AA15CR35

AS (2015) CR 35

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-fifth sitting

Thursday 1 October 2015 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

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

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (October 2014–August 2015)

      THE PRESIDENT – The first item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report, “Progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (October 2014-August 2015)”, Document 13868 Parts 1-5, presented by Mr Stefan Schennach on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – My presentation of the progress report will be something of a premiere. We have changed our approach in the Monitoring Committee over the past 18 months. As Chair, it was always my intention to do away with a two-tier society – the new members and those under monitoring or post-monitoring dialogue, and countries that have been members for 30, 40 or 50 years. In future we would like each country to be liable to the monitoring procedure. The report therefore covers countries under monitoring in the strict sense of the term, post-monitoring dialogue and other countries – Andorra, Belgium, Croatia and Cyprus – that face monitoring under the new approach. You can read the details in the progress report. I believe the exercise has been successful. It has made things fairer across the board.

      I should like to thank all the rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee for their extraordinary work, visiting countries several times a year and dealing with problems in them. People do not always understand that rapporteurs are there not to engage in domestic political issues but as observers. I am extremely proud of their tremendous work.

      Not every country can say it has emerged from monitoring because everything has been achieved, but that was true of Monaco. We have completed the strict monitoring and moved on to the next step for Montenegro. The Monitoring Committee and the expertise of our rapporteurs played a vital role in election observation.

      The Monitoring Committee was faced with the issue of the credentials of the Russian delegation, and you know that we were not able to conduct our monitoring of the member State the Russian Federation. Through the ad hoc Sub-Committee on Russia’s Neighbourhood Policy with regard to other Council of Europe Member States, we were able to bring the Russian Federation back to the negotiating table. We also started afresh the ad hoc Sub-committee on Conflicts between Member States of the Council of Europe so that we could deal with the older, frozen conflicts and, above all, avoid creating fresh frozen conflicts.

      The picture shows several deep concerns including: lack of independence of the courts and the public prosecutor; lack of faith in justice systems; the way in which law enforcement authorities deal with minorities; problems with independence of the media; corruption, and entrenching the rights of LGBT communities and individuals, as well as a generally harsher political turn being taken in some countries.

      In this progress report, we appeal to all countries that are being monitored to show progress on ensuring that they have fair election systems, ensuring their judicial systems’ autonomy, combating corruption, dealing with detainees, and observing the rights of minorities. We have great concerns that, in several areas, refugees and asylum seekers may have ended up in prison.

      I want to consider some of the countries that we put under monitoring. In Andorra, we welcome the fact that there was greater transparency about the economy and finances. We wanted to see non-Andorran nationals better integrated – that was a criticism – and we also expressed concerns that the media are not sufficiently independent. We recommended, as a matter of urgency, that the conventions on corruption and money laundering be signed.

      We wanted Belgium to become a more effective federal State, and significant progress has been made there. Nevertheless, we are worried about over-crowded prisons, and we recommend to Belgium the ratification of the conventions on domestic violence and on cybercrime involving racism and xenophobia online.

      We welcome the steps towards reform that Croatia has undertaken on more efficient democratic institutions and on combating corruption. However, we call on Croatia to do more to strengthen the judicial system, and there is an urgent recommendation to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, particularly in respect of the Serbian and Roma communities.

      We recognise and welcome the new peace talks in Cyprus and the steps taken in the direction of GRECO’s recommendations on corruption. However, we remain concerned about the detention of refugees and asylum seekers, and the state of the prisons. We also strongly recommend the ratification of the conventions on human trafficking and on domestic violence.

      You can see that sometimes the older members of the Council of Europe lag behind in certain areas. That is a new feature of this progress report: the older and the newer members of the Council of Europe are all given specific recommendations.

      Violence is rife in some areas. The situation in Turkey is deeply worrying, and we express that in the report. However, overall, we, as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, can say that this system of monitoring – this collective exercise in the interests of the rule of law, democracy and human rights – is moving forward. In each country, progress has been made under the umbrella of the monitoring procedure. I very much hope that you can support the report, which I commend to you. I look forward to the discussion.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schennach. As always, you have the opportunity of replying to the debate. You have three and a half minutes left for that purpose.

      I call Robert Walter on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I pay tribute to the work of Stefan Schennach as Chair of the Monitoring Committee. He is coming to the end of his two years, and, having served on the Monitoring Committee with him, I can attest to his hard work and diligence. Stefan and I come from different political persuasions, but in the committee he has always been balanced and fair. We should also remind ourselves that he is highly respected in the world of classical music, particularly baroque, across Europe.

      In the committee, Stefan and I have worked together on Macedonia, for which I was the rapporteur for the post-monitoring dialogue for some five years. As the report details, in the past year or so, we have visited together to see if we could help resolve the political impasse that happened when the principal opposition party refused to participate in the work of parliament and virtually held the country to ransom. We had meetings with the leader of that opposition party, who was a member of the socialist family. I am not sure that we persuaded him; none the less, I am delighted to say that, in July, he agreed that his party would again participate in the work of parliament.

      I want to highlight something to which Stefan Schennach has just alluded: the newer innovation of the periodic reports of those countries not in monitoring. In this report, we have sections on Andorra, Belgium, Croatia and Cyprus. That is an important development, which, as Stefan said, gets rid of the two-tier approach. I remind colleagues that, in the last couple of years, we have had two attempts to get countries that are not in monitoring back into monitoring. A couple of years ago, the question of Hungary arose, and was eventually referred to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. I produced the report on that in the June part-session. Most recently, we agreed this week that France would not be put into the monitoring procedure.

      It is clear that the systematic monitoring of those who are not yet compliant with their obligations as a member of the Council of Europe should continue and that the post-monitoring procedure for those in transition is also correct until they are fully compliant. We have to remind ourselves that we are not all fully compliant. Monitoring and post-monitoring may not be justified, but in this world nobody is perfect. Stefan Schennach has highlighted a number of points relating to such countries in this periodic report. Sometimes we have to be reminded that we need to look at certain aspects of our membership of this Organisation.

      I make one final plea. I hope that in next year’s progress report we will have something to report on Russia, because I hope that we will once again be able to continue our monitoring of the Russian Federation and that we will have some dialogue with our Russian colleagues. Sanctions are correct, but dialogue is still very necessary.

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

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – This is an important debate on an important report. Monitoring is important because it is a resolute and concerted attempt to make the world respect our resolutions in practice. When practice is contrary to our fundamental principles, we speak out through the Monitoring Committee. The committee is of the utmost importance, and its procedures should be taken seriously. Recent and ongoing changes in the committee’s working procedures move away from the practice whereby only a certain number of States are subjected to monitoring towards monitoring being a general procedure for all member States. That does not mean that the situation in all member States is comparable from the standpoint of human rights – far from it – but no society is perfect.

      By extending monitoring to all, we will avoid stigmatisation and accusations of double standards. With this practice we are saying that it should not be shameful to go through the monitoring process. Monitoring, first and foremost, identifies facts for clarification to enable us, at a later stage, to formulate informed recommendations, where appropriate. Monitoring is thus not a judgment but a tool that we can use to pave the way for progress on human rights, which, judging from the report, is clearly happening in many countries that have been through monitoring. Progress is evident, which is a sign of success. Monitoring should be seen as a constructive tool for change, and it allows us to benefit from good practice.

      This Assembly sometimes seems to be drifting away from its main goal of furthering human rights by becoming too involved in the internal politics of States and, sometimes, in power politics. If we want the monitoring process to work, we must cease to be party political and defenders of State interests when we step into the Monitoring Committee. On the committee we are the defenders of human rights, regardless of State interests and power politics. Our only task is to see whether States are living up to the standards set by this Assembly. The debate has too often not been to that effect. Consequently, the task of the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee is not always easy.

      On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I thank the chairman and rapporteur, Stefan Schennach, for his excellent work, to which the report bears witness. We look forward to working further with him and wish him all the best in a very difficult task.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Gross, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I will continue from where Mr Jónasson stopped by thanking Stefan Schennach on behalf of the Socialist Group for his great report, which reflects his great compassion and dedication. He has made the Monitoring Committee something of which we can be proud, which has not always been the case. We saw the crisis in Macedonia after the elections, and Stefan initiated a special mission so that we could help. The government appreciated our support, which was especially due to Stefan’s engagement.

      Secondly, Stefan always tries to bring the Russians back, not by having meetings, which is what they want, but by proposing dialogue that forces them to reopen themselves to us. As Bob Walter said, the report’s biggest deficit is that the Russians are included only indirectly. If we want to include Russia in the next report, we have to do more. We have to think about we have to do, because if we do not do anything until January, we will not have the majority we need. The Russians have to show some openness and respect for our values. We have not yet been able to do anything, although Stefan has tried hard.

      Finally, as has already been said, we will be including those who think of themselves as old democracies. There is no perfect democracy. There is no democracy that cannot be improved, which is why it is so important that we enlarge the committee’s scope and that we focus not only on the so-called newer, younger democracies but on those who think they are outside the committee’s reach. The learning process is eternal. We can always start, but we can never end.

      Stefan has put the best of himself into the Monitoring Committee, and he has done great work. He has sometimes been exhausted, which we appreciate. Although we know that his chairmanship is coming to an end, we hope that he will find a new chairmanship in which to show his dedication. I do not want to go into the report, but Stefan has managed to avoid party politics—as Mr Jónasson said, not everyone is able to do that. We should not misuse the monitoring process to repeat the party conflicts at home. In one country last year, the rapporteurs could not adopt a resolution because they were drawn into party politics. Stefan tried to prevent that, and this report shows that it is possible, although some amendments might improve it. A certain distance and compassion is needed—not party compassion but compassion for our values. We seek to contribute to that respect. We seek not to criticise but to assist in the interest of our shared values.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gross. I call Mr Fischer on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – The Group of the European People’s Party – the Christian democrats – supports the report. It is a clear acknowledgement of the importance of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human rights, democracy, the rule of law, media freedom and freedom of expression are the pillars of this Organisation. It is good that we have the Monitoring Committee to ensure that those fundamental freedoms are respected in the 47 member States of the Council of Europe.

      My group is very happy that over the past two years, the Monitoring Committee has had a chairman who is aware of the significance of the committee and the work that it does. He has brought great sensitivity to the task and overcome conflicts and clashes. Stefan, you have done a wonderful job.

      What comes to the fore in the progress report is that each of the 47 member States may be the subject of a monitoring procedure. As Andy Gross has said, no democracy is perfect, nor do we expect every democracy to be perfect. There is always room for improvement. We are there to extend a helping hand and to point countries in the right direction.

I understand that my job on the Monitoring Committee as a rapporteur in respect of one of the countries is not to pillory a country or slam the door in its face, but to give helpful hints and to show where there is room for improvement. We want countries to be able to respond by saying that these are useful suggestions and that they will proceed along the path of reform together with the Council of Europe.

We have to be honest and ask what the point is of coming forward with resolutions in which we are very critical of countries or paint a damning picture of them. Would it not be better sometimes to not give such issues a public airing? Might we be able to assist in the release of political prisoners if we tackled these issues with sensitivity?

I have great respect for John Prescott. We embarked on the monitoring procedure together. I have learned from him that often, talks need to be conducted behind closed doors, with the press not necessarily knowing what is going on. Things can be done internally with a view to finding a solution. I would pass on that advice to colleagues. Sometimes we must reflect on the objectives we are trying to achieve, rather than contacting the press first.

As other colleagues have said, we need to address the situation in Russia when we meet for the January part-session. We want to resume the dialogue with Russia – there is no doubt about that – but we will not run after the Russian delegation. We need positive signals from Russia, too, so that we can resume the discussion.

To conclude on behalf of the group, I will vote in favour of the report. It should be adopted, but we should never lose sight of our task in the Monitoring Committee – it is to provide assistance to the countries on which we draw up our reports. Thank you very much, Stefan, for the wonderful job you have done.

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

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

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – This Thursday afternoon, we are engaged in a debate of the highest importance – the annual debate on the general state of the member States under monitoring. The speakers for the groups have had time to look at each of the countries that has been brought under the procedure. Stock has been taken of the latest points of progress or lack of progress in each country. Obviously, the point of the exercise is to update our picture of the situation in those countries.

This report was unable to reflect the work that has been done by our rapporteurs in Russia. The Russian Federation continues to have links at other levels of the Organisation, such as the Committee of Ministers, but not at the level of the Parliamentary Assembly. I hope that there are signals from the delegation of the Russian Federation, but we must also be forthcoming. However, in so doing, we must never yield any of our monitoring instruments in respect of any country. The observation of elections is one such instrument that is available to us, and a very useful one at that.

This year, we have reports on countries that have not been under monitoring previously – Andorra, Belgium, Croatia and Cyprus. That was a good job of work, but it needs fine tuning. Mr Schennach is a tremendously hard worker – almost a superman – but more has to be done in this regard. Perhaps in future, other members of the committee could take on countries in this category and work on one country for more months of the year. There would then be a broader distribution of the work.

