AA15CR34

AS (2015) CR 34

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-fourth sitting

Thursday 1 October 2015 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Abuse of pretrial detention in States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights

      THE PRESIDENT – The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report, “Abuse of pretrial detention in States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights”, Document 13863, presented by Mr Pedro Agramunt on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      I remind colleagues that there is a time limit of three minutes on speeches. In order to finish by 12 p.m., we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.30 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

      I call Mr Agramunt, 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 AGRAMUNT (Spain) – Dear colleagues, the report before you, on the abuse of pretrial detention in States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, while a strictly legal report, also has a political dimension, as is shown by the fact that it gave rise to an enormous amount of lobbying before the debate.

      Let me first explain my approach during my mandate as rapporteur over the last three years. Although in principle the issue concerns all Council of Europe member States, I could not possibly visit or reasonably cover all 47 countries. I have, therefore, with the agreement of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, selected three countries, in which, according to the statistics of the European Court of Human Rights, the number of violations of Article 5 was particularly high in proportion to the population. I visited Russia, Turkey and Georgia, where I came across similar patterns of abuse of pretrial detention for purposes beyond the simple enforcement of criminal law. I do not hide the fact that these problems also exist in Azerbaijan, which I know well as country rapporteur for the Monitoring Committee, and which I did not have to visit especially for this topic to reach that conclusion. These are only examples, but they were selected according to objective criteria, with the agreement of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      According to the Council of Europe’s official statistics, pretrial detention is clearly used too often and for too long in many of our countries. In my report, I have recalled Strasbourg Court case law on the legitimate grounds for pretrial detention under Article 5. I have shown that overuse of detention is bad not only for the detainees, but for society at large. It is costly in terms of budgets, of destroying families and businesses and of the criminal contagion in prison of people who are presumed innocent but kept in pretrial detention facilities for many months – often years – in conditions that are often worse than those in normal prisons for convicted criminals. As I have shown in my report, the criticism concerns most of our countries to a greater or lesser extent, and it constitutes a real human rights issue that we must address.

      In addition to the general problem of overuse of pretrial detention, I have come across instances of apparently deliberate abuses of detention for purposes that are clearly unlawful under the Convention. I was very careful when drafting the report not to overstep the bounds of the competence of a rapporteur of this Assembly. It is not our role to play judge by jumping to conclusions on the guilt or innocence of detainees. I have made fact-finding visits to countries where both sides have tried very hard to convince me that one high-profile detainee or another is either guilty or innocent.

For example, the Georgian chief prosecutor showed me gruesome videos purportedly showing the crimes committed by former high-ranking officials who are now in the opposition. Senior officials of the present government, including the justice minister, have publicly called their political opponents “criminals” and “monsters,” or the like, before they were even arrested, let alone convicted. The justice minister has even stated publicly that it is her aim to destroy the United National Movement, the main opposition party, most of whose senior representatives are now either in prison or wanted for arrest or extradition. I would be surprised if they are all totally innocent, but I refuse to believe that the entire leadership of the opposition are all criminals.

      In these circumstances, which have also been noted in trial observation reports by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and by numerous independent non-governmental organisations, I cannot help noting that there is a politically motivated campaign of using detention to silence the opposition. The Georgian Government’s powerful lobbying effort to influence the Assembly via its ambassadors to most of our member countries is the best confirmation that the impression I gained during my visit is right. These detentions are politically motivated. Interpol’s red notice procedure is prone to abuse by authoritarian governments – our German colleague Bernd Fabritius is currently investigating that problem for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights – but even Interpol has come to the same conclusion. Only last week, Interpol cancelled the arrest warrants against several leading opposition members living abroad because there were clear indications that the requests were politically motivated.

      I have been accused of bias because I am a leader of the Group of the European People’s Party, but please read my report carefully. I am a duly appointed rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and my findings are based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. I have criticised the Georgian authorities for imprisoning those whom the justice minister called “my party political friends”, but I have also criticised my friends, party political or not, in Moscow, Ankara and Baku for abusing pretrial detention by imprisoning peaceful demonstrators, journalists, civil society activists and bloggers and for applying unacceptable pressure on judges who refuse to imprison such persons. In order to maintain my credibility, and the credibility of the Assembly as a whole, I am duty-bound to criticise both my friends who have imprisoned people inappropriately and people who have wrongfully imprisoned my friends.

      It is the task of the Parliamentary Assembly to speak out against problems. If we shy away from that task, we lose all our credibility. I therefore ask for your support in adopting our draft resolution and recommendation as they stand and in sending a strong signal to the Committee of Ministers that it should take up this issue in order to improve protection against the abuse of pretrial detention in all our member States.

      THE PRESIDENT – You have four and a half minutes remaining. I call Ms Sotnyk, who speaks on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – On behalf of ALDE, I express our appreciation to the rapporteur and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for their important work in protecting human rights.

      To emphasise the importance of this matter, I will provide only one figure: one in five people who have been held in places of detention have suffered torture or have been illegally detained. The report focuses on an important international and internal problem that is often discussed but, unfortunately, still exists: the violation of human rights during pretrial detention.

      Many people have had their fundamental human rights and freedoms systematically violated during pretrial detention. Legislative provisions are often not applied, with serious procedural breaches in places of detention. As a result, there has been a considerable increase in the number of deaths and suicides in detention over the past five years. When a court decides to detain someone, it must take into account the moral and legal implications. Detention must conform with legislation. There must be an independent and accessible legal mechanism, and charges and evidence should be expressed in a detainee’s native language. True evidence must be presented, and pretrial detention should be used only when other remedies cannot ensure a detainee’s behaviour. There must be access to medical care, and the detainee’s family must be informed. Moreover, governments should guarantee a fair and public hearing, within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial judge. Judges should have the right to verify the legality of the detention of any person and be able to order their immediate release if their human rights have been violated in custody.

      Pretrial detention should not be used as an instrument of influence or pressure; it should be used only as a criminal procedure that guarantees a person’s behaviour. Each country must consider the duration of pretrial detention. The report cites examples of severe violations of the duration of pretrial detention, such as in the cases of opposition politicians in Georgia. Additionally, pretrial detention is being cynically used in the Russian Federation to apply mental and physical pressure, such as in the case of our colleague Nadiia Savchenko.

      We need to work harder on our legislation so that we can guarantee the efficient protection of everyone’s rights and humanitarian conditions during detention. Without that work, we might be responsible for ruining someone’s life.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Sir Edward Leigh on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – On behalf of the European Conservatives Group, I congratulate the rapporteur on the way in which he presented his report today and, indeed, on this important report. It is the view of my group that there is no more important issue for this Assembly. We all know that pretrial detention destroys families. Ultimately, in more ways than one, it is more damaging to the countries that indulge in it without proper cause than to the individuals.

It is not for us to lecture particular countries. After all, we have had our own problems in the United Kingdom, where we have grappled with these problems for centuries, ever since we produced our own Bill of Rights at the end of the 17th century and brought in habeas corpus – bring forward the body to a trial. There are, no doubt, still cases of abuse in the United Kingdom, but generally we stick to the principle that someone should remain in prison before they are sentenced only if they pose a serious criminal danger to the public.

Sadly, the record across Europe on this issue is very varied. We all subscribe to the same principles, but we can see from the facts – I do not need to repeat them because they are in the report – that there is an extraordinary difference in the number of people per 100 000 inhabitants who are in pretrial detention, ranging from Turkey at over 89 down to Germany at just over 13. Much more needs to be done. This is happening in our countries now.

The way to deal with this issue is not to blame countries, but to raise individual cases again and again. Sometimes, this Assembly is accused of being a talking shop, but words are very important – guns kill, but words resonate. Our words do resonate. They resonated in Russia due to our long campaigns over Mr Magnitsky and Mr Khodorkovsky. They made a difference. Now, pretrial detention is happening all over again. To be even-handed, I should say that in recent months, a deputy in Ukraine, Mr Mosiychuk, was subjected to a show trial in the Ukrainian Parliament, dragged out and put in prison for political reasons.

Such cases are still happening in Europe, despite the fact that we all pay lip service to the same principles. Let us continue with this campaign, raise individual cases and try to make progress. This Assembly has a strong role to play.

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

Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – The draft resolution calls on all member States to “implement measures aimed at reducing pretrial detention” and to “release all detainees currently held for any abusive purposes.” We heartily welcome those statements.

However, the Assembly’s help in providing a political direction to overcome what is a basic structural flaw in the States under discussion is too little, too late. Pretrial detention is one effect of the instrumentalisation of justice by the ruling power. Critical jurists increasingly refer to the return of enemy criminal law, as opposed to citizens’ criminal law. Even in countries with democratic traditions, the rise of gentile totalitarianism is discussed, while criminal law is stripped of its liberal form. Hence, pretrial detention is part of a political question that cannot be resolved through procedural improvements.

Procedural improvements would, no doubt, improve the situation to an extent, but the essential threat remains. As long as the supremacy of the State over civil society is not challenged through citizens’ control at all levels, including over the organs of the State, justice, as well as law making, will remain subject to instrumentalisation. The result is pretrial detention.

The lack of such a methodological backbone inevitably obscures the rapporteur’s fact-finding mission. The rapporteur was tasked in 2012, when Turkey was swept by waves of mass arrests, but the section of the report on Turkey leaves out those waves of pretrial detention, which were targeted at Kurdish politicians and rights activists. Between 2009 and 2013, 6 000 affiliates of my party, including six elected MPs and 31 mayors, 94 journalists and 36 lawyers remained in pretrial detention. There is no reference to that in the report. Such negligence is unacceptable given that, since July, Turkey has witnessed the resumption of mass pretrial detention, alongside uninterrupted 24-hour curfews. In Cizre, nine days of curfew resulted in 23 civilian deaths without any prosecutions. The report’s evasion of political conflicts inevitably distances it from the political facts and damages its reliability.

In that context, I invite the Assembly to pay further attention to the following cases. Mr Grigore Petrenco, a former member of the Assembly and the Group of the Unified European Left, has been in pretrial detention in Moldova since 6 September for joining public protests against the government. Ms Khalida Jarrar, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, has been in administrative detention in Ramallah since 4 April 2015 on the orders of an Israeli military court. Mr Abdullah Demirbaş, a former Kurdish mayor of the Sur district of Diyarbakır, has been in pretrial detention on baseless corruption charges since 5 June 2015, years after he was in office. Six anonymous activists in Ukraine have been in pretrial detention in Odessa since 2 May 2014.

Finally, politicians are not exempt from legal prosecution, but politicians who are in power should be strongly deterred from instrumentalising justice as a weapon of power.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kürkçü. I call Mr Japaridze on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – I am honoured to speak on behalf of my comrades from the Socialist Group in the Parliamentary Assembly. At the same time, I remain a Georgian, so I will also make my own arguments.

      The Socialist Group fully condemns the practice of pretrial detention and its use for political purposes. With that in mind, I would have liked to thank Mr Agramunt, whom I respect greatly, for doing such a good job of preparing the report, but I am afraid that the only ones who can say a big thank you to him today are the members of a particular party in the opposition in my country, who just happen to be in the same political family as Mr Agramunt. Their partisan narrative was faithfully integrated into this supposedly objective report.

It is impressive how the rapporteur uses concrete facts and figures to draw very misleading conclusions. Let me point out a couple of facts. Fact one is that two weeks ago, the Constitutional Court in Georgia issued a landmark ruling limiting pretrial detention to nine months. That milestone ruling closes a legal loophole that was introduced in 2010 by the United National Movement government. UNM members not only heavily exploited the loophole, but managed to convince some in the West – including Mr Agramunt, unfortunately – that it was our government that introduced it.

Fact two is that since the change of government in 2012, Georgia has been reforming its entire structure and system of governance and has, for the first time, sought seriously to respond to the calls of the international community to reform the judiciary.

      Independence of the judiciary does not come without pain and criticism, but criticism is very welcome. However, describing the decision of an independent court to imprison a person found guilty of serious crimes as “barbaric” represents a shocking rejection of European values. Again, Georgia is honouring its obligations and, although we might not yet be an ideal democracy, we are committed to becoming a functioning democracy, including reform of our own judiciary. Meanwhile, please keep in mind that people ought not to judge and make assessments while a country is in the process of making its reforms.

      (Mr Bosić, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Flego.)

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Feist, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr FEIST (Germany)* – I thank the rapporteur for this remarkable report and in particular for three points that are especially important to me. First, the report is necessary, because it shows how dangerous it is if pretrial detention is abused for political purposes. For someone who spent half his life in a State that does not exist any more, East Germany, I can appreciate how important the report is for the politically persecuted who are arrested and put into pretrial detention. Thank you for that.

      Secondly, the report is objective. You referred to the fact that you could not look into all 47 countries, but have focused on only three. It is therefore good that in committee today we concluded that the three countries that have been looked at closely can be considered to represent all the countries subject to the European Convention on Human Rights, because otherwise the report is meaningless. As the previous speaker said, there is not much point in picking on certain States, so it is important for us to look at the developments and trends in countries.

      That brings me to my third point, which is that the report is very helpful. It is helpful because the countries named in it as representative have already made various efforts to change things, as the report says. That process is something that the Assembly should help and applaud, as we would in any country. The fact that pretrial detention is sometimes misused for political reasons is something that we must continue to focus on in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I am very convinced of that. The report is not the end of the business. We need to stay on the case, so it is all the more important, Mr Agramunt, that you have set some benchmarks for investigation. I look forward to our future co-operation on that.

      THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the list of speakers. I call first Ms Eka Beselia.

      Ms BESELIA (Georgia) – The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is and always should be the guardian of human rights. The Assembly should follow the principles of the rule of law and equality – no one can be above the law.

      After 2012, when the violent regime of Saakashvili was changed, Georgia began to pay attention to human rights and to follow the recommendations made by the Council of Europe and other international organisations, as well as implementing the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, such as Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia. New investigations were started and people who had violated human rights had to stand trial.

      Since 2012, the number of those in pretrial detention in Georgia has decreased by 34% and the number of prisoners has fallen by 60%. Georgia has enacted new, more humane laws that oblige the courts to review pretrial detention cases every two months. Under a decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia on 16 September, the duration of pretrial detention must only be nine months. Furthermore, prisoners are no longer tortured in Georgian prisons, which happened systematically under Saakashvili.

      Mr Agramunt, in his biased draft resolution, stresses that his political friends, from the former ruling party, the United National Movement, should stand above the law. Mr Agramunt thinks that those who were torturing and killing others should not be tried. Such an attitude is not acceptable for the Council of Europe. The text of a resolution cannot be based on personal sympathies. This will damage the Council of Europe’s reputation among the Georgian population. Since 2012, the Georgian courts have become independent. I encourage the Assembly to respect a high standard of human rights and to amend the resolution, which as it stands contains a lot of incorrect facts and mistakes.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – For a long time, pretrial detention has been used as part of punishment. Some States have already changed that practice, but others have not. It is important to know why and when we might use it as an exception, if not as a rule. If a person appears behind bars without a final court decision, the reason must be well grounded. The life of a detained person can be badly affected, with people losing their job, business partners or even friends and families. Detailed reasons must be given for any decision.

      Pretrial detention has been established for serious crimes and for those who might be able to have a significant influence on the investigation. Last year, Ukraine adopted alternative restrictions for suspects, including security deposits and house arrest, and they are already in use in the Ukrainian justice system. Parliament is also considering draft legislation to clarify the grounds for pretrial detention. By contrast, in the fight against corruption in Ukraine, we are now discussing the use of pretrial detention for suspects in high-level corruption cases. President Poroshenko has asked parliament to support this, because it is too easy for such people to find the money for security deposits and to use their influence to avoid fair responsibility. Two cases from last month prove that.

      First, when the chair of the State Employment Agency was charged with involvement in a case of bribery, because he was a government-level civil servant he might have been able to put pressure on the investigators, so pretrial detention for him was granted. In a second case, a member of parliament for the Radical Party, Ihor Mosiychuk, was filmed accepting bribes a few times by the security services. He was arrested under an ad hoc procedure once the prosecutor had secured parliamentary agreement after screening the film. Detention for Mosiychuk has been justified on the grounds of his aggressive behaviour and his use of brute force against his opponents and the police on numerous occasions.

      I emphasise that pretrial detention for political reasons is now not possible, as it was in the cases of Yuriy Lutsenko and Yulia Tymoshenko under the previous criminal government. It is, however, possible in Russia, where opposition figures are often arrested and where people are detained in prison for no reason, as happened to our colleague Nadiia Savchenko, film director Oleh Sentsov, activist Mykola Karpiuk and others. We should press the Russian authorities to release innocent people.

      Finally, I thank Mr Agramunt for everything that was raised in the report. The development of national legislation will follow the adoption of the resolution and recommendations.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France) * – The report by Pedro Agramunt on the abuse of pretrial detention is highly important because it concerns the best of what our Organisation produces – that is, the consolidation of rights and individual freedoms – and the limits of our actions when one or several member States unfortunately set aside some of those obligations. That brings us to yesterday’s debate on the report by our friend Klaas de Vries concerning the difficulties of enforcing the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

      On pretrial detention, it is not so much the legislation of our States that poses problems but its application by prosecuting authorities and courts. We should be concerned about the very high number of people in pretrial detention in Europe that has been revealed in this report. Provisional, pretrial detention is meant to prevent a suspect from absconding or affecting evidence, not for the pursuit of other, abusive aims, such as forcing someone to admit an offence; neutralising political opponents, especially in electoral periods; or intimidating civil society by instilling an atmosphere of fear.

      I think of our Ukrainian colleague Nadiia Savchenko, unlawfully imprisoned for several months, and for Leyla Yunus and her husband Arif, defenders of human rights in Azerbaijan, whose pretrial detention, lasting for months, was torture and whose recent sentence is an insult to human rights and to our Organisation. We have to denounce the systematic use of pretrial detention and the lack of respect for the presumption of innocence.

      Too many countries suffer from an imbalance between the means of prosecutors and defences. I have long advocated the transfer to collegial authorities of decisions concerning pretrial detention. I hope that we will be able to have genuine equality in each of our States between the public prosecutors and the defence. Take the example of the reforms in Germany in 2010. A prisoner has the right to be assisted by counsel from his first day of detention rather than the three-month period that existed before. Counsel should have access to the file throughout the period of detention, not at the end of the investigation, and the accused has to be informed of his rights from the beginning of detention, in writing and comprehensible to him in his language. It is that sort of legislation and practice that we should encourage within the Council of Europe.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – First, I thank Mr Agramunt for his brave report. Sometimes we find ourselves in the majority, sometimes in opposition, but it is very hard to understand how we can struggle against our opposition with pretrial detention. It is important to pass not only resolutions but recommendations, because it should be understood in the mainstream of every country in the Council of Europe that pretrial detention must never be used against political opponents.

      Our country is a good example. Pretrial detention was used four or five years ago against political opponents. Tymoshenko spent two years in jail until the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the apology from the Ukrainian Government. However, the most interesting fact is that the judges who made those decisions about pretrial detention are still acting in Ukraine, and on behalf of the Ukrainian state they announce their decisions against other persons. It is very important to analyse another case that Mr Agramunt stressed in his report. Some chapters of the criminal code can be used to grant pretrial detention. In this case, there are two or three chapters that can be used for that purpose. In two cases, pretrial detention was not approved, but the main case is ongoing.

      There is also the example of Russian so-called justice. Nadiia Savchenko has been in jail in the Russian Federation for 13 months. Only now that officers of the Russian regular army have been arrested on our territory and have appeared in court has the Russian Federation begun to approve some facts about the history of her jailing. Another case is that of Mykola Karpyuk, whose friends were arrested and subjected to pretrial detention on Russian Federation territory. They finally appeared in court, but their cases could be used in the case against Karpyuk or somebody else. It is very important to use each fact in order to stop political pressure against political opponents. Adopting this resolution and the recommendations will be the best way of stopping such political pressure.

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr Xuclà is not here, so I call Mr Rouquet.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – The abuse of pretrial detention is an endemic evil in many member States. I pay tribute to the excellent and timely report on this by Mr Agramunt. As the report underlines, the consequences of these abuses are often pernicious, both for the people in custody and for society itself. I note, for example, the cost to the exchequer, which is very high compared with other measures of punishment; the fact that the detainee loses touch with his family and people outside; and the risks of catching infectious diseases in prison and violence in prison. It is not right that 25% of the people held in prison in Europe are held on remand. Few countries are above reproach here. In the 2013 figures from Eurostat for the European Union, I found very high figures for France, for example. In Luxembourg and Italy, the situation was even worse, but there were much more reasonable figures for Finland and Sweden. The report tells us that the rate is extremely high in Turkey, at more than 89%.

      The run-of-the-mill abuses of so-called pretrial detention are totally unacceptable, especially if they are motivated by political considerations in, say, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia or Turkey. Even though the report underlines that these last three countries have managed to decrease the number of pretrial detention cases, their figures are nevertheless very high, particularly in Azerbaijan. One can be sure that the causes of this, apart from where there is political persecution behind it, lie in a cultural preference for rigour rather than a presumption of innocence. The solution to this is cultural as well and cannot just involve reform to legislation, however welcome that may be. I very much approve of the measures suggested in the report but, in the universe we live in, which is all very instant and media-dominated, the presumption of guilt seems to prevail. Notice that when allegations are made against a public figure, there is maximum publicity for the case, whereas if the person is cleared afterwards one does not often see any media interest in that. Added to that is the fact that access to justice and defence depends very much on one’s income. I ask the rapporteur what he thinks about the bail system used in the United States.

      Our Assembly should regularly keep a close eye on developments in the situation regarding pretrial detention because it is so crucial for human rights and public freedoms.

      Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – In a democratic country, pretrial detention is justified when there are serious reasons for believing the person might abscond or destroy evidence that would be of relevance to the case, or if letting them remain at liberty would lead to undermining public order in any way. These justifications are systematically discussed in the report. In a democratic country, overlong pretrial detention, even if it is based on one of the reasons I mentioned, can lead to a situation where the accused could be considered to have been deprived of the right to a fair trial. Pretrial detention is by definition a temporary thing. To ride rough-shod over these rules is always a serious matter. The abuse of pretrial detention, including in democratic States, can happen because the court system is inefficient or just because it is the easy option. The situations listed in the report are of a different type. It is deplorable that in too many Council of Europe countries pretrial detention is a kind of disguised, purely arbitrary, administrative internment.

      I would like to draw to Mr Agramunt’s attention – I am sure he knows about it already – the case of Mrs Khadija Ismayilova, an independent journalist from Azerbaijan., On 5 December 2014, Mrs Ismayilova was placed in pretrial detention by the decision of a Baku court, which then extended her pretrial detention several times. The number of charges piled up against Mrs Ismayilova, and the fact that they are so incongruous, is a clear sign of a rigged trial, of which this pretrial detention is merely the lamentable first chapter. Could there possibly be a link between the fate of this courageous woman and the corruption that she has been investigating that seethes like gangrene in Azeri society and the regime? I add my voice to all those who are demanding that the persecution of Mrs Ismayilova stop. I am amazed that Mr Agramunt did not see fit to include Azerbaijan in the countries where we have to be particularly vigilant. I very much wish that this lacuna could be dealt with in the resolution that we are going to vote on. Mr Agramunt, this is particularly relevant since we are likely to see you presiding over our Assembly in the near future.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – Mr Agramunt has done us all a great service in highlighting these issues in the terms that he has. I say “in the terms that he has” because given the circumstances it is inevitable, I suppose, that the really hard cases will come to the fore. It surprises nobody, although it distresses everybody, in this Assembly that the Russians behave as they do in relation to pretrial detention, while other countries are continually held up as bad examples.

      In fact, this problem affects the whole of the European Union and every member State of the Council of Europe. In Britain, my own country, the supposed maximum pretrial detention, even for crimes of violence and murder, is five months. Some of us regard even that as too long. I was pleased to note that Mr Rouquet and Mr Rochebloine recognised the failings in France. One of my own constituents was held in France for two years without trial, in Lille prison, because of the inquisitorial system that is part of the French system of justice. That is not right. Two years is intolerable, yet this is supposed to be a developed country – a civilised, western, European country operating a sensible and civilised judicial system.

      In Malta, my constituent Jovica Kolokovic was held for two years without any trial, and was then under house arrest for about a further year on so-called bail. He was finally released to the United Kingdom but had to return to Malta regularly to face the magistrates, still without charge or trial, and is still doing so. This is a Council of Europe member State against which – I have raised this continually in this Chamber – the Council of Ministers will take no action whatsoever. In other words, we are supine about this, not just in the hard cases but in many other cases. There seems to be a great reluctance on the part of the Council of Europe to get seriously involved with the beam in our own eyes rather than the mote in the eyes of some others. Mr Agramunt rightly highlighted the risks of job loss, bankruptcy, family hardship, and other human consequences. My constituent Mr Kolokovic has lost his home, his job and his business. His wife is still standing by him, but that is literally all that he now has left because of the actions of the Maltese Government.

      Mr Agramunt says that the European Convention on Human Rights has established clear limits for the use of pretrial detention rules applying to the treatment of pretrial detainees, but their application by the prosecutorial authorities and the courts is frequently not adhered to. We have to address that issue not just in the hard cases but in every case within the member States of the Council of Europe.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – The first law that the democratic courts in Spain adopted after the end of the Franco dictatorship was a law pertaining to detention. It was a progressive piece of legislation that has been with us throughout our democracy. It was drafted with the help of previous political prisoners under the Franco regime, who knew exactly what they were talking about. In the fight against the Franco dictatorship, I visited these prisons as an ombudsman and as a magistrate – a judge. Once a year, I went to see the people who had been imprisoned in this fashion.

      It is not really true that prisons can serve the purpose of re-education or reinsertion into society. Unfortunately, prisons are destructive; in the immense majority of cases, they destroy people. Therefore, no one, not a single human being, should be behind bars unless independent people – impartial people who have no particular political or private power – have found evidence that the person needs to be placed behind bars because society has to reject their behaviour. Whenever those circumstances are not present, you cannot put someone behind bars. If there is a risk of the person absconding, fleeing the country, tampering with the evidence or in some way being a danger to other people, those are exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately, those exceptional circumstances are now being erroneously applied to 25% of people placed in detention on remand in the countries we are discussing.

      I have raised this point with the rapporteur and I would like also to raise it in this Chamber. The main problem in the countries that used to form part of the communist bloc is that it is difficult to find independent judicial authorities or powers as opposed to people who see themselves as civil servants, not necessarily as independent authorities. This mentality may be the main problem in relation to combating abusive pretrial detention. We need an independent judicial authority that will say, “No, we will not go along with this.” In Spain, you must have a judge, first of all, and then another three judges who assess the ruling handed down by the first judge. That is how we do it in Spain. It might not be perfect, but at least there are four judges who represent an independent authority and power that will decide on these situations. My question to the rapporteur is this: how can we make sure that in the former communist countries there are independent judicial authorities and powers and not just civil servants who think that they should merely respect what the hierarchy tells them to respect?

      Mr BAKRADZE (Georgia) – It is a very bad symptom for any democracy when members of the national delegation start disputing internal developments here in this Chamber. Nonetheless, I cannot be quiet when the issue in question relates to the fundamental problem for Georgian democracy today – the existence of political prisoners and political prosecutions, and circumstances in which political leaders are being jailed.

      The rapporteur has already mentioned the scale of the problem. Almost the entire leadership of the current opposition party and the former government has either been arrested, had to leave the country or is under investigation, which excludes any possibility of justice for individuals. We are talking about cases in which pretrial detention was used for prisoners such as the former Prime Minister and the former Defence Minister. Even the former President of Georgia is in pretrial detention in absentia.

      Let me give you the most recent example. The mayor of Tbilisi was arrested last year in the midst of an election campaign. We were having local elections, and the mayor was the chief of our election campaign. He was arrested a few days before the decisive run-off in Tbilisi as if it was urgent. He then spent nine months in prison, in pretrial detention, without the prosecution being able to prove anything. The Georgian constitution clearly says that pretrial detention should last for no more than nine months. However, when the nine months expired, the prosecution asked for a second, additional pretrial detention for him. One of the key political leaders in the country was arrested a few days before the election, and he then spent 15 months in jail without the prosecution being able to prove anything.

      That is a very clear case, so this is my question to the Assembly: if that happened in any of your democracies, would it be a problem for your country? Yes, of course. It happened in Georgia. Is it a problem for Georgia? Yes, of course. So let us be honest and committed when we speak about the problems of my country. We hear representatives of the ruling party and the government trying to prove that things have improved in Georgia. We are not debating things in Georgia, but let me tell you honestly: despite the fact that I represent an opposition party, I am ready to support every positive sentence about my country written in this resolution, because that is what is meant by constructive and credible opposition. Let me also speak up and ask you not to close your eyes to the real problems that exist in my country, because that is also credible and real opposition that will highlight problems.

      Voices and opinions from this Chamber have been instrumental in driving Georgia in the right direction for nine years. We were in government for nine years with a lot of achievements, but a lot of problems, shortcomings and mistakes as well. Every time, the opinion of this Organisation was a key driver in our being better and in moving the country in the right direction. I urge all of you, dear colleagues: keep committed, keep honest, and keep the credibility of this Organisation by voting for the report and by moving Georgia in the right direction, without political prisoners and without politically motivated justice.

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – European values first of all envisage respect for democratic institutions and equality before the law, and they also include other values that, unfortunately, were systematically violated in Georgia until 1 October 2012. Nevertheless, today, as Georgia aspires to be more integrated into the European family, I can assure you that protecting those values guarantees that the position of neither the president, a minister or a mayor, or of the political party leadership in our country, grants immunity from criminal jurisdiction.

      We strictly adhere to the European course, and therefore since the very first day of coming into power, our political team have been committed to supreme values – human values and the protection of human rights. That is why we have implemented very important reforms in the field of criminal justice. In the light of that, the conclusions in the report and the draft resolution by Mr Agramunt, which have nothing to do with the current situation in Georgia, are especially regrettable. Furthermore, the text of the document is biased and demonstrates sympathy for the United National Movement. In addition, the text of the resolution contains certain elements showing disrespect towards the court system of Georgia and the desire to interfere in those activities. Correspondingly, adhering to the resolution would mean discrediting the main European values.

      Let me remind you that the former officials referred to in the report are nowadays pronounced convicted of certain serious crimes in compliance with the criminal law of Georgia. That rules out any political persecution and furthermore excludes the possibility of using pretrial detention as a means of getting revenge on opponents. It should be noted that the former mayor of Tbilisi, Mr Ugulava, was sentenced to pretrial detention by the court only after there was irrefutable evidence that he was going to flee the country. In that context, it is important to mention that recently the court issued its final judgment and Mr Ugulava was found guilty. In particular, the court agreed that he has misspent $4 million in favour of the UNM and its election goals. Therefore, while discussing the issue of the political persecution of former high officials, the UNM and some colleagues from the EPP should consider that they are advocating the views of a political party whose activities were illegally financed from budgetary funds over several years, to the neglect of democratic values.

      Respected colleagues, I ask you this question: why should a status or position serve as the basis for the avoidance of statutory liability? Unfortunately, the resolution does not contain the answer to that question. That is why the majority of Georgian MPs will not support the resolution. Instead, we ask you to support the amendments prepared and submitted by the parliamentary majority members of the Georgian delegation. We cannot support the resolution as it stands.

      Mr LEYDEN (Ireland) – I compliment the rapporteur, Mr Pedro Agramunt, on an excellent report. I wish him every success when, hopefully, he assumes the presidency of this Assembly; it would be well deserved. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Sawicki, the Secretary General of this institution.

      I commend the rapporteur on his work, particularly in identifying the countries that are breaching the rules of this Assembly. Pretrial detention is totally unacceptable in any democracy. The Russian Federation, Georgia and Turkey are using it, but we have to ensure that it is wiped out. Pretrial detention is the easiest way to ensure that opponents cannot exercise their democratic right to fight a democratic election. That is a total contradiction of this Assembly and every member of it. Ireland, as a 1949 founding member, abhors this particular situation. Sir Roger Gale reminded me that the United Kingdom had internment without trial back in the 1970s. Fortunately, the situation in Northern Ireland has now reached a tremendous agreement, but as Sir Roger said, every country has to learn from these situations. You can point out all the defects of other countries, but those without sin among them, let them throw the first stone.

      On behalf of the Irish delegation, I can say that Ireland has never exercised any pretrial detention, particularly in relation to political situations, but even for criminal charges. That is very serious and the judges are very sympathetic to people’s rights before the trial and the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

      Thank you, Mr Agramunt, for your work. I recommend that the report is accepted by the Assembly and voted for, and I appeal to the Russian Federation, Georgia and Turkey to release the political prisoners who are being held pretrial without being charged.

      

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – The draft resolution and recommendation that Mr Agramunt has placed before us concern the core values of the Council of Europe. Under the rule of law, the presumption of innocence is fundamental in criminal law, and pretrial detention should be used only in exceptional cases. I welcome the report, which highlights the constraints being placed on that principle and points out that unfortunately the high number of people in pretrial detention in Europe highlights the abuse of criminal procedure and its use for political ends.

      In France, pretrial detention and the conditions for its use have been questioned by politicians and the public. It was the subject of a special investigation by a committee composed of seven members, of whom two were parliamentarians, established under a law dated June 2000. The text strengthened protection for the presumption of innocence and the rights of victims, and brought closer the completion of a whole series of reforms undertaken since the 1970s, all aimed at reducing the number and length of cases of pretrial detention.

      As of now, the freedom of the person charged with a crime is a principle to be upheld, and any restrictions on that freedom are the exception. Naturally, that principle includes the possibility of the criminal justice system using whatever might be necessary to carry out investigations. An order for pretrial detention can be made only if bail conditions or house arrest with an electronic tag are deemed insufficient. Moreover, the accused or charged person must be potentially in line for a significant prison sentence – at least three years. Pretrial detention must also be in line with a restrictive list of objectives given in the law, and can be ordered only by a specialist judge.

      The most sensitive aspect of the issue is the length of pretrial detention. The general principle is that it should be a reasonable period. Depending on the case, it is between four months and four and a half years. In fact, the average length overall is 4.3 months; for adults subject to committal in the assize court it is 15 months; and in criminal cases it is seven and a half months, which is longer than the recommended reasonable time limit. However, recently we have seen a slowdown in the number of defendants held by the police or the gendarmerie pretrial.

      People in pretrial detention enjoy specific rights, and the way in which they are to be exercised is laid down very precisely in the European prison rules enforced since 2008, which cover aspects such as preparation of the defence, correspondence, visits and access to care, to work, to socio-cultural and sporting activities and to spiritual support. The concerns of our Assembly about the use of pretrial detention are fully covered in French law.

      THE PRESIDENT – As Ms al-Astal is not here, I call Mr Vlasenko.

      Mr VLASENKO (Ukraine) – I thank Mr Agramunt for his independent and professional report. The report and its conclusion are closely connected to yesterday’s report by Mr Klaas de Vries dealing with the implementation – or rather non-implementation – of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. We know that many complaints about cases pending in the Court deal with violations of Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights. We discussed yesterday what we should do to improve the situation, and it was suggested that we should simply improve national legislation. But what do we do if national authorities fail to do that, and have no will to do so? We should start discussing and then implement a new mechanism for enforcing the Court’s decisions to improve the situation in countries such as Russia and Ukraine, which failed to implement decisions three years ago and five years ago.

      I refer to two cases mentioned by my colleagues. The first is that of Yulia Tymoshenko, which was a direct abuse of pretrial detention, as the European Court said in its decision on the case. The Court said that there were violations of Article 5 combined with Article 18, which refers to a prosecution having political motives. The previous regime in Ukraine did not want to implement the Court’s decision, and found many reasons not to do so. The second case is that of Nadiia Savchenko, whose substitute I am. She has been in Russia now for 15 months, not 13, as my colleague Mr Sobolev said. She has not been found guilty, although the court case has now begun in Donetsk near Rostov-on-Don. She has spent 15 months in detention without any accusation or any proof; in fact her defence lawyers have presented absolute proof of her innocence. The authorities do not want to implement any decisions of the European Court regarding Nadiia Savchenko, Khaiser Dzhemilev and others.

      My conclusion is very simple: if there are no internal measures or instruments to push a country into implementing the decisions of the European Court, there can be no success on this issue.

      THE PRESIDENT – The last speaker is Mr Khader from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr KHADER (Palestine) – Pretrial detention causes concern about the basic human rights of the detainees and has a negative effect on the judicial system as a whole. That is true not only of States that are party to the European Convention on Human Rights but those that have special status in the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly.

      Under Israeli occupation, pretrial detention for most Palestinians is the rule rather than the exception. In fact, one of our colleagues, Ms Khalida Jarrar, an elected member of the Palestinian Parliament and a member of the Palestinian delegation to this august Assembly, is a victim of that practice. She has been detained in prison now awaiting trial for over four months. According to a report issued in June by the Israeli human rights NGO B’Tselem, such treatment is the main reason so many proceedings in Israeli military courts result in extra-judicial deals and why there is a high conviction rate.

      Palestinians in pretrial detention are held in conditions similar to those of convicted prisoners. Hundreds of Palestinians, including children, are held in detention awaiting their court hearings. The length of pretrial detention is often greater than the expected sentence, which pushes detainees into plea-bargaining, even when they are innocent.

      Your pertinent report on the abuse of pretrial detention and its conclusions must be shared with those States that have special status with the Council of Europe. In particular, I call on you to make the report known to the Israeli authorities and to highlight the need for them to stop extensively abusing pretrial detention as they do in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

      THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Agramunt, the rapporteur, to reply. You have four and a half minutes.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – I thank all those who took the floor, specifically the five speakers on behalf of the political groups. I thank them for their interventions, for their support and for their criticisms, some of which I can accept and others not. Mr Japaridze accused me of being the president of the Group of the European People’s Party. I have said that I am honoured and proud still to be the president of the EPP Group, and that I have sought to be as clearly objective as possible. I do not question your intervening on behalf of the Socialist Group, as you represent the country concerned and are of the government party. There is no contradiction there with regard to having an impartial debate. However, I have nothing to add to that. I say to Mr Kürkçü that the report does not address Turkey only; I am sorry that I was unable to discuss everything about the situation there. We are discussing all the member countries of the Council of Europe, although I concentrated on the three countries visited. Of course I know the case of Azerbaijan well.

      I thank all of you, as I said. Mr Rouquet mentioned the theme of trust and confidence. Some speakers discussed the possibility that imprisonment might take place only after a judicial decision, and that pretrial detention would occur only exceptionally where there was a fear that the person might abscond or destroy evidence. That is how things should be everywhere, but it is not the case in all Council of Europe member countries. Electronic tagging and house arrest can prevent the risk of absconding and the need for pretrial detention. A mission of this Assembly could be to restrict the use of pretrial detention to those extreme cases in which there is no other solution.

      Members of the government party in Turkey have been critical. I can understand that, but I thank the Government of Georgia for facilitating my visit to former members of the government who are in prison. I was with the former prime minister, the former minister of defence and the former mayor of Tbilisi. It was facilitated by the Georgian delegation, and thus by the present Government of Georgia. I recognise and acknowledge that, and I am grateful, but the fact is that half the former government seems to be in prison, including the former president of the republic.

      To answer Mr Díaz Tejera’s question, preventive detention is a universal problem in Council of Europe countries; we have talked to France and the United Kingdom. The problem is not exclusive to some, but the position of the accused is much more critical in former Soviet Union countries. Pretrial detention is more often used there to silence people. We have tried through some of the amendments to limit the impact on certain specific countries. This report concerns all member countries of the Council of Europe; we cited certain examples involving certain countries, but the responsibility includes all Council of Europe countries.

      I conclude by thanking the secretariat of the Legal Affairs Committee. I especially thank my good friend Walter Schwimmer, for the great work he performed with me on this report.

      THE PRESIDENT –Does the chairperson of the committee, Mr Clappison, want to speak? You have two minutes.

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – I congratulate Mr Agramunt on his hard work and on producing this report on an important subject. As the Assembly will have gathered, he has taken great care in producing this report and has analysed a great deal of evidence to reach some important conclusions. It is right and important to say that people awaiting trial should have the right to freedom unless there are good, proper and serious reasons, supported by evidence, why they should not enjoy that freedom.

In the cases examined in detail by Mr Agramunt, it is clear that that right has not been enjoyed. As he has just said, he has produced the facts and the evidence. The only conclusion that can be arrived at after considering those facts and that evidence is the one that Mr Agramunt has reached. There is no other conclusion that anybody could reach, and nobody has even tried to put an alternative interpretation on what he has said. In the cases that he mentioned, he has uncovered important abuses that have taken place in which standards have not been fulfilled.

This issue applies right across Council of Europe member States. It is important, and Mr Agramunt has done a great service to the cause of human rights and to us all by going into the subject and reminding us all of its importance and of the need to uphold proper standards.

THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which 13 amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled. The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

We come to Amendment 10.

I call Mr Kandelaki to support Amendment 10. You have 30 seconds.

Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – I think paragraph 7.1 should specifically mention certain UNM leaders in Georgia, such as former prime ministers. The case of a former prime minister who spent nine months in pretrial detention is well reflected in many reports; indeed, the rapporteur mentioned that he visited the former prime minister in jail.

THE PRESIDENT – I have been informed that the committee wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows: “In Amendment 10, replace the word ‘UNM’ with the word ‘opposition’.”

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment?

That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Agramunt to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – You are absolutely right. We do not want to specify one particular opposition party; we are talking about opposition leaders in general. It is a technical amendment, and I support it with the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of Mr Kandelaki, who moved the amendment?

Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour, as explained by Mr Agramunt.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anybody wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? I call Ms Kobakhidze.

Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – We do not agree with the amendment submitted by Mr Kandelaki or with the oral sub-amendment. There are no facts or evidence proving that pressure was put on Merabishvili to make him confess or give evidence. The amendment is based only on the hypothetical imagination of its initiator. The decision of the domestic court about pretrial detention was based on the following facts: Merabishvili possessed a fake passport, which he had used previously to cross the Georgian border, and he attempted to intimidate the director of a department into not testifying against him. The pretrial detention was absolutely in accordance with the law, and with any opposition party leaders.

THE PRESIDENT – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to a vote.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

We will now consider the Amendment 10, as amended.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 10, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – In favour, as amended.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 10, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 10, as amended, is adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT– We come to Amendment 5. I call Ms Kobakhidze to support the amendment.

Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – Pre-trial detention is used only exceptionally and as a last resort. Investigations involving former government officials began inter alia to consider the recommendations of different inter-governmental and non-governmental international organisations, including institutions of the Council of Europe. We propose the deletion of the phrase on UNM leaders in Georgia.

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

      Mr KROSS (Estonia) – If we adopt the amendment it will change the spirit of the report, and its findings about Georgia are particularly important. The same applies to other amendments proposed by the Georgian delegation. If we remove the reference to Georgia there is little left.

      THE PRESIDENT– What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT– The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 is rejected

      We come to Amendment 11. I call Mr Kandelaki.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – I will not press the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT– We come to Amendment 4. I call Mr Dişli to support the amendment.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – It is a crime under Turkish law to insult the president. A 16-year-old student who did so was arrested and released within two days. The courts decide such cases case by case and evaluate all the factors. Independent judicial procedures cannot be used as a tool to silence critical voices.

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

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Detaining a 16-year-old for having made a comment on Twitter – even for a short period such as 48 hours – is an abuse of the law. The power should be reserved for far more serious offences.

      THE PRESIDENT– What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT– The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 6. I call Ms Kobakhidze to support the amendment.

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – According to official statistical data, before the 2012 elections the number of prisoners had decreased by 60%. In 2014, pre-trial detention was used in 32.3% of cases and alternative preliminary measures in 67.7% of cases. There has been serious progress, which is why we propose the amendment.

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

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – I explained my opposition to the amendment in committee. Mrs Kobakhidze is right, but the point is covered in paragraph 10, in which we note the positive progress made. There is no need to reiterate the point.

      THE PRESIDENT– What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT– The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 3. I call Mr Kandelaki.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – I will not press the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT– We come to Amendment 7. I call Ms Kobakhidze to support the amendment.

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – The rapporteur offers no evidence or fact to support the statement made in the paragraph 11.4. Under legislation adopted in 2015 a judge is obliged every two months to review, on his or her own initiative, the legitimacy of a pre-trial detention.

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

      Mr KROSS (Estonia) – The rapporteur has obviously found evidence of judges in Turkey, the Russian Federation and Georgia not being independent. If we remove Georgia from the report it will leave him open to suspicion.

      THE PRESIDENT– What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT– The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected

      We come to Amendment 1. I call Mr Dişli to support the amendment.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – The report is entitled “Abuse of pretrial detention in States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights”. The Russians are not here. Turkey is out place in the draft resolution, so I propose to delete the reference to it.

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

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – We are providing examples, so we should retain the text.

      THE PRESIDENT– What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT– The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 8. I call Ms Kobakhidze to support the amendment.

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – Decisions on pretrial detention are made only by the court and not the prosecutor’s office. The independence of the judiciary has significantly increased, whereas the use of pretrial detentions has shrunk since 2012. On 16 September 2015, the Constitutional Court of Georgia ruling limited pretrial detention to a maximum period of nine months, within which the investigation and trial of a person should be completed. We therefore propose the amendment.

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

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – It is a little more complicated. The amendment has to be seen in connection with Amendment 12. We propose a sub-amendment to Amendment 12 to cover the matter, and we will take on board what Ms Kobakhidze has just said – we refer to the ruling handed down by the Constitutional Court of Georgia. She is absolutely right, but we do not want to do it this way. The ruling was handed down only a fortnight ago, and it is an important point to make.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 12, which has an oral sub-amendment. I call Mr Chope to support the amendment.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The amendment introduces a specific example, which I think improves the report.

      THE PRESIDENT – We come to the oral sub-amendment to Amendment 12, which was tabled by Mr Chope, which is, in Amendment 12, replace the words, “cases of UNM leaders Mr Ugulava and Mr Akhalaia in Georgia. In the case of Mr Ugulava, the Constitutional Court of Georgia ruled his 15 month pre-trial detention term was anti-constitutional and illegal” with the words, “the cases of Mr Ugulava and Mr Akhalaia before the judgment of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in September 2015”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

      However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I call Mr Agramunt to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Yes, we support the oral sub-amendment. I explained this a minute ago. We agreed to include the consequences of the Constitutional Court of Georgia’s judgment.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? I call Ms Kobakhidze.

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – We do not agree with the oral sub-amendment, which is based on a misinterpretation of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of Georgia. Before rendering the judgment, in the case of Ugulava, pretrial detention was imposed in full accordance with existing legislation. Since the Constitutional Court found this unconstitutional, Ugulava was immediately released by a common court after completing all necessary procedures for release. As to Akhalaia, it must be said that he was found guilty according to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I support the oral sub-amendment because it updates the situation.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the view of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      The vote on Amendment 12, as amended, is open.

      Amendment 12, as amended, is adopted.

      I have received an oral amendment from the committee, which reads as follows: “In the draft resolution, delete paragraph 12.2.”

      The President may accept an oral amendment on the grounds of its promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is no opposition from 10 or more members to its being debated.

      In my opinion, the amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

      That is not the case.

      I call Mr Agramunt to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – It is straightforward. We would like to delete paragraph 12.2 in the text, where we speak of the Russian Federation, Turkey and Georgia in particular. That would disappear. We would then take the rest of the text en bloc so that, rather than mentioning just those countries, the paragraph would apply to all States parties to the Convention and all member States of the Council of Europe. The three specific references would disappear and we would have a general text applicable to all member States of the Council of Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone with to speak against the oral amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 9. I call Ms Kobakhidze to support the amendment.

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – The Parliamentary Assembly has no competence to interfere in the jurisdiction of domestic courts, and call for the release of detainees in this way. Even the European Court makes appeals for the release of a detainee only in exceptional cases. If the current paragraph formulation remains, it would violate the principle of the independence of the judiciary. That is why we propose the new formulation.

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

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – It is clear, through the approval of the previous oral amendment and the oral sub-amendment, that there is no direct relation to a given country. I do not see how somebody can oppose the release of detainees in the context of the abuse of pretrial detention. That is what paragraph 12.6 says. It is absurd to deny that the Assembly should require the release of people who have been abusively placed in detention.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 13. I call Mr Kandelaki to support the amendment.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – The amendment would clarify one of the concluding sections of the resolution on the undesirability of abusive procedures.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Kobakhidze.

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – The amendment is irrelevant and groundless.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 13 is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13863, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13863, as amended, is adopted, with 89 votes for, 10 against and 4 abstentions.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13863. A two-thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13863 is adopted, with 95 votes for, 5 against and 2 abstentions.

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

2. Address by Mr Aleksandar Vučić, Prime Minister of Serbia

      THE PRESIDENT – Before we give a warm welcome to the Prime Minister of Serbia, I remind you that events to raise awareness of breast cancer are held each October in countries across the world. Breast cancer is still the most common cancer, and it has the highest mortality rate of any cancer in women, despite significant scientific advances in detection and treatment. Raising awareness is essential to reducing the mortality rate by ensuring early detection. I invite you to join the Secretary General and me in showing support for the event by wearing the pink ribbon this month. Please also support the events in your countries. Such support is more than a symbol; it helps all the women who are suffering and all the researchers who are working to combat the terrible suffering experienced by many women and some men.

      Prime Minister, I welcome you to this Assembly. Dobrodošli. I am grateful to you for accepting my invitation to address our Assembly, which I extended during my official visit to Serbia in March. I appreciate our open discussions about the many challenges facing your country and the region. The stability of south-eastern Europe is essential for our continent, and the current refugee crisis only emphasises that importance, which is why at the beginning of this year I decided to focus my attention on the countries of the western Balkans. I have visited Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and have seen for myself the progress achieved by all the region’s countries in the past 20 years.

      European integration has been the main driving force of reforms, and Serbia’s commitment to the European agenda is clear. Nevertheless, it is evident that more support – expertise and resources, as well as political support – is required. Your country and your neighbours are facing complex challenges: the refugee crisis, its consequences and implications; regional co-operation; the prosecution of war crimes; and reconciliation and dialogue. In all those areas, and in many others, we need to work together with a strategic approach and concrete political engagement.

      I assure you once more that you can count on the Council of Europe’s support, and your visit to Strasbourg is an opportunity to identify ways of further developing co-operation between the Council of Europe and Serbia and to address the wider regional agenda.

To conclude, allow me to highlight one more important point. This year, two of our member States from the region – Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia – hold leading functions in key European Organisations – respectively, the Council of Europe and the OSCE. This is an opportunity to better co-ordinate the actions of our two Organisations. This is an opportunity to create new synergies. This is an opportunity to address the challenges we are facing in a comprehensive and strategic manner. Therefore, it is with great interest that we are looking forward to hearing your vision and ideas about key issues of the regional and European political agenda.

Prime Minister, you have the floor.

      Mr Aleksandar VUČIĆ (Prime Minister of Serbia) – Dear Ms Brasseur, ladies and gentlemen, I am honoured to be here and to have the opportunity to address the Council of Europe. I will do my best to be as brief as possible, so that there is more time to respond to your questions.

      Having read the speeches of some of my predecessors, I know that when people come here, they mostly speak about good stuff that they have delivered and do their best to present their countries in the best possible way. I will do my best to be as objective as possible and hope that you will get a better picture of Serbia, its intentions and its strategic goals.

As you know, Serbia is on its path to European Union membership. That is not a political declaration because, although many of your countries have enlargement fatigue, we in Serbia have patience fatigue. Like in many of your countries, the European Union does not have the greatest popularity in our country today, but as a leadership – a very stable leadership in our country – we still think that it is the best way for our people, our nation and our country to reach the values that we fight for. There is one simple question to which we must respond: “What kind of society do you choose for your people and your country?” When that question is asked, the response is always the European Union. That is why we are dedicated to that path.

I am here to speak about three important issues. First, I know that many of you are interested in the migrant crisis. That is an issue of solidarity and respect for human rights. Secondly, I will speak about accountability and the management of economic resources. Thirdly, as Ms Brasseur emphasised, I will speak about co-operation as a pillar of stability and regional development.

There are a lot of bad rumours coming not only from our region, but from the whole of Europe regarding the migrant crisis or refugee crisis. I am not here to criticise anybody, to complain about anybody, to ask for bigger amounts of money from someone or to cry for something. I am here to say that, so far, our country has received the biggest number of migrants. We have faced an influx of people from Greece and Macedonia – that is one route – and from Bulgaria on the other side. They all gather in Serbia and then move on. For five and a half months, they went to Hungary. For the past 12 days, they have been going to Croatia. We have accepted all of them. There is then that split when the migrants leave our country.

So far, we have not had huge problems with those people, particularly not the Syrian people. We have received almost 200 000 of them and have registered 164 000. We perform medical screenings and treatments, and take fingerprints and photos. We do everything that we are obliged to do as a sovereign State. We treat them in a very good way. We think that we have showed our human face; we have showed real tolerance and solidarity to those people. We have not fired a single tear gas bullet at them. We have not used a single baton against them. They are free to move in our country and they leave within 48 to 72 hours. We have not had big problems with them. Altogether, they have committed three criminal deeds. That is nothing, considering the number of people who have entered our country. That speaks well of those people.

Serbs have not complained or made a big noise because we have always been in the habit of having refugees, not only over the past 20 years, but after the Second World War. It is not that big a deal for us. I hope that my country will do the same in the future and that you will not hear any bad news from my country.

We have done our best to preserve a good relationship with all our neighbouring countries. So far, we have not had a single problem with Macedonia or Bulgaria. Even though we have received all the migrants from their territories, we have not done anything to act against them and we never will. We have great co-operation with all of them.

We have a very good relationship with Hungary, even though it was allegedly accepting migrants from our side – they were not actually from our side, as they were just crossing our territory – for more than five months. We were not really pleased about the fence and the barbed wire, but we did not cause any problems for our Hungarian friends and they did not cause many problems for us. I hope that we have overcome all the problems with our Croatian neighbours. I hope that all our neighbours realise that all these migrants have to pass through our territory and that, as you can see, we make no complaints. We have no problems with them and we hope that all the European Union countries take the same care of those people as Serbia.

Why am I saying this? Everybody is always complaining about the migrant crisis. Only Germany, the Scandinavian countries and a few other countries should do that, because they have to take care of these people for years or decades. We have to take care of them for not more than two to three days. I do not understand the people who pretend that we are great heroes because we have accepted 100 000 or 200 000 people for one, two or three days. It is really not a big deal for an organised State. That is different from all the other attitudes that you have heard.

I think that we have acted in a very European way and that we have showed a good, human, European face to the refugees and migrants.I am sorry to say this in this Assembly, but from time to time I think we acted in an even more European way than some European Union countries did. We will stay on that path.

      I want to add that when I spoke to Chancellor Merkel, who is seen as a great leader in my country, I said that we can take an even bigger share of the burden on our shoulders. Although we are not a European Union country, we are ready to take a quota ourselves. For the record, as I told her, I do not care too much about reactions, but when I visited the migrants I heard from my experts that we had the biggest number of negative comments. I will still see people again next week, and will be doing so at least twice a month. I am doing my job and I do not care about people’s reactions. What is being done is good and important for my country and for all our countries. I hope that we can all deliver a comprehensive European solution.

      Before discussing economic reform, I will talk about regional stability, which is a political precondition for economic recovery and reform. We have invested a lot of time and effort into this. Again, I am profoundly grateful to Ms Brasseur, Mr Jagland and many others from the Council of Europe who have helped us out in facing a lot of challenges in the Balkan peninsula. Serbia has become one of the pillars of stability in the Balkan region or, at least, there have not been any harsh statements since we have been doing our best to avoid all verbal political clashes and quarrels in the region. I think we have contributed a lot to what is at least a peaceful environment. That is not to say that we do not still face many difficulties and many challenges in the region, which is still fragile.

      Let me analyse the various situations. The Belgrade-Pristina relationship will always involve some problems in the implementation process and there will always be new ideas and agendas, but I would dare to say that that relationship is not the biggest problem in the Balkans today. We will carry on and resume our talks with the Pristina prime minister on 13 October in Brussels, under the auspices of the United Nations and Federica Mogherini. We can always speak to each other and we can always resolve our problems peacefully, calmly and tranquilly.

      We have invested much effort, as I have said, to help Bosnia become stable. We will carry on with such policies, because a spark in Bosnia could ignite the entire region. We are very aware of that, so we are always cautious and will always choose our words about our Bosnian neighbours carefully, although even today a lot of inflammatory speeches can be heard in that country. We will do our best to help them out and to preserve peace and stability.

      With Albania, last year I could have said that the leaders of Serbia and Albania did not meet. It is now old news that Prime Minister Rama and I meet each other frequently. I will probably go to Albania for the famous rematch of the soccer game between Serbia and Albania – of course I hope that there will be no incident. Last year, he and I met about five or six times. At least we speak about everything, and we do not have any big open issues to discuss. The only disputes that we face are always to do with Kosovo and our co-operation is getting better and better day by day.

      With almost all our neighbours we have the best relationship ever. The only problem that I can see, although I hope that we have succeeded in overcoming it recently, was with our Croatian colleagues. I hope that after the elections we will have a chance to rebuild our relationship in the best possible way – at least I can promise all of you that we will invest a lot of our time to do so.

      Everything that I have just spoken about is a precursor for economic recovery in Serbia. After the terrible floods that we suffered last year, many thanks to all of you, not only the people from the Council of Europe who were so helpful, but all member States, from Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia to Norway, as well as all the European Union countries. You all supported us a lot and we will never forget it.

      After that, we kicked off our economic reforms, passing new labour, bankruptcy, privatisation and construction permit laws, as well as many other important Bills for the better performance of the Serbian economy. Unlike many others in that part of Europe, we started with fiscal consolidation measures. We cut our public wages and pensions and we succeeded in accomplishing very good results. We have made an arrangement with the International Monetary Fund and have passed the second revision of that programme.

      We succeeded in cutting our fiscal deficit from 6.6% last year to less than 3% by the end of the year, which is less than the Maastricht criteria; the government budget is about 1%. The problem we still face is with our municipal and city budgets, but I am sure we can improve things next year by combining fiscal consolidation measures.

      Surprisingly, a small miracle perhaps, but a good one for us, was that because of lower public consumption, we succeeded in having a positive growth rate. The IMF and the World Bank were forecasting negative growth of between 1% and 1.5%, but instead we will have positive growth of 1%, with the forecasts for 2016 and 2017 being even better.

      We hope to carry on with our reforms, because a lot of change and reform is needed in the State-owned enterprises, or SOEs. We need to finalise the process of privatisation. We also need to boost the entrepreneurial spirit of our population – that is the biggest lack in our mindsets and in our economy in my opinion. We will do things together with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank and all the others. I have no doubt that, economically, we will be a prosperous country.

      On human rights and your agenda, we have zero-tolerance for corruption and crime. We do our best to deliver on such important issues. You will hear bad words about me and my Government, but I am absolutely dissatisfied with the state of our judiciary and justice system. They have to be much more efficient and effective. We have made, and I have made, mistakes regarding important issues such as co-operation with non-governmental organisations and the attitude towards some independent institutions, but we have changed and started to co-operate and learn a lot from them. I am profoundly grateful to those NGOs that were very supportive regarding the migrant crisis. We learnt a lot and we hope that they will also be helpful in the future. We are also ready for the support of Council of Europe regarding delivery on human rights. It is not a big deal to us to admit our mistakes and work hard to change ourselves and our mindsets. I am grateful to you and grateful for your paying attention to my words today, and I am ready to respond to all your questions.

      In that part of Europe, many things have started, and have finished – but have never finished – I speak once again about the Balkan region. We need support from all the countries in the region, all the European Union countries, and all the other countries, to protect regional stability, which is the most important precondition for peace. It is also important to economic recovery and to being a decent, normal country. We hope we will be the next country to be received as a member State of the European Union, but we will, regardless, do our homework and our job because our most important task is to be a normal prosperous country. Thank you once again.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Prime Minister, for your speech. We all appreciate enormously that you said “We make mistakes”, and that you yourself make mistakes. That should be a lesson for us: we all make mistakes, and that is human and normal. What is not normal is to declare it publicly, but it is important to agree that we make mistakes in order to learn from them and to make progress. Thank you very much for giving us that message, because it is not an obvious one. At the end of your speech you said that you were doing your homework. You know that you can count on our support when are you doing it, and that we will continue to work together. Thank you. Hvala.

      I call Mr Schennach on behalf of the Socialist Group to ask the first question.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Prime minister, it is good to have you here. Some 200 000 refugees have passed through your country in the past few months, free and self-organised. Now winter is coming, with snow, rain and cold nights and days, and they will need more than 72 hours to be processed. How will you deal with hosting them and providing medical help? Tens of thousands more are coming and it will take longer for them to pass through your country.

      Mr VUČIĆ – I am sorry to say this, and maybe my words will ruin some stupid political barriers that we ourselves have made, but those are not the numbers of people. Many countries are exaggerating the numbers; it is not a question of tens of thousands per day. One day we had 9 000, and one single country faced 10 000 in one day. For some reason, we always exaggerate, but I do not know why we do so.

      You are right, there will be difficult conditions for those people in winter, with rain and snow. They will have to stay for more than two to three days. We are preparing for that with the support of some German humanitarian organisations, Norway, Austria and some other countries along with the European Commission. We are building reception centres and increasing our capacity to take care of those people. That is our job, and it is very normal.

      To show you how much we exaggerate the numbers, only – though obviously the word “only” is relative – 1 750 people crossed our border yesterday. It is not always as the media report it. Also there are statesmen who would always like to emphasise their great role, talking about thousands and thousands of people, but that is not the case. You can always ask the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; it has the same numbers as the Serbian authorities. We do not hide any of those data. We have registered 164 000 people, and our assumption is that 200 000 have crossed our border. It is impossible that 220 000 have crossed Hungary’s border and 60 000 have crossed Croatia’s. Such large numbers of people have not entered their countries. Anyway, I shall leave all the blame games and numbers games to the European Union countries.

      Of course we are still talking about a large number of people, and I notice that we are facing a greater percentage of people coming from Afghanistan than from Syria. At the beginning, 71.29% of refugees were coming from Syria; now that figure is about 58%. More and more people are coming from Afghanistan and we have noticed something else, as have some other countries: there are even people from Pakistan who have taken Afghan passports and joined the refugees. That is an issue that someone will have to deal with in future. We need a comprehensive European solution.

      We will take care of those people, as I said, and we are also ready to take our share. If our neighbouring countries take 1 000 of those refugees, we are ready to take 1 000, 2 000 or whatever you say. We just want to be a part of European society, not only when you deliver money to countries from European Union funds – we do not get it in the way that all the other countries do – but because we want to share the responsibilities. We want to send you all the clear message that we belong to that club, even under these very difficult circumstances, and we are ready to take up our burden.

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

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Prime Minister, I welcome you to Strasbourg.        I want to ask you about what Mr Schennach said about the massive arrival of immigrants from the conflicts of the Middle East. Are you and the Serbian Government going to continue to assume your responsibilities with regard to the refugees, what dialogue have you had with the authorities of the European Union – it is very important for us to know this – and what do you think the solution might be?

      Mr VUČIĆ – I was invited by Chancellor Merkel to Berlin to brainstorm on this issue when we proposed our bigger assistance to the European Union. What we were asking for was always a comprehensive solution, and we will be part of that. Do not worry about Serbia – we will deliver on all our obligations and we are ready to fulfil all our tasks. We had a very fruitful discussion with Chancellor Merkel and with Werner Faymann. I had a lot of discussions with Mr Orbán. We did not agree on some issues, but I think we succeeded in overcoming all the difficulties that we were facing with regard to the migrant crisis. Serbia and Hungary are in a very good relationship today. We spoke to Johannes Hahn when he visited Serbia, and to Federica Mogherini as well. We were always very ready to accept all the requests and all the remarks from the European Union, from the Council of Europe, and from all our friends, who always praised our hard work, although I thought we deserved more rewards on our economic reforms than on what was just a normal attitude and normal behaviour regarding the migrant crisis. We will carry on co-operating very closely with all our European partners.

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

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – I, too, Prime Minister, would like to welcome you here on behalf of the liberal group in the Assembly. I am very impressed by everything you have done in dealing with issues concerning migration and Kosovo. I have a very positive analysis of it.

      I have a question about the judicial system – the courts system. A couple of weeks ago, I took part in a seminar organised by the Venice Commission on reforming laws and dealing with past. The legal system in your country was on the agenda for that meeting – the lustration laws. I understand that there was some self-criticism regarding the reform of the judicial system in your country and other reforms. Will you tell us a little more about these reforms and what your government is doing about the lustration laws?

      Mr VUČIĆ – The lustration law was brought into force in 2001 and lasted for 10 years. That was a limited time in which to face the consequences of violating or breaching human rights in the past. Very recently, we had a proposal on this from a regional political party from Vojvodina that we still have not discussed in our parliament. This is not the biggest issue that I have been concerned with. We have already discussed not only the proposals of our political colleagues but the proposals that we might get from the Venice Commission and from the European Union. I am very dissatisfied with the efficiency of our courts, which means that you can still find some unresolved files from 1996 to 1997. What kind of justice do we speak about if you have cases unresolved for 20 years? It is no longer about seeking justice; it is about something else. I do not say that justice has to come in a quick way, but after 20 years it is no longer any kind of justice. That is what we need to reshape and change. We need to change our habits. I am still very dissatisfied with our approach, but I am satisfied that we have finished the cleaning process. We will probably open the first chapters by the end of this year, but we will also open chapters 23 and 24 at the beginning of next year.

      I hope that we will be able to do this together with our European colleagues, and to learn much more, perform much better, and deliver much better. I am always a bit constrained about this, because someone might say, “This is your involvement or interference in an independent judicial area or justice area.” That is why I cannot comment very openly on things that are very visible for ordinary citizens of Serbia. I am profoundly grateful to you and to all your colleagues for paying attention to this issue. We will be very glad to learn a lot more in the future and to deliver in a much better way so that, first of all, all Serbian citizens should be more satisfied than they are today. You are together with all of us – thank you.

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

      Mr D. DAVIES (United Kingdom) – Prime Minister, do you agree that the Hungarian Government has an absolute right to decide who can and cannot come into its country, that the Hungarian police have a right to defend themselves from violent young men throwing rocks at them and chanting religious slogans, and that Chancellor Merkel and other European leaders should be trying to encourage genuine refugees to stay in the safe camps provided for them throughout Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon instead of embarking on a dangerous journey into Europe?

      Mr VUČIĆ – Dear Mr Davies, I was not speaking about rights of the sovereign States; I was speaking about the attitude that we all took to this crisis. I cannot agree with everything that you said. I have nothing against the will of our neighbours to stop the migrants’ influx into their countries, but what we need, and needed from the very first moment, was a comprehensive solution. You cannot leave all those guys in, say, Macedonia, because we can do the same, so why that country? What if we do it? What will Greece do with them? What will Tsipras do with them? That is why we need the comprehensive, pan-European solution that I was insisting on finding. When I spoke to Viktor Orbán, we agreed on some things and disagreed on others, but today I can say that we have a very good relationship. He understands Serbia’s position, and I always do my best to understand Hungary’s position. I cannot say that I am very pleased with the barbed wire, but he protects his own country. It is his way of dealing with this, and we respect that. For us, it is more important to hear what would be your comprehensive European solution, and we will act in accordance with that. That is very simple for our side. I agree with you that the crisis should have been settled at its places of origin, which means Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. As a small country, Serbia cannot contribute a lot to that, but we will always be very ready to what we can. There is only simple question from our side: what is your comprehensive solution for the migrant crisis? Whatever it is, we will deliver on that and act in accordance with it.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Tiny Kox on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Prime Minister, I have listened with great interest to your speech and the way you are answering questions. It is not normal, but it is good – particularly the fact that you said you were not so much interested in all the problems that have been described, but in the solutions. I was therefore very grateful that you spoke about the problematic relations between Serbia and Kosovo, and how you nevertheless tried to overcome those and develop relations with Pristina. What lessons could we learn from how you tried to overcome the problems with your breakaway region? What are the lessons for other regions that have broken away from their country and that we now consider as black holes, where no justice is possible? Will you tell the Assembly how you tried to find a solution to an unsolvable problem?

      Mr VUČIĆ – Thanks a lot; it will be an unusual response. Only 15 days after we won the last elections, we faced those really terrible floods. At that time, if I asked my people whether to go for difficult economic and political reforms and whether to carry on our discussions with Kosovo Albanians and do the same with all the others in the region, I would always get a negative response. So I did not ask anything of them. I said to them that the only thing that I was guaranteeing to them was sweat and tears, and I said that we would have a hard-working period of two or three years, and after that, I delivered on everything that was very difficult for our country. As you know, recently, on 25 August, we signed four agreements for an arrangement with Pristina and we will have the resumption of talks on 13 October. I will be asking our people at the next elections.

      The lesson I learnt from my own experience – the most important lesson, because you can then tackle all the important issues – is not to care about people’s reactions. Whenever I visit those migrants and refugees, I face the biggest number of negative comments from our public audience, and I do not care. When those stupid, rightist, extremist parties wanted to organise rallies against the migrants, I said, “No, it’s not going to happen in this country. You can organise as many protest rallies against me and against the government, but against the migrants? Not a single one.” We banned it and I did not care about people’s reaction – sorry to use those words. That was the only way that we were able to deliver good results in different social spheres, and that is why I was insisting on emphasising regional stability. Perhaps I should not say “frightened”, but I am still very much afraid of the possibility that someone might destabilise the region. I am not afraid of the hard work that we will have to put in regarding the economic recovery. We are not a rich country and we will not be a very rich country, even in 10 years, but we are moving step by step. We will keep the pace up and do things even better. The lesson that I learnt was this: do what is best for your country and do not care too much about the public audience.

      The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers on behalf of their political groups. I now call Mr Badea.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – Prime Minister, I welcome you most warmly to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and I congratulate your government, in particular, on the excellent promotion of bilateral relations with my country. We here are best placed to see the positive changes in Serbia, so we congratulate you on that. In Serbia, some official voices are talking about the need to recognise a new language – Vlach – in Serbia. Will you comment on that?

      Mr VUČIĆ – Mr Badea, thank you for noticing that we have done our best to establish and promote the best relationship with our Romanian friends. After the Second World War, that is something that I can also say for the Hungarians. We have not had a bad relationship so far, which is great news for our people and our nations.

      I want to add that that is because all the others cannot understand us when we speak about Vlachs or the Romanian language. It is an issue of a Romanian minority, or a Vlach minority, and we have something that was established here at the Council of Europe, and I visited your Prime Minister. We spoke to the Romanian community and the Vlach community and had no problems with any of them. I will always be very ready to host my friend and to go there and see what we can do to improve not only the living standards of those people, but the human rights performance for all of them. We have no problems with that.

We have no problems with people who want to speak Romanian speaking Romanian, but we cannot force anybody to speak Romanian if he says that he speaks some other language. That is his right in accordance with the Council of Europe charters and regulations and in accordance with our constitution. However, I am always ready to discuss every single issue that you can put in front of us – together with your prime ministers and with all of you – and to visit every single part of Serbia, just to see that we do not violate people’s human rights and to discuss together with your people how we can accomplish and achieve even better results in the future. Once again, many thanks to you.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Djurović.

      Ms DJUROVIĆ (Serbia) – Prime Minister, I am very honoured to be able to welcome you on behalf of the Serbian delegation. It is a pleasure to have you with us today. It is well known that you have personally made many concessions with the aim of good regional co-operation and good neighbourly relations. Do you think that the leaders of the other regional countries are equally committed and honest with regard to regional reconciliation?

      Mr VUČIĆ – Thank you Sandra. Those warm welcoming words were because she is a member of my political party. I want to respond differently from how Sandra would expect me to. I think that there are many leaders in the Balkans committed to peace and stability. I do my best not only here, but when I have tête-à-tête discussions with Ms Brasseur, European officials and all the others, not to use my time to criticise my colleagues, because I think that if I do not reply to every single statement on every single issue, those people – if there are some people – will repeat it, and that approach works.

      I will do my best to see, first, whether I have made mistakes. What did I do to them? What have we done against the interests of others? I will also do my best to correct our bad words and statements. If we are successful in changing ourselves, we will at least be able to be silent from time to time and not cause any further problems. I am not saying that because it is something that you would like to hear in this place; that is our politics, and we will be dedicated to sticking to that path. I say the same thing in my country every day, and it is not very popular. People in the Balkans still like those self-victimisation stories, and they like to hear tough words about their neighbours: “He said it to them. He delivered on that. He didn’t allow those guys to humiliate us.” You have to swallow something from time to time. That is how our politics will be in future, and although we will always do our best to protect the interests of our State, that will not be at the expense of other States’ interests.

      THE PRESIDENT – As Mr Nikoloski and Ms Leskaj are not here, I call Ms Zohrabyan.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – Prime Minister, you know that there are to be elections in Azerbaijan but it has been decided not to send an observer mission because Azerbaijan is reducing the number of members whom it will allow to come from this Organisation or the OSCE. The Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE took the same decision. What is your comment on that situation? What should we do following the violations by Azerbaijan?

      Mr VUČIĆ – That is the most difficult question for me. Unlike many guys from Serbia, I am not an expert on every single issue. We have many candidates for the big posts in the world – the Secretaries-General of the United Nations, of this and of that. We consider Armenia and Azerbaijan friendly countries, and I hope that the OSCE will tackle that issue in a proper way. I wish you all the best. To be very honest, I know nothing about the issue. I heard that someone was going to ask me about it, but I would be ashamed to act as though I know about it when I know almost nothing.

      I shall speak with our Foreign Minister, who is the Chairman of the OSCE, to tackle the issue in a proper way that you and people from Azerbaijan will be satisfied with. I hope that the OSCE will be able to deliver on that issue in the best possible way. We did our best by investing a great effort in the chairmanship, and I think that others were satisfied with our work. I am not an expert who can resolve all the crises in the world – we have a lot of work to do on our own crises – but we will always be very friendly towards your country, and again I wish you all the best.

      Mr JURATOVIC (Germany)* – Prime Minister, you talked about co-operation, which is very important, and about dealing with history. Of course, we are talking about regional history as well. My question concerns how we can extend regional co-operation. It is important to have youth on board; that can have a real impact. How will you support youth co-operation?

      Mr VUČIĆ – Josip knows how difficult it is to increase stability, particularly in our region. Our youth programmes and exchanges were praised at the Vienna conference – a resumption of the Berlin conference – attended by Angela Merkel, Faymann and Mogherini. That was quite something for us all. Although I did not notice a lot of interest among some Western Balkan countries, Albania and our country did a good job. Edi Rama was very helpful, and he was doing his best, along with us, to establish the youth office. We succeeded, and now we need to discuss where it will be headquartered, which could be in both Tirana and Belgrade. When I see Edi Rama in seven or eight days, we will discuss that issue, and all the others should join us.

      I got this badge from Anne Brasseur with the message “No Hate”. Rama and I had the idea of promoting not only peace and stability, but speech with no hatred and a better understanding between young people. It was his idea – I shall not decorate myself with it – to welcome 65 Serbian students to Albania for a football match, and then I should welcome 65 Albanian students to Belgrade. We do not know each other; we did not speak to each other for 70 years, and there are many prejudices between us, but now it is getting better. The most important issue is, as with the Germans and the French after the Second World War, what we do today to establish a different relationship between our two countries and between our young people. Although we are not always satisfied with the speed of that process, it is important and I think that we may deliver very good results in future.

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr Dokle and Ms Karapetyan are not here, so I call Ms Hoffmann.

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – In Serbia there is concern about the protection of minorities, but things seem to be working in an exemplary way. You have granted many powers to the national minorities councils, allowing them to uphold the rights of people who belong to ethnic minorities. That leads to a large degree of autonomy among ethnic minorities, linguistically and culturally. What is the role of the councils in education?

      Mr VUČIĆ – Thank you very much for noticing some of the good things that we have delivered recently. We have great co-operation and collaboration with Hungarians in particular, who form one of the biggest minorities in our country and whose representatives are part of our Government. We have good common results, and we are very satisfied with that co-operation. The councils play a big role. They have the right to propose textbook content, for instance, and we support and translate them. We help them out on every single important issue.

Almost 70 years after the Second World War, I visited some Hungarian cemeteries, because no Serbian official has ever wanted to see one, nor did Yugoslav officials at the time. We went there, and I think we succeeded in creating a better atmosphere for reconciliation between Serbs and Hungarians after the Second World War. I do not see huge problems. I would like it if a representative of the Hungarian minority were here to speak. For my own part, I would immediately confirm every single word he pronounced.

      THE PRESIDENT – I do not see Mr Stroe, so I call Mr Zourabian.

      Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – The European Commission has requested that Serbia amend the outdated article 234 of its criminal code, which relates to economic crimes. When will your Government implement that and stop the criminal prosecution of hundreds of members of the business community under this obsolete law, in order to create the conditions for Serbia’s private sector to grow with confidence that the rule of law will not be abused?

      Mr VUČIĆ – My response is simple: yes, we will do it together, in accordance with the European Commission. We will harmonise our legal system with the European Commission. But it is not about chasing good businesspeople; it is about the fight against corruption. That was the only way that we could fight the beast of corruption in our country. We know what we need to do in future, but let me remind you that not so long ago, mine was a country where the tycoons decided everything. They were above the legal system, and they were dictating all the regulations and everything else. That has been changed.

It does not mean that someone will be prosecuted or indicted just for being richer than some other guys. Yes, there are things that we need to change and we will, but that was not the intention. That was a campaign launched against us recently because there are many criminals afraid of upcoming verdicts. I understand your question and I hope that we will be able to harmonise our legal system with the European Commission as soon as possible. That is one of the most important tasks before us.

THE PRESIDENT – Mr Hanžek is not here, so that concludes the list of speakers.

Prime Minister, I thank you for your speech and for answering members’ questions. You have been very honest and frank, and you have demonstrated that from time to time, one must admit to not knowing the answer. As politicians, we should all do the same, because we cannot know everything.

Before we conclude, I want to tell the Prime Minister that on Monday, we had a ceremony awarding the Václav Havel human rights prize. Among the three nominees was a non-governmental organisation made up of young people from the Balkans trying to overcome divides. They answered questions on education. That NGO does a fantastic job, which is why they were among the nominees. I just wanted to recall that to you, Prime Minister. We were very proud to have them here for the ceremony. I look forward to meeting you again in the very near future. It will not be in your country, but it will be in Sarajevo, which is more than symbolic.

3. Next public business

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

      The sitting is closed.

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

CONTENTS

1. Abuse of pretrial detention in States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights

Presentation by Mr Agramunt of report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in Doc. 13863

Speakers: Ms Sotnyk (Ukraine), Sir E. Leigh (United Kingdom), Mr Kürkçü (Turkey), Mr Japaridze (Georgia), Mr Feist (Germany), Ms Beselia (Georgia), Mr Ariev (Ukraine), Mr Le Borgn’ (France), Mr Sobolev (Ukraine), Mr Rouquet (France), Mr Rochebloine (France), Sir R. Gale (United Kingdom), Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain), Mr Bakradze (Georgia), Ms Kobakhidze (Georgia), Mr Leyden (Ireland), Mr Fournier (France), Mr Vlasenko (Ukraine) and Mr Khader (Palestine)

Replies: Mr Agramunt (Spain) and Mr Clappison (United Kingdom)

Amendments 10 as amended, 12 as amended, 13 and an oral amendment adopted

Draft resolution in Doc. 13863, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Doc. 13863 adopted

2. Address by Mr Vučić, Prime Minister of Serbia

Questions: Mr Schennach (Austria), Mr Agramunt (Spain), Mr Xuclà (Spain), Mr D. Davies (United Kingdom), Mr Kox (Netherlands), Mr Badea (Romania), Ms Djurović (Serbia), Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia), Mr Juratovic (Germany), Ms Hoffmann (Hungary) and Mr Zourabian (Armenia),

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-Claude Frécon

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON*

Luise AMTSBERG

Athanasia ANAGNOSTOPOULOU/ Antigoni Lymperaki

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA*

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Anna ASCANI*

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE

Gérard BAPT/Geneviève Gosselin-Fleury

Doris BARNETT

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK*

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Eka Beselia

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

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*

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*

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/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Oleksii HONCHARENKO/Vladyslav Golub

Jim HOOD*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER/ Barbara Rosenkranz

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Ekmeleddin Mehmet İHSANOĞLU

Florin IORDACHE*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Gedimnas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*

Tedo JAPARIDZE

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN/Kristin Ørmen Johnsen

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA/Viorel Riceard Badea

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ/Dejan Kovačević

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/Brynjar Níelsson

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR/Matjaž Hanžek

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN*

Rom KOSTŘICA*

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID*

Eerik-Niiles KROSS

Marek KRZĄKAŁA*

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Serhiy LABAZIUK *

Inese LAIZĀNE*

Olof LAVESSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE/Boriss Cilevičs

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI*

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA*

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI/Marie-Christine Dalloz

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík

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/André Schneider

Marianne MIKKO*

Olivia MITCHELL

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN*

Piotr NAIMSKI*

Sergey NARYSHKIN*

Marian NEACȘU*

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH*

Miroslav NENUTIL

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Sir Edward Leigh

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Julia OBERMEIER*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O’REILLY

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI*

Sandra OSBORNE*

Tom PACKALÉN

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Florin Costin PÂSLARU

Waldemar PAWLAK*

Jaana PELKONEN*

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

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

Rovshan RZAYEV*

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/Valeri Jablianov

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*

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/ David Davies

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

_

Observers

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Partners for democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Qais KHADER

Bernard SABELLA