgot to leave our country in peace. Not a single Lithuanian participated in the 70th anniversary victory celebrations in Moscow this year, but Russia still bandies expressions such as “bourgeois nationalist” and “bandit”. As I see it, Russia’s throwing around of the term “Nazism” is getting out of control.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate my colleague Ms Santerini on this report, which is timely and necessary because neo-racism is increasingly widespread in Europe. Neo-racism is not a new phenomenon, and its main characteristic is aggressive nationalism. Racism and aggressive nationalism are two of the reasons why the world community still faces serious breaches of the fundamental norms and principles of international law. As a result, people throughout the world continue to suffer from devastating wars, aggression, military occupation and ethnic cleansing. We Azerbaijanis know about it better than anybody else who is sitting here, because such ethnic cleansing has been conducted by Armenia against 1 million Azerbaijanis for more than 20 years, during which time it has used force against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan and occupied 20% of Azerbaijan’s territories. As a result of that ethnic cleansing, not a single Azerbaijani lives in Armenia or in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, namely Nagorno-Karabakh and seven provinces of Azerbaijan.

      The existence of different religions and cultures must never separate people from each other. On the contrary, we should defend all our human values by working together, respecting each other, showing tolerance for everybody’s beliefs and thoughts and never trying to make others accept our ideas. The counterweight to neo-racism must be tolerance and multiculturalism. I proudly point out that tolerance and multiculturalism existed for centuries in my country. Azerbaijan is a country where representatives of different religions and nations live together in a peaceful and friendly way.

      The Azerbaijani Government cares greatly about the Christian and Jewish communities in Azerbaijan. Their holy places are protected by the State, and they are provided with all the necessary conditions to celebrate and conduct their services. Pope John Paul II paid a historic visit to our country in 2002 and greatly appreciated the tolerance there.

      Last year, the Baku International Centre for Multiculturalism, which is unique in the world, was established in Azerbaijan by the Azerbaijani President’s decree. The centre was created to meet the need for special care and environment enrichment gained over centuries of great historical experience in the field of multiculturalism. Every year, Baku holds four humanitarian forums and various conferences on international dialogues, within which multiculturalism has been one of the most discussed issues.

      In the modern world, there is no practical alternative to tolerance and multiculturalism. I believe that we can realise those goals in Europe, which is a common space for all of us.

      Ms FABER-VAN DE KLASHORST (Netherlands) – The report describes growing concerns about increasing neo-racism, but the remarkable thing is that various groups have been lumped together. The report misuses the problem of violence against Jews to clamp down on criticism of Islam. In doing so, the report ignores the main source of intolerance and the main cause of violent conflicts: Islam. The increase in anti-Semitism is directly proportional to the growth of Islam. Many Jews who have fled the Islamic Middle East and North Africa have joined the Jewish community in France, where they are again threatened by intolerant Islam. Once again, the political elite are too faint-hearted to identify the actual cause.

      The term Islamophobia has been introduced to keep intolerant Islam out of range as much as possible. Islamophobia is a weapon in the hands of jihadists. The purpose of Islamophobia is to muzzle anyone expressing a critical opinion on Islam. Freedom of speech? No way! One already offends Islam by not becoming a Muslim. Which Islamic country would allow us either to preach Christianity or to express ourselves as atheists? The latter seems to be even worse than being a Christian or a Jew. Why does Islam claim free Western values when it does not grant any freedom when it comes to ideas or even clothing? The report says that statements must be based on facts. Fair enough. Please study the Koran, Sharia and the life of Mohammed, the Muslim role model. Every right-minded person will then conclude that Islam is racist and intolerant. In order to conduct a serious debate and to solve a problem, we must simply identify the facts, even if that proves painful. We must not brand the messengers as racists or accuse them of hate speech. That would be an admission of weakness.

      While jihadists, Koran in hand and following Mohammed’s example, shout “Allah Akbar!” every time they cut off someone’s head, the elite calls for understanding and nuance, because it has nothing to do with Islam, the religion of peace. How weird! How can a right-minded person respect Islam when it is eager to convert people by the sword and when apostasy is punishable by death? The Islamisation of Europe is not a myth, but a hard reality. It is the core business of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is spreading throughout society, dreaming of a global caliphate. Every European politician who goes along with it is implicated in the betrayal of the free West.

      Do you really want to tackle hate speech? Solve the problem at the root: stop immigration from Islamic countries and close the mosques. Do not try to indoctrinate our youth via the education system. Do not allow the people to be lied to by the media about the actual state of affairs. Stop the rot of the multicultural society, which claims rights in unequal circumstances and is hostile to the Judaeo-Christian civilisation.

      Ms JOHNSSON FORNARVE (Sweden) – I thank Ms Santerini for an important report. I must say that I do not agree with a word of what the earlier speaker, Ms Faber-Van de Klashorst, said. It was horrible and clear proof of hate speech.

      We are witnessing a rising tide of racism, xenophobia and intolerance in Europe that particularly affects immigrants, Muslims, Jews and Roma. It is therefore extremely important to take concrete action to combat all forms of racism and discrimination. The report includes several important paragraphs that will strengthen the work against racism and discrimination in various ways. I emphasise the important role of civil society. I know how important it is for people with different backgrounds to meet and get to know each other. By building bridges and creating meeting points, we can combat racism more effectively. I also underline the importance of authorities and political parties introducing rules that ban racist remarks and hate speech. Another important area is education and training. We can prevent the rise of racism through discussion and better knowledge.

      The most effective weapon for combating racism and discrimination is to combat its roots, namely gender inequality, unemployment and economic inequalities. There are those who want to divide, create fear and scare us away from people with different cultural or religious backgrounds. There are those who make it easy for themselves and blame all social problems on immigration. We have different kinds of problems in our societies, but they will not be solved by setting people against each other. We can only solve such problems through political decisions that lead to investment in jobs and social welfare. By eliminating unemployment and injustice, we will pull the rug from under those who try to divide us. The strongest communities of the future will be those that welcome new citizens with openness and mutual respect. A society that closes the door to the outside world stagnates and fosters fear and hatred. A society that is open to the world, however, is creative and welcomes new thoughts and ideas. It is progressive and promotes democracy, peace and security.

      Ms KRONLID (Sweden) – This week, our Assembly held a good joint debate on media affairs. Mr Ariev’s report focused on the need to avoid hate or discriminatory speech, including that of a racist nature, in our media. I am sure that all of us fully support our uncompromising stand on racism and hate.

      Today, we have another media report before us about “Recognising and preventing neo-racism” in traditional and online media. We must of course avoid racism, hate speech and other forms of intolerant and hurtful language, but our societies must also fully protect a free and independent media and the most basic human right of freedom of expression, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. The draft resolution contains some suggestions relating to free expression that we need to be careful about. For example, paragraph 6.3.4. asks member States to “promote the activity of on-line moderators and mediators who endeavour to identify offensive content and engage in a dialogue with perpetrators for preventive purposes”. I understand the point, but we must be careful because it could lead to politically biased control over what we are allowed to think and say, rather than to the fight against racism and intolerance. The resolution also says that member States should encourage a supposedly independent media to issue “clear criteria to determine which content should be deleted”. I understand the good intention and that we should combat all kinds of hate speech, but it could infringe the freedom of expression of a free media.

      I will stop here, but I congratulate the rapporteur because the draft resolution’s purpose is good. We need to fight racism and growing anti-Semitism in Europe, and I drafted a motion on combating anti-Semitism for which I would like support. At the same time, we must find a balance on such issues. Freedom of expression and an independent media are the cornerstones of any free democratic society.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – First, I want to express my complete disagreement with Ms Faber-Van de Klashorst: Islam is a religion of peace.

      I congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Santerini, on her comprehensive report. The topic under discussion is very important for the present and the future of Europe and the world in general. We should seriously worry about neo-racism, which is prompted by hatred and intolerance, and our Assembly should take more actions to prevent it. As emphasised by the rapporteur, we should not be indifferent to such cases and should strengthen our efforts to prevent them. In order to prevent such troubling cases, it is necessary to accustom the young generation from an early age to tolerance, respect and an understanding of different ethnic, religious, social and sexual groups. Education, the press and the media have an important role to play. If we cannot prevent the increase of neo-racism, hatred and intolerance, that could lead to great tragedies in the near future. We must all realise we have responsibilities in this regard and not forget the tragedies of the 20th century.

      I am a citizen of a country suffering from these kinds of cases. For a clearer understanding of the consequences of racism, hatred and intolerance, I would note that as a result of the intolerance and hatred heightened by politicians in education and the mass media in Armenia against the Azerbaijanis in 1988, hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis were forced to leave their native lands in Armenia, and Armenia has become a mono-ethnic country. After that, Armenian armed forces occupied Azerbaijani territories and killed more than 20 000 Azerbaijanis, and massacred Azerbaijani civilians in Khojaly. Some 4 000 Azerbaijanis were missing in the occupied territories, and more than 1 million Azerbaijanis were expelled from their homes and have lived as refugees and internally displaced persons for more than 20 years. The Armenian armed forces destroy cultural, historical and religious monuments and cemeteries in the occupied Azerbaijani territories. This great human tragedy can help us to understand more broadly the issue we are discussing.

      We who are representatives of countries suffering from such cases support all the points made in the report, and urge member States to increase their sensitivity towards these issues. Finally, Azerbaijan, besides being a country where people belonging to different nationalities and religions live in friendly fashion, carries out serious work to increase tolerance through education, the mass media and other means, because we believe that societies where racism, neo-racism and religious intolerance are increasing will face serious problems and tragedies. The representatives of different religions and nationalities living in Azerbaijan have never suffered from intolerance or prejudice. I can proudly say that our tolerance and multiculturalism, which have existed in Azerbaijan for many centuries, are against neo-Nazism, intolerance and xenophobia. Baku International Multiculturalism Centre was established by presidential decree.

      There are no alternatives to tolerance and multiculturalism in the modern world. Therefore, this matter should be constantly controlled by the Council of Europe member States. Regardless of where they take place, we should strengthen our efforts to prevent negative tendencies. We hope that the report’s conclusion and the resolution on this issue will prevent the spread of neo-Nazism and xenophobia in Europe and in the world.

      THE PRESIDENT – As Ms Naghdalyan is now present, I give her the floor.

      Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) – I thank Ms Santerini for the excellent and very important work she has done, because today, in the 21st century, when political extremism finds new shapes and becomes stronger, the whole civilised world is more than ever faced with challenges such as intolerance, racism and xenophobia. In this age of globalisation, with large-scale movements of people, the cultural environment is becoming increasingly diverse, which brings forth new social and cultural challenges. Intolerance is therefore one of the most serious issues for Europe today.

      Often, intolerance is a dangerous consequence of propaganda of hatred on racial, ethnic and religious grounds. It is often accompanied by bellicose rhetoric, which leads to escalations of conflicts and therefore tragedies and crimes against humanity. The South Caucasus region is, unfortunately, experiencing this. Hate speech and war rhetoric emanating from the highest level of our neighbouring Azerbaijani authorities, targeting Armenia and everything related to Armenians, is a cause of great concern, since it often results in the escalation of the situation on the border and the loss of innocent lives.

      The President of Azerbaijan designates the entire Armenian nation as “Enemy No. 1”, and what would be considered a crime in the rest of the world is considered a glorious deed in Azerbaijan, as we witnessed in the case of Safarov who was released and praised as a hero by the Azerbaijani authorities for murdering an Armenian fellow soldier in his sleep.

      What is most deplorable is that, due to the policy of animosity and xenophobia in the country, the younger generations of Azerbaijanis are growing up in an atmosphere of hatred and intolerance. Moreover, any attempts within Azerbaijani society to establish contacts and create confidence between the societies of the two countries face strong resistance from the Azerbaijani leadership and are brutally suppressed. Azerbaijan’s continuous threats to regional peace and security and bellicose and hatred-disseminating provocative statements are unbecoming for a Council of Europe member State, and to some extent damage the reputation of the Organisation.

      International organisations give their respective assessments of manifestations of xenophobia, racism and intolerance in Azerbaijan. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance noted in its report on Azerbaijan the "constant and negative official and media discourse concerning the Republic of Armenia" and recommended that the Azerbaijani authorities "adopt an appropriate response to all cases of discrimination and hate speech against Armenians." Such problems are alarming not only for our region but for the entire continent. There must be no room for policies of hatred and intolerance.

      THE PRESIDENT – We have a couple of minutes before we need to conclude this debate so the floor is open to anyone who wishes to make a contribution who was not on the speakers’ list, and Mr Díaz Tejera has caught my eye.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – There are three key words to be used in this debate. The first is “toxic.” There is such a thing as a toxic ideology. There are ideologies that corrupt, corrode and poison the values of the Council of Europe. That weakens us and corrodes our values. Toxic ideology, whereby one is disparaging of another race or someone with a different colour skin, is dangerous. There are of course lots of jokes doing the rounds in ordinary life, but they are generally part of this toxic ideology.

      We also heard a word used by the philosopher Hannah Arendt: we render what is evil “banal” or trivial. That makes it very difficult for people to judge what is right or wrong. For example, under the Nazi regime, under fascist governments or in the Franco era, there were educated and cultured people who, in psychoanalytical terms, had lost the capacity to know good from evil. Human beings are capable of the most noble acts – people of course remember the lone individual in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square – but at the other end of the scale, human beings are also capable of the most heinous acts.

      Along with the word “toxic” and the concept of rendering the evil banal, when we make jokes about different faiths, cultures or races, the ideologies that reflect those jokes become toxic and prevent us from living in harmony. Antonio Machado, a Spanish poet who lived in France in exile, said that no one is worth more than anyone else and no one is worth less than anyone else. The third word, equality, is in our DNA – it is a chromosome, along with one’s skin colour and cultural belonging. We should not live in fear of the other, because the other can teach us all kinds of things. They might listen to different kinds of music and have different traditional dances, but they will certainly have something to give.

      I enthusiastically support Ms Santerini’s report, because it serves to stiffen our resolve and strengthen the heart of Europe and our values. A lot of people want to come to Europe because they know that we will guarantee what they need to survive – a minimum subsistence level – and that they and their families will be able to live their lives. Reports of this kind are crucial to strengthening the Council of Europe and bringing about co-existence between human beings in the 21st century. I am grateful for the report, as well as for being able to take part in such an important debate spontaneously.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Thank you, Mr President, for the pleasant gift of being able to contribute to the debate despite not being on the list of speakers.

      The great thing about this Assembly is that we are entitled to say whatever we want, whatever we think. This is the arena for contrasting and controversial opinions – everything should be allowed and we should defend that right for ever. Many of us have been very positive towards the report and the rapporteur’s proposals, while others have been critical about aspects of the report, or the whole thing. There is nothing wrong with that. I listened to Ms Kronlid, who was critical of certain elements but dealt with the report in a balanced way. Then, I listened to my good colleague in the Dutch Senate, Ms Faber-Van de Klashorst, and I thought, “Why are you doing this? Why are you voicing your opinion on the report – there is nothing wrong with your opinion – in such a way? Why does it have to be so unbalanced, provocative and insulting to all those who, for their own reasons, call themselves Muslims and say that the Koran is their holy book? Why do you have to insult them in this way?” I cannot understand it.

      I said this in the Netherlands Senate and I will say it here again: there is no reason, even if someone wants to debate a question harshly, to insult other people. Again, I appeal to you, Ms Faber-Van de Klashorst: do not do this. You can be as outspoken as you want, but do it in an acceptable way. I looked at you sitting near Mr Dişli and thought, “What will Mr Dişli think about you, your party and the Netherlands when you insult him?” Meanwhile, you are smiling. Mr Dişli is also smiling because he knows that you do not represent our whole country. Perhaps the good news from your speech is that, when people have listened to and read what you said, it will become clear what the Party for Freedom thinks about the freedom of other people with different beliefs. Your party has been successful in forming a new group in the European Parliament with like-minded parties, but I think that, were they to read your speech, many of those parties would reconsider whether it is wise to support a party that has so much hate in it and so easily insults so many people. Ms Faber-van de Klashorst, you are a fine colleague in our parliament, but you should not continue in this insulting way. It gets us nowhere and it is not needed, so think it over for next time.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Kox. That concludes the list of speakers. I call the rapporteur, Ms Santerini, to respond to the debate. You have five minutes remaining.

      Ms SANTERINI (Italy)* – I thank all colleagues for this rich debate, which has very much reflected the spirit of the Council of Europe and its unanimity – perhaps quasi-unanimity – on the recommendations. It is not necessarily an easy unanimity that one should take for granted, but it is a reaffirmation of our founding values. We sometimes lose our way when it comes to subtle, implicit forms of hostility and intolerance that become a little too commonplace. I reaffirm the need to rise up against this complex phenomenon, as Ms Ohlsson said.

      I take very seriously the issues raised by Ms Kronlid and Mr Kox. We must realise that there is a boundary between freedom of expression and respect for other people’s opinions and the need to limit or ban hate speech. It is sometimes difficult to draw that line – for example, the European Court of Human Rights decides in every case where freedom stops and hate speech starts. From a legal point of view, we can do that, but in politics it is not straightforward. Nevertheless, we can encourage and recommend, and we can create all the necessary antibodies that will prevent intolerance.

      Politics is very important, as Ms Pashayeva, Ms Gafarova and others have said. Ms Werner said that civil society is key, while Ms Fiala said that neo-racism grows slowly. We can never take democracy in Europe for granted; we have to keep working on it, as we heard in Mr Jakavonis’s terrible story of intolerance. I very much agree with Ms Heinrich that there is a risk of belittling this kind of phenomenon, but the alternative is not necessary to punish it. We need to take the problem seriously and tackle it. Ms Naghdalyan and Ms Johnsson Fornarve also addressed that matter.

      To Ms Faber-Van de Klashorst, I would say that a multicultural society is not damaging; it is the reality of living among different people. It is not that there are pure people and impure people, or healthy people and unhealthy people. There is no enemy out there. Judaeo-Christian society does not have an external enemy in Islam. If anything, as Mr Nicoletti said, the enemy is within. When you close yourself off from other people and are not open to them, you are not tolerant of others. That is how a civilisation can die. As John Paul II said, a society dies when it can no longer enter into dialogue. The same is true of a religion that cannot open itself up to other religions. We cannot live in hostility with an enemy because the very DNA of Judaeo-Christian society permeates European values. As Mr Nicoletti said, anyone who attacks another human being is abasing themselves, and as Mr Díaz Tejera said, if we do not want to abase ourselves, we must make an effort to live together, but that does involve effort.

      I thank the secretariat for helping me so much throughout the process. As we have said, the foundations of neo-racism are very diverse, but there is only one way to combat it. At the end of the debate, I want to say that we need to campaign together against various types of discrimination by encouraging, in the Chamber and elsewhere, the need for solidarity against discrimination, rather than competition between the victims of hate.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Santerini. I call Ms Gülsün Bilgehan to respond to the debate as Chair of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. You have two minutes.

      Ms BILGEHAN (Turkey)* – We are dealing with a subject that should be constantly at the centre of our attention – combating racism in all its forms. Hatred of others, discrimination and all kinds of intolerance are completely in contradiction with the basic tenets, which we all share, of the Council of Europe’s values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

      As Ms Santerini’s excellent report explains, the current situation in Europe is sometimes very difficult to interpret. Today, a politician who states publicly that one type of person is superior and another type of person is inferior should automatically be considered an extremist and should be isolated. Unfortunately, we have had examples of just that in our Assembly.

      It is not acceptable to use the so-called invasion of Europe as a bogeyman when tens of thousands of people are fleeing violence, war and dictatorship. Ms Santerini’s report is a salutary warning against manifestations of neo-racism and a wake-up call for politicians. I therefore invite you to follow her example and to adopt the draft resolution.

      We should not lose any opportunity to combat racism. We should never let cultural differences be used, hypocritically, to allow it in. Anybody who starts a sentence with, “I’m not a racist, but” should be slapped down. We should not forget that, as the Moroccan writer Tahar Ben Jelloun put it, we are all outsiders somewhere.

      THE PRESIDENT – That is the end of the debate, in which we have had 18 speakers. It is not normal for the President to point this out, but we had four speakers who are Muslims, and I did not hear a hint of racial or religious intolerance in their speeches.

      The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has presented a draft resolution to which no amendments have been tabled. As there are no amendments, we will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13809.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13809 is adopted, with 60 votes for, 1 against and 0 abstentions.

2. Increasing co-operation against cyberterrorism and other large-scale attacks on the Internet

      THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the debate on the report entitled, “Increasing co-operation against cyberterrorism and other large-scale attacks on the Internet”, Document 13802, presented by Mr Hans Franken on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

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

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – For the last item of business in this June part-session, we have an important subject to address. It is unimaginable to live today and in future without the Internet. We all experience the positive impact of new information technologies on all aspects of our society and human life, but these new technologies make us vulnerable because criminals and terrorists can use them effectively to threaten our national security, our public safety and the functioning of our economy.

      We are all confronted with this phenomenon. I refer to the problems at Warsaw airport last week, the attack on the ICT system of the German Parliament last month, the attack against the French station TV5 Monde in April and the disturbance of the web infrastructure in Estonia in 2007. As we can see from the McAfee “Net Losses” study issued in June 2014, the global cost of cybercrime is evaluated at $400 billion per year, with a total of 800 million victims in 2013 alone. The Federal Office for Information Security in Germany recorded an increase of 36% in virus attachments to emails in 2014, and it estimates that there are at least 250 million virus programmes on PCs. Therefore, cybercrime and cyberterrorism need to be on the political agenda.

      Given the realisation that the Internet has no borders and that individual States cannot take adequate counter-measures, there is growing activity at international level, and – dare I say it – the Council of Europe has taken the lead. This Assembly originated the Convention on Cybercrime, which has also been signed by several States outside the European region, including Australia, Japan and the United States of America. The convention divides cybercrime into four categories, meaning that the domestic laws of countries that have joined the convention are harmonised with minimum common standards on cybercrime. Furthermore, the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism also included a response to cyberterrorism.

      It is important to note that between the launch of those conventions and today, cybercrime has evolved significantly. New forms of crime have appeared and old forms have become more elaborate. In that light, criminal activities such as botnets and large-scale cyber attacks are not sufficiently covered by the cybercrime convention. Additionally, criminal procedural law issues impose severe obstacles on the investigation and prosecution of offences, particularly in the context of cross-border networks.

      While we speak about more and more severe counter-measures against those large attacks, I want to state that our point of departure and our ultimate goal is an open, secure and uncensored Internet. That means that legal measures should be taken only with the utmost respect for the fundamental rights formulated in the European Convention on Human Rights. We must always find a delicate balance between important governmental measures and respect for the freedom of our citizens.

      Moreover, we have to be aware that the effectiveness of deterrent measures in defending ourselves against criminals is dependent on the product of three factors: the level of the sanction; the rapidity of the reaction of the police and judicial authorities; and, the criminals’ perception of the risk of being caught. If one of those factors is zero, the product will be zero and the counter-measures will make no sense at all.

      In regard to the level of the sanctions, we do not propose to introduce new articles describing criminal deeds. We want to create heavier sanctions only on behaviour that is already a part of the criminal code. We propose that the only reasons for higher penalties should be where the attacks are of a large scale and where serious damage is caused – for example, by the use of botnets. We see the scale and the seriousness of the consequences as aggravating circumstances, such as where system services of significant public importance are disrupted and where there are major financial costs or the loss of sensitive information.

      That approach needs to take into account the growing importance of the Internet of things. We are moving towards a world where not only computers and smartphones are connected to the Internet, but a variety of things including domestic appliances, such as fridges, televisions and thermostats, and also cars and devices monitoring environmental conditions or even the medical treatment of patients. Attacks on those devices can cause serious malfunctioning and serious damage, not only to the devices but to people. For example, a perpetrator may take control of a car’s navigation system or change a patient’s medical instructions.

      Although substantive law can be improved to deal with large-scale cyberattacks, the main legislative challenges lie in the area of procedural law. Most cyberattacks can be prosecuted under one or another criminal provision in most legal systems, but it is the investigation – the identifying of suspects and the collection of sufficient evidence – that tends to be a significant bottleneck in dealing with cybercrime. The rapid police reaction and the criminal’s perception of risk play an important role in that.

      One thing that is missing is efficient mutual assistance for the investigation of cybercrimes, which often have an international component. The establishment of a 24/7 network is necessary to enable speedy contact between States to facilitate investigations. Especially with cloud computing, there is an urgent need to allow some form of remote access to data by cybercrime investigators. Data may be stored in the territory of another country. Our proposals in that domain are in line with the work of the specialists of the Cybercrime Convention Committee. They are the experts of the Council of Europe who negotiate the next steps. They have read and commented on our texts, and I thank them for their support.

      Finally the world order, and especially the order in the virtual world, is not dependent on regulatory measures alone; non-legal measures are probably even more important. High on the agenda has to be capacity building and specific training programmes for police authorities. We also have to raise public awareness. Everybody wants to have an open, available and accessible Internet, a trusted and secure Internet, and a free, uncensored and unscreened Internet. I fully agree, but we have to be aware that the Internet is and will remain insecure, just as the real world will be for ever.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Franken. You have four minutes remaining for your response at the end of the debate.

We now move on to the list of speakers on behalf of the political groups, who will each have four minutes to speak. I call Mr Selvi on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr SELVİ (Turkey) – It is a quarter of a century since the Internet was invented. While we live with the benefits of the Internet every day, we are also living more than ever before in a risky society. Electronic devices, digitalisation and the advent of communication and information technologies make life easier for us, and they have become part of our routine. However, from time to time we hear news of cyber attacks, of unidentified access to governmental databases and of breaches of personal information that undermine our offline and online security. Those developments make it obvious that we are exposed to an important risk, and that has to be managed.

      First and foremost, it is clear that the international regulatory environment should be improved, and in that vein Mr Franken’s work is a good starting point in inviting all the parties and States to come together and in drawing the attention of society to the issues. We already have several conventions and pieces of legislation in place, but they are becoming obsolete as new technologies and software come into use every day. Cybercrime is evolving and becoming more complex. Unfortunately, we are in a constant race against time, but we cannot surrender our security and well-being, which depend on our use of online technologies, to the ill intentions of cyberterrorism, which has serious consequences, including financial costs and the loss of personal data or sensitive information.

      As well as creating the regulations that are needed, it is also important to develop certain procedures and actions to make use of those regulations and international co-operation. Frameworks need to be put forward for cross-border investigations, for urgent collaboration and for other non-legal measures that will render co-operation among States operational and effective.

      As the report accurately indicated, criminalisation is not enough in the fight against cyberterrorism. We need back-up plans. Cyberterrorism is a growing national security concern. It targets critical services and infrastructure, such as the energy sector, water supply, telecommunications, public administration, transport, health care and banking, and those things are vital for the functioning of a modern economy. We have to counter those threats with equally efficient and effective measures. Together with the public sector, the private sector can play a decisive role in countering those threats.

      Lastly, it is proper to say that the Internet is and will remain the main avenue for social activities and the engine of economic growth in the coming decades. It will continue to be insecure, but improvements can be made that lie within our responsibility. Increasing the resilience of our societies is the central point, and the report addresses the heart of this matter, which is why, on behalf of my group, I call on the Assembly to support it.

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

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Bugnon to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr BUGNON (Switzerland)* – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Franken, and the committee for their work on cybercrime and other attacks using modern information and communications technologies. We are all aware of the development of such technologies, which is far from over – we will see new developments in the future – and we have recently come to realise that a new society is in the making as a result. The banking sector, and the economy in general, now uses it. At the same time, however, others seek to attack the Internet and carry out crimes.

      There are advantages for society and individuals as a result of technological advances, but there is a flip side. There are inherent dangers from the malicious use of modern communications technologies, and we need to protect the private sphere. Nobody wants a Big Brother-type of society spying on them and monitoring their use of the Internet. We remember the excesses of the Americans and the National Security Agency, who put in place a spying system across the world and sought the capability to spy on anyone they wished. Instead, we wish individual freedoms to be respected, which is why we support the proposals in the rapporteur’s resolution.

      We must give ourselves the legal tools to clamp down on cyberterrorism. There are 47 countries in the Council of Europe, but when it comes to cybercrime there are no borders, which is why we must not leave it there. We must take action globally to preserve the safety of Europe and the global population. I therefore invite colleagues to support Amendment 1, which is designed to further improve on the conclusions of the report. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is pleased to throw its support behind the report.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Jónasson to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – I thank the rapporteur for an important, informative and high-quality report. To my mind, we should have a discussion on cybercrime every session – an ongoing discussion – since we are grappling with a world that is not only complex but, as pointed out in the report, constantly changing. The report draws a clear picture of how we are becoming ever more dependent on computers and the Internet, and it poses the fundamental question: is it feasible to be totally dependent on the Internet as the backbone of all societal activities?

      The Internet, it is said, is and will remain insecure, no matter how many measures are taken. The Internet is here, however, and is being used and misused on a massive scale, so protective measures should be taken. In essence, there is no difference between, on the one hand, breaking into a home and stealing someone’s belongings or abusing your child and, on the other hand, doing the same thing on the Internet. The crime is the same in nature.

      In the world of terrorism, the question becomes more complex. When WikiLeaks broke into computer systems and revealed information on secretive negotiations, such as the transatlantic trade agreement, some people saw it as a form of punishable activity – even terrorist activity – but, to my mind, it was a service to democracy. It is critical that, if we call for criminalisation and unified standards of punishment against cyberterrorism, as the report and recommendations do, there must be an equally strong demand on governments not to criminalise the obtaining of information relevant to the public good. That is undemocratic and immoral secrecy.

      The report refers to Snowden’s revelations that governments can get carried away in implementing anti-terrorism measures without adequately assessing whether the measures are really necessary, legitimate, effective and cost-effective. I emphasise the word “legitimate”. I agree with the rapporteur that the Council of Europe has a role to play in the light of its history of advancing the rule of law, as the report says. Our main function is to stimulate analysis and informed discussion of the subject and to provide a democratic forum for such discussion. The report is a good contribution to that process, and, in that spirit, I support it.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr de Vries to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr de VRIES (Netherlands) – This report concerns a subject that deserves much greater attention from members of parliament and – if I may say so on a Friday morning – members of this Assembly.

Over the years, the Council of Europe has played a leading role in the fight against cybercrime. In a number of conventions, notably the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, and – more specifically – the Convention on Cybercrime, it has set important legal standards in this field. Today, we have the pleasure of debating a report by Professor Hans Franken, who, during his long career, has played a pioneering role in developing the legal framework for combating cybercrime. Many colleagues might not know that he was the architect of the Dutch law on cybercrime as early as the 1980s, and this law laid the basis for the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. The report, therefore, is written by the true pioneer in this field. The convention is a great success story for the Council of Europe. We know that success has many fathers, but it is my pleasure to reveal the name of the real father – Professor Franken.

      The Socialist Group is grateful to Professor Franken, not only because of the importance of the recommendations, but for the clarity with which the report maps out the fundamentals of the legal framework in this extremely complicated field of law making. I hope that many of us will take this report home to provide to our colleagues a crystal clear and concise analysis of the problems in combating cybercrime. Information technology is rapidly and fundamentally changing the world around us. Every day, we are surprised by new possibilities and developments. The Internet of things, in which not only computers and smartphones and the like, but washing machines, thermostats and other domestic appliances, as well as cars and aeroplanes, are connected to the Internet, is rapidly conquering the world.

      As Mr Franken points out, we are also entering the world of the “Internet of People”, with small devices monitoring body functions or regulating implants such as pacemakers. However, with new possibilities unavoidably come new vulnerabilities which can be abused and exploited by individuals, organisations and States. There is a long list of threats to the safety of the Internet and its users. We have only recently been exposed to the massive exploitation of data which we considered to be more or less safe. Every user of the Internet should be aware that hardware and software can easily be manipulated by criminal organisations as well as by secret services. Many protocols on which the safety of the Internet is built contain weaknesses that enable those who know them to exploit them and listen in on our computers. For those of us who wish to build a safer world, there is an ever-expanding and more complex field to labour in.

      Mr Franken concentrates in his report on the need to fight large-scale attacks on the safety of our computers. He describes the advanced malicious software that – through viruses, Trojan horses, worms and rootkits – compromises computer systems. The Internet, fortunately, does not care much about borders. Unfortunately, those who want to exploit the Internet in a criminal way do not care about borders either. International co-operation is needed and, to a large extent, the Council of Europe provides the necessary legal tools. However, these tools and mechanisms need urgently to be further developed. The Socialist Group will be happy to support the proposals that Mr Franken puts forward. We thank him for his devotion over the decades to help protect the users of information technology.

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

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Just two hours ago, while we were sitting here, there was a powerful DDoS attack on a famous Ukrainian news website. Mr Franken’s report on this issue is therefore extremely timely, and very important.

      I shall describe some of the events over the past few years which demonstrate the huge increase in the number of cyber attacks not only in the European Union but around the world. A Ukrainian news website and NGO was attacked by hackers from Russia. The same has happened in the Baltic States as well as to the German army website. The United States forces website was attacked by Syrian hackers. ISIL groups attacked the TV5 Monde television station in France. The French newspaper L’Express investigated the source of some of the attacks and discovered an interesting digital signature, “Pawn Storm”, which appeared in many of the attacks against United States websites, United States journalists, the Russian opposition and organisations in Poland and Ukraine. These attacks were very frequent in 2014 and 2015. Although the attacks seemed to be made by Islamic State, deeper research led to a group of Russian programmers and administrators called APT28. That was confirmed by a Japanese company, Trend Micro, which specialises in the investigation of cybercrime.

      The report contains a number of recommendations for improving the current legal framework on cybercrime, including the drafting of additional protocols to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime and other suggested legal measures. One of the key elements of any governmental cybercrime strategy is to ensure the resilience of society in the light of an Internet infrastructure that is vulnerable to attacks. We need early-warning and quick-response systems. The most recent cyber attack on a Lithuanian electric power plant has demonstrated the danger facing all of us. Cyberterrorist attacks on airports or railway systems could claim a huge number of victims. Mr Franken’s report therefore recommends increasing co-operation between governments. It is very important to develop new forms of cyber defence. I call on all members to support the report.

      THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers speaking on behalf of the political groups. I now give the floor now to Mr Recordon.

      Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – This very well drafted report is so rich that it is only possible to pick the very best bits of it, as our Anglo-Saxon friends would say. Quite rightly, the rapporteur says that the Internet is very fragile, but we are very dependent on it. We therefore need to be very careful – not only in the public sector and the private sector but individually – to back up everything that we have on the Internet and ensure that we have safeguards. We must not forget.

      The Internet is, as I said, powerful and yet fragile, so we have to take measures against those who abuse it. We are not talking only about terrorists. The report tries to differentiate between cybercrime and cyberterrorism, but I do not think that that is where the problem lies. The question is “Who is indulging in cyberterrorism and why?” We also need to fight money laundering, and I am working on a report for the Assembly on that issue. It is essential to find ways of ensuring mutual assistance in both the legal and policing spheres. Mr Franken makes some useful suggestions in that regard.

      The people who are committing these acts are, after all, human beings, so they could get carried away and be tempted to cause harm to individuals. It is a bit like events in Kafka’s “The Trial” or the novel “The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum”. However, it is not only terrorists who can destroy reputations; in certain circumstances State terrorists can do the same. If, for example, they introduced malware and took over a computer, they could make it look as though a person sent this or that email, and just imagine the damage they could cause. It is wonderful that the Council of Europe has published this book entitled “Democratic and effective oversight of national security services”. I say that not to accuse our services but, on the contrary, to ensure that we safeguard their credibility and their knowledge of limits. I commend this excellent report to the Assembly.

      Mr VOGEL (Germany)* – I thank Professor Franken most warmly for this well-balanced report, which takes account of national specificities. I also thank all our other colleagues in the Parliamentary Assembly who have been dealing with this issue for many years.

      This issue is of particular public interest now, but it has been an acute problem for a long time, even though there was not as much public interest in it. As Axel Fischer has said, it is particularly topical because in the German Bundestag we were the targets of a cyber-attack. When we talk about cyber-attacks on public bodies, that is not the end of the story; rather, they are a port of entry for further attacks, right up to attacks on our whole infrastructure, including our transport infrastructure. Indeed, this issue is tantamount to the kind of threat we face from nuclear weapons and needs to be seen as being right up there on the same level. That is why it is so important that we are debating this report.

      It is vital that the Council of Europe should work closely with the international community. If we detect and identify attacks, we have to take rapid action. We have to have the legal remedies in place to deal with these criminals and terrorists. Closer co-operation and alignment of our systems are crucial for law enforcement and the sentencing of these criminals. We also need to improve our security standards across the board. National and international standards have to be compatible and aligned with one another. These standards should not only constitute a legal framework. We will also need to ensure that communications companies and other stakeholders work in this field as well, because we will rely on their help and support just as much.

      Finally, it is a good sign that, at the very end of this June part-session of the Parliamentary Assembly, we could reach a unanimous view on this report, which is the last item on our agenda, although that does not mean that we will have dealt with it once and for all today. I agree with previous speakers that we will need to return to this issue repeatedly. We need to realise that there will be new types of attacks in future, so we need to react, revisit the issue and take the necessary decisions for our member States, as well as the international community.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – In 1993, the futurist Alvin Toffler predicted that terrorists would try to attack the United States’ computer and telecommunications infrastructure. Today, with the development of new technologies, cyberterrorism is unfortunately no longer the province of science fiction alone. I thank the rapporteur for a full report, which shows all the complexities of the task of combatting this new face of terrorism, which requires the co-ordination of all stakeholders.

      While the Daesh/ISIS army is progressing each day and recruiting more and more young people on the Internet, I would like to tell you about two interesting French initiatives. At a time when the Internet and social networks are becoming an essential part of our lives, it has become clear that we need to make every citizen a part of this struggle. The notification platform PHAROS, set up in 2009, allows each user of the Internet to flag unlawful online content or behaviour. The police verify the information and, if a crime has been committed, alert the relevant services, in France or abroad. Following the attacks of January 2015, a peak of 6 000 notifications a day was observed. The majority were about jihadist content, compared with 2014, when the figure was only 1%. Staff in the service will be increased, which is welcome. This governmental platform works closely with the largest social networking sites on the web.

      We should be aware that it would be impossible to remove all extremist content from the Internet. Indeed, that would not even be desirable, as some of that content could be a source of valuable information. However, this joint effort of users, government, operators and administrators is a good illustration of the kind of co-ordination for which you call in your report. The establishment in France of the post of a prefect in charge of combatting cyber threats is also in tune with the idea of responding faster and improving co-operation with operators.

      Cyber attacks, which were shown to have taken place during the war in Georgia and were capable of disrupting the work of a regular army, are another technological challenge that we face. Faced with hackers who are increasingly organised and often have material and financial resources provided by certain governments, it has become urgent for us to train and recruit specialist computer engineers to combat these threats. The establishment, following the report of our colleague Jean-Marie Bockel in 2012, of a cyber defence network of citizen reservists, with the intention of raising awareness among civil society, is part of this. Several experts have suggested that those in this network recruited from just that demographic – computer specialists – should act as cyber monitors, keeping watch on behalf of civil society.

      Given the global challenge we face, we should also be aware that Europe is lagging behind. With the exception of countries such as Estonia, which is aware and sensitised and which hosts NATO’s Co-operative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, most of our countries are not ready to defend ourselves from a large-scale cyber-attack. The ability to do so is part of our national sovereignty. Attacks from hackers often come from Russian or Chinese territory. At the moment, they could not be classified as terrorist attacks, although it is easy to imagine a Trojan horse or other virus that could disrupt the distribution of drinking water or, worse, the control of power stations or dams. That could be dramatic. Europe must react now. The principle of proactivity is fundamental in this field. The terrorist hackers are already a step ahead of us.

      THE PRESIDENT – Neither Mr Corlăţean nor Mr Gyöngyösi is in the Chamber, so that concludes our debate. I now give the floor to the rapporteur, Mr Franken. You have four minutes.

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – This report has been discussed several times in the committee, in January, March and April, and in Paris, but before this debate I was contacted by the German delegation in order to clarify and respond to a few legal questions. As a result, a few amendments have been tabled, which I support.

      As was said earlier, this report does not restrict Internet freedom. On the contrary, the Internet can be free only if its functioning is protected by technical means and by law. At each moment, we need to find the delicate balance – Mr Jónasson expressed this point explicitly – between important government measures and respect for the freedom of citizens. In most countries, the hacking of computers is prohibited by law. However, most laws do not distinguish between hacking a single computer of a private person and bringing down the Internet of a parliament or the infrastructure of a whole country. All stakeholders, including parliaments must address these new challenges and make their voices heard.

      The purpose of my report is to put this issue on the political agenda in good co-operation, I should add, with the Cybercrime Convention Committee, an important body of experts in the Council of Europe. Therefore, I ask you to vote for the resolution and recommendation for the benefit of the security, functioning and freedom of the Internet. I thank all colleagues for their attention in the last moments of a long week of meetings. I explicitly thank the secretariat for its capable, active and efficient support.

      THE PRESIDENT – I give the floor to the chairperson of the committee.

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy)* – What can I say? I have very little to add. This report is important and Mr Franken has done a wonderful job. The committee specifically discussed what the Internet is. It is a wonderful means of communication, but all of us who use it have realised that it can become a bit of a no-man’s land with no rules. It is important to ensure that, with national police, we have some kind of control over it, especially when it comes to cyberterrorism.

      There were 800 million victims of cyber attacks in 2013. That shows that it is a huge problem. I thank colleagues who have supported the report. We cannot ignore cyber attacks any longer because they jeopardise our security and national security. It is true that technology is moving on fast, but it is also hard for us to keep up to date on these issues. The report is just one of the first steps. We need to keep the issue on the agenda because Europe is in the vanguard; we are promoting some important initiatives in our countries. I ask you to support this report with your vote and I very much hope that we will all draw attention to the issue in our national parliaments so that this actually comes to something.

      THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented a draft resolution, to which three amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which one amendment has been tabled.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 2 and 3 to the draft resolution, and Amendment 4 to the draft recommendation, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that the case? It is the case.

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 1, 2 and 3 to the draft resolution and Amendment 4 to the draft recommendation have been agreed.

      Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 are adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13802, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13802, as amended, is adopted, with 39 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13802, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13802, as amended, is adopted, with 40 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

      I congratulate the rapporteur. Mr Franken. You are really the specialist on the subject and we are lucky to have such experts among our members. Congratulations; you deserve them.

3. Progress report

      THE PRESIDENT – We turn now to the progress report of the Bureau.

      At its meeting this morning, the Bureau proposed several references to committees for ratification by the Assembly, as set out in Addendum IV to Document 13813. Are there any objections to these references?

      There are no objections, so the references are approved.

      I invite the Assembly to approve the remaining decisions of the Bureau requiring ratification by the Assembly, as set out in Addendum IV of the progress report, Document 13813. Are there any objections?

      There are no objections, so the progress report is approved.

      Before concluding our meeting by honouring those who have participated in the most votes, I have the very sad duty to tell you about what happened this morning: a terrible terrorist attack near Grenoble, here in France. Reports speak of an attack on a factory. There have been explosions and a person has been decapitated, with others injured. I condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms. Violent extremism and terrorism undermine the very foundations of democratic societies and are completely unacceptable.

      I send a message of sympathy to families of the victims, as well as to the French people and authorities. As we meet here in Strasbourg, I ask all of you to raise your voices and speak out against terrorism, and the hate and intolerance that fuel it. Thank you.

      4. Voting champions

      THE PRESIDENT – I am pleased to be able to announce the names of our voting champions, those members who have taken part in all the votes during this part-session.

      This time, six members have tied in first place. They are Mr Büchel, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Dişli – this is his last session, and he is still a champion – Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Gross and Mr Senić. Congratulations to you all. You are an example for everyone else. Mr Dişli, I wish you all the best for your new career after politics, but perhaps we will see you back here again at some point. I invite all six of you to come and receive a small present in recognition of your achievement.

5. End of the part-session

      THE PRESIDENT – We have now come to the end of our business.

      I would like to thank all the members of the Assembly, particularly the rapporteurs of the committees, for their hard work during this part-session.

      I would also like to thank the Vice-Presidents who have assisted me by presiding over sittings of the Assembly this week. They are Mr Wach, Mr Rouquet, Mr Bosić, Mr Flego, Mr Giovagnoli and Mr Nikoloski. I also thank Mr Kox, who takes the chair from time to time. I am also grateful to those who volunteered but on this occasion did not preside. I thank them for all that they do for the Assembly.

       Starting with the Secretary General, I thank the staff, both permanent and temporary, who work hard to provide all the services we need to have very good debates. I thank all the members, because we managed to have some very difficult discussions in a very respectful manner. We should keep that in mind when we have to tackle other difficult subjects. I thank the interpreters, who help us a lot. I apologise for the fact that, as usual, I have been jumping from one language to another. When somebody addresses me in a language that I understand, I am spontaneous about answering them in their own language.

      The fourth part of the 2015 session will be held from 28 September to 2 October 2015.

      I declare the third part of the 2015 session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe closed.

      (The sitting closed at 12.20 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Recognising and preventing neo-racism

Presentation by Ms Santerini of report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination in Doc. 13809

Speakers: Mr Badea (Romania), Ms Erkal Kara (Turkey), Ms Fiala (Switzerland), Ms Werner (Germany), Ms Ohlsson (Sweden), Ms Heinrich (Germany), Mr Nicoletti (Italy), Mr Jakavonis (Lithuania), Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan), Ms Faber-Van de Klashorst (Netherlands), Ms Johnsson Fornarve (Sweden), Ms Kronlid (Sweden), Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan), Ms Naghdalyan (Armenia), Mr Diaz Tejera (Spain) and Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Replies: Ms Santerini (Italy) and Ms Bilgehan (Turkey)

Draft resolution adopted

2. Increasing co-operation against cyberterrorism and other large-scale attacks on the Internet

Presentation by Mr Franken of report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media in Doc. 13802

Speakers: Mr Selvi (Turkey), Mr Bugnon (Switzerland), Mr Jónasson (Iceland), Mr de Vries (Netherlands), Mr Ariev (Ukraine), Mr Recordon (Switzerland), Mr Vogel (Germany) and Mr Rouquet (France)

Replies: Mr Franken (Netherlands) and Ms Gambaro (Italy)

Amendments 1 to 3 adopted

Draft resolution in Doc. 13802, as amended, adopted

Amendment 4 adopted

Draft recommendation in Doc 13802, as amended, adopted

3. Progress report

4. Voting champions

5. End of the part-session

Appendix I

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Brigitte ALLAIN*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON*

Luise AMTSBERG*

Athanasia ANAGNOSTOPOULOU*

Liv Holm ANDERSEN*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI*

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA*

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN/Ion Popa

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE/Chiora Taktakishvili

Gérard BAPT*

Doris BARNETT/Gabriela Heinrich

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL*

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Pavel Holík

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Nellija Kleinberga

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN/Jean-Claude Frécon

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI*

Piet De BRUYN*

Beata BUBLEWICZ*

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH*

James CLAPPISON*

Igor CORMAN*

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Yves CRUCHTEN*

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN*

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Reha DENEMEÇ

Alain DESTEXHE*

Manlio DI STEFANO*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK/Marjolein Faber-Van De Klashorst

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA*

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ*

Namik DOKLE

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON*

Josette DURRIEU*

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV*

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Antl

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER*

Hans FRANKEN

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE*

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON*

Iryna GERASHCHENKO*

Tina GHASEMI/Boriana Åberg

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ștefania GORGHIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

François GROSDIDIER*

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Jonas GUNNARSSON/Lotta Johnsson Fornarve

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Maria GUZENINA

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV

Hannes HANSO

Alfred HEER/Raphaël Comte

Michael HENNRICH/Volkmar Vogel

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH*

Oleksii HONCHARENKO

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Florin IORDACHE*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT/André Schneider

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ*

Josip JURATOVIC*

Anne KALMARI*

Mustafa KARADAYI*

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Niklas KARLSSON*

Andreja KATIČ*

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU*

Ioanneta KAVVADIA*

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Manana KOBAKHIDZE*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN*

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR/Matjaž Hanžek

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN*

Rom KOSTŘICA/Marek Černoch

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID

Eerik-Niiles KROSS*

Marek KRZĄKAŁA*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Serhiy LABAZIUK*

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’*

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE/Boriss Cilevičs

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI*

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES*

Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA*

Jacob LUND*

Trine Pertou MACH*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI*

Soňa MARKOVÁ*

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI/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*

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH*

Miroslav NENUTIL

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Julia OBERMEIER*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ*

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ*

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O’REILLY*

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI*

Sandra OSBORNE*

Tom PACKALÉN*

José Ignacio PALACIOS/Jordi Xuclà

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Florin Costin PÂSLARU*

Waldemar PAWLAK*

Jaana PELKONEN*

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Carmen QUINTANILLA*

Mailis REPS*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ*

Alexander ROMANOVICH*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Rovshan RZAYEV

Àlex SÁEZ*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Milena SANTERINI

Nadiia SAVCHENKO*

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER/Luc Recordon

Salvador SEDÓ*

Predrag SEKULIĆ*

Ömer SELVİ

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN*

Bernd SIEBERT*

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK*

Lorella STEFANELLI*

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*

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY*

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Dimitris VITSAS

Vladimir VORONIN/Violeta Ivanov

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH*

Robert WALTER*

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER

Morten WOLD*

Bas van ‘t WOUT*

Gisela WURM*

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI

Leonid YEMETS*

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Egidijus Vareikis

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

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

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, United Kingdom*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

---

Observers

Aleida ALAVEZ RUIZ

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Partners for democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Bernard SABELLA