      In respect of Spain, the recent laws on security and on the constitutional court have been flagged. On 23 April this year, we completed the procedure in respect of Monaco. That was on my saint’s name day. The matter was concluded in the following month in the plenary session. We did not make a declamatory statement, but found creative ways to move forward.

      I thank the committee’s chairman, Mr Schennach, for the enormous amount of work that he has put in. He has worked behind the scenes to mediate between parties and has come up with solutions that others might not have been able to achieve. In that way, we were able to tackle difficult situations and thaw out situations that risked becoming frozen.

      The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers on behalf of the political groups. Mr Schennach, do you wish to respond at this stage? As that is not the case, I call Ms Christoffersen.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The main purpose of the Council of Europe is to make a difference in the lives of ordinary people. Our rapporteur, Mr Schennach, really contributes to that purpose, so I thank him very much for his good work.

      Having said that, it is a sad fact that nine of our member countries – nearly 20% – are under the monitoring procedure because they have not satisfied the necessary minimum standards in respect of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. All became members voluntarily between 12 and 20 years ago. In some countries the situation is even deteriorating, as in Azerbaijan, with severe reprisals against defenders of human rights. Recently, Azerbaijan held the chairmanship of the Council of Europe, but did not make use of such an obvious occasion to speed up its own reform processes.

      By contrast, Mr Schennach’s report also points out some progress. The list of countries under monitoring, for example, is gradually shortening, if slowly. There are positive signs in many of the remaining countries. We also now have the first periodic review reports, and that is a good thing. Democracy has never been won once and for all. Furthermore, we could therefore get rid of the allegations of double standards from some of the countries still under monitoring.

      Finally, I must express a great concern. This week the Bureau decided to uphold the election observation mission to Azerbaijan, despite the severe warnings from ODIHR, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). We have already received reactions to that from non-governmental organisations and, given the earlier accusations of extensive caviar diplomacy in this Assembly as well, the risk is that our credibility as a human rights Organisation could be severely damaged. A recurring issue in the report is the necessary fight against corruption, not yet successful in some member countries.

      Our rapporteurs steadily demand the establishment of independent anti-corruption units with sufficient resources and competencies. Our work in this Assembly is based on trust and on personal declarations of no conflict of interest, but do we really know what is going on? According to Transparency International, corruption is widespread in more member States than the ones under the monitoring procedure. Do we really know whether such practices interfere with our work in this Assembly?

      The Council of Europe has its own corruption monitoring mechanism, GRECO – Group of States against Corruption – which monitors the situation in member States. Its reports are of great value in fighting corruption. Perhaps the time has come to let GRECO monitor the Parliamentary Assembly as well. Alternatively, perhaps we should let a professional outsider, such as Transparency International, do the work for us. If our credibility gets questioned, the biggest losers will be those who find their human rights being violated each day.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Christoffersen. The next speaker is Ms Kyriakides.

      Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – The draft resolution contains some important issues that lie at the heart of the functioning of democratic institutions in Council of Europe member States: adherence to human rights, the rule of law and the values and principles that the Organisation was set up to safeguard and promote. Furthermore, included with the report for the first time, and adding value to it, are the first four periodic reviews of individual countries, including my own country of Cyprus. That is a new parameter following the 2014 reform of the monitoring procedure.

      Cyprus, a member State of this Organisation since 1961 and a member State of the European Union since 2004 is today celebrating its 55th anniversary of independence. It has certainly come a long way, despite its troublesome history and the division of the country since 1974. We therefore fully welcome the encouragement given in the draft resolution to President Anastasiades and the Turkish Cypriot leader Mr Akıncı in their efforts to solve the long-standing Cyprus problem, as well as for ascertaining the fate of missing persons of Cyprus. I only add that the crucial role of Turkey in any solution of the Cyprus problem should not be underestimated.

      Despite the economic crisis that hit Cyprus badly in 2013, efforts were made by the Government to address as effectively as possible, given the severe budgetary restraints, issues that arise in the periodic review on Cyprus and that pertain to educational, humanitarian and social affairs. Recently, for example, the Government has announced plans to build new prisons to alleviate the problem of prison overcrowding. Other legislative measures that have also been taken, or are well under way, pertain to alternatives to the detention of asylum seekers, which have been explained extensively by the Cypriot delegation to the rapporteur, Mr Schennach.

      I make special mention of the enactment of new legislation by the Parliament of Cyprus as a result of specific recommendations by GRECO. The measure to do with the transparency of political party funding is scheduled to be debated in the House of Representatives in mid-October.

      Finally, I refer to paragraph 14.4.5 of the draft resolution and, more specifically, to the mention of Cypriot compliance with the individual measures in the case of Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia. According to the information that I received from our authorities, Cyprus’s full compliance with the general measures of the case included compliance with the individual measures as well. Cyprus sent the details to the Committee of Ministers last November, but as yet has had no response.

      Finally, I emphasise that our purpose should not be to idealise the situation in our respective countries. There is always room for improvement. We are already moving to sign the domestic violence convention; there is a commitment to do so within the next few months. I also state our intention as members of the Cyprus delegation to use the findings of the periodic review of Cyprus and the relevant provisions of the draft resolution in order to press for more improvement to the benefit of Cyprus and all its peoples. In that sense, countries need to see the periodic reviews in a constructive and not a defensive way.

      I extend my congratulations to the rapporteur Mr Schennach for this important report and to the secretariat of the Monitoring Committee for their hard work.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. As Mr Japaridze is not present, I call Mr Matušić.

      Mr MATUŠIĆ (Croatia) – I thank the rapporteur Mr Schennach for his excellent report on countries that are not under the monitoring procedure or in post-monitoring dialogue. I will speak only about Croatia, which is one of the countries to have a periodic review in the report. I want to clarify the situation concerning minority rights and, specifically, the use of bilingual signs in Latin and Cyrillic scripts on official buildings and institutions of the city of Vukovar.

      The preamble to the Constitution of Croatia mentions all 22 national minorities in the country. Eight seats in the Croatian Parliament belong to the national minorities, three of them to the Serbian minority. The Croatian Parliament adopted with a two-thirds majority a constitutional law on minority rights that is respected widely. One provision sets up the threshold for the introduction of bilingualism at one third of the population. Even in parts of the country in which that that criterion is not met we still have bilingualism used in practice. A good example is Istra country or Daruvar city.

      In the city of Vukovar, bilingualism is still a sensitive issue. In the early 1990s Vukovar suffered much and was totally destroyed by the aggression of the Serbian army – under the cover of the so-called Yugoslav People’s Army – and paramilitary troops, or so-called Chetniks. The city is still recovering. The troops committed dreadful genocidal acts by killing more than 200 wounded men whom they found in the hospital after occupation of the city of Vukovar. The reason for this dreadful war crime was simply that they were Croats. Even now, we are still missing more than 1 000 people, most of them from Vukovar. More than 1,600 civilians were killed in Vukovar along with almost 900 defenders of the city. That is why the issue of bilingualism in Vukovar is still a sensitive issue.

      I stress that this issue is still bound up in legal procedures. After Vukovar city council amended the city statute so that it did not have to provide bilingual signs on the city’s institutions in Cyrillic script, the ministry of public administration appealed to the constitutional court and we are awaiting its opinion, in which it should be clear whether or not the decision of Vukovar city council is in line with the previous decisions of the constitutional court.

      I quote from paragraph 8 of the constitutional law of minority rights: “The provisions of this constitutional law … should be interpreted with a view to respecting minorities and Croatian people, developing understanding, solidarity, tolerance and dialogue among them”. The angular attempt by the Croatian Government to impose some provisions of the constitutional law by force without respecting the mood of the Croatian people living in Vukovar is not in line with paragraph 8 of the constitutional law on minority rights.

      I have to say that bilingualism is in use in everyday life. We are talking here only about signs on institutions that belong to the city of Vukovar. If members of the city council coming from the Serbian national minority ask to have written communication with the city in Cyrillic script, for example, they get it, so we are talking only about signs.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Huseynov.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Monitoring procedures are among the most important and useful research that is done by the Parliamentary Assembly. To my mind, if this procedure were implemented fairly and correctly, the outcomes achieved would be much more constructive and there would be rejoicing.

      Monitoring does not only reflect the developments taking place in a particular country; the document prepared on the basis of the observations that have been conducted also displays the image of the Council of Europe. If the report is correct, balanced, fair, impartial and does not display double standards, that reflects well on the Parliamentary Assembly, but if it oversteps those bounds then it damages the prestige of the organisation.

      Unfortunately, reports do not always reflect the results of monitoring procedures or depict the real situation in the country entirely, exactly and thoroughly. Even those aware of the situation in the country being investigated are surprised and ask if the rapporteur or rapporteurs really have travelled to that country or whether their writings are a product of their fantasies.        Ideally, the country will not be subjected to severe treatment that transforms the monitoring report into a tool of pressure, but neither will the shortcomings that are to be corrected be ignored. Such cases should not be highlighted with nakedness; rather, they should be spoken of softly.

      Monitoring is a tool invented to help the member States to feel more confident in the Council of Europe family. Nevertheless, Assembly reports conducted within the past 15 years cannot avoid generating amazement, pity and sometimes astonishment. For instance, one of the major obligations undertaken by Armenia when being accepted to the Council of Europe was to put an end to the occupation of Azerbaijani territories and achieve the solution of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh through negotiations. Until now, Armenia has refused to implement this requirement. On the contrary, it neglects related Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1416, thus trying to hamper the activities of the ad hoc committee set up to supervise the implementation of that resolution. Armenia has prevented two rapporteurs, appointed by two separate Parliamentary Assembly committees, from conducting investigations in that country in line with their mandates.

      Armenian human rights defenders widely report its antidemocratic situation, despotic regime, cruel persecution and torture and arrests of those demanding justice in the country. However, the reports reflecting the monitoring procedures depict everything in purple as if all those things were not true, as if the rapporteurs on the monitoring of Armenia have travelled not to Armenia but to the moon. The rapporteurs implementing monitoring on Armenia forget that they represent the Council of Europe, which should defend the interests as well as the wishes and desires of Armenian society and the Armenian nation on the principles of justice but instead transforms into an active defender of, and advocate for, the criminal Armenian authorities.

      Those aware of the reality perceive such reports and debates with irony, and they experience not only aversion for rapporteurs but also distrust of the Council of Europe. This is a very sad and instructive example. We had better not forget such undesirable cases when talking about positive results and progress following monitoring being conducted on countries in the Parliamentary Assembly.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Mahoux.

      Mr MAHOUX (Belgium)* – At the risk of being repetitive, I in my turn underscore how well Stefan Schennach has done his job. He knows these difficult issues very well and has managed to work on them with a refined touch, but then that is only natural, given that he is a musician. Music, especially baroque music, develops your manners.

      Significant work has also been done by the people behind him. Belgium has been identified as a model. Certainly, the process that was engaged in was a model, and some difficult issues have been covered. Now we have been subjected to one of these evaluations. I have a few comments on this dossier. When it comes to my country reference is often made to the Dutch-speaking Flemish and the French-speaking Walloons, but there is a third significant region – Brussels, the capital city, which is 85% French-speaking.

      Some comments have been made about the overpopulation of prisons. That is true; the status of detainees has not been well defined, and we have shortcomings in our legislation when it comes to inmates of psychiatric institutions – individuals who would be in prison if they had not been identified by a court as not morally responsible for their actions. Fortunately, statements by some of our ministers are not always taken seriously, but they certainly mean that we must be very attentive to the fate reserved for refugees.

      In a country such as Belgium, we must take into consideration the significance of the regions. It is a federal State, and sometimes they have exclusive competences for certain issues. I say this because I want to refer in particular to the non-ratification of the Convention on the Protection of National Minorities. In fact a majority are refusing this ratification. No doubt Belgium is responsible as a whole for this non-ratification, but it has been very difficult because of our regions. In this regard – again, repeating what others have said – I point a finger at this denial of justice. One of our colleagues, a member of this Assembly, legitimately elected by the population of their country, has not been confirmed in the position of mayor because of the will of a regional executive. That needs to be underscored, and I do so all the more willingly because, as Stefan Schennach has pointed out, this is not a partisan problem. The colleague in question, a member of this Assembly, is not a member of the same political group as me; in some instances he is in the majority, and in others I am.

      In closing, congratulations, Stefan, on the excellent job that you have done.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Sobolev.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – First, I want to stress the really good work of Mr Schennach.

      Countries that are under the monitoring procedure can set a good example in solving a lot of problems. We have only 10 amendments, most of which were totally supported by the committee. That is a good example of such work. Maybe now it is time to discuss what is meant by violations of our principles and by crimes that we see in countries that are members of this serious Organisation.

      Twenty years ago, Ukraine became a member of the Council of Europe as one unanimous, united country. In those 20 years, we have seen Russians occupy Crimea, one third of the territory of Luhansk, and half the territory of Donetsk Oblast. Seven thousand civilians and military men have been killed and 10 000 wounded, and now we are discussing how to solve these crimes. This is an excellent time to discuss what can be the future of such occupations and conflicts, when we will not prevent the example of Georgia, and now the example of Ukraine, and one of the countries of the Council of Europe has totally violated all criminal codes and international laws against other countries.

      Ukraine has made, and is making, all efforts to use the European Court of Human Rights. Maybe you know, or maybe not, that in the European Court of Human Rights we currently have five serious documents on which we want its decision. In this period, we ask the Russian Federation this simple question: why did you occupy Crimea and other parts of Ukraine? Without the answer of the European Court of Human Rights, it is impossible for us to take further steps. For the sake of each of the countries that are occupied by another one, it is very important to understand whether we are one family where we can resolve these questions or countries that protect only their own territory, not protecting the human being and the principles of this Organisation.

      Why are we discussing this now? I have heard a lot about future dialogue. Of course the Ukrainian delegation is also in favour of future dialogue, but dialogue is a two-sided movement. It is impossible to use force of argument or logic against the force of artillery, tanks and other military efforts that the Russian Federation used against our country and against Georgia. For us, this report is a good example of the fact that we need not only to stress some questions but to find the ways to solve them.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Denemeç.

      Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey) – I thank Mr Schennach for his efforts in the preparation of this report.

      I want to draw to your attention paragraph 2.3.4 of the report, which focuses on Turkey. I am disappointed that paragraphs 91 to 98 contain numerous allegations with serious accusations that are not based on concrete or reliable information. This harms the credibility and objectivity of this report which will become today an official Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe document. For instance, paragraph 91 includes allegations about "undue limitations on the fundamental freedoms of association and expression, as well as electoral rights" without any concrete example of the breach of these fundamental rights.        Similarly, paragraph 96 mentions the possible cancellation of individual appeals to the constitutional court, which is not on the agenda of Turkish authorities.

      Regarding act 5651, on the internet, we have already informed the monitoring and media committees about its scope, aims and content. This law protects the balance between the protection of the privacy and freedom of expression and aims to address cases of breach of privacy of persons. The security act referred to in paragraph 99 does not give the police the authority to search homes and vehicles. According to the law, only police chiefs have the authority to initiate searches and a monitoring mechanism is established in order to avoid abuses, as is practised in several European Union countries. The law gives Turkish police the right to hold a suspect under custody for 24 hours with the approval of the public prosecutors, and for 48 hours for collective crimes only. This provision is limited to “in flagrante delicto” cases and to serious offences such as deliberate murder, child abuse, sexual assault, and manufacturing and trafficking of narcotic substances.

      Accusing the Turkish authorities of the suspension of the peace process would be a shame for our Assembly when, in these difficult times, we should be condemning terrorism. Turkey has lost tens of young people in a couple of weeks despite all its efforts regarding the peace process.

      I would like to reiterate that Turkey is determined to complete the reform process necessary for the closing of the post-monitoring dialogue process. However, the Assembly’s evaluations and recommendations should be fair, balanced and realistic. In this vein, I ask for your support for our amendments.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Kobakhidze.

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – On behalf of the Georgian delegation, let me express our deepest appreciation and gratitude to the Council of Europe, especially to the Parliamentary Assembly, for its firm support on our harsh path to carry out democratic reforms in the country. In this regard, we greatly value the efforts of the Monitoring Committee and maintain our readiness to closely co-operate with it to ensure that the recommendations it makes are duly reflected in the decisions of the incumbent government.

      As you know, after the 2012 parliamentary elections our government carried out several important reforms in the fields of criminal justice, the judiciary, and the police and prosecution system, making them depoliticised and unbiased. The reforms ensured the existence of a free media and guaranteed freedom of expression. Systemic, grave crimes like torture of prisoners and inhumane treatment in detention facilities existent before 2012 have been eradicated. Violations of the right to a fair trial have been eliminated. The level of independence of courts is higher now, and so is the number of acquittals throughout the country. Just recently, in 2013, we initiated electoral reform, and to perfect the electoral environment we are constantly elaborating the legislative initiatives so that by the 2016 parliamentary elections we will equalise the number of voters in the single-mandate constituencies, addressing one of the priority recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Moreover, the parliamentary majority in the Georgian Parliament has initiated a constitutional amendment bill to establish a true proportional electoral system in Georgia.

      I would like also to touch on the reform of the prosecution office. According to the new law adopted recently, the general prosecutor will be elected by the parliament. This puts prosecution activities under parliamentary control – a rule that was completely ignored during the previous government. These important changes will promote the accountability of the prosecutor’s office towards society and the parliament and will render its activities more transparent. I strongly believe that we are on the right track to a democracy where fundamental rights are guaranteed. We hope that our progress will be duly reflected in the coming monitoring mission report.

      The PRESIDENT – As Mr Nikoloski is not here, I call Mr Jordana Madero.

      Mr JORDANA MADERO (Andorra)* – I congratulate you, Mr Schennach, on the high quality of your report. I will focus on issues pertaining to my country, Andorra. You gave a neat and fair description of Andorra and its 1 000 years of history, and you made three recommendations that I will deal with. On the issue of co-operation with GRECO and MONEYVAL, given that you published your report in May, you were not able to include the fact that we have recently approved three laws modifying our support for the law on international criminal co-operation. The major crisis in the financial sector, because of the malpractice of a bank, shook our whole system. We believe, however, that we will ride out the storm and continue to move forward.

      As for asylum, we are aware of the fact that, as you say in your report, we are a very small country, along with Liechtenstein, Monaco and San Marino. Nevertheless, even though we are one of the smaller countries, we are negotiating our accession to the European Union. Because of the refugee crisis, we were aware that we did not have appropriate legislation in that regard, but we nevertheless demonstrated solidarity.

      We also have shortcomings concerning freedom of the press, which you flagged up. As a small country of only 70 000 inhabitants, it is very difficult to step in in that regard. You call for neutrality of the press and we seek to have separation of powers, but arranging for full freedom and autonomy of the press is sometimes difficult in a very small community. It is not that we do not wish to do so; it is just rather difficult to achieve, but we certainly all wish to work with full transparency on honouring our obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Jordana Madero. I call Ms Pallarés Cortés.

      Ms PALLARÉS CORTÉS (Andorra) – I echo the words of my colleague by thanking Mr Schennach, and also the secretariat of the Monitoring Committee, for their work in preparing the report on Andorra. Moreover, I give thanks for the opportunity I had to share different points of view about the content in the committee meeting held in Sarajevo.

      My country is making huge efforts to implement the Council of Europe’s recommendations. That is not easy for us. I ask you all to do an easy exercise: think, just for a second, of any town in your country with approximately 70 000 inhabitants. Now, imagine that town trying to deal with and fulfil not only all the compromises derived from this Assembly, but all the other compromises derived from other international organisations such as the United Nations. I am sure you understand how difficult that can be. However, we have been proud members of this Assembly since 1994. Since then, we have been striving hard, and even though that has often not been easy, we go ahead and keep trying to improve. I am therefore happy to see the positive recognition of our efforts in the draft resolution.

      Of course, we still have many things to do. One of the report’s recommendations, as my colleague mentioned, is to work on the preparation of national legislation on asylum seekers and refugees. We know that right now, that is urgent, and the subject was raised in our parliamentary sitting last week, following the Government’s willingness, as announced last week, to host some families in our territory. The ministries of foreign affairs, health and home affairs and local councils are working alongside non-governmental organisations on designing a proper protocol. I emphasise that that is not happening just as a reaction to the Assembly’s recommendations; it is also in response to the demands from many sectors in our civil society that really wish to help and contribute. I think – and we think – that this is really important, because if our societies believe in human rights and in solidarity, such decisions are politically easier to take and implement. Yesterday in the Assembly, we discussed religion in schools and how to respect different ways of living, but teaching human rights in our schools should be a priority on our agendas and in all member States. Congratulations again on this good report, and thank you.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Pallarés Cortés. I call Mr Kürkçü.

      Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – I want to criticise the report, although not from the same standpoint as Mr Denemeç, who said that it was full of biased and unprincipled criticism of how the Turkish government is functioning. Instead, I criticise the rapporteur for being overly balanced and taking an overly neutral approach towards what is going on in Turkey these days. What we have now is not a constitutional State, but one ruled arbitrarily by the President of Turkey, Tayyip Erdoğan, who openly expresses that his position is contrary to the constitution and that the constitution has to be changed, but not his attitude. Turkey is now drifting away from every principle that it has signed up to under European conventions, and therefore, the situation in Turkey is urgent.

      This Assembly should be aware of what is going on in Turkey. On 1 November, Turkey will decide on either returning to democracy or descending into tyranny. This is the dramatic point that we are passing through. Unfortunately, the report perhaps reflects the situation in Turkey one, two or three years ago, but in the last six months, the situation has changed drastically. This morning, Turkey opened its eyes to reports that a famous TV presenter from a major media group was assaulted the night before. That media group has been targeted by Tayyip Erdoğan for months. On the night of 7 September, our party branches in 400 places and the workplaces of Kurdish business men were raided by gangs. All our party’s premises, including our headquarters, were smashed up. No one – not even one person – has been prosecuted for that. Only one person was questioned by a prosecutor. It was the leader of our party, who called on the party membership to protect themselves from those mobs, which is a basic right under the Turkish constitution and criminal law. This is the situation in Turkey.

       Turkey is no longer a normal State in which we can criticise with reference to the Council of Europe’s values. The situation could change if our party can overcome the barrier of national elections despite the unlawful, arbitrary pressure that is applied, particularly on the Kurdish people in the south-east of Turkey. I am sure, and I am assured, that the Turkish public and all other nationals living in Turkey cannot go along with this retrograde position of Turkey’s statehood. Either the President will change, or Turkey will change without this President. This is a very serious time for Turkey, and the Council of Europe should take those issues into account when evaluating the report, which is unbalanced because the situation is even graver than it recognises.

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

      Mr ÇAĞLAR (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community) – I thank Mr Schennach and the secretariat of the Monitoring Committee for their hard work and their excellent report. I would not have taken the floor today since we were told that the progress report was not about the Cyprus question nor about the northern part of Cyprus. Yet unfortunately more than two pages of the explanatory memorandum are devoted to the Cyprus question. There are also omissions with regard to the situation on the ground in North Cyprus. I will talk simply about the most striking ones due to the time limitation.

      First of all, the official population of North Cyprus, according to the latest census carried out in the presence of the United Nations in 2011, is 297 000. Some 220 000 have citizenship and the remainder are students and workers. Turkish military personnel are not part of the official population.

      I turn now to the allegations regarding the so-called invasion/occupation. I remind you that there is no United Nations Security Council resolution or decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the legal aspect of the Turkish intervention carried out in accordance with the treaty of guarantee of 1960. Having said that, it hurts me deeply to see that at a time when a very positive atmosphere has been achieved on the island after such a long time, the language used and the approach adopted by our Greek Cypriot friends and partners in international and regional forums still needs revision. We see that as an important element of confidence-building in Cyprus, and hope that what is necessary will soon be done. I have always wanted, and worked for, a solution in Cyprus. I have always believed that one day a federal solution on the basis of mutual respect and political equality will be attained. The rejection of the Annan plan in 2004 by Greek Cypriots disappointed me but did not prevent me from pursuing that objective.

      Is 50 years of conflict not enough? Is conflict and mutual rejection what we want to pass on to future generations in Cyprus? Is holding on to old narratives and power struggles more important than contributing to the current process and helping it come to a happy conclusion? I believe that it is now time to drop the Cyprus question from the agenda of the international community by achieving a united Cyprus federation and devoting the energy of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots alike in Cyprus to the real problems of the world. Let us send Mr Akinci and Mr Anastasiades, the two community leaders, a message from the Council of Europe to accelerate the negotiation process and achieve peace in Cyprus.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mrs Naghdalyan.

      Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) – Our Azeri colleague precisely described the situation in Azerbaijan but deliberately mixed up the names of the countries. Let us not take it too seriously, and let us forgive him, dear colleagues, as he seems to be on the moon, far from realities in his own country. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

      I thank Mr Schennach for the comprehensive work that has gone into this report, as well as Mr Meale and Mr Fischer, rapporteurs on Armenia, for their careful scrutiny of the developments in the country and the recent information note on Armenia. That document focuses, inter alia, on the constitutional reform process currently taking place in Armenia. In 2013, the President established a specialised commission on constitutional reform with the aim of further strengthening the constitutional safeguards for the rule of law and respect for human rights and freedoms, achieving an appropriate balance of powers, promoting good governance and enhancing the efficiency of public administration.

Referring to the assessment of the Venice Commission, the rapporteurs underscore the importance and high quality of the work and close co-operation with the Venice Commission, and welcome the readiness of the specialised commission to incorporate the Venice Commission’s recommendations in the draft amendments, emphasising that this is a “sign of the willingness of the authorities to honour their commitments and obligations to the Council of Europe.”

      According to the Venice Commission, the fundamental rights and freedoms that are constitutionally guaranteed are substantially increased and enriched in the amended text. The amended constitution, inter alia, foresees transition from a presidential to a parliamentary system. The rapporteurs welcome the fact that with the increased power of the Parliament, the draft constitutional amendments also aim to strengthen the constitutional rights of the opposition in Parliament.

      We are firmly of the view that comprehensive constitutional reform can be carried out only on the basis of broad consensus in society. The whole process hinges on the principle of transparency as a way of engaging all interested parties through open public discussions. All political parties have been invited to submit their observations and take part in political consultations. At the same time active public discussions were carried out with the participation of all stakeholders: lawyers, the media, the public, politicians, judicial sector representatives, parliamentary and non-parliamentary forces, public organisations and civil society representatives, as well as experts from international organisations. The constitutional initiative provides an exceptional opportunity for reform in the country which should not be missed. In conclusion, I once again thank the Council of Europe for its support.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Vovk is not here, so I call Mr Zourabian.

      Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – Armenia is one of a few countries in Europe where power cannot change hands through elections. A robust machine for the falsification of elections created by the ruling party has ensured its victory in every election in the last 18 years. There is, however, one obstacle to the continuation of the rule of the incumbent President – the constitutional ban on his third consecutive term of presidency. It is the sole reason why the incumbent President initiated a constitutional change, as did dozens of other authoritarian presidents throughout the world when confronted with constitutional restrictions on the duration of their rule. The incumbent’s plan is to transform Armenia into a parliamentary republic, in which he will retain his power, combining the roles of the chairman of the Parliament and President of the ruling party.

      It is no surprise that there is strong opposition to those political designs in Armenia. We had already opted for the semi-presidential constitution in 1995, and the constitution was brought into accordance with the demands of the Council of Europe in 2005. In the opinion of the Venice Commission, a change in constitutional regime can be based only on broad political and social consensus. That is exactly what does not exist in Armenia. A strong “No” alliance to oppose the change has been created, uniting a broad range of political forces and non-governmental organisations. The Armenian national platform of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum, comprising 200 NGOs, has unanimously rejected the reform as unnecessary and untimely.

      In this situation, the Assembly cannot consider Armenia’s efforts to reform constitutional framework as a positive development, as the Monitoring Committee’s report proposes. The Assembly should not side with the efforts of Armenia’s authoritarian Government to impose this highly controversial change. It has no right to predetermine the will of the Armenian people, which has yet to be expressed in the referendum on constitutional change. That phrasing should be removed from the resolution.

The democratic movement in Armenia needs the solidarity of the Council of Europe. Unfortunately, the Monitoring Committee, both of whose Armenian members are subservient to the ruling regime and have successfully manipulated the staff preparing draft texts on Armenia, is not up to the task. That should be corrected quickly.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Zourabian. I call Mr Loukaides.

Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – I had planned to withdraw from the speakers list, as I was covered by several other colleagues, especially my colleague from Cyprus, even though she comes from the ruling party and I come from the opposition. Nevertheless, I take the floor, first to congratulate Mr Stefan Schennach and the secretariat on their good work and secondly to express my regret for the speech made by my good friend and Turkish Cypriot colleague Mehmet Çağlar. We are not here to discuss the Cyprus question. That was not the purpose of the report, which is why, although there is a brief historical background, many aspects of the Cyprus problem are not included. We could have been very critical of that brief historical background, because it has deficiencies and weaknesses, but that was not the purpose of the report. That is why we are not criticising it.

To give one example, we are discussing an Organisation that protects human rights and fundamental freedoms. There is not one word in the report concerning the mass violation of human rights and basic freedoms of Greek Cypriots by Turkey since the invasion of 1974. Many other aspects are also not covered. Nevertheless, I underline that we salute the report, because that was not its purpose. It is critical of several aspects of the findings of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and GRECO. As my colleague Ms Kyriakidou said, we should take all those findings into account in order to improve ourselves: that is, the free territories – the part of the island under the efficient control of the Republic of Cyprus.

Allow me to comment on some of Mr Çağlar’s remarks. First, population is a critical issue. I regret that Mr Çağlar wants this Organisation to legalise a great number of settlers who were brought to Cyprus, which was in fact a war crime by Turkey. There were just 120 000 Turkish Cypriots before 1974. Secondly, although the word “occupation” is not in this report, other reports and resolutions by this Organisation discuss Turkey’s invasion and occupation of Cyprus. Thirdly, we should revise our attitude – mostly, Turkey should revise its attitude – and support the process in Cyprus between the two leaders. I hope that next year, by this part-session, the Cyprus problem will be solved, but it will be solved only if Turkey assists in that direction.

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

Mr THIÉRY (Belgium) – Dear colleagues, it is now my turn to thank Mr Schennach for the very important and complex work that he has done. Those of you who have looked through all the documents – particularly part 3, which covers Belgium – will have got a sense of how different and special Belgium’s situation is. Our country is sometimes referred to as a laboratory for the cohabitation of communities, and our example is sometimes followed in other countries.

I will not repeat what has been said by my colleague Mr Mahoux; I agree entirely with him. I would like Mr Schennach to comment on two basic aspects of the report’s recommendations and conclusions. Paragraph 72 in part 3 states that Belgium has “so far not signed/ratified certain Council of Europe conventions”, which of course is entirely true. Paragraph 72.4 refers to the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities, and paragraph 74.2 includes a request that Belgium “implement the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities’ recommendations on the situation of local and regional democracy in Belgium.” Mr Mahoux referred to a very specific case in Belgium involving a mayor who is not being appointed by a regional Minister because it is not in his interests. If the region had taken into consideration the recommendations of the congress, the problem would be resolved.

However, what bothers me in reading the various parts of the report is that I realise that the conclusions and recommendations in part 3 are not taken up in the draft resolution that we are voting on this afternoon, but have been set aside completely. In the explanatory memorandum submitted to the preparatory meeting, Mr Schennach accepted the opening up of paragraph 2 to include a reference to the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities. That has been done in part 3, so I find it quite surprising that that recommendation is not included in the draft resolution. Mr Schennach, can you shed light on that? Why is there a difference between the explanatory memorandum and the text that we are voting on? If it has just been forgotten, that is very deleterious to my country.

So there are at least two major shortcomings in the draft resolution concerning Belgium, and there are some glaring inequalities in how a minority is treated when it lives in the territory of the other community. I do not want to blame anyone for that, but I find it regrettable that that recommendation is not included in the draft on which we are voting. I am trying to be constructive and I hope that the report will be taken into account.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Schennach to reply; you have four minutes.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I warmly thank all those who have contributed to the debate and it is rare for the Chair of the Monitoring Committee to receive so much praise.

      Bob Walter and Andreas Gross recalled one of our biggest achievements in recent years in breaking the political impasse in Macedonia and getting the parties together, which is the kind of thing that can be achieved if you persevere.

      It was said that we should not engage in party politics but, rather, look at things objectively and decide what needs to be done. We are not trying to interfere in domestic political debate or to change the rules of the game. The Council of Europe has a neutral role.

      I thank Jordi Xuclà for his suggestion, which I shall take up. In the remaining months of my chairmanship we shall try to find a solution. It is too much when a Chair has to look at four countries in detail, so perhaps we can devise a system to distribute the load more equitably.

      It was a short summer for the Bureau and members of the Secretariat. We had to finalise many reports at the last minute, so most members of the Secretariat had a very short summer. When we conclude perhaps we can give them a round of applause. I have never encountered people who are willing to give up their summer holidays.

      My heart lies in the Balkans. I acknowledge the passion Bosnians bring to a number of the issues we have addressed. We are all aware that serious war crimes were committed in Vukovar, but despite that it should be possible to retain what we have achieved as a result of tolerance.

      We have had fantastic co-operation with countries subject to periodic review – Andorra, Belgium, Cyprus, Croatia. Yes, mistakes have been made but the sharing of information has enabled us to implement the monitoring process.

      I should like to explain something that was misunderstood in the debate. Monitoring is looking at what is happening with human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We have frozen conflicts, and if we look at them only through the prism of those conflicts we shall go round in circles for years to come. Frozen conflicts must be dealt with separately, which is why we have set up an ad hoc committee on them. My colleague from Cyprus made that point rather well; we must move on together and promote our common values.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I understand that the Vice-Chair of the committee wishes to speak.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – I am proud to be Vice-Chair to Mr Schennach, the Chair of the Monitoring Committee. He has done a fantastic job over the past two years and has created a special environment in which our committee has worked.

      It is impossible to applaud with one hand, but with two hands I applaud him for giving the committee a voice. He has worked with all members, with the Bureau and with our friends, and his report offers an example for our future work.

      On behalf of the committee, let me express my gratitude, my dear friend, for all your efforts, for your personal involvement and for this report. Thank you, thank you and again thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Seyidov. The debate is closed. The committee has presented a draft resolution, to which 12 amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and Organisation of Debates.

      I remind members that speeches are limited to 30 seconds.

      We come to Amendment 1, to which there is a sub-amendment. I call Mr Sobolev to support the amendment.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – The amendment gives us the opportunity to implement concrete decisions of the Council of Europe. We support the sub-amendment proposed by the Chair of the committee.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Schennach to support the sub-amendment on behalf of the committee.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The sub-amendment deletes the last sentence of the paragraph and it enjoyed a large majority in our committee.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I agree.

      THE PRESIDENT – The committee is in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 7, which has a sub-amendment. I call Mr Zourabian to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – By using this phrasing, the Assembly is effectively siding with the government’s effort to change the constitution. That is rejected by the opposition and civil society of Armenia as an attempt by the incumbent president to retain power. It predetermines the will of the Armenian people, which has yet to be expressed in the referendum. The amendment would make the Assembly take a neutral stance.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Schennach to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I have tabled a sub-amendment to use the phrase “Armenia, the initiation of the constitutional reform”. That is more neutral and reform has started. There is not a public debate, but the reform has started.

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

      Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – If adopted, the sub-amendment would not completely resolve the issue of the Assembly’s neutrality. While the Assembly would not be supporting the efforts to reform the constitution, the proposed phrasing would still leave room for the government to sell it as support for initiating the reform, which is viewed by Armenian society as unnecessary and untimely.

      THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour. The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 7, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 7, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 7, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 10. I call Ms Kobakhidze to support the amendment.

       Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – The rapporteur refers to the OSCE report published on 9 December 2014, but his report covers a period well after that date and so omits many positive developments that have successfully addressed many of the problems mentioned.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Paragraph 10.5 is much clearer as I drafted it. Sometimes, it is well not to weaken the text. The cases of intolerance are not sporadic. In my version, I speak openly of this. We discussed this with the Armenian Justice Minister and I am sure that, in future, there will be much improvement, but for a report about last year we have to use this formulation.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 10 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 5, which has a sub-amendment. I call Ms Taktakishvili to support the amendment.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – The amendment seeks to stick to the same wording as was used in Resolution 2015 (2014), adopted last October. It speaks of systemic deficiencies in the court system in the cases involving opposition leaders and former government officials.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Schennach to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The sub-amendment would add the words “including also opposition political figures” after the words “in certain cases”. It is not only political figures.

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

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – We oppose the sub-amendment because it is groundless and motivated only by the subjective political interest of a single political party.

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

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

      The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 5, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 8. I call Mr Ghiletchi to support the amendment.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The amendment’s purpose is to reflect more correctly the situation in Moldova. Each party that participated in the elections presented a financial report, so we cannot agree that there is a “lack of transparency”, but we agree that there was insufficient transparency.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 9, which has a sub-amendment. I must point out that the sub-amendment applies only in the English version of the text. I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 9.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – We agree that the State institutions do not function as they are supposed to but we cannot agree that they are malfunctioning. We want to replace the word “malfunctioning” with “dysfunctionality” but I understand that we need a change to the English.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Schennach to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The sub-amendment is merely technical. Our committee is happy to have native speakers and Baroness Eccles told us that the correct word is “dysfunctioning”.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour. The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The committee is in favour of correct English.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 11. I call Ms Kobakhidze to support the amendment.

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – The signature of the so-called treaties between the Russian Federation and the occupied regions of Georgia falls within the reporting period and is reflected in the rapporteur’s explanatory memorandum. It is of the utmost importance that the so-called signature and its consequences are mentioned in the resolution.

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

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 11 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 4. I call Mr Denemeç to support the amendment.

      Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey) – Accusing the Turkish authorities of suspending the peace process would shame this Assembly. In these difficult times we should be condemning terrorism. The measured condition of the peace process was the disarmament of the PKK terrorist organisation, which has not been fulfilled. Turkey has lost tens of young people in the past couple of weeks, despite all its efforts in the peace process.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I am sorry that I must speak against Reha, but if we replace the original version with this amendment, we will cut the reference to the “independence and efficient functioning of the judiciary, prosecution service and police force”. We cannot lose that from the resolution. The peace process was suspended in April 2015, and the bad terrorist attacks happened later. Please save the reference to the independence of the judiciary, prosecution service and police force.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 6, which has a sub-amendment. I call Mr Chikovani to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr CHIKOVANI (Georgia) – The amendment would reflect the wording that we have used in previous progress reports. It would also include a reference to one of the main political reforms that Georgia still has to enact, and is failing to enact because of the ruling coalition’s neglect. The issue unites pretty much every opposition party, whether inside or outside parliament. The amendment would send an important message, because the next elections will happen in 2016 and Georgia has to act swiftly to ensure that we have a proper system in place.

      THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the sub-amendment. I call Mr Schennach to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The sub-amendment would not replace words but add actions. Amendment 6 would add the words “to consider a proportional regional election system, based on open lists, which seems to have the agreement of most, if not all, political forces in the country”.

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

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – The sub-amendment would represent a direct intervention on the sovereign authority of the national government to choose the relevant electoral system. The process should involve not just a single party but the whole political spectrum. We have already initiated serious electoral reforms, so we do not support the amendment.

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

      Mr CHIKOVANI (Georgia) – I agree with the sub-amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

      I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

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

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 2. I call Mr Sobolev to support the amendment.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – We want not to forget about political prisoners detained in Russia, particularly our colleague Nadiia Savchenko.

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

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 12. I call Ms Kobakhidze to support the amendment.

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – These requirements were set out in Resolutions 1633 (2008), 1648 (2009), 1664 (2009), 1683 (2009) and 1916 (2013) on the consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia. However, the Russian Federation has not fulfilled any of the requirements of those resolutions. It is therefore necessary for the Parliamentary Assembly to recall the stance that it has taken.

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

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 12 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 3. I call Mr Denemeç to support the amendment.

      Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey) – Religious minorities already have appropriate legal status in Turkey under the 1923 treaty of Lausanne.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – There is insufficient protection, but that is not what we are discussing. Turkey is a big country with citizens of many religions, and the treaty of Lausanne recognises only three religious minorities. I am sure that there are 10 or 15 religious minorities in Turkey that are not protected.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13868 Part 1, as amended. A simple majority is required.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 13868 Part 1, as amended, is adopted, with 58 votes for, 2 against and 1 abstention.

      I congratulate the rapporteur, those who worked with him and the secretariat. I thank all who participated in the discussion.

2. Free debate

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the free debate.

I remind members that this debate is for topics not already on the agenda agreed on Monday morning. Speaking time will be limited to four minutes.

      The free debate will finish at 8 p.m.

      I call first Mr Kürkçü on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. You have four minutes, and please start by identifying the topic you wish to raise.

      Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – In this free debate, I would like to stress what I said in the morning sitting about the precarious situation in Turkey. I draw the attention of the Assembly to the special mission that it is sending to Turkey to follow the elections. As I have said, those elections will be historic – they hold much more importance than anybody who looks at them from outside Turkey could imagine.

Turkey, with its population of 78 million people, its multi-ethnic and multi-religious background, its huge capacity for production and its well-educated sections of society, could become one of the trend-setting countries of the region in the direction of peace and prosperity. However, there are unresolved questions that are the remnants of age-old inequalities, dating back to the Ottoman days, the First World War and the partition of the Middle East by the big powers. We are trying to find a peaceful way out of those contradictions.

We would like the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, without prejudices, to pay attention to the broader issues and not just place importance on economic issues. The Assembly should help Turkey to settle its contradictions using its own means by giving strength to civil society, political parties and citizens’ organisations. That must be done not by the use of State apparatus, but through citizens’ organisations. With the backing of the democratic, enlightened and progressive sections of Europe, Turkey can solve those age-old questions. Only in that way can Turkey become one of the trend-setting countries of Europe.

If Europe looks at Turkey from the standpoint of short-sighted interests, it will see only the Syrian disaster that we are passing through. Europe and the United States see Turkey as an auxiliary country in their war in Syria and we are now seeing the result of that. We therefore ask the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to pay the greatest attention to Turkey’s civil society and democratic institutions during the life or death struggle of the 1 November elections.

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

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Kürkçü. I call Mr Nicoletti on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – I invite the Assembly to think about the role that is played by the Council of Europe at this extraordinary point in time in which we live. In the next part-session, I hope that we will find time for a broad debate on the role and function that the Council of Europe should play, with the input of our countries and political groups.

We are in a new phase. We have concluded the initial phase of the Council of Europe with the construction of a legal framework and the institutional arrangements. On 4 and 5 November, we will commemorate 65 years since the creation of our human rights basis. We have the legal framework and the institutions, but we are at a point of crisis where we run the risk of losing a member State of this institution. People may assume that it is possible to reduce the human rights standards that we apply. If we did that, we would be backsliding and not progressing.

In this third phase, we need to be very clear about the role that the Council of Europe should play, having created the legal framework and fleshed that framework out. We need to look in depth at how our values can become properly rooted within the individuals who make up our societies. People are still afraid of our values; people are afraid of freedom. They think that freedom of thought can have negative consequences – activists and journalists are imprisoned and people assume that that indicates strength, even though it actually indicates weakness. If things are being taken from anyone, they are being taken from us. People are also afraid of fraternity. Human life on earth depends on a minimum level of solidarity, but people fear that solidarity itself is dangerous.

      I was pleased to hear that people wish to reopen a dialogue with Russia, but we have to decide whether we remain committed to bringing about the pan-European dream or whether we want to call it into question. We have to look at democracy at an international level. We are fine at assessing internal democracy, but we must be committed to democratising Europe, European governance and world governance.

      We are faced with new challenges, which can be seen every day in the media – human tragedies and the climate and environmental challenge facing us. Our Organisation has to be present at the hugely important conference due to take place in Paris, because environmental questions are a matter of human survival – people need to have access to fundamental resources such as water. We must be brave enough not to fear the future.

      We cannot force anyone into any position, but we have the force of conviction and of history on our side. Let us look back to the victims of human rights violations; the men and women who fled violence and were brave enough to speak up about it; and the people who are persecuted for their religion or lack of religion, or for their sexual orientation. We must be brave enough to lead from the front in this third phase of the Council of Europe.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Nicoletti. I call Mr Farmanyan to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – It is a great pleasure for me to have the chance to speak on behalf of the EPP group, as I am only a new member of this honourable Assembly.

      The refugee crisis is a hot topic in Strasbourg this week and in New York at the 70th anniversary jubilee General Assembly of the United Nations. We are discussing a situation in which hundreds of thousands of refugees are knocking at the doors of different European countries in an attempt to safeguard their most fundamental right, the right to life. How far and how comprehensively do we address the core reasons for the recent situation? Should we not address those core reasons that allowed the situation to grow and confront us now?

      Closed societies, autocratic forms of governance, crackdowns on the seeds of civil society, and the rejection of human rights and fundamental freedoms reflect dictatorship, xenophobia, hatred and the crystallisation of a fascist regime, which can lead to devastation and the suffering of millions. This is the fourth day that I have spent at the Parliamentary Assembly and wherever I have been, whether at a group, committee or plenary meeting, I have often heard about Azerbaijan. It is one of the most mentioned countries in the Assembly.

      We should pay attention to the fact that whenever we speak about the deteriorating human rights situation in Azerbaijan, we are not talking about that country alone. More than 100 political opponents of the Aliyev regime and human rights activists have been jailed over recent years, and yet my friend Mr Huseynov was applauding one of the leaders of the Armenian opposition speaking in the Chamber about constitutional reform. We would like the same pleasure – to be able to applaud Azerbaijani opposition politicians speaking in the Assembly, whether blaming their Government or not.

      Where is the truth? The truth is that the economic situation has worsened in countries with an oil-based economy, and Azerbaijan also has parliamentary elections due in a month, on 1 November, I think, so President Aliyev is on the one hand fostering his anti-European rhetoric – in effect blaming all European institutions – and anti-Armenian hatred, and jailing dozens more human rights activists, and on the other hand is escalating the situation on the front line with Nagorno-Karabakh.

      What should be the conclusion? We should pay attention to all those facts if a new fascist regime is not to be crystallised on the eastern shore of the bigger European family.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Farmanyan. I now call Ms Sotnyk, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – I want to raise the issue of intervention in a State’s domestic affairs and in particular military intervention in another State’s political processes.

      The United Nations friendly relations declaration states: “No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.”

      Non-intervention protects matters reserved for each State to decide freely under the principle of State sovereignty. Among such matters are the choice of political, economic, social and cultural systems and the formulation of foreign policy, which should be the product of internal political processes and international co-operation. Interference in political activities, such as through financial or other support for particular political parties or candidates, lies beyond the principle of non-intervention. Intervention can unsettle democratic processes and disturb internal processes by which the will of the people is translated into the State’s policies.

      Unfortunately, genuine democratic principles are increasingly coming under threat because of some States’ actions. Interference through the promotion of alternative, propagandistic media has long been a policy in international affairs. However, other tools, such as the financing of political players, the constant threat of the use of military force and support for the separation of regions with claims to independence are increasingly present in international politics.

      This behaviour cannot be tolerated any more. There is simply no place for 20th-century tactics in the 21st century. It creates divisions in societies that can threaten the stability of internal political systems and States’ sovereignty as well as their integrity. We need to lead the way and set new, mutually developed guidelines for international political conduct, emphasising the principle of non-interference. This would allow the easing of current international political tensions and could become a cornerstone in the future development of international relations.

      While discussing the subject of political non-interference, we need to ask ourselves: in what kind of world would we like our children to live, a stable, guided international community or an anarchic “each State for themselves” system? We invite the Assembly to rethink and revise this crucial political issue.

      THE PRESIDENT * – Thank you. I call the Earl of Dundee.

      Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – In commenting briefly upon local democracy or localism within Council of Europe States, I want to highlight three ways in which within our 21st-century Europe it makes very positive and connected contributions, and to suggest that these should be acknowledged and further encouraged. The first is internal localism. Where practicable, the more that national governments transfer powers to their own regions and communities, the better the function becomes – as well as the greater the respect afforded to it – of national democracy itself. The second is external localism. This is where a city or region in one country may form a working partnership with that in another, to the mutual economic and social advantage of each, both locally and, thus, also nationally.

      The third is the influence of localism in promoting far more accurate measures of national performance, and hence also in enabling a far better understanding of how national success should be defined in the first place. Hitherto, for the latter we have tended to use the measures of gross domestic product only, yet on its own Gross Domestic Product (GDP) does not tell the whole story. Now, as a result, we refer not just to GDP

but to a combination of GDP and other indicators: those of the satisfaction or well-being of people where they live in their homes and communities. The criteria for such assessments are currently detailed by the OECD and are increasingly addressed, too, by our own Council of Europe States.

      The Council of Europe has assisted internal localism. National centres have already transferred powers to a considerable extent. Progress is evident from intergovernmental programmes and from the actions and responses of local and regional administrations, as well as from those of Congress and our own parliaments. In England, the United Kingdom Government has encouraged citizen participation through the introduction of community rights. These allow communities to be more in control of their physical, social and economic environments from decision-making to delivery.

      External localism has also been advanced by the Council of Europe through its Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform. There are many advantages. Local economies benefit from direct trade between partners, as do apprenticeships and jobs through education and cultural exchanges. Currently, a number of developing initiatives are designed to bring together different European localities, including those within Croatia and the United Kingdom. As a parliamentarian here, and as Scottish consul for Croatia, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to help with some of them.

      Not least, as outlined in these three respects, localism can now hugely reinvigorate democracy. Previously, too much emphasis upon it would have been accused of upstaging or undermining the role of nation States. Fortunately, that is no longer the case. Instead, localism can now be viewed as a national force for fair standards and as a European facilitator of well-being and stability.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Dişli.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – Terrorism poses a great threat to international peace and security. Terrorism cannot have any justification and should be condemned unconditionally. Any attempt to affiliate terrorism with any religion or ethnic group is utterly wrong, and in fact would play into the hands of terrorists. Turkey is combating all kinds of terrorism and terrorist organisations without any discrimination, including Daesh and the PKK. Our counterterrorism efforts and our contribution to international co-operation to that end are known by our partners. We will not let our determination to counter terrorism be questioned by anyone.

      Syria has become a broken country in the hands of a brutal regime. More than 300 000 people have lost their lives, half the population is displaced and its economy and infrastructure are in ruins. The regime is getting weaker and more desperate. It has lost control in many parts of the country and terrorists and foreign fighters are filling the vacuum. Russia has now entered the equation and all three groups are bombing the Syrian people. As long as Assad stays in power, Syria will remain in this vicious cycle.

      The conflict environment has become a clear threat to the stability of the entire region, with strategic future ramifications. The situation in Syria has therefore turned into a national security issue for Turkey. We share a 911-kilometre border with Syria, and we are hosting close to 2 million Syrians. Daesh poses a clear and imminent threat to Turkey. We have a firm determination to fight, degrade and ultimately destroy Daesh. Turkey has been actively participating in the international coalition against Daesh, and we have opened our airbases to the use of the coalition. We have been conducting joint air operations with the United States against Daesh elements in northern Syria, as of 28 July. We are also deepening our bilateral co-operation with the US in countering Daesh and other terrorist organisations.

      We emphasize that Daesh cannot completely be defeated without solving Syria first. We have long argued that there cannot be a military solution to the ongoing conflict. We need to get the political track going to stop the bloodshed. Assad and his close associates are the root cause of the chaos and destruction in Syria. They should leave the scene immediately.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Neguta.

      Mr NEGUTA (Republic of Moldova) * – I wish to speak about a very alarming case that has occurred in the Republic of Moldova. On 6 September this year, during a peaceful demonstration in front of the headquarters of the prosecutor general’s office in Chisinau, eight activists were detained, including Grigore Petrenco, a former Member of Parliament of the Republic of Moldova and a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe between 2007 and 2014 who, in June this year in this building, was awarded the title of honorary member of the Parliamentary Assembly.

      The participants in the demonstration did not attack policemen or vandalise government buildings. Rather, they tried peacefully to set up tents near the prosecutor general’s office in order to compel him to resign. The police acted with brutality; they halted the demonstration and detained eight protesters using physical force. During the trial, which took place in camera in the Riscani district of the Moldovan capital, six of the detained activists – Grigore Petrenco, Pavel Grigorciuc, Mihail Amerberg, Alexandr Roşco, Vladimir Juratu and Oleg Buznea – were sentenced to 30 days. Although the protesters had not opposed the representatives of the police and did not throw a single stone or break a single window, they were punished under article 285 of the criminal code of the Republic of Moldova on mass disorder, which establishes a prison term ranging from two to eight years. The court of appeal of Chişinău examined the decision of the Rîşcani court, also in camera. Even during the announcement of the verdict, access to the courtroom was prohibited for representatives of international organisations and civil society, who were awaiting admission in large numbers.

       In the Republic of Moldova, many people are convinced that the political regime is taking repressive measures against dissenting citizens. I urge the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers, the specialised committees and the parliamentary groups to examine the situation, adopt special statements condemning the political repression and other unlawful practices of the oligarchical regime ruling the Republic of Moldova, and request the immediate release of the illegally arrested activists.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Mr Badea, Mr Japaridze and Mr Zourabian are not here, so I call Mr Giovagnoli.

      Mr GIOVAGNOLI (San Marino)* – The recent situation regarding the pollution scandal of Volkswagen emissions requires intervention at European level, including by the Council of Europe. Of course, Volkswagen is not the only company that has made use of legal or illegal expedients to be able to comply with the standards on pollution from cars. Looking at the situation in which cars are used, the amounts of pollution are sometimes more than 25%. Regarding the standards, we have to take into consideration realistic conditions for carrying out tests. Potentially, for many years millions of vehicles have been circulating on our roads emitting very many more toxic fumes than had been announced.

      We need to have a significant reduction of greenhouse gases and greater measures to conserve energy. Given that transport produces about 23% of emissions at global level, and even higher at European level, we cannot ignore this phenomenon. We need specific and precise data with regard to all the producers, and necessary sanctions must be taken. It is essential that the procedures for verifying emissions are credible and representative. So far, car manufacturers in Europe have not moved very much in the direction of electric vehicles, which would certainly cut down on noxious emissions.

      The Council of Europe deals with questions of human rights, and this is one of them, because it has an effect on health and on social change. It is necessary for us to deal with this matter by looking into measures for calculating emissions and appropriate sanctions in these situations.

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

      Ms PALIHOVICI (Republic of Moldova) – Dear colleagues, I would like to address you in my capacity as head of the Moldovan delegation to this Assembly.

      I was surprised, at first in a pleasant way, when I saw that news about my country had made it to the headlines in The New York Times. However, after carefully reading the editorial signed by Mr Jagland, I had to reconsider my opinion. I cannot help but wonder - is my country really the most vital interest point in the international arena, posing a real threat to Europe’s security, with Mr Jagland saying that it "is at risk of becoming Europe’s next security crisis, with potential consequences far beyond its borders”? I pose this question in the context of the massive refugee crisis that Europe is facing.

      Sure, I do not neglect the difficult political and economic situation that my country is facing right now. Yes, in 2009, the pro-Europeans came to power and made progress towards signing an association agreement with the European Union and gradually integrating Moldova into the European common market. Yes, our citizens were granted visa-free travel into the European Union. Even if we have achieved a lot of progress in trying to consolidate our democracy in transition, yes, I agree that over the past six years we could have done more to open up the country’s economy and its institutions. Yes, corruption still remains a problem that we are trying to tackle.

      Likewise, the Republic of Moldova is making all the necessary efforts to reintegrate the country – and no, there has not been any economic blockade affecting the Transnistria region. On the contrary, Mr Secretary General, as we implement the association agreement we are trying to find a proper way to include the region as a beneficiary of implementing the deep and comprehensive free trade agreement. Despite years of disappointment, many Moldovans still hold great ambition for their country. In that context, Organisations like the Council of Europe are more efficient when contributing to creating cohesion versus division, and when supporting democracies in transition to carry out reforms that meet international standards, not hindering the State’s efforts in doing so. Even if it is hard for us, we are doing our best to move forward towards the path of European integration, and we hope that development partners will be our allies in consolidating our efforts in becoming a true democracy.

      I read with interest your opinion on my country in The New York Times, Mr Secretary General, and I must say that its timing was not accidentally chosen. I believe that Moldova and the Council of Europe have always enjoyed excellent relations, ensuring efficient partnership for mutual benefit. I also believe that we must ensure a constructive dialogue, despite the situation in the country and mainly because the Republic of Moldova is a fully fledged member of this Assembly. The progress made by my country during recent years is well known by the relevant structures of the Council of Europe, especially after the implementation of a number of bilateral and regional programmes. The Republic of Moldova is a recipient country of regional security democracy, but at the same time there is a will to change the paradigm into becoming a promoter of it.

      Ms MAGRADZE (Georgia) – There is no single session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in which developments in Georgia are not discussed. It happens at different levels of deliberations: in committee discussions, formal and informal debates, a variety of reports, including by our distinguished rapporteurs, and naturally, in plenary sessions. Georgia is permanently on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s mind, which is great, as we need the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in order to become a functioning, democratic, capable State. That is the mission of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, or at least the way we understand it.

      This autumn session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is no exception, and this morning we discussed the report by Pedro Agramunt, our distinguished colleague, on the very sensitive issue of pre-trial detention. Even in that context, Georgia was mentioned – so nothing happens in this troubled world without Georgia’s involvement! However, my speech is not about Mr Agramunt’s report; I want to say just a couple of words about the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe itself.

      Georgia is at the beginning of a difficult process that will see changes not only in different institutions, including the judiciary system, but in the entire system of governance. The success of Georgia’s transformation cannot be assessed or judged until the process has been completed – and, by the way, the pre-trial detention practice inherited from previous governments was the weakest aspect of our wholesale judiciary reform. A few days ago, however, the constitutional court corrected that. Much work is still going on with regard to improving the judiciary system in Georgia, first, by the citizens of Georgia, but also with the energetic and critical engagement of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Sometimes the perception created by a premature assessment or even the existence of a very fact on the ground would resemble interference in our due process, which, as external advisers have noted, should be independent from any intrusion, either internal or external. You should let us deal with our problems ourselves.

      No single political grouping in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, including even the EPP, can claim to possess a monopoly on the truth. In the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we cannot take sides or rely solely on information provided by certain partner parties.

      What I have said is about not only Georgia, but the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which has prestige and the reputation of being a problem-solver and not an advocate of any political force. Reforms and modernisation must come from within Georgia, while outside bodies such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe can only provide help and not force change; they should help with reconciliation and not antagonise internal political forces.

      The PRESIDENT* – As Mr Nikoloski is not here, I call Ms Crozon.

      Ms CROZON (France)* – I rise to share my concerns about the increasing restrictions that are being made in Europe on a woman’s right to control her body. Following Spain’s attempts to limit the right to abortion to therapeutic voluntary terminations alone, Portugal has now passed legislation requiring women to undergo counselling about abortion, as well as scrapping State reimbursement for abortions. I believe that this legislation echoes the most reactionary fringe of the French right, from which, forty years after the adoption of our law on abortion – we felt that was irreversible progress, on the same footing as the abolition of the death penalty – we have seen arguments from a bygone era re-emerge when it comes to women’s entitlement to family planning on the national health service. Those retrograde steps show that when it comes to the rights of man, those of women are never irreversibly won. It reminds us that in a time of crisis when there is most austerity, women’s rights become a mere variable that it is always possible to go back on.

      No country in this continent that proclaims equality between men and women as one of its cardinal values is immune to a conservative revolution that stigmatises women, particularly those from the working classes, and brands them alone as responsible for falling pregnant and abusing the system, seeking to benefit from what is termed abortion on demand, or for personal convenience. I remind colleagues that of the 46 million abortions that are carried out each year in the world, almost half are back-street abortions as a result of a lack of access to free and safe terminations. Each year, 20 million clandestine abortions lead to the deaths of 47 000 women. We are talking about more than one in 500, about a woman dying every nine minutes. How can we still talk about equality and ignore this form of violence? Clearly any restriction on a woman’s right to control her body can only lead them down that deadly, clandestine avenue.

      Sexual and reproductive freedoms are a precondition of the values that are upheld by the European Convention on Human Rights and are absolutely vital everywhere. They are a precondition for the emancipation of women without which no other type of equality – family or professional equality – can exist. They are a precondition for the respect of their private life and cannot exist without the freedom to start a family, or not, as women choose. They are a precondition for freedom of conscience. It is not for Spain or Portugal or elsewhere to impose on women moral or religious principles that have nothing to do with their own personal choice. That is why, along with many other European women, I wish to affirm today my solidarity with the women of Portugal. I believe that we must consolidate our sexual and reproductive values at a European level and ensure that we have a common space in Europe for women’s rights.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Crozon. I call Mr Huseynov.

       Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – My speech is not an answer to the hatred and foul speech of our colleague from Armenia. I am talking about the tragic reality of Armenian society.

      For 20 years we have constantly raised our voices in international organisations, including here in the Council of Europe, against Armenian actions that contradict international legal norms and basic humanity. It is the country that has kept under its occupation 20% of Azerbaijani territory and turned 1 million people into refugees and internally displaced people. Our target is not at all the Armenian nation, which is as much a victim as we are, but the terrorist-like forces ruling Armenia. The criminal leadership of Armenia has made its own population a hostage as it has continued its policy of large-scale and multi-directional aggression against Azerbaijan. The Armenian authorities and the external forces ruling them have not only facilitated the tragic course of the nation, but taken the entire country towards a future of political, economic and moral disaster. Armenia has lost its State independence and become a powerless vassal.

      Since its foundation, the Council of Europe has been striving for human rights as a major priority of its activities. Given our respect for human rights, we also raise our voice in defence of the Armenian nation, calling for its liberation from the despotic, fascist Armenian Government. The Armenian nation is collapsing because of the unbearable political, economic and social conditions that prevail in the country.

      Vahan Martirosyan, a prominent representative of the Armenian opposition and leader of the Internal National Liberation Movement of Armenia, has sought refuge in Azerbaijan after escaping his country. His reason was the unbearable pressures applied by the Armenian State on Martirosyan and his family. He gave a speech to journalists in Baku and depicted with concrete facts the hardship suffered by the Armenian population and, in particular, the danger faced by more or less free-thinking people. He took refuge in Azerbaijan because he is confident that the Armenian special services cannot reach him there, that Azerbaijan will not return him to Armenia, which is at least a guarantor of his security, and that he will be handed to a third European country. Martirosyan, who has been freely strolling in Baku, stated in contrast to Armenian propaganda that he had not encountered enmity there but witnessed strong progress and welfare. He noted his confidence that if they were aware of the reality and if the borders were opened, thousands of Armenian refugees would act like him and there would be a formidable population flow from Armenia to Azerbaijan, like the current flow of migrants making their way towards Europe. That is useful information for the attention of our Armenian colleagues.

      In these dramatic days for Armenia, the Council of Europe should not be ranged with the anti-national, corrupt, terrorist and anti-democratic authorities of that State but should be on the side of the Armenian nation, which has experienced suffering.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Karapetyan.

      Ms KARAPETYAN (Armenia) – I would like to use this platform to talk about the position of one of the member States of our Organisation which is directly opposed to that system of values on which the Council of Europe and modern European civilisation is founded. Here the participants are well informed of the never-ending and increasing anti-Armenian and racist rhetoric of the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, the Azerbaijani leadership, and as we have seen, Azerbaijani MPs. However, the authorities in Baku have recently started to inseminate public intolerance towards the whole of Europe as well.

      A few weeks ago, on 15 September, being unable to give any reasonable and rational explanation in answer to questions about the country’s corruption, massive human rights violations, and violence towards and arrests of political opponents, journalists and public figures, Ilham Aliyev poured out a torrent of accusations against Europe and European values. Europe, which today faces the difficult problem of thousands of refugees, is trying to cope with that with honour and implements all the measures defined by law, while the concept of “law” is alien to Azerbaijan. Before throwing dirt on Europe and European values, the President of Azerbaijan had better improve the conditions of his people, who have become refugees as a result of the war unleashed by Azerbaijan, and not keep them the prisoners of his policy.

      The President of Azerbaijan inseminates hatred of Armenians by repeatedly voicing territorial claims that Yerevan and several other regions of Armenia have a 2 800-year-old history as Azerbaijani lands. In particular, in the announcement made during the 5th Summit of the heads of Turkic-speaking States, Ilham Aliyev declared that Armenia’s south is a watershed between the Turkish-speaking countries and hampers their co-operation. Such irresponsible announcements significantly increase the tension in the region and are opposed to the values of peace, solidarity and tolerance.

      Finally, let me address those screaming examples of aggression that took place on 25 September in Armenian villages on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. Azerbaijan has already several times had to appeal against a new provocation prior to the important meeting in the negotiation process for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement talks, and this time civilians were the main target. The firing by the Azerbaijani side resulted in the death of three Armenian civilians – three women – and four people were injured. It is no secret that it is Azerbaijan that has systematically violated the ceasefire agreement signed in 1994. The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs discussed it in their joint statement in January this year. This year, the Azerbaijani armed forces were “silent” only during the European games held in Baku. Is that evidence of the tolerance, multiculturalism and other noble values that Ilham Aliyev declares?

      We should all be concerned by the fact that the Azerbaijani authorities address their own society’s fair demands for national reforms by creating an image of an external enemy – Armenia and the Armenian people, and now also the European institutions. This year, we are celebrating the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and are analysing the causes of that war, and we had better have a prudent approach towards any expression of intolerance, hatred and aggression and not allow that to lead to new tragedies.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Al-Astal from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Ms AL-ASTAL (Palestine) – We in the Palestinian delegation are concerned that the developments of recent days at the Al-Aqsa mosque, with extremist Jews seeking to pray in this Muslim holy place, will only lead to violence and more confrontation. The Aqsa is the third holiest mosque of Islam and while the Muslim Waqf authority allows visits to all, it does not agree with visits that become a provocation to the sanctity of the mosque and to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful. We call on your esteemed Assembly to put the cause of Al-Aqsa on your agenda and to follow up continually on any developments that could threaten its peace and the status quo.

      We would also like to bring to your attention our insistence on our rights as a people seeking an end to Israeli occupation. This was highlighted by our President Mahmoud Abbas in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly. Israel keeps putting stumbling blocks in the way of the peace efforts and goes on with building and expanding its illegal settlements on Palestinian land. Our people want to have their own State with East Jerusalem as its capital, and we want to raise our Palestinian flag in peace and in the fulfilment of our just demand for an independent State of our own.

      I want also to draw your attention to the tragedy that befell an innocent Palestinian family in the village of Douma, south of Nablus, when extremist Jewish settlers threw Molotov cocktails into the house of the Dawabsheh family, leading to the death of an 18-month-old baby; both his father and mother eventually died of their burns. The Jewish terrorists who threw the Molotov cocktails made sure that none of the family members would escape that tragedy. We firmly believe that the behaviour of such terrorists will only make more problems and make the prospect of peace in our land more distant.

      Our colleague, Khalida Jarrar, has been in pretrial detention for over four months. We believe that her imprisonment is political and that is why there is no charge against her. We call on your Assembly to keep her case in your deliberations and to follow it up. We are also concerned that the Israeli authorities will force-feed Palestinian prisoners who are on hunger strike. That is not only medically dangerous but intrudes on the right of the prisoners to express themselves. Please keep our prisoners on your agenda and follow up their cases.

      Finally, Gaza remains blockaded, and reconstruction is blocked. Mr Jónasson, a member of this Assembly, is authorised to visit Gaza and to write a report, which will give you an idea of the humanitarian situation there.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. As Mr Unguryan is not here, so I call Ms Naghdalyan.

      Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) – Since the beginning of this century, the countries of the post-Soviet territories have become Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe members. It was anticipated that as members of the great European family, we would become part of European Union-wide core values by exchanging experience and enriching each other with our political, cultural and historical achievements. However, life always brings forward corrections, and I think you will agree that we have not reached our goals yet.

The reasons for the differences between the Armenian and Azerbaijani delegations are well known. I am sure that we all wish to find a peaceful and righteous resolution to the conflict and to establish peace in the region. As the head of the Armenian delegation, I certify that we wish it most of all, and I hope that the same will be expressed by our Azerbaijani colleagues.

So why should we make this platform a field of confrontation and debate issues here that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has no mandate to resolve? The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe does have a responsibility to establish an atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding, and a capacity to use its authority and influence in the interests of peace, which is not being applied. By continuing political warfare during each session, we make the work of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs more complicated, when we should be doing the opposite. We do not abandon our principles; we have our arguments and grounds. Nevertheless, we value the importance and significance of this high political platform, and we wish to emphasise the importance of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s decisions and the authority of its resolutions, which should not be designed to defend the sectional interests of various groups and factions but should instead align with the common interests of our people.

We anticipate that all members of this Assembly will be ready for the dialogue of the people and the establishment of mutual trust. As a mother of five children, I remind members that we are responsible to our children and future generations; let us think about that. I also remind all of you that whether you accept and recognise it or not, there is a Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, the citizens of which wish peace most of all but who live in conditions of continuing war. They cultivate their lands, protect their motherland, build houses, bring up children and, according to the estimates of international observers, hold elections complying to international standards. If we are really interested in the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, we should respect their right to life and development. Stepanakert is not off the map of Europe; it is a part of Europe. You should go and see that in person.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. As Mr Preda is not here, I call Mr Chikovani.

      Mr CHIKOVANI (Georgia) – I would like to address the Assembly on behalf not only of myself but of the united opposition parties in Georgia. This is our joint statement.

      We, the representatives of the opposition parties in Georgia, express our deep appreciation to the international community for the unwavering and firm support it has rendered to State building and democratic transformation in Georgia. Throughout the years, your active engagement has played an instrumental role in Georgia’s ability to become a standard bearer for democratic transformation in the region.

      Recently, we jointly celebrated the successful signature of the association agreement between Georgia and the European Union and NATO’s declaration of Georgia as the most interoperable aspirant to its organisation. The work is hardly over. We are deeply concerned about increasing signs of democratic backsliding that threaten to put those achievements at risk. These dangerous developments are particularly alarming in light of the crucial parliamentary elections upcoming in 2016, and they merit the immediate attention of Georgia’s friends and strategic partners.

      In particular, we have increasingly seen displays of Government intolerance towards perceived political opponents, a gradual rejection of political pluralism, a politicised justice system, impunity for violence against political opponents, Government pressure on media and unwillingness to reform the electoral system. Now we are witnessing the establishment of a politically irresponsible governing culture. Informal and unaccountable governance represents a serious challenge to Georgia’s democratic development.

      Outside observers have witnessed the abuse of judicial procedures. Numerous violations have been reported in many ongoing political cases enumerated by the OSCE/ODIHR trial monitoring report, which clearly concluded that there have been systematic violations amounting to the denial of the right to a fair trial, and that there is extensive evidence of political interference in politically motivated cases. Growing numbers of credible reports suggest the involvement of the State security service in bullying and intimidating political opponents, especially in the regions. Such intimidation often obstructs opposition groups and activists, and includes the orchestration of systematic violence.

      Concerns about the country’s direction have been exacerbated by the acceleration of Government pressure on the media. As part of the Government-orchestrated campaign to change the ownership of Rustavi 2, Georgia’s most popular TV channel remaining fully outside Government control, all the channel’s assets have been frozen. All top-rated political talk shows have been shut down on the second most popular broadcaster, TV Imedi, and the public broadcaster just sacked the anchor of the main political talk show, citing her marriage to an opposition politician.

Importantly, the ruling Georgian Dream coalition has failed to deliver on its main political reform, the electoral system. Despite its pledge to ensure more proportional and pluralistic representation in the Georgian Parliament, over the years, the current system has proved to favour the Government due to majoritarian and proportional mandates in the single chamber of the legislature. Instead, the Government has decided to keep the current system and failed to ensure the equality of votes, favouring incumbents and ignoring the recent ruling of the Constitutional Court of Georgia and its obligations to OSCE/ODIHR.

      Currently, stakeholders other than the ruling coalition have shown unprecedented consensus and agreed on the need to reform. Ironically, junior members of the coalition, particularly Republicans, Conservatives and the National Forum, who called for electoral reform for decades and shared the same views as the rest of the parties and non-governmental organisations, to date have just used the current system for their benefit and will carry on with reform only after the next elections.

      Now, on my own personal behalf, I draw your attention to the events taking place in Georgia right now. There is a new way of intimidating the media outlet Rustavi 2. There is a clear understanding that on the eve of the next elections in 2016, which are very important to Georgia’s future, the Government is trying to intimidate everyone who holds an opinion other than theirs. We must realise that the current attention is an absolute must for every one of us, to ensure that Georgia does not derail in its democratic development. Everybody must understand that it is not only about what happens before the elections; it is about the process building up towards them. Unfortunately, all the Governments in Georgia have been against a free media, and all of them have concluded very badly. I think that is the future that lies before the Georgian Dream.

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

      Mr REISS (France)* – My statement will be completely different from those of previous speakers. It relates to the implementation of the World Health Organisation (WHO) protocol for combating the illicit traffic in tobacco products. The public authorities in France, as in other countries, have been combating it for years now with a legislative arsenal, including the Veil law of 1976 and the Evin law of 1991, as well as the ratification in October 2004 of the first international treaty on public health, developed under the auspices of the World Health Organisation and devoted to controlling tobacco: the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Most recently, there have been new measures to prohibit smoking in public spaces, and in 2009 shocking photographs confirmed the effects of smoking on children. A major increase in taxation has made cigarettes sold in France the most expensive in Europe.

      We should nonetheless consider whether this is enough, and we must take the most relevant and effective anti-tobacco measures. A report on anti-smoking policies paints a rather depressing picture. Hitherto, anti-tobacco campaigners have attacked smokers and the retailers of cigarettes, but not the companies. Each price increase places retailers in an increasingly difficult position, and alternative sources increase crime. Tobacco smuggling is more lucrative and less dangerous than drug smuggling. What can be done to tackle the illegal trafficking? The WHO believes that 12% of the 6 000 billion cigarettes manufactured each year go into the parallel trade – 14 times larger than the French market, which is 50 billion cigarettes a year – in packets that cost 10 to 12 centimes, yet are sold for €4.

      Much is said about the parallel unlawful trade, but cigarettes from smuggling and cross-border purchases, which amount to 90% to 95% of this parallel trade, are real cigarettes manufactured in cigarette factories. Counterfeit cigarettes come mostly from China and account for only 4% to 5%. The manufacturers are clearly benefiting from the parallel trade, if they are not organising it themselves.

      The WHO protocol is crucial because it will allow States to equip themselves with a tool to tackle the parallel trade and combat the duplicity of cigarette manufacturers by providing for the independent traceability of tobacco products. Fifteen days ago, I said in the National Assembly that I wanted France to turn to Brussels to ensure that the protocol is ratified as soon as possible, and the end of 2015 should be an attainable objective. The more countries that introduce independent traceability the better will be the controls over the parallel flows of cigarettes and the parallel trade will be reduced. It is vital that we recover the €12 billion being lost from cigarettes not being taxed. Independent traceability in the largest number of countries will be a decisive step forward. The issue affects the European economy, so the Council of Europe cannot sit idly by while the illegal trafficking of cigarettes poses a danger to our territory.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I do not see Mr Ghiletchi, so I call Ms Bartos.

      Ms BARTOS (Hungary) – The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities was adopted 20 years ago. In the early 1990s the change in the economic and political landscape – mostly in central and eastern Europe – called for the adoption of the framework convention. I extend my gratitude and respect to all those who contributed.

      This anniversary obliges us to recall that the protection of national minorities is essential to economic stability, democratic values, peace and cultural diversity in the continent. The obligations made by the signatory States for ensuring the existence and the identity of the national minorities is of paramount importance.

      The convention clearly expressed that the protection of national minorities forms an integral part of the international protection of human rights, and as such falls within the scope of international co-operation. The dramatic decrease of the number of several autochthonous national minorities supposes that the provisions for their protection have not been ensured. These phenomena demonstrate that our common values, goals and principles are threatened.

      The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is regarded as a genuine document that helps nations and countries to improve their relations, the everyday life of the national minorities and the relationship with the majority. This document is referred to in several agreements between States.

      In the past 20 years the political environment has changed, the European Union was enlarged and, generally speaking, democracy has developed in many aspects. New documents relating to the protection of national minorities were adopted in different international organisations, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

      It would be advisable to examine the possibility of including these adopted documents as a binding appendix to the framework convention. In this way Europe would get an upgraded convention that meets the actual demands of national minority protection. Thank you for your kind attention.

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

      Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – In our debate in the last part-session on the functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan the Assembly supported the substitution of the phrase “occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia” with “problems in Nagorno-Karabakh”. Just a few days ago, the President of Armenia officially confirmed that was a mistake by declaring that Nagorno-Karabakh is an inseparable part of Armenia, thus officially admitting the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia.

      For many years here in the Assembly a number of attempts were made to arrange discussions of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue with the Armenian delegation, and the work of the sub-committee on Nagorno-Karabakh failed owing to a boycott by the Armenian side. Every time we hear the same answer: Nagorno-Karabakh is an independent State and the Armenian authorities are not responsible for the decisions of the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities. That position has changed now that Nagorno-Karabakh is a part of Armenia.

      We may observe another contradiction in the statement of Armenian leaders. Previously they suggested self-determination as a way out of the situation, but now Nagorno-Karabakh is a part of Armenia. Such statements serve as a distracting manoeuvre for the Armenian population facing political and economic crisis and they contribute to an escalation of tension on the front line. Every day, soldiers and innocent people are being killed, responsibility for which lies with the policy conducted by the Armenian leadership.

      Speaking at the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Mr Sargsyan threatens Azerbaijan, saying that the Armenian side will take the necessary legal, military and political steps to ensure the security of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. It is unacceptable to hear this from the leader of a country that has not implemented four United Nations resolutions for about 20 years. It is ridiculous to hear an appeal for peace from those who occupy 20% of Azerbaijani lands and turn 1 million people into refugees. This once again shows the cynical attitudes of the Armenian leadership and their disrespect for the United Nations charter, international law and society in general.

      Lost in their false and contradictory statements, the Armenian side should stop misleading the world community and start respecting international law and decisions of international organisations. I advise them to be responsible for their statements and to be consistent in their statements, because otherwise it will lead them nowhere.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – Unfortunately, I have to inform the Assembly of today’s deterioration of the media freedom situation in Georgia. The main TV channel is free of government influence and is not controlled by the billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, who nowadays personally controls the entire Georgian political spectrum. Today, the assets and bank accounts of the company that owns the channel Rustavi 2 have been frozen. The director of the company has stated that the existence of free and independent media in Georgia could be in danger. Journalists risk losing their jobs.

      This has happened following systematic violations of the freedom of the media in Georgia since August. TV political talk shows have been shut down and prominent presenters and journalists have been fired from the channels under the government’s control. The founder of Rustavi 2, who had full information about the legal quarrel over ownership, was found dead. He was killed but within five minutes of the event, the government claimed that it was a case of suicide. Video surveillance cameras have been found in the premises of the editorial board of Rustavi 2. It appears that its head of security, who was fired, was then re-employed in the public sector, which means that the government was behind the video surveillance. There have been accelerated court proceedings that have not honoured the rights of defendants, especially the management of Rustavi 2. That poses clear questions about the motivation of the government, who are silencing opposition views.

      This is not the first time that we have discussed the issue. The Assembly has condemned the adoption of legislation that restricted the financial independence of TV channels, but especially of Rustavi 2, and the restrictive regulations on gaining revenue from advertisements. Rustavi 2 and the NGOs in Georgia criticised the legislation as selectively targeting the channel that is critical of the government. The OSCE representative on freedom of the media assessed the seizure of Rustavi 2’s assets as a violation and an attempt to crack down on journalists’ voices in Georgia.

      I have today received a statement from Transparency International Georgia which states that today’s legal proceedings are clearly aimed at preventing Rustavi 2 from receiving important investments that are necessary for the channel to continue operating. I urge our rapporteur on media freedom and the co-rapporteurs and chair of the Monitoring Committee to take account of the deteriorating situation before it is too late. Rustavi 2 is at risk of being shut down. Journalists risk being fired from the station if the court proceedings orchestrated by the billionaire Ivanishvili achieve their goals.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – I think that you will find discussions of this matter in all countries; we were talking about the psychiatric disorders of certain persons. Colleagues, while you continue to make frivolous comments about Azerbaijan in the spirit of an English gentleman, you are also contributing zealously to the preparation of an ambiguous report on Nagorno-Karabakh whose real purpose we all know.

      Azerbaijan has become in the eyes of all a monster of anti-democracy and anti-freedom. The contribution of our Assembly to the engendering of this Frankenstein’s monster is undeniable. Although you are continuing with the report of Bob Walter, at the same time, Mr Hasanov, Minister of Defence of Azerbaijan, declares that Armenian territories that are inaccessible to their snipers will be subject to heavy weapon fire. President Aliyev of Azerbaijan has declared that a week would be sufficient to raze Armenia to the ground.

      On 24 September, because of bombardment from Azerbaijani positions targeting Armenian frontier villages, three women died. Three families remain without a mother. The following evening, a Turkish-made TR-107 missile was fired by the Azeri army and four Armenian soldiers died. It is clear that the use of such artillery by Azerbaijan in violation of the cease-fire has created a new reality on the front line that may lead to tremendous military operations. Azerbaijan is entirely responsible for the development of this situation. It is a well-known truth that it is the weak and feeble who like to boast. The reaction of Nagorno-Karabakh to the endless threats from Aliyev is clear: in case of similar events, counter-attack would lead to consequences and losses that would be irreparable for Azerbaijan.

      The regular frontier tensions create innocent victims. There is only one solution: to act within the framework of international law and respect all its standards to ensure people’s right to self-determination, as exercised by the peoples of Nagorno-Karabakh over a long period and in accordance with international law. If we wait, one day, Azerbaijan will have reasonable authorities who can understand the country’s situation.

      Mr VOVK (Ukraine) – I would like to inform you of the unfortunate political developments and obvious negative trends in Ukraine in the last few months. Ukraine is now facing a new danger – the attempts by President Poroshenko to create conditions for establishing a new authoritarian regime. Ukraine is again witnessing gross violations of human rights and the rule of law, attempts to destroy parliamentarianism, a new assault on the freedom of speech, the beginning of political repression and preparations for ballot rigging and electoral fraud.

      In particular, on 17 September, a lynch court was introduced in the Parliament of Ukraine when, without any respect for the rule of law or human rights, an opposition member of parliament, Ihor Mosiychuk, was suddenly accused of crime. Without any democratic procedure, any prior consideration in a parliamentary committee or any discussion in the chamber, and denying him even the right to speak in his defence, he was deprived of immunity and his arrest approved. For this purpose, an atmosphere of hysteria was deliberately created in the chamber when the majority of deputies unexpectedly became accomplices of crime by the authorities. Now this well-known political opponent of President Poroshenko is illegally kept in pretrial detention in an obvious abuse of power. We believe that these actions are clearly aimed at intimidating members of parliament and creating an obedient majority in the Verkhovna Rada.

      President Poroshenko and his officials in their comments to the media even claimed that law and legal procedures may sometimes be neglected for the "right reasons". Statements that justify blatant violations of law for reasons of expediency or good intentions are extremely dangerous for the future of Ukraine, and especially for the rule of law in the country.

      I also draw your attention to new, daring attacks on the freedom of speech in Ukraine, in particular when the most popular televised political debate show was taken off air a few minutes before it was to be broadcast live. The purpose of that shameful act, in the style of the Yanukovych regime, was to prevent Poroshenko’s political opponents from informing millions of citizens of their arguments and positions. It is completely unacceptable that the authorities are retreating from the basic democratic values for which the Maidan stood and that were supposedly introduced in Ukraine following the revolution of dignity. We call on the international community to unite our efforts to protect fundamental human rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech, free and fair elections and democracy in Ukraine.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – One of the most important priorities of the Azerbaijani Government’s gender policy is developing the activity and integration of rural women in society and solving the unemployment problem. Various government programmes are being realised, and much has been done. The government provides women with all the necessary conditions to show their potential in the political and economic fields. All kinds of loans and concessions are being provided to encourage women to start their own businesses.

      Most rural Azerbaijani women live in frontline areas of the conflict zone. Women living in such areas face many problems. Their human rights are violated every day. Due to Armenia’s occupation of 20% of our territory, thousands of men, women and children have been killed and murdered. Thousands of people have been forced to flee their native lands and homes. They are living as refugees in their own country. Does that not sound strange?

      Azerbaijani women and children have experienced many atrocities in the war with Armenia. It is almost impossible to live and survive in such circumstances. Besides the problems caused by the war, the ceasefire is being violated every day. Rural women living in such places look danger in the face every day because of the snipers waiting ready to fire—the number of children murdered by Armenian snipers is proof of that. It is a painful and heartrending fact that Azerbaijan is the only member State of the Council of Europe that is occupied by another member State, with more than 20% of its territory remaining under occupation.

      It is unbelievable that representatives of Armenia have claimed here that Azerbaijan started the war and the military occupation. Serzh Sargsyan gave a speech to this Assembly confirming that Armenia occupies Azerbaijani territories and would occupy further Azerbaijani lands if necessary. That statement by the occupant Sargsyan clearly reveals who started the war and who still imperils peace in the region.

      Unfortunately, Armenia, with its fascist regime, disregards all international and regional resolutions on the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of Armenian aggressive forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan as a generally accepted norm and principle of international law, and it continues its military occupation of Azerbaijani lands. I tell the representatives of Armenia who are sitting in this Assembly, or who might be leaving, that Karabakh was, is and will be Azerbaijani land. I call on all Armenian women to tell their husbands and sons to stop the violence and to stop this war.

      THE PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers.

      The debate is closed.

3. Next public business

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

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 7.15 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (October 2014 – August 2015)

Presentation by Mr Schennach of report, Document 13868 parts 1 to 5, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee

Speakers: Mr Walter, Mr Jónasson, Mr Gross, Mr Fischer, Mr Xuclà, Ms Christoffersen, Ms Kyriakides, Mr Matušić, Mr Huseynov, Mr Mahoux, Mr Sobolev, Mr Denemeç, Ms Kobakhidze, Ms Jordana Madero, Ms Pallarés Cortés, Mr Kürkçü, Mr Çağlar, Ms Naghdalyan, Mr Zourabian, Mr Loukaides, Mr Thiéry, Mr Seyidov

Amendment 1, as amended, adopted

Amendment 7, as amended, adopted

Amendment 5, as amended, adopted

Amendment 8 adopted

Amendment 9, as amended, adopted

Amendment 11 adopted

Amendment 6, as amended, adopted

Amendment 2 adopted

Draft resolution contained in Document 13868, part 1, as amended, adopted

2. Free debate

Speakers: Mr Kürkçü, Mr Nicoletti, Mr Farmanyan, Ms Sotnyk, Earl of Dundee, Mr Dişli, Mr Neguta, Mr Giovagnoli, Ms Palihovici, Ms Magradze, Ms Crozon, Mr Huseynov, Mr Karapetyan, Ms Al-Astal, Ms Naghdalyan, Mr Chikovani, Mr Reiss, Ms Bartos, Ms Fataliyeva, Ms Taktakishvili, Ms Zohrabyan, Mr Vovk, Ms Gafarova

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*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI*

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA*

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN*

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Anna ASCANI*

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE/Chiora Taktakishvili

Gérard BAPT/Geneviève Gosselin-Fleury

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Jana Fischerová

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Guguli Magradze

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Tilde BORK*

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Marcel Oberweis

Piet De BRUYN*

Beata BUBLEWICZ*

Gerold BÜCHEL*

André BUGNON/Luc Recordon

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH*

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/Naira Karapetyan

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*

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Maria GUZENINA*

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV

Alfred HEER*

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Oleksii HONCHARENKO*

Jim HOOD*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

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*

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ*

Josip JURATOVIC*

Anne KALMARI

Mustafa KARADAYI*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Pascale Crozon

Niklas KARLSSON

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU*

Ioanneta KAVVADIA*

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Manana KOBAKHIDZE

Haluk KOÇ/Metin Lütfü Baydar

Igor KOLMAN*

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR/Brynjar Níelsson

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR*

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN*

Rom KOSTŘICA/Gabriela Pecková

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID/Johan Nissinen

Eerik-Niiles KROSS*

Marek KRZĄKAŁA*

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides

Serhiy LABAZIUK *

Inese LAIZĀNE*

Olof LAVESSON*

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’*

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE/Boriss Cilevičs

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI*

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA*

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI/Frédéric Reiss

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI/Carles Jordana Madero

Ana MATO*

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Eric Voruz

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*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Julia OBERMEIER*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ*

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ*

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON/Eva-Lena Jansson

Joseph O’REILLY*

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI*

Sandra OSBORNE*

Tom PACKALÉN/Anne Louhelainen

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA/Sevinj Fataliyeva

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/Fazil Mustafa

Àlex SÁEZ*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Milena SANTERINI*

Nadiia SAVCHENKO*

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*

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Dalia Kuodytė

Jan ŠKOBERNE*

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV*

Karin STRENZ

Ionuț-Marian STROE*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI/Iwona Guzowska

Damien THIÉRY

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Antoni TRENCHEV*

Goran TUPONJA*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY/Rózsa Hoffmann

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Nikolaj VILLUMSEN*

Dimitris VITSAS*

Vladimir VORONIN*

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH*

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON/ Geraint Davies

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD*

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*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Samvel FARMANYAN

Observers

__

Partners for democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Bernard SABELLA

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

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR