AA15CR33

AS (2015) CR 33

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-third sitting

Wednesday 30 September 2015 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.

3. The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.

4.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

5.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.40 p.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Debate: Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

      THE PRESIDENT – The first item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report, “Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”, Document 13864 and addendum, presented by Mr Klaas de Vries on behalf of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, with a statement by Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights.

      In order to finish this debate by about 5 p.m., we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 4.50 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote. Are these arrangements agreed to?

      They are agreed to.

      I call Mr Klaas de Vries, Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr DE VRIES (Netherlands) – It is a great honour to present the report on my last day in Strasbourg. I finished it just in time and need not leave it to my successor. It is a great honour, too, to have Mr Spielmann, President of the Court, in our midst.

      The implementation of European Court judgments is crucial to the functioning of our human rights protection system based on the European Convention on Human Rights. We are rightly proud of the system: nowhere in the world have so many countries united to protect the human rights of their citizens.

      The system functions only when judgments of the Court are implemented. My report is about judgments that have not been implemented. I am afraid that you will be shocked to see its length. I have focused on nine States with the highest number of non-implemented judgments as at the end of December 2014: Italy, Turkey, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Romania, Greece, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria. I also refer to the United Kingdom’s dilatory implementation of certain judgments.

      In preparing my report I conducted three fact-finding visits – to Turkey, to Italy and to Poland. My planned visit to the Russian Federation was cancelled by the Russian delegation following the Assembly’s decision to suspend its voting rights. Moreover, in the course of preparing my report a number of hearings with heads of national delegations were organised between 2012 and 2013

      The problems analysed in my report are: length of judicial proceedings; unlawful detention on remand and/or its excessive length; non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions; deaths and ill treatment caused by law enforcement officials and lack of investigation of them; and poor conditions in detention facilities.

      Statistics show that at the end of 2014 the Committee of Ministers had to deal with almost 11 000 pending cases. The number remains stable. There is a rising number of judgments concerning complex or structural problems that have not been implemented for more than 10 years. This number includes most of the judgments that were listed in the 2010 report of my predecessor, Christos Pourgourides, and had not been implemented for more than five years at the time of his report. These are judgments not only against the 10 States that I mentioned but against several others, including Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Serbia.

      Since Mr Pourgourides’ report and the last Assembly resolution on the subject, adopted in January 2011, certain improvements have been made, but not enough. States should do more to ensure full and rapid implementation of the Court’s judgments, which is a legal obligation stemming from Article 46 of the Convention. The Committee of Ministers should take firmer measures against States that are reluctant to implement decisions. That is why the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights recommends, among other things, the prompt implementation of Court judgments, the establishment of effective domestic remedies and the creation of parliamentary procedures to monitor legislative changes needed to comply with the Convention. It also recommends that the Committee of Ministers should eventually make use of the infringement procedure foreseen in Article 46(4) and (5) and take stronger measures in cases of dilatory or continuous non-execution of judgments. The Committee of Ministers should also co-operate more closely with civil society and ensure greater transparency of its supervision process.

      During its last meeting, the Committee of Ministers adopted an interim resolution in the case of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan in which it reiterated its call to the Azerbaijani authorities to release Mr Mammadov, a political opposition figure. The Committee of Ministers also expressed its concern about the lack of information on general measures and, as an exception, referred to Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, according to which member States must accept the principles of the rule of law and the enjoyment of human rights by all persons within their jurisdiction. This is the second interim resolution adopted in this case, the previous one being adopted last March. The case shows that the Committee of Ministers is trying to take firmer measures in a case of manifest refusal to implement the Strasbourg Court’s judgment.

      At the beginning of this year, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights established a sub-committee on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. I am sure that the sub-committee will complement my work and that of my successor. I hope that it will address the most pertinent cases of non-implementation by organising exchanges with heads of national delegations, with representatives of national authorities and civil society and with other elements of our Organisation.

      The Brussels Declaration adopted by ministers on 27 March explicitly recognises the Assembly’s work on this subject. The declaration invited us to continue to produce reports, to organise awareness-raising activities for national parliaments and to encourage them to follow the implementation of the Court’s judgments.

      I believe very strongly in this role of parliamentarians. We are the only ones who can act as an incentive to governments that are too busy with other matters to look after the implementation of judgments. We in this Chamber are the preservers of a treasure and we have to ensure that all citizens of Europe benefit from protection against the violation of their human rights. It is important that we do our work at home, that we do our work here and, particularly, that we encourage our governments to become more active. I found that, in many instances, there is a lack of political will or of any design to live up to the promises that everyone made when they voluntarily became members of this Organisation.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you for your excellent report. I have to tell colleagues that this will be the last report that Klaas de Vries will present to us because he is leaving the Assembly. On behalf of us all, I thank you for your excellent work in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights but also for the fantastic job you did as Chair of the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights. From all of us, thank you so much – dank u wel!

      (The speaker continued in French)

      Following the last report of Klaas de Vries, it is a happy coincidence that we have with us today Mr Dean Spielmann, the President of the Court. I welcome him most warmly, in my capacity as President of the Assembly but also as a compatriot and fellow Luxembourger. You are a great friend, sir, and you are very welcome here. I know that your term of office will expire at the end of October. Yesterday, the Grand Duke told the Chamber that this was the Luxembourgish era but that it was reaching its conclusion. Your era is and so is mine.

      We are particularly grateful to you, Mr President, for having agreed to participate in our debate today because the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is the keystone of the effectiveness of the European system of human rights protection, based on the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court is the pride of our Organisation but we must ensure that its decisions do not remain a dead letter. The rapporteur reminded us that certain member States claim that certain judgments are political, whereas the Court is an independent court that comes to its judgments on the basis of the Convention and case law.

      Case law is extremely important for our countries as well. Obviously, we are all members of national parliaments, too. If a judgment finds against our country, we tend to look away or to seek to prevent the ruling from having effect, but it is our duty to seek to convince our parliamentary colleagues back home that it is necessary fully to implement the Court’s judgments. In my visits to various countries I have always suggested to colleagues that special committees or parliamentary sub-committees be set up to scrutinise the judgments of the Court and to monitor the actions of their respective governments to ensure that judgments are implemented as swiftly as possible. I have sought to spread that message, and many countries are moving along those lines. After today’s excellent report from Mr Klaas de Vries, I am sure we are all even more encouraged so to do.

      Mr SPIELMANN (President of the European Court of Human Rights)* – I am proud to address your Assembly today. This is an excellent opportunity to refer to the close and indissoluble links between the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Court, over which it is my honour to preside for just a few more weeks. As members know, my term of office as judge and president is coming to an end, so my presence here today has high symbolic value because this is one of my last public appearances as president of the Strasbourg Court. Since I was elected to the Court as a judge, and especially over the past three years as president, I have developed a sense of your Assembly’s ever-increasing role in the Convention system.

      First and foremost, the Assembly is responsible for electing judges in accordance with Article 22 of the Convention. I have observed the seriousness with which the committee that is specially constituted to hold hearings with candidates for the position of judge, and which since the beginning of 2015 has been called the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights, carries out its mission. I congratulate all the members of that committee, particularly its chairman, Klaas de Vries, who has held his position for several years. I know how committed they are to this process, which is essential if we want to preserve the high quality of judges and, therefore, maintain the authoritativeness of our Court.

      On occasion, judges in Strasbourg are criticised for not being fully legitimate. I can say without mistake that few procedures for appointing international judges are more democratic than that applied to the judges of our Court. The text of our Convention is very demanding and insists that judges have the highest possible moral consideration and fulfil all the conditions required to exercise a very high judicial function. The procedure for appointing judges is long and complex, especially at the domestic level, but there is no doubt that the most important moment in the process, really giving it legitimacy, is the hearing of three candidates by the Committee on the Election of Judges, which formulates a recommendation following the hearing. Finally, your Assembly has the last word in the election itself. I never hesitate to remind people that the process of electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights is particularly democratic.

      The role of your Assembly is not limited to the election of judges. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is an important and effective bridge between the Court and national parliaments. Your body is special because you are all members of both a European assembly and a national parliament, which is essential. You are best positioned to provide an important link between the bodies of the Council of Europe and your national parliaments.

      During my term of office I have observed the importance of national parliaments in implementing the European Convention on Human Rights. On my official visits I have always made sure to meet with representatives of your legislative institutions. I have addressed national parliaments on several occasions, which has given me a sense of the importance of direct dialogue with national legislative bodies. My addresses to the Federal Parliament of Switzerland and the laws committee of the French National Assembly were special moments in my presidency, and I hope that my successor will continue to engage in such dialogue.

      The role of national parliaments in the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights is relatively recent, but it has become considerably more important over the past few years in two respects. First, a growing number of parliaments have constituted committees responsible for examining the compatibility of draft laws with the Convention. Whether those committees are specifically responsible for human rights or are laws committees or legislative committees, such bodies are indispensible if we want the Convention, and especially our case law, to be taken into consideration in order to prevent future violations. It goes without saying that for such committees to function well, a particular effort must be made to disseminate case law to national parliaments and to train parliamentary staff. Your Assembly has worked hard on that, and our Court is happy to be associated with you in those efforts to disseminate our case law.

      The second role of national parliaments takes place after we have handed down our judgments. Some judgments make it necessary to amend legislation, particularly when a law is the source of the determined violation. Who is better placed than a national parliament to remedy such a violation? Whether upstream for the prevention of violations or downstream for the good execution of judgments, national parliaments have a crucial role, and I am convinced that that role will become increasingly important. That is also true of your Assembly, which is a sounding board for our judgments. It is up to your parliaments to make our judgments work and sound good, and it behoves your Assembly to take up the baton.

      In accordance with Article 46.2 of the Convention, monitoring the Court’s judgments falls within the sphere of competence of the Committee of Ministers, yet the Assembly also plays an essential role.

      I welcome the important role played by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which in its eighth report on the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights points to the major problems encountered in respect of the States parties that have the greatest number of judgments that have not yet been executed. In that regard, the Committee of Ministers should be encouraged to take advantage of the infringement procedure provided for by paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 46 of the Convention and take stronger measures when a State is delaying the application of a judgment or persisting in not applying it at all. That tool has not yet been taken advantage of. I cannot hide my regret that the Committee of Ministers has not used that option at all. I know that many among you share that point of view.

      Your Assembly plays the dual role of verifying the compatibility of legal texts and bringing legislation into line once a judgment has been handed down. I am pleased, on a personal basis, to observe that our links have grown closer over the past two years. No doubt the fact that you are presided over by my compatriot and friend, Anne Brasseur, has something to do with that. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a tireless activist in fighting for human rights and for Europe, Anne Brasseur.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr President. Even though you have to leave your office because a judge’s term of office comes to an end after nine years, I am sure that you will continue to carry the torch of human rights in other ways. Thank you for everything you have done and for the excellent co-operation you have given us. You were right to stress in your speech the important role that is played by our Assembly and our national parliaments. That is encouraging for us. It will encourage us to do more, because one can always do more. Some people think that human rights are an acquis – that they have been achieved once and for all – but that is never the case. There is an important role to be played by our national parliaments in ensuring that they are protected and defended. You have been a great president of our Court and it has been an honour and a pleasure for us to work with you.

      I call first Mr Le Borgn’ on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I pay tribute to the huge amount of work that our colleague, Klaas de Vries, has put into the eighth report of the Parliamentary Assembly on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. It is a detailed, in-depth analysis and one that leads to a rather alarming finding on the number of non-executed judgments that are pending before the Committee of Ministers. It is in the order of 11 000 cases, which is very high indeed. More seriously, more than 80% of those cases concern only nine States parties to the Organisation: Italy, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Greece, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria.

Worse still, most of the pending cases that were referred to back in 2010 by our former colleague, Christos Pourgourides, are still pending in 2015. Some of them include interim measures in the areas of expulsion and extradition. Looking beyond that, the human realities in each individual case have been purely and simply ignored. That is unacceptable.

Member States are obliged to execute the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Executing a judgment is not only about finding in favour of a party; often it involves amending legislation or national administrative practice. It is often in those circumstances that there is no political will to do something on the part of the government or even the parliament concerned. When I say political will, I mean, for example, in the wake of a court ruling, putting an end to any discriminatory practices vis-à-vis the Roma. In other cases, it might mean putting in place the necessary reforms to guarantee fair trials, ensure that judicial proceedings are of a reasonable length or ensure that detention on remand is of limited duration. These are complex problems that raise structural problems, but there is no excuse for inaction or a legal lockdown. That undermines the credibility and authority of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Committee of Ministers is responsible for supervising the execution of Court judgments, but the Brussels declaration of 27 March underscored how necessary it is for the Parliamentary Assembly and, beyond that, our national parliaments to be more involved in regular reporting and monitoring mechanisms. As a member of the French National Assembly, I tabled a legislative initiative to introduce into the constitution of the French Republic a permanent mechanism to monitor the execution of Court judgments. We need closer ties between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly on the execution of judgments. That must go hand in hand with more openness towards civil society, so that the information that we have is robust and broad.

We must also have the courage to have recourse to the infringement procedure provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 46 of the Convention, and consider tough sanctions on member States that directly and knowingly defy the European Court of Human Rights and its case law. Sticking with the status quo would be a serious mistake. The failure to execute Court judgments is not only a failing in law; it is a failing of Europeans.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Le Borgn’. I call Mr Franken on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – Unfortunately, we are confronted with the ongoing story of the lack of implementation of judgments from the European Court of Human Rights. Today, we see the eighth report. Three rapporteurs have now delivered important documentation and useful recommendations to contribute to a solution of this problem.

Today, we are discussing the most recent overview of the situation and the recommendations of Mr de Vries. On behalf of the EPP group, I thank him for the thorough report that he has presented. Thanks to the report, the Committee of Ministers can give a new impetus to the amelioration of the situation. That is a must. The essence of the European Convention on Human Rights is at stake.

There is a long list of the most frequent deficiencies in upholding core human rights on our continent. Many of them can be solved without great consequences for governmental budgets. For instance, a reduction in the excessive lengths of judicial proceedings and an amelioration of the poor conditions of detention facilities can be solved through quite simple organisational measures and a relatively small change in government expenditure.

Others of the most prevalent problems demand political will. There is unlawful detention on remand, often of an excessive length. The bad treatment and even torture of persons in police custody requires a change in the mindset of governmental officials. That is a point of tension for our national parliaments.

I wish to emphasise paragraph 8 of the resolution. Let us, as parliamentarians, urge the Committee of Ministers to take its obligations seriously and deal with this matter without further delay.

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr Franken is also leaving our Assembly, so this is his last session. On behalf of us all, I thank him for all his excellent work and for his more than valuable contributions. [Applause.] Yes, you may applaud Mr Franken.

      I call Ms Taktakishvili on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia)* – I pay tribute to the rapporteur and to the President of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court is an institution that gives life to the Council of Europe and provides an important binding mechanism for member States. The rule of law should be maintained throughout the European continent, especially in countries that were under the Soviet yoke, where there used to be little respect for freedom in general and the rule of law in particular.

      I stress that the report is informative from a statistical point of view, but it sometimes talks only about the statistics, and yet these are grave violations of human rights that have been highlighted by the ECHR. The judgments are about the lives and futures of European citizens, so as parliamentarians we must facilitate the process of execution of judgments. It is clearly up to those in government to ensure that the recommendations and individual or general measures ordered by the Committee of Ministers are implemented, but it is also up to parliamentarians to act in the absence of political will.

      I stress two points in the recommendation – the importance of the transparency of the process, and the involvement in it of non-governmental organisations, human rights defenders and the plaintiffs themselves – to ensure that the government process is effective in every case. I stress those points because governments are not always prepared to publish information about problem areas, although they are keen on public relations and spin when things are going well. The problem areas need to be taken into account.

      In that context, I pay tribute to various States that have taken enormous strides. In particular, Germany has a parliamentary mechanism to follow up on government action and the eastern partners of Moldova, Ukraine and Armenia have already passed legislation. In my country we recently held a regional seminar at which we all agreed that we needed to set up a specific follow-up procedure.

      I recommend that you support the report and that member States continue to exercise vigilance. We must ensure that our governments are much more effective in implementing the judgments of the Strasbourg Court.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Taktakishvili. I now call Lord Balfe, who will speak on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Lord BALFE (United Kingdom) – I congratulate Mr de Vries on his swansong – a powerful swan, who has contributed enormously!

      The size of the report reflects the size of the challenges that we face. I was recently appointed chair of the sub-committee on the implementation of the judgments of the Court and I must conclude from the report that we will certainly not be short of work.

      As the report says, a large number of the judgments concern complex or structural problems. We need to look at that. Some of the judgments clearly go much further than the individual human rights cases and can strike at the heart of the relationships between States. I am thinking in particular about some of the judgments on the northern part of Cyprus, which can really only be unravelled through diplomatic means; they are not subject to simple solution.

      I also look at the report with some humour, because I remember from my years in the European Parliament that no country was more federalist than the Italian Republic, but, also, no country is worse at implementing international court judgments. Some countries clearly have things to learn and my own country is one of them.

      Britain has got itself into somewhat of a mess on the issue of votes for prisoners and has a dilemma over the DNA debate. On the one hand, that debate is all posited around the rights of prisoners, but on the other hand there is a good medical case for having the DNA of everyone in the population on a central database – it would do wonders for healthcare. I often think that in 50 or 60 years’ time people will look back and say, “Weren’t those people simple in how they looked at things?”

      We have a big challenge and a lot to look at. The rapporteur is right that we need political will; we also need the rule of national parliaments. One of the things that is quite evident is that the attitude of government might not necessarily be the attitude of the parliaments that they serve. Not only do parliaments have oppositions, but parliaments might frequently have different views of how to do things. I welcome the report and look forward to us managing to produce a slightly thinner report in years to come – let that be our objective.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Tiny Kox, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Once in while we might ask ourselves how relevant we are as an Assembly and as the members who form the Assembly. At least in this debate we can say that we are relevant: we are entitled to select and to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights, which functions on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights. The system allows 800 million citizens of Europe to have access to appeal whenever they think that their human rights have been abused. The system is unique. If you ever doubt that we are relevant, you can take pride in the fact that this system has something to do with this Assembly. Every Tuesday in a part-session we normally elect the judges and we take care that they are in place to guarantee the quality of the Court.

      I thank the rapporteur, because he is now the chairperson of the committee that selects the judges. I also thank the Assembly, because by voting for the candidates it has an enormous right – it is a great prerogative and we sometimes forget that we are unique to have the Court, the Convention and, in the Assembly, the prerogative to decide who will represent our countries in the Court. The prerogative also obliges us to oversee regularly how the system is functioning.

      The idea is unique and perfect, but what about the implementation of the whole system? Klaas de Vries mentions a series of earlier reports from this Assembly, so his report stands in a good tradition. Before we start to complain, we must first recognise that the Court and the Convention are a beacon of hope for many in Europe – a functioning beacon of hope. Many of the people who appeal to the Court feel that justice is done. Implementation of the judgments contributes to personal situations and to the development of the rule of law throughout Europe.

      That positive assessment is important, but Klaas de Vries also reported negative elements, such as the long waiting list – justice delayed is justice denied, as we all know – and the implementation of some verdicts. That figure of 11 000 judgments that have not been implemented must make us all feel ashamed – ashamed for our governments, for our parliaments and as an Assembly.

      I very much endorse the proposals that Klaas de Vries makes, especially the bringing of this debate into national parliaments. I know that that is rather difficult because they have so many other important things to discuss, but this is really important. In the Dutch Senate, Klaas, Hans and I have proved that it is possible to have an annual debate on the state of the Council of Europe and the Court. I ask colleagues to do their utmost because, as Mr Spielmann said, in the end those parliaments are where the changes should take place. I thank Klaas de Vries for all the good work that he has done for this organisation.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kox. That concludes the list of speakers on behalf of political groups. Rapporteur, do you wish to answer now or later? Later. In that case I call Mr Corlăţean.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) * – Madame President, I congratulate and thank the rapporteur and welcome the distinguished President of the Court. I in my turn underscore the importance of the subject covered by the report; it is crucial and affects the effectiveness and credibility of the overall Strasbourg mechanism – the Convention, the Court and the competences of the Committee of Ministers. I am convinced that the rapporteur’s observations in the explanatory memorandum concerning Romania will be taken closely into consideration by the competent authorities in my country. In general I support the draft resolution and recommendation drafted by the rapporteur. With just one nuance, I share most of what the rapporteur says in the memorandum – most but not all. I would like to make some comments.

      What is lacking – this is not to criticise the work of the rapporteur; rather, it is a suggestion for future work – is the fact that certain important reforms that have been adopted have not been assessed correctly. They have been looked at in a manner that is more bureaucratic or technical than substantive. I shall explain: in the case of Romania, the trickiest problem over the 23 years since the fall of communism has been how to deal with nationalised real estate from the communist period. There is quite a lot of case law from the Court on this. What happened in 2013, and I can say this now in public, on the basis of excellent and discreet co-operation with the European Court and the competent services of the Committee of Ministers, is that we managed to adopt a draft law, first within the government and then in the parliament, that is of fundamental historic importance for Romanian society. The law put in place a new compensation mechanism that was supported by the European Court of Human Rights in the Preda judgment as an effective domestic resource that was also welcomed by the Committee of Ministers, and this had certain consequences: many similar cases were taken off the roster of the Court. The report refers to 442 such cases but in fact there were more than 2 000, thanks to the single-judge chambers that could deal with them. We did not limit the level of compensation, and in the next report this fundamental reform that was adopted by Romania should be assessed in a more positive light.

      I just need to speak for 10 more seconds. Yes, the excessive length of our procedures, given our civil and criminal codes, is a problem, and an important one, but the ministry of justice has already tabled a whole package of reforms and good work is being done on that in Romania. I could say much more but I am out of time. In short, I support the draft resolution and recommendation, with the nuances that I have mentioned.

      THE PRESIDENT * – Thank you. I call Mr Golub.

      Mr GOLUB (Ukraine) * – In 1959, our predecessors, the members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe at the time, created the European Court of Human Rights as an institution to protect the rights and fundamental freedoms that are cited in the European Convention on Human Rights. The purpose of creating the Court was to produce a supranational body that would be in a position to carry out a fair and correct examination of a case where the applicant was unable to achieve that at national level for whatever reason, one of those reasons being corruption in the national courts or attempts made by local judicial authorities to act at the behest of the regime in power. The example of the Russian Federation tells a similar story of a corrupt system, particularly given the case of our colleague from the Ukrainian delegation, Nadiia Savchenko. The effective mechanism of the application of judgments of the ECHR, Article 46 of the Convention, provides that the contracted parties to the Convention shall respect and implement all the judgments of the European Court. The Convention requires mechanisms to be set up to ensure the application of judgments at national level, and it falls to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to have oversight of that implementation of the Court’s judgments.

I turn to the Committee of Ministers, given the recent decision of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation, which claimed that the competence of the European Court would no longer enjoy legitimacy in Russia, hence any decision taken by the Strasbourg Court may be subject to review by the Russian constitutional court with regard to its compliance with the constitution of the Russian Federation. It is impossible to underestimate the importance of this decision taken in a system where judicial independence is in question. It is not just a matter of Russia: the decision of the Russian constitutional court to set aside the application of the European Court in that country has wider ramifications. If we allow this, we are sending out a very worrying message to other countries, inviting them to seek legal machinery to allow them not to apply the decisions of the Court in Strasbourg. That is why I turn once again to the Committee of Ministers and ask them to carry out an appropriate analysis of the decision taken by the constitutional court of the Russian Federation. Thank you for your attention.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Florea is not present, so I call Mr Csenger-Zalán.

      Mr CSENGER-ZALÁN (Hungary)* – The European Court of Human Rights supervises the implementation of fundamental rights that are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is therefore an extremely important body, ensuring the upholding of human rights in Europe. It is particularly important that the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are actually implemented. The implementation is primarily scrutinised by the Committee of Ministers. In my view, it is very positive that the Parliamentary Assembly should also keep a close eye on these judgments so that we can highlight any shortcomings in our national parliaments and can trigger the necessary legal steps.

The draft resolution tells us that currently 11 000 judgments have not been executed, of which 331 were in Hungary. However, other member States such as Italy have not implemented many more judgments – 2 622. Since we are talking about statistics, I point out that we should not just get stuck on the figures but also look at the content of these judgments. When it comes to the implementation of judgments, there are individual and general measures that can be taken. All the individual measures such as paying compensation to the plaintiff or bringing in special legal proceedings have always been implemented on time within the deadlines by the Hungarians. However, general measures, which might involve legislation being passed, are a completely different issue.

      In Hungary, we have a structural problem to do with the excessive length of judicial proceedings. It is understandable that this problem cannot be solved within just two months. The pilot judgment – Gaszó vs Hungary – was handed down by the European Court of Human Rights on 16 July 2015, and Hungary has been given until 16 October 2016 to solve the problem of delayed judgments. Furthermore, we did have a plan to reform our courts system, which would have ensured a better share-out of cases among the various courts and therefore have got through the backlog, but this was challenged by other courts and fell by the wayside.

      I call on the Parliamentary Assembly to look not just at the figures but at the content of the judgments that have not been implemented, because you need to see how important they are.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Chikovani.

      Mr CHIKOVANI (Georgia) – I thank the rapporteur for a well-founded and comprehensive report on this very important issue. It is a fine finale to his work here in this Assembly, and I wish him all the best in his endeavours.

      If the long-term viability of the European Court of Human Rights is to be ensured, it is crucial that member States take measures to implement its judgments and prevent recurrence of violations. Recalling resolutions 1787 and 1823 from 2011, I point out that the Parliamentary Assembly is duty bound to contribute to the supervision of the implementation of judgments of the Court. This is a role of the Parliamentary Assembly in relation to subsidiarity and the supervisory mechanism used by the Committee of Ministers.

      According to the report, the Russian Federation has a long list of outstanding issues concerning the implementation of the Court’s rulings, most of which concern serious human rights violations. The Russian Federation has one of the highest numbers of non-implemented judgments. A 2014 report by the Committee of Ministers indicates that the scale of non-implemented judgments in the Russian Federation is truly alarming. Due to Russian practice and the reluctance to implement judgments of the Court, I have a great fear that it will not implement the judgment from 3 July 2014 on the case of Georgia v Russian Federation. The case concerns the existence of an administrative practice involving the arrest, detention and collective expulsion of Georgian nationals from the Russian Federation in autumn 2006. Georgian nationals were expelled from Russia regardless of whether they were there lawfully or unlawfully, merely because they were Georgians. To put it simply, it was the segregation of the 21st century.

      This is a landmark case for the European Court, and accordingly the implementation of the judgment has crucial importance for preventing the future development of policies identified in this case. According to the report, unacceptable conditions of detentions in pre-trial centres and ill-treatment in police custody are crucial problems of special seriousness in Russia. Based on very similar conditions, the Court found the Russian Federation responsible for violations of article 3 of the Convention, on torture and ill-treatment. I strongly urge the Committee of Ministers to use all available means to effectively fulfil its tasks relating to the supervision and implementation of the judgment on the case of Georgia v Russian Federation.

      The Parliamentary Assembly and the national parliaments have an important role in ensuring the implementation of judgments and reminding States parties to the Convention that they are legally obliged to implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and required to take all necessary measures to do so.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Kobakhidze.

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – I express my gratitude to Mr Klaas de Vries for his excellent report, which is very useful for all of us.

      Implementation of European human rights standards in the national law system and practice is extremely important for Georgia as a truly democratic State. Unlike the previous government, the main goal of the present government is to protect the rights of every citizen within the country and, in case of violation of this right, to provide them with effective mechanisms to redress human rights violations and thus significantly reduce the number of cases referred to the European Court of Human Rights.

      Since the Georgian Dream coalition came to power, radical reforms have been carried out in Georgia to ensure implementation of the judgments rendered by the European Court, particularly concerning the provisions of articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11, and additional protocol 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this context, it should be noted that since 2012 cases of excessive use of force on the part of the police and the harmful practice of unjustifiable and wrongly planned special operations have been eliminated. That practice unfortunately led to the violation of the fundamental right to life for many citizens of Georgia. Additionally, the new law on the police has been adopted.

      As part of the enforcement of the judgments rendered by the European Court, investigation in the case of Enukidze and Girgvliani v Georgia was resumed. The legal proceedings resulted in trials of the former Minister of Internal Affairs and the former head of the penitentiary department, and charges are brought against former president Saakashvili. I remind you that the Girgvliani murder case astonished and shocked the judges of the European Court. The following is mentioned in the Strasbourg decision: “The Court is struck by how the different branches of State power – the Ministry of the Interior…the Public Prosecutor’s Office…the Prisons Department…the domestic courts…the President of Georgia…– all acted in concert in preventing justice from being done in this gruesome homicide case.” Thus, while speaking about political persecution against former high-ranking officials, the United National Movement opposition and some colleagues from the Group of the European People’s Party would do well to realise that this is not a case of political persecution against anyone but rather the country seeking to enforce the judgments rendered by the European Court. It is also important that cases of torture and inhuman treatment in prisons of Georgia are no longer common as a systemic crime.

      The present Government of Georgia is highly committed to and fulfils the obligations assumed under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court decisions. Therefore, a key priority of today’s Georgia is to protect humans and uphold their rights as reflected in the relevant State programmes and strategies.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Dzhema Grozdanova.

      Ms GROZDANOVA (Bulgaria) – First, I thank the rapporteur for the report. In confirming Bulgaria’s commitment to implementing European Court of Human Rights decisions and enforcing its judgments, I remind colleagues that Bulgaria is among the few member States of the Council of Europe that have involved their national parliaments in the implementation of Court decisions by submitting annual reports to the minister of justice on the execution of ECHR judgments against Bulgaria.

      The latest statistics on the execution of ECHR judgments by Bulgaria indicate that measures taken by the Bulgarian government to address the problem of lengthy court proceedings have proved successful. I highlight the latest Committee of Ministers’ decision of 24 September 2015, which adopted a final resolution on the completion of execution supervision in 56 out of 119 cases, under the Kitov v. Bulgaria and Djangozov v. Bulgaria groups of cases, including two pilot decisions on Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria and Finger v. Bulgaria. The latter is evidence that one of the three problematic issues identified by the rapporteur is no longer relevant for Bulgaria.

      In view of the latest statistics, it should be pointed out that although still ranking ninth on the number of ECHR judgments in the supervision phase, following the Committee of Ministers’ 2014 annual report, Bulgaria has successfully completed supervision in 78 cases and expresses determination to proceed in that direction. Bulgaria also declares its firm political commitment and strong political will to find a solution and implement the decisions related to the conditions in places of detention and recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Hermine Naghdalyan.

      Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) – Thank you, Mr de Vries, for your comprehensive work. In June 2015, the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgments on two cases: Chiragov and Others v. Armenia and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan. I deem it necessary to address this issue, because since then, we have heard too much speculation from Azerbaijan, trying to distort the real picture. When the European Court did not take the stance of Azerbaijan in the Chiragov case because of grounded argument by the Armenian side, the State propaganda of autocratic Azerbaijan started to do its utmost to defend their arbitrary interpretations.

      Azerbaijan feels quite free to attribute to the Court such provisions that were not in the judgment, thus demonstrating its disrespect towards the Court and its judgment, as well as to the rights of its own citizen, Chiragov. It is a vivid illustration of Baku’s policy of manipulation. There is no other explanation for the Azerbaijani statements that, allegedly, the Court in its judgment “ordered to protect the fundamental rights of internally displaced people”, ostensibly referred to “territorial claims by Armenia” and the “withdrawal of Armenian troops as a condition for…conflict resolution.” It goes without saying that there are no such references in the case at all. There is nothing even similar. It is outrageous. How can a country that breaches the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights, violates a number of the Court’s decisions, abstains from implementing the Court’s judgments, which are under the oversight of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers and require democratic reforms, speak about the value of ECHR decisions?

      At the same time as the judgment in the Chiragov case, the Court adopted another decision, protecting the rights of Sargsyan, who was forcibly displaced by Azerbaijan from his home in the Gulistan village. In both cases, the judgments of the Court nearly repeat each other, registering the violation of the same rights of the Convention, by which, in my opinion, the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates that the issues relating to the individuals displaced as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict should be solved on the basis of the principles of reciprocity and equality. Actually, the return of refugees and IDPs is one of the basic principles of negotiation for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Instead of speculation, Azerbaijan should direct its energy to a more constructive approach towards negotiations under the umbrella of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Minsk Group Co-Chairs.

       THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Nicos Nicolaides.

      Mr NICOLAIDES (Cyprus) – The eighth report on the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights decisions, following the previous reports on the matter by our former colleagues, Mr Jurgens and Mr Pourgourides, is an extremely valuable tool to our Assembly, as it further examines an issue of utmost importance, pertaining to the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and democracy; in other words, the values and principles that constitute the pillar stones of this Organisation. The implementation of European Court of Human Rights decisions has been on the agenda of this Organisation since 2000, and it was only last March that the Brussels Declaration recommended that this Assembly continued to produce reports on the execution of judgments, encouraging, at the same time, national parliaments to follow, in a regular and efficient manner, the execution of judgments.

      The rapporteur points out various reasons for non-compliance and non-implementation of the Court’s judgments, such as the length of judicial proceedings, the non-enforcement of domestic judicial proceedings, as well as the complex or structural problems contained in judgments. I strongly believe that those shortcomings should not be allowed to diminish the implementation process; otherwise, we run the risk of seriously jeopardising the Court’s effectiveness. In that respect, we express our deep satisfaction with the recent decision by the Committee of Ministers, vis-à-vis the necessity for the full implementation of the Court’s judgment in the 4th interstate application of Cyprus v. Turkey, concerning the cluster of Greek Cypriot missing persons, whereby it was also reiterated that the obligation to pay just satisfaction, ordered by the Court, was unconditional and that this obligation should be fulfilled without any further delay.

      Furthermore, I would also like to welcome the fact that the Committee of Ministers invited the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to raise the aforementioned issues in his contact with the Turkish authorities. In that respect, I underline the fact that the Assembly could further enhance its role in this matter, within the parameters of the monitoring procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, thereby constructively contributing to this procedure and enabling the President of the Assembly to raise in more depth the issue of the countries’ non-implementation of the Court’s judgments during contact with counterparts. I finish by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr de Vries, on his very important report.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Sergiy Vlasenko.

      Mr VLASENKO (Ukraine) – I personally totally support all the report’s conclusions, and I call on everyone to support them and the draft resolution during the voting. However, if we are honest, we should also say that in the last few years, a group of countries have appeared who have no will and who do not want to implement the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, only because of the political motivation of their own domestic court decisions. We now have no effective mechanism through which to push these countries to implement ECHR decisions, thus we cannot achieve the main goal of the Convention; we cannot protect human rights effectively. From the list of the countries that Mr de Vries announced, which I totally agree with, a minimum of two countries could be added to the group of countries that I mentioned. First, Ukraine was – I stress the word “was” – in that group until February 2014, and the Russian Federation is still in the group.

      There is the famous case of Yulia Tymoshenko, in which there is no possibility of implementing the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee of Ministers twice told the Ukrainian Government to release Mrs Tymoshenko to comply with the Court’s decision. We have a similar situation with the case of Khaiser Dzhemilev, who is the son of our colleague, Mr Mustafa Dzhemilev, the leader of the Crimean Tatars, who was captured in Russia. The Russian Federation’s Supreme Court just ignores the European Court’s ruling under Article 39. The same is true of the famous Yukos case. I end by pointing out that I am standing in the place of Nadiia Savchenko, our colleague who is now in a Russian jail. As a lawyer, I can guess what the decision of the European Court will be, but I can also guess what will happen in the Russian Federation – the decision will not be upheld. We should begin a discussion about how to change the proceedings for implementing the decisions of the European Court and find a way to push countries to uphold those decisions in politically motivated cases.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Díaz Tejera.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – I thank Klaas for his work. I am concluding my work in the Senate in Spain and here in the Council of Europe, and there are three mysteries that I have not managed to solve. I do not know why people have not accepted that arrangements for video monitoring in police stations are there to protect citizens by showing how the police behave towards them. In the USA, all hearings concerning ambassadors or secretaries of State are public, and the citizens of the USA would accept nothing less. Yet we hear that deliberative democracy requires secrecy. However, transparency is the best way to ensure that things are done properly.

      Under the system set out in Article 46 it falls to the Committee of Ministers to ensure enforcement of decisions made by the judges in the European Court. But as time goes by, is it not becoming clear that it would be a good idea for the judges themselves here in Strasbourg to be responsible for organising the enforcement of their rulings? That is what happens elsewhere in the world. That would be a very useful approach.

      In the case of some States, including sadly my own, there has been dilatory implementation of the Court’s judgments, and in this matter I take issue with Spain here in the Council of Europe, although I have not done so before. In that case one has to take an appeal to the Supreme Court in Spain, but that does not have erga omnes effect. If one wishes to bring an action against that, one cannot appeal from the Court upwards, but has to start from scratch in the Supreme Court. I would hope that it is possible to streamline appeals. I say to Klaas and to Mr Franken that they have done a magnificent job and I have really felt very proud to be their colleague here.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The last speaker is Mr Fischer.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – In Rome, back in 1950, a year after its foundation, the Council of Europe adopted the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That text is still valued today, and anchored therein are fundamental freedoms and basic human rights, including the right to life, prohibition of torture, the right to freedom and security, the right to a fair trial, the right to respect of private and family life, and much more. The European Court of Human Rights ensures that those provisions are lived up to, and I am grateful to the President of the Court for having spoken out on this subject. As a Parliamentary Assembly, we are not uninvolved when it comes to executing the Court’s judgments because we elect judges to the Court, and the quality of those judges is of paramount importance. The candidates are put forward by our national governments, and we have a committee on the election of judges. Here I thank our rapporteur most warmly for his work and congratulate him on his report. We are responsible, under his chairmanship, for assessing the quality of those judges. We do not simply bow to the shortlists submitted by our national governments. If we feel that the shortlist is inadequate, we can send it back to the government. We have a certain number of demands or standards.

      It is totally unacceptable that some 11 000 cases are pending before the Committee of Ministers in respect of judgments that have not been executed. What does that mean? Are the citizens of those countries to call into question the nature of those rulings? How can a State say, based on the rule of law, “We are not really interested in this case law or in the legal position.”? That is not something that we can accept. We have a responsibility as members of our national parliaments at home to call our governments to account and ensure that the Court’s judgments are executed.

      From a political point of view, I cannot say that I totally agree with every one of the Court’s judgments or points of case law, but it is the law, and these are final judgments, whether I like it or not. That is the case for every single government in each of our 47 member States. That is why we need to adopt this report, but we also need to see to it in our national parliaments that our governments live up to what they have put their names to and agreed to; in other words that they will abide by the judgments handed down by the Court.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. After consultation, we have decided to prolong the time for debate in order to complete the list of speakers. I call Mr Çağlar.

      Mr ÇAĞLAR (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community) – I thank Mr de Vries for his excellent report and Mr Spielmann, the President of the European Court of Human Rights, for his statement. I would like to say a few words about the issue of missing persons in Cyprus, which features in the cases mentioned in the report. Unfortunately, as you know, some Turkish Cypriots, mostly civilians, went missing in the painful period beginning in 1963. I would like to underline the important work that the missing persons committee has been carrying out in Cyprus, and say how pleased I am with the important progress that the committee has made in finding both Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot missing persons in Cyprus. It is our desire that we do not live through those 11 painful years again. We would like the current negotiation process to come to a happy conclusion and resolve the issue of Cyprus once and for all for the benefit of both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriot authorities have also taken the necessary measures in the context of the judgment with regard to the property issue as well as missing persons.

      Finally, I would like to mention the Immovable Property Commission, which was established using all the ECHR’s suggestions. More than 2 000 Greek Cypriots have applied for their properties, and the commission is trying to resolve their cases. The Demopoulos judgment in 2010 also opened closed doors; we understand that the users of a property have rights as well as the first owners, so in the negotiation, the two leaders are preparing all the categories and standards for compensation, exchange and return or partial return of properties. We are obeying the judgments of the ECHR, and we want a federal solution in Cyprus as soon as possible.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Korodi.

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – Council of Europe member States should pay special attention to the implementation of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights. They must be proactive by exercising tighter control over relevant national institutions charged with executing ECHR decisions. Stronger mechanisms are needed by which the Committee of Ministers can hold member States accountable for non-execution of ECHR decisions.

      In order to solve the structural problems that confront member States, we should urge more reforms at the domestic level to prevent an increase of applications in similar cases to the Court. When judging the cases lodged by applicants, national courts should put more emphasis on ECHR case law as a source of good practice. Excessively long judicial proceedings, lack of effective remedy, non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, failure to restore or compensate for nationalised church community properties as in Romania, and ill-treatment by police and lack of effective investigations are shortcomings present in several Council of Europe member States.

      With a view to ensuring a high degree of transparency, we call on member States to put in place constant monitoring mechanisms and hold public hearings on the execution of ECHR decisions. Following on from previous efforts to reform the judiciary, Romania and other member States need to continue taking steps to consolidate the implementation of reform measures.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Khader, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr KHADER (Palestine) – Dear colleagues, I congratulate Mr de Vries for the excellent work that he has done in compiling this comprehensive and objective report. Monitoring the compliance of States parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, especially their implementation of the judgments of the European Court, is an important practice that enhances the credibility of Europe’s commitment to the values of democracy and the rule of law. The European system of human rights protection is not only a continental affair; it is of global significance. It is hopefully the overture to an era in which international law, based on respect for human rights, will have overriding authority over national instruments of justice, nailing down the principle that States, although sovereign, are not free to violate the basic rights of their citizens or those who fall under their rule.

      This is of crucial importance to us Palestinians, who are subject to all kinds of violations of our basic rights at the hands of the Israeli occupation: prolonged administrative detention, restriction of freedom of movement and travel, eviction and house demolitions, expropriation of land and property and war crimes against civilians, including the burning alive of children. We feel the urgent need for international protection of our rights and freedoms through an effective system of international justice.

      The European system is an inspiring example. Mr de Vries’s report deals with the shortcomings of that system, but the fact that the system is there is a triumph of which Europe should be proud.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Babayan.

      Mr BABAYAN (Armenia) – Dear colleagues, Armenia values the role of the European Court of Human Rights in effectively protecting the human rights of the 800 million people in the 47 member States of the Council of Europe. It should be noted that this is not the first time that the Court has made judgments on the rights of displaced persons. As mentioned in paragraph 129, the Court examined the rights of displaced persons for the first time in 1996, and later heard a number of similar cases in which, in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, it protected the rights of displaced persons.

      On the same day as it delivered the judgment in the Chiragov case, the Court adopted another judgment protecting the rights of Mr Sargsyan, who was forcefully displaced by Azerbaijan from the village of Gulistan in the Shahumyan region. The judgments of the Court in each case are almost symmetrical: in both cases, the Court acknowledged the violation of the same rights under the Convention. It is noteworthy that Baku tries to circumvent any mention of the case of Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan. Paragraph 32 of the judgment notes: “In 1991 special-purpose militia units of the Azerbaijan SSR launched an operation in the region with the stated purpose of ‘passport checking’ and disarming local Armenian militants in the region. However, according to various sources, those Government forces used the official purpose as a pretext and expelled the Armenian population of a number of villages in the region.” The expulsions were accompanied by arrests and violence towards the civilian population.

The judgment continues: “In 1992, when the conflict escalated into war, the Shahumyan region came under attack by Azerbaijani forces.” Armenians in other regions faced the same fate. The ECHR confirms that Azerbaijan exercised violence and expelled the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh. In paragraph 216, the Court observes again that the applicant is one of hundreds of thousands of Armenians who fled during the conflict, leaving property and home behind.

Given familiarity with the materials of the case, it becomes clear why Azerbaijan stays silent about the judgment. In the absence of any grounds to justify its non-constructive approach, in opposition to the co-chairs, Azerbaijan resorts to falsifications as a last resort. The exploitation of the ECHR judgment in the Chiragov case is just the latest evidence of this attitude.

      THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr de Vries to reply; you have five minutes.

      Mr DE VRIES (Netherlands) – Writing a 70-page report is not something one does alone – one needs excellent support. In this connection I wish particularly to mention Ms Agnieszka Szklanna and Mr Drzemczewski, who helped me enormously.

      Some colleagues stated that the report is not completely up to date. They are right. Mr Corlăţean mentioned some cases in Romania. Yes, there have been reforms, but we cannot spell them out in detail because they are not mentioned in sufficient detail on the website.

      I say to Ms Grozdanova from Bulgaria that, yes, I am aware that 50 cases were closed on 24 September, but that information could not be included in the report. The report has been updated through addendums to annexes and annexes to addendums, but unfortunately the news from 24 September could not be included.

      Mr Nicolaides spoke of the inter-State cases. A decision was made last week that I could not deal with.

      That is not the essence of the problem. What we look at is numbers. It was rightly said that we can look also at the content of cases, but having more than 10 000 cases to deal with is a problem in itself.

      How do we go about solving it? I was extremely pleased to receive the support of all the political groups. Once we have dealt with the Court’s backlog of cases, it will be good to concentrate further on non-implemented judgments. Every non-implemented judgment leads to new cases being brought before the Court and to the delaying or denial of justice, which nobody wants.

      Many colleagues commented on how we proceed. It is not that difficult. Responsibility for executing judgments lies not with the Committee of Ministers but with national governments. If you find references to your country in the report tear out the relevant pages, take them to your justice minister and ask him or her what they intend to do. If the reply is that this is difficult tell them to make a plan. If they say that the plan will take a year or two tell them to do it in two years – but make a plan and do it, otherwise they will have problems with parliamentarians.

      It is easy for colleagues to speak of other countries that have problems and to involve the Committee of Ministers, which has to stop its non-interventionist approach and point out to countries that we cannot accept thousands of cases not being resolved. The countries we are discussing are capable of doing many enormous things, so why cannot they honour their promise to ensure that their citizens have access to the best human rights protection in the world?

      The Assembly is well placed to speak about these issues. Members are well placed to speak to their governments about them, and we should be stricter with our governments and with the Committee of Ministers because the problem must be resolved. There are about 11 000 non-implemented judgments, and Mr Fischer was right to say that sometimes people do not agree with the Court’s judgments, but that is true of national judgments too. The role of judges is to bring disputes to a conclusion, and in most cases they find a solution that is considered to be right.

      It is up to us, colleagues; it is not up to others. We must focus our activities on our own countries and not on other countries. The Committee of Ministers has a lot to do, but it will look at those other countries. If we return to our countries and draw up a plan with our governments we shall fulfil our responsibility to provide our citizens with the best justice, which they are entitled to.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Clappison, chairperson of the committee. You have two minutes.

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The debate has underlined the vital importance of the subject and of the report.

      I express appreciation and thanks to three people in particular: to President Spielmann for finding time to participate in our debate and for his readiness to undertake discussions in national parliaments on the need for States to comply with the standards of the European Convention; to our Assembly President, Madame Brasseur, for all her hard work in her visits to member States’ capitals, emphasising the key role that national legislative bodies must play in ensuring compliance with our standards; and, last but not least, to our esteemed rapporteur, Klaas de Vries for his hard work on the report and his contribution to our committee and to the work of the Assembly, not least as chairman of the Assembly’s Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights. I hope he will not mind my saying that his work has been exemplary.

      The committee wholly endorses the report and the work that lies behind it. Paragraph 11 states that the Assembly must “remain seized of this matter and... continue to give” priority to the speedy and full implementation of Court judgments. I hope that sends a message to all the places where it needs to be heard that human rights must be upheld. We must remember that behind this work and this subject lie individual citizens who look to the apparatus of the Assembly and the Court to uphold their human rights when they have been breached. That is why this is such an important subject, such an important debate and such an important report. The work of Klaas de Vries needs to be carried forward.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Clappison.

      The debate is closed. The committee has presented a draft resolution to which one amendment has been tabled and a draft recommendation to which no amendment has been tabled. I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      We come to Amendment 1. I call Ms Sotnyk to move Amendment 1.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – We will not press our amendment but I want to highlight the worries that my colleagues and I have about the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. It is a matter that requires deep analysis and perhaps even a report.

      THE PRESIDENT – Amendment 1 is not moved.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13864.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13864. A two-thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

2. Freedom of religion and living together in a democratic society

      THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled “Freedom of religion and living together in a democratic society”, Document 13851, presented by Mr Rafael Huseynov on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, with an opinion by Sir Edward Leigh, Document 13886, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and an opinion by Ms Liliane Maury Pasquier, Document 13871, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.

      In order to allow time for the reply and the voting on amendments, we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.15 p.m. Are these arrangements agreed to?

      The arrangements are agreed to.

      I call Mr Huseynov, Rapporteur of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – In some languages, the notion of being born is expressed as “to get free”. This relates directly and figuratively to the future life of each human who is born and starts living in society. Striving for freedom while facing certain restrictions on freedoms is something that is ever-present for human beings. One of the most important freedoms that human beings require is freedom of religion. For that reason, the report I am presenting today relates to everyone.

      Problems relating to inter-religious and intercultural dialogue, freedom of religion and the creation of a more tolerant environment in Europe and the world are topics on which the Assembly has often focused in recent years. It is no coincidence that in the last few years a number of reports have been debated and several resolutions adopted. While this report builds on that line of reports, it makes no claim to be the final research that responds to all the questions regarding this problem. Certainly, there will be more reports along these lines as our changing world makes it necessary.

      Yesterday, we discussed the appalling situation of thousands of disheartened refugees and migrants – men, women and children. This issue is of the greatest concern to us. The European citadel does not seem to be protecting European countries from what their citizens perceive as an invasion. The immigration flow is so intense and persistent that it is overpowering our capacity to respond to the challenge. The situation is affecting not only the perception of the problem of the co-existence of communities but the political discourse and the actions of our governments.

      The key question seems to be whether we want these others at all. Some of our countries are building walls. In comparison with that, the issue of respect for freedom of religion could appear tiny, but that is not the case. Let me emphasise that our democratic societies are much more threatened from inside than from outside. We are threatened by fanaticism and religious extremism, of which the deadly terrorist attacks earlier this year are just one symptom, and by intolerance, xenophobia, fear and rejection of those whom we perceive as different. Indeed, those factors also fuel the more determined opposition to immigration.

      Respect for human dignity and for human rights, and not just sympathy for and emotional reactions to the unbearable affliction of other human beings, requires us to open doors and provide all possible help. Intolerance, xenophobia, fear and rejection are a societal cancer that seems to be growing but must be eradicated. My report, while discussing the approach of our democratic societies towards diversity from the perspective of freedom of religion, could also help us to reconsider more widely our collective negative attitude towards what appears strange to us.

      Freedom of religion is a fundamental right. Some might think that that right is not as important as others, but they are wrong. Human rights cannot be separated and put in a hierarchy. If correctly understood, they not only interconnect but complement and reinforce each other. Freedom of religion is as crucial as freedom of thought and freedom of association—it is as fundamental for believers as their rights not to be detained illegally and to have access to independent and impartial courts. Human dignity and the ability for any individual to build their own identity are threatened if freedom of religion is not respected. The ability to live according to one’s own religious beliefs is not only consistent with but is key to better living together.

      Two reasons motivated me to focus on freedom of religion and living together in a democratic society. First, religion is seen as a source of division and conflict. It is seen as a menace to objective, critical thinking. Unfortunately, the horrors perpetrated by Daesh offer additional arguments in favour of such views. We should make it clear that there is no God behind such horrors and that it is unwise to speak about and judge religions based on the actions of extremists. We must distinguish between true freedom of religion and mistaken, counterfactual visions that deny the essence of true religion and the equal dignity of all people. In our democratic societies we should be able to guarantee fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of religion.

      Secondly, we are all asking ourselves how public authorities can more effectively oppose the worrying capacity of Salafi jihadist groups to attract part of our youth. Many young people, both men and women, feel like unwelcome strangers in our societies and, converted to fundamentalism, they deviate from our shared values and nourish hatred against their own country. Let us be clear about that, too: isolation, mistrust and hate will not help us to address that menace. States and religions should work together to foster dialogue and mutual respect, which is possible only if States recognise the role of religions and if religions are able to be a constructive presence in society. Of course, that also depends on religions recognising the principles and values on which our democratic societies are built.

      That is why my report insists, on the one hand, on the fundamental duty of religions to promote the shared values and principles that underpin our living together and, on the other hand, on the responsibility of States to ensure an even balance between religious and non-religious beliefs so that society remains inclusive and diversity-friendly. Such a responsibility implies the avoidance of restrictions on the freedom of religion—such restrictions are not compatible with a democratic society—and the development of policies that seek reasonable accommodations to enhance equality between religious communities.

      My report and the draft resolution address sensitive issues linked to controversial religious practices such as the wearing of full face veils, circumcision and ritual slaughter. My intention is not to challenge what the Assembly has already stated, but, on the contrary, to reaffirm the Assembly’s position on those divisive issues. We should not ignore the fact that we are not united on these questions. Instead, we should build on what we have in common and reconcile, as far as possible, what we perceive as conflictive social issues. The Court’s case law gives us solid benchmarks, but we should do more than the minimum required by that case law.

      Education is key to combating ignorance, breaking down stereotypes, building trust and mutual respect and promoting sincere support for our shared values. Schools should be a meeting point and a place for constructive dialogue between individuals of different beliefs, and they should teach people about other visions of the world. States and religious communities should collaborate so that the teaching of religion becomes an opportunity for reciprocal learning and for developing critical thinking.

      Finally, the Council of Europe should set up a stable platform for dialogue with senior representatives of religions and non-denominational organisations in order to foster active commitment by all stakeholders in activities to promote living together. That is not a new idea, as it has already been proposed by our President, Ms Brasseur, but the Committee of Ministers has not made a decision. We should return to that issue and ask the Committee of Ministers to make a concrete response to that proposal.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Huseynov. You have three minutes and 23 seconds to reply at the end. I call Sir Edward Leigh to present an opinion on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have three minutes.

      Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) -- I congratulate the rapporteur of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education, and Media, Mr Huseynov, on his excellent, comprehensive report that sheds light on the vital role of religions and religious people in the wide variety of societies across Europe today. As the report highlights, religion is important to the cohesion of society. There is no harm in religion or religious people, who should not be judged by the actions of a few extremists who bring the name of religion into disrepute. It is an important report.

      The report points out the necessity of promoting a culture of living together and the common-sense accommodation of religious belief in a time when the State and other institutions are increasingly intolerant towards religious faith. The report pays particular attention to three social issues at the nexus of religious and social life: the wearing of full face veils in public; the circumcision of young boys; and the ritual slaughter of animals. I welcome the report and propose just a few amendments to the draft resolution and draft recommendation. The amendments would primarily take into account the specific terminology used by the European Court of Human Rights, while also putting the report’s points within a broader European context.

      It is vital to point out that, on many of these issues, there is a lack of European consensus. Too often, pan-European institutions such as ours attempt to impose a universal standard or issue universal diktats as if all good Europeans are in agreement on an issue when they are not. In reality, Europeans are still very divided on many social issues, which should not be ignored or avoided. For example, there is no consensus on the banning of full face veils. Since 2010, the French Republic has banned the wearing of burqas in public. In 2014, the judges of the European Court of Human Rights upheld the right of French lawmakers to pass a law banning the wearing of full face veils. Eight of Germany’s 16 States ban teachers from wearing full face veils, although the German constitutional court has reversed the bans. Belgium introduced a ban in 2011, and the Dutch Government introduced a fine for full face veils in 2012. Most other European countries have more liberal approaches to Islamic dress for women. For example, the UK allows both the niqab and the burqa very broadly.

      In the face of such divergences, we must recognise the reality of those legitimate differences. Imposing pan-European diktats, such as forbidding bans on veils, will not aid integration but will undermine confidence in European institutions. Aside from minor tinkering, the spirit behind my amendments is to ensure that we remember that there is a completely legitimate diversity of deeply held beliefs. That is why the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, supported by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, propose the removal of paragraph 8, which invites member States to refrain from dictating general prohibitions. The Legal Affairs Committee does not want to take a view on full face veils, but the law has moved on since the Council of Europe last discussed the matter and since the Court made its decision, which is why, after a vote, the Legal Affairs Committee decided to propose the removal of paragraph 8. In general, I welcome the report, which is balanced, useful and makes the legitimate and good case that there is a valued place for religion in our society.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Sir Edward. I call Ms Liliane Maury Pasquier to present the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. You have three minutes.

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – The report that has been prepared by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media is in line with the resolution adopted by our Assembly in 2013 on the right of children to physical integrity. Some saw that resolution, wrongly, as an attack on freedom of religion. It therefore seemed necessary to propose a new resolution – the one that we are discussing today – to act as a counterpart to the resolution on the right of children to physical integrity.

I am very pleased to note that the new text reminds us that all churches and religious communities have a responsibility to respect human dignity and fundamental rights, which are protected by our democratic institutions, and states that those values and principles are non-negotiable and must take precedence over any social or religious norm. The text calls on all stakeholders to be open to dialogue. That is particularly important at the moment, when more and more hate speech is being spread around, which is very concerning.

The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has proposed four amendments to the text presented by Mr Huseynov, in the spirit of searching for consensus. I am pleased to note that the amendments were agreed to unanimously by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. I hope that the same will happen in the Assembly.

I am pleased to note that the work of the Parliamentary Assembly on religious practices is continuing. However, I would like to draw the attention of Mr Huseynov to one part of the memorandum that seems to reflect a misunderstanding of the text that was previously adopted by the Assembly. In paragraph 37, Mr Huseynov states that the resolution on the right of children to physical integrity introduces confusion by putting the circumcision of young boys and other more dangerous operations on the same level. That is not the case. The previous resolution only noted in a general way that those are all ways of undermining the physical integrity of children, but it made a distinction as to the degree of severity and the consequences. It recognised that female genital mutilation and medical operations at an early age on intersexual children are more serious.

However, in adopting the previous resolution, the Assembly clearly concluded that the circumcision of young boys represents a violation of the physical integrity of the children concerned. That being the case, I note that there was a will on the part of the rapporteur and the culture committee to prepare a balanced text and follow an approach of awareness-raising, education and dialogue – an approach that the social affairs committee fully supports.

It is now up to us fully to implement the two resolutions, which guarantee both the right to freedom of religion and the right to physical integrity. We must do that in the same spirit of dialogue and integrity.

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Maury Pasquier. We come now to the speakers who will speak on behalf of the groups. I call Mr Logvynskyi on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – The goal and topic of the report are encapsulated in its title. Europe is a multicultural continent and serves as the home for many religious congregations. They should have the opportunity to co-exist and develop in a peaceful and free manner. I am particularly happy that today, the Parliamentary Assembly has the chance to reinforce the freedom of religion and the right of believers to their identity and conception of life.

      The European Court of Human Rights has stressed many times that freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a democratic society. That freedom must be protected. On the other hand, that freedom is not unlimited. The report demonstrates the perfect balance that can be struck between the different interests that are at stake.

      The autonomy and independence of religious communities is an integral part of pluralism. At the same time, religious neutrality and the equal treatment of all religious communities should be paramount in the policy of European States. Today in Crimea, we see discrimination against all confessions, except the Russian Orthodox Church. In particular, the stigmatisation of the Tatars is an unacceptable policy that must be strongly condemned. The State should be interested in promoting multi-confessionalism as a precondition for peace, security and stability.

      All those issues are reflected in the report. I congratulate the rapporteur and ask colleagues to support the resolution and the recommendation.

      Finally, I remind colleagues that this evening at 8 o’clock in the Restaurant Bleu, there is the Crimean Tatar night. It will be a great evening and everybody is invited. We will be waiting to see you at our event.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you for your speech, Mr Logvynskyi, and for the invitation. I call Mr Heer on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr HEER (Switzerland)* – I thank the rapporteur warmly for his well-balanced report.

Unfortunately, many of the conflicts that we observe in the world today can be traced back in their origins to religious differences. I am thinking of the conflicts in the Near East. Happily, we in Europe have not experienced such problems yet. We must deploy our best efforts to ensure that people of different religious beliefs can continue to co-exist peacefully in European countries.

Obviously, freedom of religion has to be respected, but there are limits. We must have the rule of law in a constitutional democracy. I am thinking also about girls and women whose development or education may be held back because of their sex. That cannot be tolerated.

We must ensure that the leaders of the different religious groups are involved in a discussion with the authorities. They have to see the relevance of the rules that we live by, whether they are Muslims, Jews or Christians. Religion should be there to serve mankind. We should take the good that lies within religion and promote that. It has to be moderate. We had the golden age in the Middle East when Jews and Muslims lived happily side by side. I hope that we will not exclude the possibility of that happening again in the future.

The circumcision of young boys is a 1 000-year-old tradition. I see no problem in respect of bodily integrity there. One cannot say that there are severe disadvantages to the boys who are circumcised. Obviously, when analogous acts are performed on young girls, that is not the case. We cannot accept the religious genital mutilation of girls.

We therefore support the report and I thank the rapporteur once more.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Heer. I call Mr Kiral on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr KIRAL (Ukraine) – On behalf of my group, I congratulate Mr Huseynov on the excellent report. It is easy to read and comprehensive, so I encourage everyone who has not read it yet to do so.

      We live in difficult times, surrounded by many challenges and crises, including Russian aggression and ISIS in Syria. Some political parties in some countries are now already using religion in their rhetoric, in particular the religion of incomers or refugees. I agree with someone who spoke earlier about religion being nothing but the wisdom of civilisation – it is a compilation of instructions, of lessons learned, that make all of us stronger. Religion in itself should not be a target, because the more religions we have in society, the stronger we are. They should complement each other and make all of us stronger.

      Values form the necessary environment for religion to be practised. We should pay attention to that, so that those values we all share form a sort of social norm not to interfere with our physical, psychological or social lives. That includes religious practices, which should not be banned – I agree with my colleagues from the EC group – but left to the decision of the specific groups in our society.

      Education also plays a key role. We should encourage exchange programmes between countries of different religions. Some countries that do not do this should do so, as the report says. Germany, for example, will face severe challenges. I draw attention to the headlines in yesterday’s media, such as “Germany Segregating Christians As Migrant Violence Escalates”, “Christian and Muslim refugees should be separated, says German police chief” and so on and so forth.

      The severe clashes in the German refugee camps yesterday were because no proper action has been taken by other countries. Instruments and tools are available, such as establishing inter-church or inter-religion councils to deal with issues, or the full engagement of religious organisations and civil society with civil servants and the public authorities.

      I encourage you to read the report and our member States to take into account the resolution and recommendations when making policy.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Jónasson, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – I thank the rapporteur for a good and timely report. As I understand it, it is a call for tolerance and a respect for pluralism. That is needed now more than ever in a world that is literally on the move, with hundreds of thousands and even millions of people migrating, more often than not fleeing war and poverty.

      It is wonderful to experience how positive the public mood generally is. We have heard stories about people receiving the needy with generosity and a warm heart. As terrible as the causes and the suffering are, the recent migration flows are perhaps bringing out the best in people in the receiving countries. That has been reflected in the debates and resolutions adopted in this session by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

      There are exceptions. We have also heard hostile voices in the receiving countries, speaking against the newcomers and claiming that they are undermining existing – usually Christian – values. We therefore need an open-minded report such as this one, although it could have been more so.

      I will now refer to comments made by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), which has rightly called attention to some of the wording in the report that has not recognised the fact that, when talking about religion, a non-religious philosophical approach to the fundamental questions of life also constitutes a belief that should be set on an equal footing with religious belief. That should be recognised in the education system, which should be concerned with teaching about religion and beliefs, rather than the “teaching of religion”, as stated in paragraph 13.4 of the draft resolution. Such wording in the report can be criticised.

      I agree with the International Humanist and Ethical Union when it states that it is strongly in favour of the recommendations in the report to the effect that the Committee of Ministers should “set up a stable and officially recognised platform for dialogue” between the Council of Europe and representatives of religious and non-religious organisations, because – to continue quoting the IHEU statement – “We believe that such a platform would enable a constructive encounter between all concerned that would bring out the extent of agreement between us while providing under neutral auspices a venue for seeking agreed answers to problematic questions.”

      I note those remarks and recommendations from the International Humanist and Ethical Union and therefore draw attention to wording in the draft recommendation: “The Assembly further considers that, in this context, the Council of Europe should step up and make more substantial its co-operation with the main religious communities and the main European organisations representing the secular humanist and philosophical world.” I endorse those words and the spirit of tolerance reflected in the report, as well as its call for a dialogue between religious organisations and other organisations based on religion or belief.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call Mr Mahoux, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr MAHOUX (France)* – Who could not subscribe to this report? The objectives support freedom of religion and promote living alongside each other in a democratic society.

      Freedom of faith and to practise one’s religion is part of our fundamental freedoms. It implies respect for people’s beliefs in so far as that does not contradict fundamental rights or impinge on other individual freedoms. I am thinking in particular of equality between men and women. It also implies the rule of law, in particular human rights – as opposed to religious imperatives, which are entered into freely by those who believe in them and derive from one’s private life, and they should not in any way impinge on public life. That is not to say that religious opinion should not be expressed, while complying with the law. Religious communities and their members, as the report states, should have the right to run their institutions as long as the law is applied, in particular in the fields of health, morality and education.

      The report mentions specific cases such as circumcision, ritual slaughter and the veil, and other things such as diet could also be mentioned. Such matters have all been discussed exhaustively in our parliaments and there are many different points of view. Is it the role of this Assembly to pass judgment on behaviour subject to decisions taken in each of our States? Our States are, after all, the entities that are directly linked to the situations.

      Is it the role of our Assembly to recommend a reasonable accommodation where there is a situation that could lead to more divisions in society, undermining living together? Freedom of religion is something that everyone should enjoy. You have a right to believe, not to believe or not to believe any more. You have a right to change your religion or to abandon the religion that you used to belong to, but that is not mentioned in the report.

      Lastly, if, as the resolution stresses, it is up to the State to do everything to favour living together, it should not in any way interfere in organising faith or worship. Separation of church and State implies responsibilities – the responsibility of the State to allow freedom of religion, but also not to interfere in it. To paraphrase a text for which I have great respect, and which deserves respect, we should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and leave to the gods what belongs to the gods.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Mahoux. Does the rapporteur wish to answer now or later? Later. I call Ms Magradze.

      Ms MAGRADZE (Georgia) – I thank the rapporteur for this report. These are sensitive issues and it is hard work to write a report on them. Against the backdrop of current world events, the report is important. At the same time, the report can be conceived of in different ways. The rapporteur states that we need to avoid any restrictions to the right of religion that are not necessary in a democratic society. When people of different religions live together in a secular State, limitations to the exercise of freedom of religion must be restricted to those prescribed by law and necessary for a democratic society. In order to effectively safeguard the exercise of religious liberty, it is essential to respect the right of different religions. At the same time, the representatives of these religions should understand that the laws and norms of a democratic State prevail over those religious norms that are not in accordance with the values and norms of a democratic State.

      I come from one of the oldest Orthodox Christian countries of the world, Georgia, where Muslims, Jews, Catholics and believers of other religions have lived together peacefully for centuries. Naturally, that does not mean that there have been no cases of conflict between religious groups. For example, recently there was an argument between Christian and Muslim Georgians about the building of a new mosque, minaret and madrassa but through the involvement of State institutions, the Patriarchate of Georgia and the Muslim Council, the issue was resolved peacefully.

      We cannot avoid conflicts where representatives of different religions are involved; there could be various causes. Here, though, the position of the State is important. For example, the Government of Georgia has in all such cases publicly condemned any and all forms of discrimination and intolerance on religious grounds. In 2014 the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia launched an investigation of 19 criminal cases for crimes committed on the basis of religious intolerance. In 2015, the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia launched an investigation of seven criminal cases for crimes committed on the basis of religious intolerance. Out of these 26 cases, one criminal case was not confirmed to be due to a religious motive.

      Every country has its best practice for how to deal with religious matters. In Georgia there is a State agency for religious issues under the Prime Minister of Georgia. All religious organisations registered in Georgia have close co-operation with this agency, and it is a good mechanism for the prevention and resolution of any serious conflicts on religious grounds.

      There are many useful recommendations in the report. Constitutions and antidiscrimination legislations in member States, as well as numerous resolutions of the Council of Europe, create good bases for dealing with those very sensitive issues, but the main challenge is not about whether we have regulations but how to implement them in real life.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Magradze. I call Mr Unguryan.

      Mr UNGURYAN (Ukraine) – Thank you, Mr Huseynov, for your interesting and important report about this very sensitive theme. The name of the document is “Freedom of Religion and Living Together in a Democratic Society”. It is our goal in a democratic society to be together and united. In Ukraine, which I now represent, we have an interesting and unique council. It is a religious council that unites all the regions in Ukraine. Three Orthodox churches, two Catholic churches – Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic – and the main evangelical Protestant churches are represented on it. There are also two Jewish and three Muslim organisations. This council of religious organisations and churches is a very important structure in the country. It is not an official council but it has a lot of authority.

      Unfortunately, in the 21st century we have problems in part of our country. For example, in the occupied territories of the eastern part of Ukraine – you know all about this, Madame President – the terrorists of the Donetsk People’s Republic said in paragraph 9 of their constitution, “There is just one true faith in the Donetsk People’s Republic: the faith of Moscow’s Orthodox Patriarchate”. It is impossible to say that in the 21st century. Unfortunately, after they put that in their constitution, they started seriously persecuting Catholics and evangelical Protestants, some of whom were killed, and some buildings have been blown up.        I call on all the delegations to support Mr Huseynov and this resolution because, unfortunately, in the 21st century we need it.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Dokle.

      Mr DOKLE (Albania) * – In my country, about 40% of the population is of Christian origin, notably Orthodox and Catholic, the remainder being of Muslim descent, subdivided into Sunnis and Bektashi. If that small country had had religious wars, it would have been erased from the map of Europe by now. However, what occurred in Albania has rightly been considered as a laboratory for the coexistence of different religions, tolerance and recognition of others, both different and equal. His Holiness Pope Francis went to Albania on his first European visit and declared that that small country had tremendously suffered under the iron cloak of an atheist regime without precedent, but today it was a space for peaceful cohabitation between the different component religions. Believers of different religions in Albania have suffered – they had to make considerable sacrifices during the communist dictatorship – and the resurrection of modern Albania cannot be conceived without spiritual and institutional communion between different religious realities. Albania is an example that disappoints all those who use religion in order to fan conflict. It is a land of fraternity between religions, as Pope Francis said.

      Three weeks ago a big event took place in Tirana in which 400 representatives of all the major religions of the world participated, and the message was “Peace is possible”. It is indeed possible when we all work together. I recall oftentimes the year of 1997, when Albania was the scene of a considerable political conflict that could have tipped over into a civil war. One day, in Shkodër, a city in the north of the country, armed groups ravaged and burned shops, banks and schools, but during the night Muslims held a vigil close to the church so that it would not be affected, and a group of young Catholics protected the mosque of the city.

      In the troubled times in which we are living, it is of the utmost importance to be able to preserve the premise of a future of peace, co-existence and reciprocal respect between the different creeds. In order to achieve that future, it is perforce necessary to go through reconciliation and compromise, with peaceful mediation, tolerance and benevolence towards the other. The situation worsens every time those elements are lacking – every time that one does not respect the philosophy of our Organisation, the Council of Europe, where are all are different, all equal.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Badea is not here, so I call Ms Jonica.

      Ms JONICA (Montenegro) – Living together in a democratic society is one of the most important issues. All of us know how important freedom of religion is for that issue. Today, it is more important than ever, and I therefore congratulate Mr Huseynov on doing a great job. However, I am still worried about the implementation of resolutions in other documents that we adopt here every day. Do those documents have real influence in respecting human rights and strengthening the rule of law in our countries?

      Mr Huseynov, I support this resolution but I am really worried about its implementation. You wrote: “States and religions should work together to foster dialogue and mutual respect.” But how can I talk here about fostering dialogue and mutual respect of States and religions when I know what is happening these days in my country? The Government of Montenegro prepared a draft law on freedom of religions without the participation of representatives of any churches or religious communities in our country. Does this look like the dialogue and respect you talk about? No. A lot of citizens were strongly interested in participating in public debates on the draft law, but they did not have a chance to attend them. Two debates were cancelled due to bad organisation by the government, and the last one was organised with a strong, fully armed and equipped police force that prevented citizens from entering the building where the discussion was held.

      Why do I insist on talking about problems regarding this draft law in Montenegro? Because we cannot talk here about recommendations that member States exercise the right to freedom of religion in accordance with article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights while not mentioning a draft law that discriminates against and humiliates churches and religious communities and organisations. The draft law contains a provision on the basis of which religious buildings and land belonging to churches and religious communities will be taken away from them. Believe it or not, the Montenegrin authorities, who for many years have refused to carry out restitution of the property that the communist government confiscated, intend to carry out the confiscation and nationalisation of all religious buildings that were built before 1 December 1918. Also unbelievably, the Government of Montenegro proposed that the territorial configuration of a religious community that is registered and operates in Montenegro cannot extend outside Montenegro and that their official seats must be in Montenegro.

      My question is this: where is the right of churches and religious communities to their own internal rules governing their structure and organisation, which is at the core of their autonomy? The draft law does not guarantee the rights of existing churches and religious communities, which is a requirement stipulated in many international documents. One provision stipulates that along with the registration form, the basic religious texts of the religious communities shall be attached “in the authentic text”, which for Christian churches could mean the authentic old and new testaments. All traditional churches and religious communities – the Serbian Orthodox church, the Roman Catholic church and the Islamic religious community – are strongly against this part of the draft law.

      I hope that the Venice Commission, by issuing an opinion on the draft law, will help our government to harmonise it with provisions of international legal documents. In line with the resolution that we are discussing, I expect the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to closely follow the developments in Montenegro with regard to the position of churches and religious communities within the Montenegrin legislative framework.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Dear colleagues, I ask you to respect the speaking time in order to allow more colleagues to take the floor. I call Mr Ghiletchi.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I thank Mr Huseynov and congratulate him on this report. I know from my own experience how difficult it is to reach a balance when you write a report tackling the issues related to religious freedom. When I read the report, I discovered, for example, quotations from a secular professor, from a Jewish rabbi and from Pope Francis. That tells me that Mr Huseynov had courage. It is a sign of his tolerance and a sign that he promotes this culture of living together, knowing that he comes from a Muslim background, that he has these quotes in his report.

      I would like to touch on three aspects of the draft resolution. First, there is the concept of civil society. Paragraph 2 says: “Churches and religious organisations are an integral part of civil society and must, with secular organisations, take part in the life of society.” First and foremost, churches are part of civil society. Then, there is a “must” – that churches, together with secular organisations, must take part and must be part of our society. Last week I was attacked by some NGOs in Moldova for my views and for resolutions I support in this Assembly. The reason stated was that I am going against civil society. That is a misconception. Civil society is formed of us; we all form civil society. Mr Huseynov says that the principle of civil society does not require the elimination of religious organisations from social space, but it is quite the contrary.

      Secondly, there is the principle of reasonable accommodations. I have to admit it is very pleasant when you read a report and see a reference to your own report. I was very glad about that and I appreciate it, Mr Huseynov, but this is not the point. The point is that the principle of reasonable accommodations will help us, when we want to build a society based on diversity, to have unity and diversity. Faith, as the report says, is part of our identity. If you want to have unity and diversity without compromising identity, it is important to have the principle of reasonable accommodations. I am glad that even if the Court does not use the term per se, it is moving in this direction.

      Thirdly, the weakest point is about religious practices. Ms Maury Pasquier mentioned this. The report says that Mr Huseynov regrets that there was a misunderstanding of the previous report in relation to circumcision. In my opinion, he had to be a bit more courageous and not say in a negative way: “recommends that member States provide for ritual circumcision of children not to be allowed unless”. We need to say in a positive way that it should be allowed, but with certain conditions attached. We need to send this positive message to our member States.

      This is a good report and it deserves to be supported. Congratulations once again, Mr Huseynov.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Hoffmann.

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – I start by welcoming the fact that the Council of Europe decided to have a report produced on freedom of religion. At the same time, I congratulate Mr Huseynov, our rapporteur, who has highlighted several very sensitive aspects of the issue and found balanced responses. I fully concur with his proposal to add the words “and living together” to the report’s title, because that is an essential element of European and Council of Europe values. The ideas for living together suggested in the report were supported by Pope Francis, who made a historic statement here in this Chamber last November, a fact that Ms Brasseur mentioned yesterday. That is our common goal and there is a lot of work to be done to achieve it, especially when we take into account the realities of today’s world; the social, political, emotional and religious tensions provoked by the flood of migrants.

      If we really want to respect freedom of religion, it is clear that we are talking about only those religions that serve the good of humanity and are not a threat to order in our society. The report makes a clear and direct distinction between those two categories. On the other hand, it is regrettable that among the religions mentioned as worthy of our support are the practices of Jews and Muslims, but there is not a single word about the Christian religion. I have a relatively good grasp of history and belong to the Christian Church. As such, I find it unacceptable that in so many European political documents, we seem to forget that Europe was founded on three strong pillars: the classical world, the Jewish religion and the teachings of the Christian religion. I remind colleagues that His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxembourg made similar comments during his statement yesterday. Nowadays, Christians are threatened in many countries, which is why the Council of Europe has this year adopted a report on that subject.

      The second paragraph of the resolution states: “Churches and religious organisations are an integral part of civil society”. That is true, but they are part not only of civil society, but of our communities—in other words, of our society itself. Religion always has that community dimension. In conclusion, in Hungary, we have freedom of religion now, but that was not always the case. Twenty-five years ago, we had freedom of religion in word, but not in deed.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Sir Roger Gale.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has studied the report with great care and in great detail and I do not propose to analyse it again, save to congratulate Mr Huseynov on his work. I would, however, commend to everybody the amendments tabled in the name of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights by my colleague, Edward Leigh. He has done a splendid job. Most of the amendments have already been accepted by the Committee and I hope that they will be accepted by the Assembly.

      I am very lucky. I am a member of the Anglican Church, and I live in a country that has an established Church, with the monarch as its head. I have in my constituency—the area that I represent as a member of parliament—a mosque, a Buddhist temple, a reformed synagogue, a Catholic church and non-conformist churches, and I am made welcome in all of them. Although they know that I am not of their faith, we have nothing to disagree about, because I understand that they are of faith and they understand that I have a faith. We accept that. As a member of the Council of Europe, I have travelled widely in my duties as an international election observer and, sadly, I know that that is not the case in every country. I know only too well that there are places within the member States of the Council of Europe where people are persecuted and die for their faith. I also know that there are religions that seek to impose their views on the will of others, quite improperly. The only way in which that will be resolved is by education and understanding.

      My simple purpose in standing to speak is to draw attention not to the report itself, but to the final paragraph of the summary: “The Council of Europe should set up a stable platform for dialogue with senior representatives of religions and non-denominational organisations in order to foster active commitment by all the stakeholders in activities to promote living together.” You could argue that that is what the Council of Europe is, so why should we set up another stable platform? What the recommendation means, however, is please let us do something. Instead of standing here and talking about it, instead of passing resolutions, and instead of getting the Committee of Ministers to say, “Yes, this is absolutely wonderful”, we need to establish that stable platform and get people talking, so that with good will, we can resolve the issues that we all know are very dangerous, very terrifying, and that concern us.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Blanchart is not here, so I call Mr Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – I thank Mr Huseynov for the report that he is submitting today on freedom of religion and living together in a democratic society. We have to tackle that fundamental question with the idea of uniting and understanding our societies. Religions should no longer be causes or pretexts for conflicts, or even wars. The religious element is a reality that has to be recognised and taken on board. Freedom of religion, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, is one of the essential achievements of our continent—the freedom to believe and the freedom not to believe. If I were to vote in favour of your report, Mr Huseynov, I should have to express some differences or nuances of opinion.

      Religion, for me, is a private matter. To believe or not to believe is for one’s own internal life. As a citizen, I feel my personal relationship to religion pertains to my own sphere and has nothing to do with the public sphere. To promote freedom of religion is not to promote religiosity. No doubt your report might have sought better to establish such a distinction. French people such as me are sometimes reproached for too rigorous an approach to the concept of secularism. I believe that that is an unjust criticism, but no doubt, it expresses cultural and historical differences that it would be regrettable to ignore. I accept that, but on the other hand, I do not understand the concept of a secularity of recognition that your report develops, because it de facto implies that there would be a secularity of ignorance. However, secularism is an asset to all, beyond the religious convictions that we may or may not have. It guarantees our freedom and is an active protection of our freedom.

      This is, and remains, a furiously topical battle. Of course, we have to ensure that religious communities and their members can exercise their right to freedom without hindrance or discrimination. We have to use religious organisations as partners, like non-religious organisations or philosophical organisations, for the development of inclusive societies. We have to teach and understand religion, but freedom is composed of duties and rights. French law prohibits the wearing of the full-face veil in public. I respect the practice of circumcision, but cannot accept that it is practised by people without medical knowledge and without the necessary sanitary conditions. Churches should remember that they are not above the law. The Kirchensteuer—the tax on religion in Germany—cannot be imposed on people who declare themselves without belief, and baptism certificates are not to be exchanged from one country to another. This is against protection of personal information. You can believe. You can no longer believe. You can change religion. Each of those choices calls for just a single answer: respect.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Jakavonis.

(Ms Guzenina, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Brasseur)

      Mr JAKAVONIS (Lithuania)* – I too start by thanking my fellow group member, Mr Huseynov, for this excellent report, which touches on one of the main problems in Europe, migration.

      I would like to say a few words about my own country. Some 80% of the people who live in Lithuania are Christians. We have seven religions recognised by the State and by the law, including Orthodoxy, Islam and Judaism. We have never had any inter-religious problems. We consider that we are tolerant, and that you should not carry your own bible into other people’s temples. In the Church of St Peter the Younger there is a fresco called “The Movement of the Nation”. It shows a group of horsemen carrying the flags of all the different nations, and the last person in the procession is a young woman whose flag says “Lithuania”, because we were the last country in Europe to become Christian.

      Other countries have monuments to whichever king made their country Christian. We have a monument to the last king who was an adherent of the pre-Christian religion of the Baltics. It is the same in Latvia. In our capital, Vilnius, we hold an international congress bringing together people of different religions from all over the world. Our ancient Baltic religion is not recognised as a current religion by the State, but we have a pagan festival, Rasos, which is still celebrated and has now become one our official bank holidays and State festivals. We understand that our traditions, our songs and our dances are from that pagan period, and if we do not celebrate them we will lose a part of our culture. I point out that these old religions are not aggressive, and I say to my colleagues who will go home to their own countries, do not forget those old, non-aggressive religions.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Duranton.

      Ms DURANTON (France)* – The report tabled by Mr Huseynov raises a fundamental question within our democratic societies; namely, how can we reconcile freedom of religion, which is guaranteed, inter alia, by the European Convention on Human Rights, and living together? That is by no means a new question, but it is certainly a very topical one, particularly in light of various religiously motivated terrorist attacks, including that of 7 January in Paris. The question is therefore very relevant, but I am afraid that the answer from our colleague is not entirely fitting.

      The draft resolution speaks of tolerance and religious diversity, but it also appears to challenge the soundness of secularity, and it gives pride of place to so-called reasonable accommodations. I fear that those accommodations mean that inward-looking, community-centred demands would prevail over the general interest and civil harmony. Should we, for instance, separate men and women in our swimming pools, or state that there is a right to demand particular meals in school canteens according to one’s religious beliefs, in order to have that reasonable accommodation? I would say no. To multiply concessions and accommodations would appear very dangerous to me, because it can give rise to sectarianism.

      In our secularised societies, of course religious beliefs still have their place; they persist. Religions are a living phenomenon and a social phenomenon, and they are known in France by the term “fait religieux” and have been studied as such. For me, the fundamental question is, how can Churches bring their contribution to the fight against fundamentalism? How can they sustain the values of our societies – the ones within which they exercise their faith? In other words, how can religions help us foster national unity rather than just pave the way for cultural diversity?

      Of course, it would be dangerous for politics to ignore religion, but the pre-eminence of principles, traditional cultures and the values of a nation must be stated quite explicitly and solemnly. I refer you to the words of Jean Jaurès from 1904. I do this with great pleasure because, as it happens, I am not part of his political family. He said that democracy and secularism are one and the same thing, and that democracy is fundamentally secular, in terms of its essence, its form, its principles, its institutions, its morals and its economics. It seems to me perfectly legitimate for the State not to give up on its sovereignty when it comes to exercising its supremacy over Churches. Let us take, for instance, the fact that Churches are organised on a representative basis. The management of public affairs should obey the supremacy of the State over religions. Indeed, the temporal shall prevail over the spiritual in our democratic society. So yes, religions are of course an incontrovertible fact in our societies, and that is why strengthening national cohesion means establishing a dialogue with all faiths, all Churches. Having said that, for me, living together in a democratic society must mean that we stand up and say, quite clearly, that our values and principles are not subject to accommodations or deals.

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

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine) – Freedom of religion encompasses personal rights as well as the communal belief systems and the practices of religious groups. Today we have in Europe more secular States that consider religion to be simply one aspect of society and see some religious prescriptions and teachings as counter to the civil and “democratic” nature of society. That affects not only the religions of migrants or newcomers, such as Islam, but Christianity, which is supposedly the religion of the old continent. We cannot amend those religious traditions, beliefs and practices since they are part of the religious community as its members have kept faith with it throughout centuries.

      While the State has to respect religious traditions and rights, each religion, with its communities, has to respect the wider public space, and show sensitivity to basic human rights and the fact that we cannot create an inclusive civil society with exclusive claims by this or that religion. It is indeed a challenging task, particularly in societies where religion is the dominant factor. In such societies it is easy to relegate the position of marginalisation to religious groups and minorities and to find excuses to legitimise abuses of those minorities and their members.

      The primary challenge is how to accept others and their belief system. How does our religious conviction predispose us towards stereotypes that obliterate or blur real knowledge of the other and hence justify abuses of those others? As Mr Huseynov’s report points out, schools have an important role in opening up towards others. Can we hope to develop educational curriculums that teach respect, appreciation and understanding of others, not only in public schools but in religious schools? The challenge remains that of creating a dialogue of life, rather than a theoretical and theological dialogue that does not touch on the realities of life and its practical challenges. If religions do not encourage their faithful to accept others and to work together with them for the common good, we cannot hope for the kind of society in which all members exercise their religious and civil rights in a constructive and unhindered manner.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Blondin.

      Ms BLONDIN (France)* – Dear colleagues, Mr Huseynov’s report illustrates a growing phenomenon which is a source of personal concern to me: the pre-eminence of belief over knowledge. Since the Charlie Hebdo affair, France, a secular country, has been affected by debates on matters such as how to construct social links despite our differences, or what place in society should be occupied by religions, notably Islam.

      On the morning after those tragic events, the representatives of the principal religions reaffirmed that this secular republic and its values, particularly freedom of conscience, democracy and freedom of the press, are fundamental to our living together. It has been said often and rightly that France experienced a moment of national unity. Yet concerns have emerged among some of my Muslim compatriots who fear the assimilation and Islamophobia that could arise from such barbaric acts, which it was claimed were done in the name of religion. The remainder of the population is also at a loss as to the limits of integration, as has been revealed in schools by certain pupils’ refusal to observe a minute’s silence for the victims and by the expression of a sickening relativism in conspiracy theories. Those crimes were committed in order to destabilise French society. What really upset the terrorists is that one can be a Muslim citizen of France.

      From that perspective, I will dwell on the place of Muslims in France, given that the Paris attacks effectively raised questions about the cohesion of French society. Muslims were doubly affected by the attacks. They felt wounded as victims, being French citizens, and wounded because some might have deemed them guilty as Muslims. Two discourses on Islam dominate the public arena. The dominant discourse considers terrorism merely to reveal the genuine nature of Islam and all Muslims as therefore “unassimilable”; the second, a minority discourse borne on anti-racist currents, is that the genuine threat is Islamophobia and the exclusion that results from it, which explains without excusing the radical attitudes among young Muslims especially. These are two sterile theories. Let us respect the principles of secularism and living together.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Blondin. I call Mr Rochebloine.

      Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – Dear colleagues, among the fundamental human rights we are discussing, respect for freedom of religion appears to be the most important marker of a democratic regime. Religion is a personal aspiration, but also a collective one, and it helps us realise the common good in the eyes of God. It is a powerful factor for dialogue and cohesion within our societies. A State that does not fully guarantee freedom of public expression of opinion and worship is not a democratic State.

What distinguishes the exercise of political power and religious practice? This necessary distinction means that those who hold such power are not subject to the directives of religious authorities. This does not mean challenging on principle any public debate or any adoption of a position by an authority or the faithful on subjects that might be of interest to the future of our societies. We are talking about liberty and democracy. States that ban the practice of religions other than the majority are not democratic States.

To say that religion is a private affair makes sense given that the powers of the State are primarily sovereign – defence, justice and policing – whereas private affairs comprise the majority of life and society. That may well have been the case in Europe at the beginning of the 21st century, but it is no longer the case today, certainly in western countries. We have a concept of religion as a private matter. In the light of that, what we see throughout Europe is a kind of State agnosticism, which now seems to lay exclusive claim to progress and states that politics shall prevail above all else. It actually diminishes the importance of the expression of religious beliefs.

Experience has shown that this particular trend is not successful. It is bound to fail. It is not attractive or satisfactory. It is also very much against our fundamental values, and it can only lead to weakening and dissolution. In a social context marked by ever greater pluralism when it comes to religious belonging, the public authorities have a responsibility to facilitate wherever necessary a dialogue between religious communities. That has been the case in France, for instance in Marseille, which two decades ago created Marseille Espérance.

As for religious denominations, they are of course subject to the scrutiny of public authorities interested in their exchanges, but it is also up to them now to ensure that a fraternal dialogue is established. That is necessary for peaceful coexistence, freedom of religion and the common good. Such an approach is of course demanding for public authorities, churches and our religious communities, but it is the only way we can establish peace in our societies and freedom of expression for all individuals in them.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Zohrabyan.

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – Dear colleagues, I read the title of the report – “Freedom of religion and living together in a democratic society” – and it is absolutely clear that that is an urgent and pressing issue for Europe today. I have also read the explanatory memorandum about why we should raise this important issue – the tragic attacks in Paris and Copenhagen, the desecration of Jewish and Catholic cemeteries in France – and I can see, again, that it is a good choice of subject. Then I read the name of the rapporteur – Rafael Huseynov from Azerbaijan – and I cannot believe my eyes.

There are some very moving remarks in the report. He says that “it is our common responsibility – whatever religious or non-religious worldviews we may embrace – not only to respect, but also to preserve and promote” religions. Another exceptional piece of wording says that “in political speeches, in education and culture, we should highlight the things that all human beings have in common: conscience, reason and heart”, and that it is therefore of primary importance to combat intolerance. That is the conclusion of our colleague Huseynov.

Leafing through the report, I thought what a huge effort it must have been for Mr Huseynov to write the exact opposite of what actually happens in his country. Like Mr Huseynov, I am greatly saddened by the desecration of Jewish and Catholic cemeteries in France, but Mr Huseynov, are you ready to apologise in this Chamber for the destruction of thousands of khachkars, stone crosses, in the Armenian cemetery in the town of Jugha? They were part of the world’s cultural heritage and had been placed under the protection of UNESCO. The destruction of those stone crosses was a crime organised by Azerbaijan and intended solely as a display of intolerance and Armenophobia. In 2005-06, the last stone crosses were destroyed by Azeri soldiers, and the cemetery was converted into a shooting range. There were strong reactions against this Azerbaijani vandalism from UNESCO, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the international community. Even the Vatican criticised it.

In 2006, an Azeri journalist, Idrak Abassov, visited the cemetery in Jugha and wrote that it had completely disappeared. In the same year, Azerbaijan refused permission for members of the European Parliament to visit the cemetery. It was the same for our colleague Mr O’Hara; he was not given permission to see the true face of Azerbaijani vandalism. In 2006, the European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning the destruction, by which time many valuable artefacts had been destroyed. You talk of religious tolerance and the importance of living together, but three years ago I visited Baku to participate in the plenary sitting of Euronest and I saw what had been done to the ancient Armenian church there: the cross had been removed, the rare Armenian books had been destroyed and all that was left in the church’s library were books about President Heydar Aliyev – and you think that is religious tolerance, and you write a report on the subject? If you are ready to apologise from this platform for Azerbaijan’s serial vandalism I will be able to think that you are beginning to understand the real meaning of religious tolerance and the art of living together.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur for his huge efforts and diligence. The report handles the subject in a detailed and systematic manner and touches on many social, philosophical and concrete aspects. It is my impression, however, that the rapporteur attached so much importance to producing a balanced report that ultimately it led to divergence from the true intent.

      Many of you might remember that the initiative leading to the preparation of the report was intended as a response to a previous report of the Assembly that categorised circumcision as a violation of the physical integrity of children. Despite the generally positive conclusions it reaches, the report expands the scope of the discussion by including other manifestations of belief such as ritual slaughter alongside circumcision.

      I believe that it is an unfair burden for the Assembly to have to evaluate each and every social behaviour and to reach a verdict on them. The true calling of the Assembly is not to make a list of “controversial” or “divisive” social practices but rather to encourage European societies to develop the culture of living together within the framework of European conventions. It is disappointing, therefore, that we are discussing why, how and to what extent freedom of religion can be limited.

      Regardless of that, I find it encouraging that the report points to the threats caused by extremism and xenophobia, but it must be strongly stated that these are two sides of the same coin, and one cannot choose to emphasise one over the other. I definitely support the recommendation to set up an officially recognised platform for dialogue with representatives of religions, beliefs and other organisations to foster a culture of living together.

      Ms De SUTTER (Belgium) – The report calls for inter-religious dialogue at a time when Europe is confronted with the largest refugee crisis since the Second World War. The current asylum debate feeds polarisation and xenophobia, based mainly on the fear of Islam. Indeed, although threats of national social security systems or cultural identity claims are used to explain some countries’ behaviour, the main underlying reason is often Islamophobia. Europe has always struggled with religious tolerance throughout its history; only since the Second World War has freedom of religion been accepted as a universal human right, since when our secular democratic societies have safeguarded religious freedom and legislated to protect against discrimination on the basis of religion. One must also have the right not to observe a religion.

      Religions are intended to make the world a better place for all, but in practice they are often the cause of violence and wars all over the world. Today, al-Qaeda, Islamic State and other terrorist movements abuse religion to justify their war against the civilised world.

      It is understandable, therefore, that people are afraid of refugees, and some populist politicians are ingenious in feeding this anxiety and increasing polarisation. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe must therefore give a clear signal that the refugee crisis must be dealt with like any other humanitarian crisis, and that religion or fear of religion may not play a role in deciding whether to help victims of war and violence elsewhere in the world. We must make the difference between the true nature of all religions, including Islam, which stands for altruism and peace, and those who misinterpret their religion and use it to fight others.

      We need to educate people on the true principles and meanings of religious rules and dogmas and free ourselves from unintended antagonism between religions or other philosophies, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion or humanism. As always, education is key in fighting ignorance, and ignorance and misunderstanding are the causes of fear and violence. Yes, extremists and terrorists must be stopped, but they are found in all religions. We must stop seeing refugees as possible threats because of their religion and instead see them as fellow human beings in human need.

      I have some difficulties agreeing with the rapporteur when he states that we need to seek reasonable accommodations on controversial religious practices if they go against fundamental rights such as gender equality, the physical integrity of non-consenting individuals or the principles of animal welfare.

      If Europe has a future, it will be a multicultural and multireligious one. We have no other choice, and it is urgent that we acknowledge it and live together in peace and harmony. May this report contribute to this future Europe.

      Ms KRONLID (Sweden) – I wish to congratulate our rapporteur, Mr Huseynov, and our Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media on producing a very interesting report on the complex subject of how to ensure that democracy, religious freedom and harmonious living together can increasingly be realised in our different countries.

      I fully agree with the report’s contention that religious freedom is a fundament of a free society. Unfortunately, in parts of the world, many religions are being oppressed and even physically attacked on a large scale, as we also heard in our debate last January on the report presented by our Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination and its rapporteur, Mr Ghiletchi, on the subject, "Tackling intolerance and discrimination in Europe, with a special focus on Christians".

      In protecting religions, we must make sure that no religion is used to oppress other religions, or is being advanced as the only religion to be permitted in society. Nor must any religion be used as a pretext for attacking or calling into question human rights as enshrined in our European Convention. Amendment 3 states that "the right to freedom of religion can only be submitted to those limitations which constitute necessary measures, in a democratic society, in the interests of public safety, etc.”

      Many Council of Europe member States are now receiving large numbers of refugees and immigrants, often with faiths other than those dominant in the countries in question. It is self-evident that the newcomers should be able to practise their faiths in full freedom. But it is also important that the welcoming countries can maintain their cultural heritage, their value systems, as shaped over the centuries, their traditions, their national sense of identity, and, yes, their established religions. Furthermore, there is a tendency in some European countries for the native majority so to bend over backwards in their desire not to risk upsetting newly arrived minorities that they abandon long-established traditions with religious connotations. That would not be in anybody’s interest, since it would only reduce cultural richness. Change is inevitable in every culture or national identity. Without change, stagnation will eventually follow. But change must be based on continuity, not rupture.

      Let us defend religious freedom on the basis of democracy and human rights. Let us combat religious extremism, intolerance and oppression. Yet at the same time let us not let go of established values, traditions and faiths closely tied up with national identity.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – Freedom of religion is a human right. Religion, however, should not mean that human rights are not respected. It should not be pitted against human rights. Religion gives people guidance and sustenance. If you understand religion as loving thy neighbour, as helping out others and as being selfless, it is a good form of guidance for young people and for all people. Tolerance also means free religion, and the report expresses that very aptly. If you are a good religious person, you are tolerant of other faiths and you can also accept that some people do not want to belong to a particular faith or religion. You tolerate that, too, which is very important for me.        When we go to our national parliaments, we need to be clear about this. The teaching of religion should be undertaken in the language of the country. That is obvious. For me, it is part and parcel of the equation, because religion must be open to all people within a country, regardless of which religion or faith it might be. We are talking about the fact that all people should be able to follow the teaching wherever they might find themselves so that they can understand what it is all about. Again, it should be in the language of the country concerned.

      My colleague Thomas Feist often speaks of how violence and disrespect for the rights of women and children – or indeed the rights of men – is really a way of hating your neighbour. It is a way of rejecting other human beings. That has nothing to do with our religion, and our colleague has been very right in pointing that out. For instance, if for religious reasons, you decide that you should repress women or children – or, indeed, men, which is perhaps rarer – and disrespect their rights in any way, that is not religion. What Islamic State is doing is not religious in the way we understand it in the Council of Europe.

      I am delighted that we are debating this report today. We have tabled a couple of amendments because we would like to improve upon it yet further. I hope that some of them will be supported by the majority of members. I shall conclude the way I started: freedom of religion is a human right but religion should not be used as an excuse to trample over human rights.

      Mr ARDELEAN (Romania) – I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report. We must all understand that religious freedom is a must for democracies. I lived for some years under communism, so I know what it means not to have religious freedom. That is why it is important for us and for all democracies to pursue religious freedom, especially in our own countries. Religious freedom is the cornerstone of all other freedoms. All the reports show that where there is religious freedom, there is economic freedom, economic growth and respect for all other freedoms.

      This is in fact an ethical debate. If you look at where the different moral codes – we have representatives of different moral codes here – in the world overlap, you will find that the overlap is human dignity. That is where you start to build from. Being a human is a value per se. You start from there and get to the point where you have to respect the person and their wishes and their religious beliefs and practices. That is why we speak of the forum internum and the conscious, the belief that is a non-derogating right, in all our instruments. He or she can believe in whatever they want – he can even believe in a stone. As long as he does not throw the stone at you, he has a perfect right to believe in it. The principle of non-harm applies to religious freedom.

      Of course, we have had a wild liberalism that pushed everything into the private sphere and excluded it from public society. But this has to be in public society. If it is not, things get worse and then there is terrorism and the many other things that result from pushing it into the private sphere. That is why we should talk in society not of tolerance, but of acceptance.

      We have to guarantee other States’ religious freedom and raise the matter up the diplomatic agenda. We must apply equal treatment to everyone regardless of what he or she wants to believe. That is why we must create a climate of religious freedom.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate my colleague Mr Huseynov on his excellent report. The subject of our discussion is very significant in Europe, which is why the report is timely. Nowadays, many countries are threatened by fanaticism and religious extremism but also by xenophobia and rejection of anything different. While speaking about living together in a democratic society, it is important to mention all the different factors, including religion. Many different groups in the world take advantage of religion to achieve their insidious aims. They advance destructive ideas based on differences between religions that lead to a collision of civilisations. Some separatist groups have begun to use religious factors to justify their activities. Under those circumstances, it is important to develop a dialogue between religions and cultures to preserve the various cultures in our world civilisation.

      I am very proud to say that the Christian and Jewish communities in my country enjoy and exercise equal rights alongside the Muslim community that makes up the majority of our population. People have never been mistreated for their religion. Freedom of conscience is declared by Article 48 of our constitution. Everyone is free to choose their religion, to practise it individually or in a group or not to hold any religion at all and to express their attitudes. Azerbaijan is a country where mosques, churches and synagogues co-exist in peace. Over the years of independence, our government has restored synagogues and churches that were devastated under Soviet rule.

      Over many centuries, the Azerbaijani people have lived in close proximity to members of various nationalities and religions, both on our borders and within the country. Tolerance and multiculturalism has been extended to them all. That attitude could not have been imposed administratively because tolerance is a voluntary recognition of respect for everyone’s way of expressing themselves, even if it is in conflict with one’s own opinion. That feature is an integral part of our traditional cultural and moral values.

      I should like now to address our colleagues from Armenia, but unfortunately they are not here because, as usual, they have left our house. I must explain a few simple facts. They try to use every discussion and every opportunity to expand their lies and spread wrong information about Azerbaijan and the Azerbaijani people. The fact is that Armenia is an occupier. It occupies 20% of our territory, so that Azerbaijan is now under occupation. Some 1 million people were forced from their historical Azerbaijani lands in Nagorno-Karabakh and seven other districts. Armenia is now a mono-ethnic country because of the absence of tolerance, and the whole world knows it. These people, who sit in this hall, are not children. I call on our Armenian colleagues to stop lying.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Yatim from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr YATIM (Morocco)* – I pay tribute to Mr Rafael Huseynov for the high quality of his report and his recommendations. In a context in which our societies may be taken hostage by extremists of all kinds, the real question we have to ask ourselves is how will we act to avoid other barbaric acts? The response is well framed in the report. We must avoid the pitfall of analysing through stereotypes that simplify complex social phenomena. We must prioritise objective analyses that avoid expressions based on the negation and refusal of other ideas. We must avoid xenophobic discourse that exploits religious dogma or illusions of ethnic purity. We have to be especially attentive to the objective alliance between the extremists, even though they may seem to oppose each other,

      In response to intolerance and negation, the rapporteur says that our political elite and religious leaders must together seek intercultural understanding and reconciliation between the neutrality of the State and respect for convictions and religious practices. That neutrality must be inclusive and open to diversity, a secularism of recognition—in other words, living together. To achieve that we must develop collaborative projects with religious communities in order to promote common values. Those religious communities must be involved in combatting all forms of extremism and promoting inter-community solidarity. We must also promote dialogue between people of different faiths and ensure that the teaching of religion is reciprocal and develops a critical mind. I congratulate Mr Huseynov on his remarkable work.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Reiss.

      Mr REISS (France)* – There is an absence of consensus in Europe on secularism. I do not agree with everything included under the notion of “secularism of recognition,” but the idea of dialogue with religious communities is not only interesting but necessary.

      Strasbourg is in Alsace, a region that has long shaped its identity on the basis of a contract between the State and its religious communities. The concordat regime in Alsace-Moselle, based on rights and duties, affects some 3 million French people. The State recognises the Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religions—the Muslim religion was not represented in France in 1801. The State appoints and pays the salaries of the principal leaders of those religions. In return, recognised religions have to provide civic and moral education and social services. The local law, which is of historical origin— Alsace-Moselle was German in 1905, when France passed the law separating church and State—respects freedom of conscience and non-discrimination in religious matters. This mode of relations between the State and religion does not run counter to secularism, and the French constitutional council recognises the constitutionality of the system, which fully fits the values of the republic.

      This local law may provide pertinent responses to the increase in extremism that threatens our societies. The profanation of a Jewish cemetery in 2004 led the Conseil Régional d’Alsace to establish a network of inter-religious groups to defuse crises and to encourage an open and exigent secularism, which leaves an important place for the State in supporting us to live together, especially in relation to the Muslim religion. Even though that religion is not recognised under the concordat for historical reasons, local authorities are able to fund Muslim cemeteries, although that aspect is more specifically covered by local law. The teaching of religion distinct from catechism completes the picture, allowing not only inter-religious dialogue in schools but reflection upon each other’s faiths. Such teaching is not compulsory, however. Freedom of religion and respect for the State and its values is a daily reality in Alsace. The concordat system is the common will of representatives of both the religions and the people and is a solid basis for building a republican pact.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Pecková.

      Ms PECKOVÁ (Czech Republic) – The Czech Republic is considered one of the most secular countries, which does not necessarily mean that people do not have faith; they just use different terminology, whether it be “transcendence,” “higher power,” “forces of nature” or simply “God Almighty.” Forty years of totalitarian government has led us to uniformity and prudence in relation to anything unknown, different or diverse. Today’s generation is more tolerant, even though the current immigration crisis is a breeding ground for xenophobic, extremist movements and populist political solutions.

      The basis of every religion is unquestioned faith. However, rituals are the pillar upon which religion stands. The unchanging and constant repetition of rituals gives people a sense of anchorage and security in today’s chaotic, confused world. Moreover, it gives people a sense of belonging with others. It gives them a feeling that, in this era of developed individualism, they belong somewhere. Rituals have a rational origin, whether it is fasts prohibiting the consumption of certain foods, funeral arrangements, cleansing baths or perhaps sexual activities in relation to a woman’s fertile days. There are also rational and hygienic reasons for male circumcision, which is frequently used by modern medicine in some situations.

      The Czech Republic does not oppose the ritual circumcision of young boys but encourages it to be performed at a level that does not pose a health risk, as reflected in the resolution. The Council of Europe should pay special attention to female circumcision, which is a ritual still performed and tolerated in many parts in the world. Female circumcision not only clearly contradicts children’s right to physical integrity but often poses a threat to health and life. If we are to succeed in our effort to promote the best interests of every child, mere political commitments and resolutions do not suffice. Our consensus on the necessity of stopping this unjustified mutilation of girls and women must be followed by proactive action until such cases vanish from the face of our modern world.

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr Sedó, Ms Mitchell and Mr Šepić are not here, so I call Mr Feist.

      Mr FEIST (Germany)* – I thank the rapporteur, not so much for the report, but for the extremely good and constructive co-operation we received in the committee. There are a couple of points that I want to raise from a German perspective. This has been a really good premise for a debate.

      When we are talking about freedom of religion and human rights, we need to analyse the role of religious communities and faith communities in our societies more carefully. The rapporteur has said that the different religious communities and civil society need to be able to live together. That is precisely what happens in Germany. Churches and Christian faith communities are involved in charitable work, such as helping the refugees who come into our country.

Germany has been mentioned repeatedly in this debate, so I would like to point out that if we take the report seriously, it surely does not make sense to say that refugees should be separated according to religion or ethnicity. That is completely contrary to the content of the report. Freedom of religion is the premise for peaceful co-existence.

Schools have been mentioned in this debate. It is important for schools to work on inter-religious and inter-cultural skills. In committee, there was a lot of support for an initiative on that. Alongside all the subjects on the curriculum, such as mathematics and physics, we must have inter-cultural and inter-religious skills. They go together.

In Europe, we must ensure that we have peaceful co-existence and that people can live together. Only if that happens can Europe continue to be a model for the rest of the world. It is not right when there is persecution, discrimination and unfair treatment in the name of God and religion. We need to stand up and say that there are various ways of recognising others. People can be religious or non-religious – those are equally valid approaches. That should be the basis of peaceful co-existence here in Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Feist. I am sorry if I pronounced your name incorrectly earlier.

      Mr FREJ (Israel) – As a new member of the Israeli delegation to the Assembly, I thank you for debating the extremely important topic of freedom of religion. Unfortunately, the theme has become all too relevant recently because of terrible events that have taken place around the world, in particular religiously motivated hate crimes such as anti-Semitic and Islamophobic acts.

      Hate crimes and a lack of tolerance have something in common: they are crimes inside the family. I say that because all of us, or at least the majority of us, believe that we have all been created by God in his image. If we follow that logic, we can say that in each and every one of us, there is part of God.

More people have died in the history of mankind in holy wars – in the name of God – than in natural disasters or wars between countries. Here is the root of the problem: the greatest enemy of all of us is that we do not know each other’s religions. Christians, Muslims and Jews do not really know anything about the true meaning of the other religions. We all tend to shut ourselves within our boxes; we feel safe in the frameworks within which we grew up and were educated. We see in our fellow men something different and threatening, against which we have to defend ourselves.

But you know what? In reality, our biggest enemy is not the lack of knowledge of each other’s religions – it is worse than that. The terrible fact is that we do not want to know about each other; we refuse to know about each other.

I am glad that we have this opportunity, because perhaps this meeting and the important vote tonight will serve as the beginning of the right way of showing mutual respect for the various traditional ways in which cultures and religious people express their gratitude to their creator and for the covenant between believers and their God. In voting on the resolution, each and every one of us must be aware of the need to maintain the delicate balance between spiritual needs and human rights.

The need and obligation to secure the health and physical integrity of circumcised children, while finding the golden way that enables us to maintain our traditions and freedom of religion, should be a fundamental principle of the common respect and mutual understanding between religions and cultures on which modern societies are built.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Frej. To conclude the list of speakers, I call Ms El Ouafi.

      Ms EL OUAFI (Morocco)* – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Huseynov, for his good treatment of a sensitive subject in the report. The subjects of freedom of religion and living together in a democratic society are of great interest in our society today. We are talking about the quality of democracy, which Nelson Mandela spoke about. We can see how democratic a country is from how it treats its minorities and how it respects religious and cultural differences.

Debates about external signs, identity, integration, shared values, religious values and so on have often been controversial. The media seize on such things, whipping up fear and giving voice to populists of all stripes. Unfortunately, Islam is often used, too, in election campaigns. In a world riven by fundamentalism, I again welcome the fact that here we have established a platform for dialogue and an active approach for citizens to act credibly on issues such as the manipulation of young people and the mistreatment of immigrants by fundamentalists, who interpret religious texts not in the true spirit of Islam, but in a false spirit.

      To finish, I will talk about the rich experience in the history of my country. In Morocco Jews, Berbers, Muslims and Arabs have always lived together in harmony with their separate cultural identities in one society. Those values are enshrined in the 2011 Constitution as part of our democratic values. We must remember that Muslims, Jews, Arabs, Berbers and Christians, all are Moroccans – fully Moroccan – although they might have their own institutions, such as the Jewish and Islamic courts, based on cultural practices and the emotional attachment of people to their own rich traditions, which are passed down from generation to generation.

      THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers. I now call Mr Huseynov to reply. You have three and a half minutes.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – We usually perceive tolerance as something that must always prevail in contemporary societies, improving and educating them. The world and Europe are in a phase of living together so we cannot live without it. The phrase “living together” means our common European home and our common global home. Approaching other religions and cultures with the same respect we have for our own beliefs and traditions, as well as our cultural wealth and values, means that the democratic spirit of our environment is healthy. Otherwise new threats emerge in society and undesirable upheavals and contradictions replace each other. Neither Christianity, Judaism, Islam nor any other global religion has propagated violence. On the contrary, they call people to amity and mutual respect.

      I repeat that, in addition to numerous discussions on the report in the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, several hearings have been attended by representatives and experts from different religions. Each time we witnessed the introduction of new interesting ideas and proposals. Today’s debate is no exception in that respect. I thank each of you for your active participation in the debate, the value placed on our work, your proposals and your remarks. Such a sensible attitude proves that the topic belongs to everyone. I also sincerely thank colleagues from the Committees on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development and on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, who provided some proposed amendments that will strengthen the text.

      Ms Hoffmann thinks that the report does not cover Christian facts. That is not correct. My report covers those facts and calls for reasonable accommodation for all.

I reject entirely the speech of our colleague from Armenia. Her speech was another continuation of Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan. Today my country of Azerbaijan is one of the best models of tolerance in the world and, as a result, last year the Council of Europe exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue was held in Baku, Azerbaijan.

      I will finish my speech with the wise words for the whole world and mankind of a famous Turkish philosopher, Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī: “I came here not to divide but to unify.” That noble appeal was made more than eight centuries ago and is as topical today as it used to be then. We have reflected on the problem of freedom of religion and living together in a democratic society. The formula is the tested old holistic model: we did not come to divide, we come to unite.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Huseynov. Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak? You have two minutes.

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy)* – I, too, agree with Mr Feist of our committee and congratulate Mr Huseynov on the report and on how we worked in committee throughout the discussion period. There was a genuinely harmonious atmosphere of collaboration. We heard representatives of different religions – Jewish, Muslim, Christian – but every time discussion was harmonious. Furthermore, although the country from which Mr Huseynov hails, Azerbaijan, has been criticised on several occasions in the Chamber, it is an example of tolerance and peaceful contact between religions. That has contributed to the climate of harmony pervading the committee.

      An important discussion was about the role of schools and the education of young people, which is so important – creating greater tolerance through knowledge. Finally, the creation of a platform that would allow us to pursue dialogue between religions – not only between State and national authorities – is an excellent proposal. Once again, I congratulate Mr Huseynov and invite the Assembly to vote for the report.

      THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The committee has presented a draft resolution, Document 13851, to which 21 amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which one amendment has been tabled.

      The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

      We will take the amendments to the draft resolution first. Speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 8, 9, 10 – and 21, which is identical – 3, 11, 4, 12, 13, 5, 15, 18, 19 and 6 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Ms Gambaro?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy)* – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT – As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 1, 8, 9, 10 – and 21, which is identical – 3, 11, 4, 12, 13, 5, 15, 18, 19 and 6 to the draft resolution have been adopted.

      We come to Amendment 20. I call Mr Unguryan to support the amendment.

      Mr UNGURYAN (Ukraine) – We had a discussion about this in committee. The idea of the amendment is to continue protecting not just religious minorities but a religious world view and way of life.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Huseynov.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – I am against this amendment because the report does not analyse ways of life in general. It would not be correct to add this to the resolution without any explanation in the report and without acting as we are for freedom of religion. That is why I call for delegates to vote against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 20 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 2, which has an oral sub-amendment. I call Mr Fischer to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – This amendment is intended to clarify the report and make it even more precise and detailed. I am delighted to know that the rapporteur supports the amendment; I think it is a very sensible one and I hope that the Assembly will carry it.

      THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the oral sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 2, to delete the words “or national law”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. I call Ms Gambaro to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – The reason why the committee proposes to delete “or national law” is that in some cases, unfortunately, national legislation could be in conflict with human rights. It is essential that religious practice shall not violate human rights, and that is the common standard that we want to reaffirm.

      THE PRESIDENT - Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

      That is not the case. What is the opinion of Mr Fischer, who moved the amendment?

      Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – We can agree with this deletion absolutely. The core meaning of our amendment is still maintained, so that is fine by us.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

      That is not the case.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment, as amended?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 14. I call Sir Edward Leigh to support the amendment.

      Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – The reason why the Legal Affairs Committee proposed deleting paragraph 8 is that at present it says that States should “refrain from dictating general prohibitions”. Since 2013, when the Council last considered this, events have moved on: France has banned the full-face veil, as have Belgium and the Netherlands, and that has been upheld by the Court. Therefore, while the Legal Affairs Committee does not want to take sides on that very contentious issue, we believe that it is so contentious that the Council of Europe cannot lay down a particular line.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Denemeç.

      Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey) – There is a contradiction here. The paragraph to be deleted by the amendment refers to a previous resolution adopted unanimously by the committee and this Assembly. It was also the position of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Mr Jensen was the rapporteur. For that reason, accepting this amendment would mean that the Assembly was disregarding, and diverging from, its own resolution. I invite all members to object to the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 7. I call Mr Denemeç to support the amendment.

      Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey) – Bearing in mind that the report is about freedom of religion and the exercise of that right, it would be more appropriate to refrain from using prohibitive language. Instead of “not to be allowed unless”, we offer “to be”. The amendment aims to formulate the obligation of member States in a more positive manner, while keeping the meaning and content perfectly intact.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      That is not the case. What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 17. I call Ms Ohlsson to support the amendment.

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – The Convention on the Rights of the Child says that States “shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child”. It would therefore not be strange to have this amendment to the paragraph.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Sir Edward Leigh.

      Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – If this amendment were adopted, it would be hugely controversial. As part of their faith, pious Jews wish to circumscribe a child within days of its birth, so this would be a direct violation of an ancient rite of the Jewish people.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 17 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 22. I call Mr Unguryan to support the amendment.

      Mr UNGURYAN (Ukraine) – I would like to withdraw the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13851, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      We now come to the draft recommendation in Document 13851, to which one amendment has been tabled.

      I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 16 to the draft recommendation, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so, Ms Gambaro?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendment 16 to the draft recommendation has been agreed.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13851, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

3. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday morning.

      (The sitting was closed at 7.50 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Presentation by Mr de Vries of report, Document 13864 and addendum, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Statement by Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights

Speakers: Mr Le Borgn’, Mr Franken, Ms Taktakishvili, Lord Balfe, Mr Kox, Mr Corlăţean, Mr Golub, Mr Csenger-Zalán, Ms Chikovani, Ms Kobakhidze, Ms Grozdanova, Ms Naghdalyan, Mr NicoLAIDES, Mr Vlasenko, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Fischer, Mr Çağlar, Mr Korodi, Mr Khader, Mr Babayan, Mr Clappison

Draft resolution contained in Document 13864 adopted

Draft recommendation contained in Document 13864 adopted

2. Freedom of religion and living together in a democratic society

Presentation by Mr Huseynov of report, Document 13851, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media

Presentation by Sir Edward Leigh of opinion, Document 13886, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Presentation by Ms Maury Pasquier of opinion, Document 13871, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development

Speakers: Mr Logvynski, Mr Heer, Mr Kiral, Mr Jónasson, Mr Mahoux, Ms Magradze, Mr Unguryan, Mr Dokle, Ms Jonica, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Hoffmann, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Le Borgn’, Mr Jakavonis, Ms Duranton, Mr Sabella, Ms Blondin, Mr Rochebloine, Ms Zohrabyan, Mr Dişli, Ms Sutter, Ms Kronlid, Mr Fischer, Mr Ardelean, Ms Garafova, Mr Yatim, Mr Reiss, Ms Pecková, Mr Feist, Mr Frej, Ms El Quafi, Ms Gambaro

Amendments 1, 8, 9, 10, 21, 3, 11, 4, 12, 13, 5, 15, 18, 19 and 6 adopted.

Amendment 2, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 14 adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 13851, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 16 adopted.

Draft recommendation contained in Document 13851, as amended, adopted.

3. Next public business

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*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA*

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Anna ASCANI*

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE/Chiora Taktakishvili

Gérard BAPT/Geneviève Gosselin-Fleury

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Jana Fischerová

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Guguli Magradze

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI/Sandra Zampa

Andris BĒRZINŠ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Tilde BORK*

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Piet De BRUYN/Petra De Sutter

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/Valentina Buliga

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN

Katalin CSÖBÖR/Mónika Bartos

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Reha DENEMEÇ

Renata DESKOSKA*

Alain DESTEXHE*

Manlio DI STEFANO*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA*

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ*

Namik DOKLE

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON

Josette DURRIEU*

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV/Serhii Kiral

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Samvel FARMANYAN*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA*

Daniela FLIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON*

Iryna GERASHCHENKO*

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES*

Mustafa Sait GÖNEN

Alina Ștefania GORGHIU*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sylvie GOY-CHAVENT/ Frédéric Reiss

Fred de GRAAF*

François GROSDIDIER

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS/Attila Tilki

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Maria GUZENINA

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI

Sabir HAJIYEV

Alfred HEER

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH/Marcel Oberweis

Oleksii HONCHARENKO/Vladyslav Golub

Jim HOOD/David Crausby

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER/ Barbara Rosenkranz

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Ekmeleddin Mehmet İHSANOĞLU

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Gedimnas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Frank J. JENSSEN*

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA/Viorel Riceard Badea

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ*

Josip JURATOVIC*

Anne KALMARI

Mustafa KARADAYI/Hamid Hamid

Marietta KARAMANLI/Pascale Crozon

Niklas KARLSSON

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU*

Ioanneta KAVVADIA*

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Helena Hatka

Manana KOBAKHIDZE

Haluk KOÇ/Metin Lütfü Baydar

Igor KOLMAN*

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR*

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN*

Rom KOSTŘICA/Gabriela Pecková

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Julia KRONLID

Eerik-Niiles KROSS*

Marek KRZĄKAŁA/Killion Munyama

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Nicos Nicolaides

Serhiy LABAZIUK *

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON/Boriana Åberg

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

François LONCLE/Catherine Quéré

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA*

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI/Marie-Christine Dalloz

Soňa MARKOVÁ*

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI/Carles Jordana Madero

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*

Marianne MIKKO*

Olivia MITCHELL

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN

Piotr NAIMSKI*

Sergey NARYSHKIN*

Marian NEACȘU/Titus Corlăţean

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Julia OBERMEIER*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ*

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ*

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O’REILLY

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI/Michal Stuligrosz

Sandra OSBORNE/Joe Benton

Tom PACKALÉN

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Florin Costin PÂSLARU

Waldemar PAWLAK/Jan Rzymełka

Jaana PELKONEN*

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Lia QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO*

Carmen QUINTANILLA/Jordi Xuclà

Kerstin RADOMSKI

Mailis REPS*

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ

Alexander ROMANOVICH*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET/Jean-Claude Frécon

Rovshan RZAYEV/Fazil Mustafa

Àlex SÁEZ*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Milena SANTERINI*

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/ Sergiy Vlasenko

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER

Salvador SEDÓ

Predrag SEKULIĆ*

Ömer SELVİ*

Aleksandar SENIĆ*

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN*

Bernd SIEBERT/Thomas Feist

Valeri SIMEONOV/Kancho Filipov

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Dalia Kuodytė

Jan ŠKOBERNE

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuț-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI/Iwona Guzowska

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/Rózsa Hoffmann

Stefaan VERCAMER

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Nikolaj VILLUMSEN

Dimitris VITSAS*

Vladimir VORONIN

Viktor VOVK*

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN/Volkmar Vogel

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD/Tore Hagebakken

Bas van ‘t WOUT*

Gisela WURM

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI

Leonid YEMETS/Pavlo Unguryan

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Estonia*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, United Kingdom/Lord Richard Balfe

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Observers

Esawi FREJ

Partners for democracy

Hanane ABOULFATH

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Nezha EL OUAFI

Qais KHADER

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR