AA16CR06

AS (2016) CR 06

2016 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Sixth sitting

Wednesday 27 January 2016 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.

(Mr Agramunt, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.40 p.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

      The PRESIDENT – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2016) 01 addendum 5.

      Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

      They are agreed to.

2. Joint debate: debate under urgent procedure: Combating international terrorism while protecting Council of Europe standards and values, and Foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the joint debate on “Combating international terrorism while protecting Council of Europe standards and values”, under the urgent procedure, and “Foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq”.

      Mr SALMOND (United Kingdom) – On a point of order. I must declare an interest: I am a member of the Holocaust Commission of the United Kingdom, which is doing excellent work in building a Holocaust memorial and educating future generations so they do not repeat the mistakes of the past. I commend those who organised the ceremony to commemorate Holocaust Day, which many of us attended this lunchtime, but I found it inappropriate that the Israeli ambassador launched attacks on the Republic of Iran and its President, who is a guest of this republic. We cannot vet what people say, but we have the right to state that there is a time and a place for international politics. Such attacks should not take place during a solemn commemoration service.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Salmond. That is not a point of order, but it will be in the record of the sitting.

      The first report, entitled “Combating international terrorism while protecting Council of Europe standards and values”, Document 13958, will be presented by Mr Tiny Kox. Mr Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ will present an opinion on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13960, and Ms Gülsün Bilgehan will present an opinion on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 13966.

      The second report is entitled “Foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq”, Document 13937, presented by Mr Dirk Van der Maelen. Mr Pieter Omtzigt will present and opinion on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13959.

      After the rapporteurs have spoken, Mr Harlem Desir, Minister of State for European Affairs, France, will address the Assembly.

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

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Thank you, Mr President, and I give a warm welcome to the Minister. I do not think that anybody in the Chamber knows the story about my third grandson, Mats. Until now, it has been a very short story, because he was born only a few hours ago. I sent my son and my daughter-in-law a line from the beautiful song by Jefferson Airplane, to say that I hope he will see some things that will “make his life happy.” All of us in the Chamber hope that our new-born children get a fair chance to have a happy life. Of course, everybody is responsible for organising that happy life, but it cannot be taken for granted. We need circumstances in which everybody can get a fair chance of a happy life.

      Seventy-five years ago, the President of the United States formulated what was needed to give everybody a fair chance of a happy life, and he spoke about his four fundamental freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Nine years later in 1950, the Council of Europe formulated the European Convention on Human Rights, in which Roosevelt’s fundamental freedoms were defined even more precisely. Importantly, those fundamental rights were guaranteed, and all member States that signed and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights declared that they will guarantee and stand for the protection of fundamental rights, as enshrined in that Convention.

      We have seen a recent wave of terrorist attacks on our society, and we must be aware that such things are an attack on the chances that we guarantee for each and every citizen of our 47 member States to have a happy life. It is therefore correct and important that we stand firm to defend the fundamental values of the Council of Europe and the Assembly, as formulated in the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no doubt that we have not only the right, but also the obligation, to defend those fundamental freedoms. Without the guarantees that we will protect those fundamental rights, our new-born children will not have a fair chance of a happy life. The reaction in our member States to the new wave of horrible terrorist attacks that we have witnessed in recent years is appropriate, and I very much support it.

      We all saw what happened recently in France. I was watching television, and suddenly I could see people getting killed. They were massacred by terrorists whose very goal is to intimidate and terrorise us and to create fear, and thereby to create a climate in which our fundamental freedoms come under pressure. An attack by those terrorist organisations is an attack on our fundamental freedoms, and the core of this debate is about how we can ensure that our inseparable obligation to defend our fundamental freedoms goes together with the protection of the fundamental values and standards of the Council of Europe. We must not get trapped in a situation in which by wishing to protect our fundamental freedoms, in reality we infringe and limit them, and finally we kill them. That would be the ultimate success for those who attack our society. In my report I present 13 proposals that could perhaps help to combine those two elements: combating terrorism and upholding the standards of the Council of Europe. They can be found at the end of the resolution, and I hope that they will receive your support.

      Let me emphasise some of the conclusions that I draw in my report, which was supported almost unanimously by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, and considered carefully by the Committees on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and on Equality and Non-Discrimination. The overall opinion, I think, was that the resolution is suitable.

      We must reaffirm once again our absolute condemnation of all acts of terrorism, and we must say loud and clear that no argument can justify such acts, here or anywhere. The Assembly should reject any attempt to excuse terrorist attacks, because they go completely against the spirit, standards and values enshrined in our Convention. Secondly, we must applaud the many and various ways in which individuals, groups and societies protested against those acts of terrorism in the past year. We all recall that on 11 January about 2 million people, together with 40 Heads of States and Governments, marched in Paris in a rally of unity. At the same time, about 4 million people elsewhere showed their solidarity with that demonstration. We should applaud that because it shows that we do not intend to give up and that we want to win this struggle against terrorism.

      We should emphatically reject the abuse of the description “Islamic” by terrorist criminal organisations. Neither Daesh nor similar terrorist groups have any right to claim that they act in the name of Islam, or that they represent the Muslim community. On the contrary, most of their victims up until now have been Muslims, and those people have been – and are still being – terrorised, abused, exploited tortured and massacred by terrorists such as Daesh, and their religion has been smeared by the abuse of the term “Islamic” by those groups.

      The Assembly should also recognise the invidious position in which these attacks place Muslims, and we should call on political leaders to take particular care when condemning such attacks, to avoid stigmatising people or making generalisations that portray whole groups of the population as responsible for the acts of individuals.

      At the same time, we should encourage Muslim leaders and intellectuals to condemn publicly, clearly and continuously the shameful abuse of their religion by fanatic murderers whose goal is to intimidate individuals and States using all kinds of violence against innocent people. We should call on Muslim leaders to emphasise that Muslims as well as other believers of other religions greatly benefit from the protection of their rights and freedoms by the European Convention on Human Rights. For that reason, their communities should fiercely and publicly defend the Council of Europe’s standards and values against terrorists who threaten them.

      I shall now deal with another conclusion. After these recent terrorist attacks, several important politicians declared a state of war with Daesh. We could all understand that, but those who commit terrorist acts are not soldiers of an army representing a State or an international organisation; they are ruthless criminals who commit crimes against innocent people in order to destabilise our societies. Resolution 1840, from 2011, addressed human rights and the fight against terrorism, and we now have to reaffirm that the concept of a war on terror is misleading and, therefore, unhelpful. It is a threat to the entire framework of international human rights.

      Let me draw attention to some other elements of this matter. I express concerns in my report about certain measures taken by some member States. My report mentions France and Turkey, and I give more examples in the explanatory memorandum, because more States have this debate on what we could do and what we should do. I am looking forward to the Minister’s address because he surely will address this item.

      Lastly, I think it is unacceptable that until now the financial lifelines to Daesh have not been cut, although the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism has been adopted worldwide. There is no place for turning a blind eye to this shameful behaviour of States and inhabitants of States; there is no room for hypocrisy. If we want to fight Daesh, we must begin by cutting the lifelines to that organisation.

      I hope that my report and my resolution show that combating terrorism and upholding the standards of the Council of Europe are not contradictory but are, in fact, complementary. If we believe that and act on the proposals formulated at the end of the resolution, we can contribute to safeguarding our way of life, so that not only my grandson, Mats, but all the newborn children will have a fair chance of a happy life.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kox. On behalf of the Assembly, I congratulate you on the birth of your third grandson. It seems impossible: you are very young, Tiny! I call the rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to present his committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – First and foremost, I wish to pay tribute to Tiny Kox and the work he has done for his committee on this issue. My country unfortunately experienced two terrorist attacks – bloody attacks – last year. It is the duty and responsibility of a government, when faced with such threats, to protect the people of the nation. The fight against terrorism is a merciless fight, and we have to continue with it, while respecting the principles of the rule of law, individual freedom and collective freedom. On 4 April 2006, the Venice Commission spoke about the protection of human rights in situations of emergency. It said that public safety and fundamental rights are not competing rights, and, in fact, one is the precondition of the other in both cases. Therefore, if we were to give up on some of our democratic values in the fight against some people and some organisations whose very purpose is to destroy our societies of freedom – the ones we live in – we would be stooping to their level and we would be endangering the very premise of our societies.

      In my report, I wanted to speak clearly about the fact that although we are fighting terrorism, we must also abide by all relevant legal standards. In particular, I am thinking about the ones that are derived from the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted by the Court. I referred, in particular, to Article 15 and the specific conditions under which State parties may derogate from certain rights in situations of war or other situations of public danger that constitute a threat to the life of the nation. There is a fine balancing act here between public safety and respect for fundamental rights, on the proportionality of the measures taken, the objective being pursued, the procedural guarantees that shall be granted and necessary access to the relevant judge.

      I have also spoken about the situation in Ukraine, the North Caucasus and Turkey. I have looked at other practices such as the deprivation of nationality, studying, for instance, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in the United Kingdom and the draft currently before us regarding the French constitution and the deprivation of nationality for those individuals who have been found guilty of and sentenced for attacks that are a threat to the nation.

      I have learnt a lot of lessons from my studies, and I have shared some concerns with Mr Kox. I have concerns on issues such as: searches; arrest warrants; the numerous house arrests we have seen; the fact that restrictions have been put on freedom of movement; and the fact that in a state of emergency exceptional powers may be used for purposes other than the ones for which they have been requested. On that basis, I have tabled one amendment to the report on behalf of my committee – it is my only amendment – with a view to guaranteeing the law and liberty in France and in Europe as a whole. It seeks to ensure that we have parliamentary debates that are fair and calmly discuss the issues before us. I am referring to the idea of putting to the Venice Commission for opinion the current Bill before the French State regarding putting the deprivation of liberty and the extension of the state of emergency into the constitution. I will come to speak later on that point.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Le Borgn’. I call Ms Bilgehan, the rapporteur for the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination to present her opinion. You, too, have three minutes.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – This debate is on an issue that, unfortunately, is extremely topical in Turkey, France and many other countries. Terrorism is unjustifiable. The repeated attacks that have been perpetrated, particularly those on behalf of the so-called “Islamic State” – Daesh – are a real danger to our societies, but we all know that the way in which we combat terrorism is also crucial. Overly weak responses would expose our societies to increased risk, but excessive responses are equally dangerous. The disproportionate stiffening of laws and exceptional procedures jeopardises the fundamental freedoms that we must be championing. Minorities that are often viewed as threats may be especially affected. I congratulate Mr Kox on his report and on this wonderful news of the birth in his family, and I congratulate Mr Borgn’ on his opinion. They both convey these concerns.

      A year ago, following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, this Assembly also placed emphasis on the need to eradicate the causes of radicalisation. Today, the preventive aspect has almost dropped off the agenda and off this draft text. We think that three points are essential. The first is that political discourse following terrorist attacks should never tilt into stigmatisation of entire communities. The second is that there is a need to understand the drivers that prompt people to yield to the temptation of violence. The third is that we need to combat discrimination and unstintingly work for the inclusion of all the members of our societies.

      Lastly, I also want to stress that women are regrettably sometimes directly targeted by terrorists, and I hope that the Assembly will pay greater attention to that in future.

      In conclusion, the importance of preventive measures in the fight against terrorism should not be understated. If we stop trying to live together and if we give up the fight against marginalisation, we will head towards disaster. That is the thrust of my amendment, which has been approved by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Van der Maelen to present the second report. You have 13 minutes to divide between presentation of the report and your response to the debate.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – In June 2014, when I tabled my motion on foreign fighters in Syria, I meant to deal with the supposed potential risks and threats. Today, we know better: we are dealing with bloody facts. According to the data, more than 61 000 acts of terrorism have occurred worldwide over the past 15 years, claiming 140 000 lives. The trend is extremely worrying. Between 2000 and 2014, the number of deaths from terrorism increased ninefold from 3 300 to more than 32 600 in 2014. I am afraid that the figure for 2015 will be even higher.

      Until recently, the overwhelming majority of such deadly statistics related to far-away third-world countries with a few notorious exceptions, such as 9/11 in the United States, the attacks on the Madrid train station and the London underground, the Norwegian massacre, and attacks in Turkey and Russia. However, if we look at the past few months, we can see that the waves of terrorism are getting closer and have actually hit the heart of Europe. Moreover, many recent terrorist attacks have been carried out and claimed by individuals who act in the name of the terrorist group that calls itself Islamic State, but which we call Daesh. That is the context in which we must consider the problem of foreign fighters.

      Let me try to define the problem and quote some facts and figures. Foreign fighters are individuals, driven mainly by ideology, religion or kinship, who leave their country of origin or habitual residence to join a party engaged in armed conflict. The phenomenon is not new, and you can find a few historical references in my report. What is new, however, is the unprecedented scale, mainly in relation to the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Iraq. According to various assessments, it is estimated that more than 30 000 foreign fighters – the United States speaks of 35 000 – have travelled to Iraq and Syria from more than 100 countries since 2011. What is also new is that a considerable number of these foreign fighters now come from our 47 member States. About 20% of the total number consists of residents or nationals of western European countries. The largest countries – France, the United Kingdom, and Germany – also produce the largest numbers of fighters in absolute figures. The most heavily affected western European countries in proportion to population size are Belgium, Denmark and Sweden. The phenomenon is also not limited to western Europe. Russian authorities stated in October last year that between 5 000 and 7 000 terrorists in Syria had travelled from Russia.

      Another new feature about foreign fighters is their social profile. They are mostly young and very young people, some from less favourable social backgrounds, but also from comfortable ones. Some have university degrees. What is also striking is the growing number of women and young girls among those who have travelled, or who are planning to travel, to join Daesh. Last but not least, what is completely new about foreign fighters is their direct impact on European societies. The first thing to mention is the direct security threat of, for example, terrorist attacks by the returnees. We know now that the terrorist attacks in Paris last November were perpetrated by people with Syrian and Iraqi backgrounds. Furthermore, there are risks that foreign fighters will seek to broaden support for their causes and extend radical terrorist networks by recruiting new followers, glorifying terrorist acts, and sharing experiences with new recruits and providing them with terrorist training. More broadly, by misusing the religious motivations of their acts, foreign fighters actually harm the religious communities that they pretend to belong to and fight for. As a result, there is a risk that the cohesion and integrity of democratic societies will be undermined through the intensification of splits between various ethnic and religious groups. It is therefore important to reiterate that terrorism should not be associated with any religion, nationality or ethnic group.

      That is the situation that we are facing, so how we deal with it looks like the fundamental question. In my view, the first step in solving a problem is to be fully aware of it. We should then understand the root causes. Why do so many young people, men and women, our compatriots, our neighbours, who were born and brought up in our cities and towns and who were taught in our schools and universities, get radicalised? What makes them receptive to jihadist propaganda? What pushes them to leave their homes and travel to Syria and Iraq, where they sometimes do not even understand the language? You will see in the report that there is a whole range of personal, political, socio-economic, ideological, psychological and religious motivations that may contribute to the radicalisation of an individual and push him or her into the arms of jihadists.

      In particular, individuals who feel marginalised, ill treated, and socially excluded, and who desperately seek a sense of living and belonging are at high risk of being radicalised, indoctrinated by extremist propaganda and recruited by terrorist groups. As I mentioned earlier, the middle classes and holders of university degrees are not immune to radicalisation. My report refers to many serious studies on this subject, and I invite all colleagues present, and those who want to do work on this issue in their parliament, to read them carefully.

      Then come the practical questions: what do we do to prevent radicalisation? How do we stop our citizens travelling to join the jihad? What do we do with those who return? Unfortunately, there are no magic solutions, and no quick fixes, yet every time there is a terrorist attack in one of our countries, public authorities tend to give priority to repression and punishment, and take quick and visible short-term action in response to immediate threats. At the same time, I am happy to say that there is a growing understanding that a security-oriented approach is not enough. We must put more emphasis on addressing the underlying factors of radicalisation, and pay much more attention to prevention, discouragement and reintegration policies that may yield long-term results. In the draft resolution, I have tried to sum up several avenues to be explored. I will not take up colleagues’ time by reading them all out loud, but I invite them to take a look at the resolution.

      Our Organisation – here I look in the direction of our Secretary General – must welcome and support the action plan on the fight against violent extremism and radicalisation leading to terrorism that was adopted last May by the Committee of Ministers. My draft recommendation calls for the Council of Europe to make a more substantial contribution to efforts to address the root causes of the foreign fighters phenomenon, and to preventing terrorism generally. I hope that this report and today’s discussion will stimulate a broad public debate on foreign fighters, and I invite all colleagues to take the issue back to their parliaments and countries.

       Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to the secretariat, and to Dr Christophe Paulussen, a researcher from the Netherlands who has greatly contributed to my work. Thank you.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Van der Maelen. You have one minute remaining.

      I call Mr Omtzigt, Rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, to present his Committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – I congratulate Mr Van der Maelen on a good report. Congratulations, too, to Mr Kox. He is the last person that I shall congratulate in this speech on this very sad theme. From a legal point of view, in Daesh we have an organisation that commits the crime of genocide. It is not just me saying that: the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe has decided that there is enough evidence for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to state that Daesh commits genocide. Look at the mass graves of Yazidis that are being found daily on Mount Sinjar, and at how people there were enslaved and later killed, and at how Daesh proclaims that people who are not of the Sunni faith as they perceive it do not have the right to life. That is the very essence of genocide. Gregory Stanton, a leading scholar in this field, clearly states that what befell the Yazidis has befallen Christian and other minority communities, and minority communities within Islam, who have suffered greatly; Shi’ite communities are, in Daesh’s eyes, as bad as those other minorities.

      What does this mean? It means that for the first time in a long time, we should look at the 1948 United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Our colleague Alex Salmond referred to the Holocaust; that is why we have this convention. We have it because we politicians have to make a judgment not to wait for a court verdict 10 years later; we have to know when we must act for ourselves.

      The convention is clear: it puts a positive obligation on member States to do everything possible to prevent genocide. Our countries are very much obliged to prevent our own nationals from taking part in atrocities. Much of our language is about preventing them from committing atrocities here. May we please start by making sure that these people do not travel to Syria or Iraq, learn how to commit atrocities and then carry them out there, and then carry them out here as well? Is there anything that we want these people to do there that we do not want them to do here? There is not, so we should say that there is that positive obligation. The convention puts that obligation on member States. It was made very clear in the International Court of Justice judgment in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro that countries have this obligation.

      Punishment is part of this; colleagues will see that in a number of our amendments, we talk about not just reintegration but giving the appropriate punishment. If you are part of an organisation such as Daesh, you cannot just reintegrate. Lastly, we should be very careful, when receiving refugees, that we pick out those people who have committed war crimes or genocide and do not give them refugee status. That is to protect our society, and also to protect genuine refugees who have suffered at the hands of these people. Thank you.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Omtzigt.

      Now I would like to welcome Mr Harlem Desir, Minister of State for European Affairs, France, who will make a statement.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      Mr Desir, on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and in my own name, I assure you that we were all shocked and appalled by the deadly terrorist attacks of which France was the victim. Many member States of the Council of Europe and other countries in the region have also been brutally attacked by terrorists. As our debate today will demonstrate, Europe and the entire world are extremely disturbed by the issue of terrorism. Together, we need to find effective responses, without yielding to extremism and populism. Minister of State, I am absolutely sure that your statement in the Chamber today will enrich our debate, and I thank you in advance. You have the floor.

      Mr DESIR (Minister of State for European Affairs of France)* – President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, rapporteurs, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Parliamentary Assembly, I congratulate the President on his election to the head of an institution that flies the flag high for the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I express my thanks to his predecessor, Ms Brasseur, for the valuable work undertaken during her term of office.

      As the host country of the Organisation and home to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, France is deeply attached to the Council of Europe. It is with great pleasure that I have therefore agreed to participate in this debate on the fight against international terrorism. Thank you for the invitation. I also thank the two rapporteurs, Mr Kox and Mr Van der Maelen, for the quality of their work.

      Just over two months ago, only a few days after the terrorist attacks of 13 November in Paris and Saint-Denis, I was here in Strasbourg at the opening of the World Forum for Democracy alongside you, Secretary General, to underscore the indispensable balance that needs to be struck between security and the protection of fundamental freedoms. The terrorist attacks were at a concert hall and café terraces and in the vicinity of a football stadium – attacks against our youth and citizens from far-flung corners of the world. Those attacks in Paris, a city in a democratic country, led to 130 deaths with hundreds wounded, some of whom are still in hospital. The attacks had been planned from Syria by Daesh, Islamic State, an organisation that has at its disposal territory and vast resources, but were committed by fanatical individuals determined to kill and die in the process, in the name of jihad. They had come from war zones where they had been trained to kill using war-like arms and methods. That same terrorism struck Europe on a number of occasions last year, including in Paris in January against Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket, targeting policemen in Brussels, against the Jewish museum in Copenhagen, and against a synagogue. It also struck in Tunis, Egypt and Bamako and, this year, Istanbul, Jakarta and Ouagadougou.

      The rapporteurs are right, unfortunately: the terrorist threat is still present in all our countries. Prime Minister Manuel Valls said as much after the attacks in Istanbul. The threat is constant and can strike at any time. The President of the Republic has therefore taken a certain number of robust and exceptional measures with a view to responding to the challenge, abiding by three imperatives. The first is effectiveness; the State has a duty to protect citizens. Secondly, we must respect the rule of law and fundamental freedoms. Thirdly, we need to abide by international commitments.

      As of 14 November 2015, a state of emergency was decreed for 12 days throughout the national territory as a result of the serious nature of the terrorist attacks and the permanent nature of the threat. Then, in accordance with the rule of 3 April 1955, a Bill to prolong the state of emergency for three years was put to parliament and approved with a significant majority across party lines on 20 November 2015. By extending the power of the administrative authority for a limited period and in clearly exceptional circumstances, and authorising searches and seizures, day and night, or house arrest, the state of emergency is effective. Between 14 November 2015 and 16 January 2016, the police carried out 3 234 administrative searches or seizures, 515 offences were reported, 388 people were taken for questioning, 338 people were placed in custody, and 406 were placed under house arrest. Seventeen house arrests were lifted after reassessment, and a dozen were modified to enable those placed under house arrest to reconcile that status with private family life or a professional activity. Also, 559 weapons were found, including 42 weapons of war, half the normal volume of weapons found in a full year.

      Those measures are one of the elements in the fight against terrorism, alongside the work of the intelligence services, themselves governed by the law relating to intelligence that was passed on 24 July 2015. The exchange of information and international co-operation, particularly at a European level, is another element in the fight against Daesh in Syria and Iraq, and the fight against radicalisation in France and elsewhere in Europe. Those measures are in full compliance with the requirements of a State based on the rule of law. In an opinion made known by the government, the Conseil d’État felt that they were fully compliant with the requirements of the constitution. Provisions relating to control over the press were removed from legislation on the state of emergency. It is clear to us in France that freedom of expression, which is attacked by terrorism, has to be protected, including by ensuring the physical protection of journalists and editorial committees. Various sites of worship – mosques, churches, synagogues – and other places where people gather are protected. Those are exceptional measures in response to an exceptional situation and fully comply with the requirements of the constitution, as was referred to in the preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État. The constitutional court declared in the decision of 22 December that the house arrest measures were fully compliant with the requirements of the constitution.

      Those exceptional measures are also the subject of political and judicial oversight, which in turn is exceptional. I shall deal first with political oversight, as exercised by parliamentary assemblies. The legislative committees of the two houses enjoy investigative powers; therefore, they have broad capacities to oversee the measures taken by the government in the context of the state of emergency. All the means that parliamentary committees have are available to them – checks on the spot, questionnaires, hearings and requests that documentation be submitted to them. Then there is judicial scrutiny, as exercised by administrative judges who heard 140 appeals following house arrest decisions under expedited procedure, mostly within 48 hours. The immense majority of the cases confirmed the measures taken by the administration. Of those 140 appeals, the judge pronounced six suspensions, one partial suspension and one annulment. That is what is meant by a State based on the rule of law. It implies courts that are able to react quickly, so that those who feel that their rights have been breached can defend themselves.

      There is therefore no suspension of judicial scrutiny of decisions taken by the administration during the state of emergency. The courts will always have a final say. I stress that with these measures France has honoured its international commitments and continues to do so. Confronted with a threat of exceptional gravity, France informed the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Secretary-General of the United Nations that it intended to avail itself of exemptions or derogations made available under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights or Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. France is profoundly attached to the Convention. France respects and will abide by its international human rights obligations. It would be a serious mistake to pit the fight against terrorism against defence of human rights, implying, in other words, that one had to choose one over the other – that we wish to fight against terrorism so have to renounce human rights and fundamental freedoms, or, conversely, that to defend and preserve human rights we should renounce the fight against terrorism. That would be a complete aberration. It is those same human rights that terrorists wish to cancel out, because they are at the heart of our democracy; the rapporteurs have reminded us of that. It is our duty to do both: to fight terrorism with the greatest determination and the arsenal available to us in the light of our legislation, and to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. That is the choice entered into by France, and is why the measures taken in the context of the state of emergency adapt the law to guarantee in the longer term the security and freedom of citizens and those residing in France, with a view to defending our values, our model of society and democracy.

      We wish to write the state of emergency into the constitution, to specify the means that can be used in that context and the reasons that could trigger the decreeing of a state of emergency. In an opinion made public, the Conseil d’État felt that those changes would be useful, which is why the government has added to the legislation on the reform of criminal procedure, to strengthen the fight against organised crime. That legislation will be put to parliament in the next few days. The prosecution will have greater means to act in investigations, and those investigations will be adversarial in nature. Intercepts will be better regulated and the specialisation of liberty and custody judges will be recognised. The text will also enable municipal authorities to oversee individuals returning from Syria and Iraq who are not the subject of judicial proceedings. It will contribute to protect certain sensitive sites and crackdown on arms trafficking and money laundering, which fuel terrorism.

      The President of the Republic has said that the state of emergency will not last, and I think the Prime Minister has said as much this morning. It will be limited in time, but the threat level remains high and if our legislation is not brought into line we will not be in a position to counter that threat and ensure security and liberty. That is why, on 3 February, the government introduced a Bill to prolong the state of emergency for a further three months.

      The rapporteurs are right to say that, in the longer term, the fight against terrorism will be won on the basis of our values. That is why France is committed to attacking the root causes of terrorism, first at a national level, with an action plan to fight racism and discrimination and the phenomenon of radicalisation and its development on the Internet. Then, on the European level, we will work with our partners on more controls at common external borders, exchanging information, introducing European passenger name records, and fighting arms trafficking and the funding of terrorism. On an international level, we are participating in an international coalition against Daesh under United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249. At the same time, we are seeking a lasting political solution to the crisis that has raged for too long in Iraq, Syria and Libya, which has enabled Daesh to shore up its position.

      Terrorists seek to kill not only men, women and children; they wish to kill freedom in our open and tolerant democratic societies. They wish to intimidate and divide us and to force us to live in fear and discord, so we need to do the very opposite. We need to stand up united, as the French and all those who joined them did in the major demonstration on 11 January 2015. We need to defend our values of fraternity and freedom with the utmost determination. We need to shore up the State based on the rule of law and democracy.

      The Council of Europe has an essential role to play in that mission. That is why France has actively participated in the additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, which France signed on 22 October 2015. Human rights, the rule of law, education, inclusion and social cohesion are at the very heart of the work of the Council of Europe, and they are key factors in the success of any prevention strategy and any attempt to fight violent extremism and terrorism. That is our conviction.

The terrorists who attacked France will not change the face of France. It will remain the country of freedom and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with the support of its friends and partners in the Council of Europe. Together we will beat terrorism.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Desir, for your interesting and important statement. Terrorism strikes at the heart of our most precious values. Terrorists target our freedoms and wish to kill indiscriminately. Given the security threat, we are duty bound to be vigilant and to not repudiate human rights, in the name of fundamental freedoms and of fighting terrorism. We shall prevail over terrorism. It is with great pleasure that I will call on you again later, Minister of State, to respond to the debate after the statements of the representatives of the political groups.

(The speaker continued in English.)

I now call Mr Nicoletti, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – Thank you, Mr President. I thank the Minister of State and express gratitude to Mr Kox and Mr Van der Maelen for their very carefully executed reports, which deal with a phenomenon that we have to confront and indicate the work that has to be done to do so. In particular, they condemn terrorist violence. Both documents are clear that there is no ideal or philosophy that can in any way justify such atrocious acts. We must be open the way to democracy, dialogue, respect and tolerance, but never violence. We must never give in to the methods chosen by these particular people.

Secondly, we must make a distinction between terrorists, such as Daesh, and the ideals that they say they are defending and other beautiful ideas. We need to bolster and support the noble ideals that are being struck down by those people.

Thirdly – this is also extremely important – we must never give terrorism the recognition it desires. We must never give in to political manipulation. Daesh pretends to be a State, a nation and a territory. It has funds, resources and a population base, but it will never receive the political recognition it desires. The reports also make it clear that we need to rethink the term, “War against terrorism”.

As has been said, terrorism strikes not only innocent individuals, but entire States that follow the rule of law. We will not give in. A State that follows the rule of law does not instrumentalise violence in any way, and we will not fall into the trap of responding in that way. We will respect international conventions, European jurisprudence and the Venice Commission. Those are the lines we will follow. Prevention is also extremely important, particularly in this ideological battle. We will prevail.

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

Mr GARÐARSSON (Iceland) – Thank you, Mr President. On behalf of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I thank the rapporteurs for their excellent work.

Our Commissioner for Human Rights is right to say that international terrorism is “a crime against our citizens, against our way of living, against our standards and values.” We must fight terrorism in every possible way and use all the tools available. Terrorist attacks in Paris, Turkey, Tunisia and other countries remind us that no country is safe. Terrorists are targeting innocent people, knowing that it will hurt our societies the most. Their goal is not only to promote their cause, but to spread fear and hate and to destabilise our societies. If we want to defend our democratic structure and values, we must fight terrorism.

Make no mistake: Daesh is not only the biggest and most powerful terrorist organisation we have ever seen; it is also the richest. If we want to combat it, we must start by cutting its lifeline, namely the money that flows to it.

At the same as we fight terrorism, it is important that we respect human rights and the rule of law – the basic values of the Council of Europe – which must be kept in mind when individual States introduce counter-terrorism measures. The fact that so many young people have gone to Syria and Iraq to join Daesh is very disturbing and gives rise to a new kind of danger. There is a risk that some of these people, having been radicalised, will return to their home countries motivated to carry out terrorist attacks. There is also a real possibility that that they will try to recruit other people. We saw that happen in Paris.

It is very disturbing to learn about the growing number of women and young girls that join Daesh. Why do they do it? Some like the ideology of Daesh, while others feel that they are lacking identity and do not belong in western society. They might be dissatisfied with national policy, be pressured by friends, or join for many other reasons. Young women are often recruited through the Internet with a promise of marriage.

We will probably see a growing number of foreign fighters in the years to come. To combat the issues facing us, we must address the root causes of radicalisation. We need to educate people and work out comprehensive plans to deal with the problem, and we must do so both internationally and within each country, on both a governmental and a local level. But even that will not be enough. We must also bring private and public organisations to the table and share information on all levels. The fight will continue and there will be no final victory, but we can lower the risks and make our countries safer. That is our responsibility.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Ihsanoğlu, who speaks on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr İHSANOĞLU (Turkey) – On behalf of the group, I extend our thanks to the rapporteurs.

      The emergence and rise of ISIS as a new form of terrorism, its ability to appeal to vast numbers of people, from not only impoverished societies but developed ones, and the increase in global polarisation that has resulted from the debate on radicalism, violence and freedoms, all mean that we must adopt fresh thinking. Two or three decades ago, terrorism was largely considered to mean acts of violence perpetrated by armed groups on the payroll of some rogue actors. A decade ago, terrorism unfortunately became almost synonymous with jihadism because of the abuse of Islamic discourse by independent armed groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban. As a result of recent developments, new concepts have made it into our terrorism vocabulary – such as homegrown terrorist, self-radicalised person, or Internet jihadist – which are used to describe this evolving phenomenon. The issue of defining terrorism remains a major challenge to overcome before the international community can unanimously put their heads together and chart a way forward to effectively counter and diminish terrorism, be it global or regional.

Ever since 1972, when measures to eliminate international terrorism appeared on the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly, the debate about what constitutes terrorism has continued among member States. The divergence of opinions on whether resistance to foreign occupation constitutes terrorism, or the extent to which the unlawful use of force and aggression leads to terrorism, persists among the international community. Nevertheless, it is a unanimously accepted fact that political and economic injustices, marginalisation and alienation, exclusion from political, economic and social opportunity spaces, and the restriction and suppression of fundamental freedoms, all feed, in one way or another, radicalism as a precursor to terrorism and violent extremism.

I conclude by reiterating the idea of the report: combating terrorism and protecting the Council of Europe’s standards and values are not contradictory but complementary.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Villumsen, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – I thank the rapporteurs for their two very good reports. The majority of the victims of terror live outside Europe, but we have had the terrible experience of terror in Copenhagen, in Denmark. I personally had the unpleasant experience of visiting Paris in November, when the recent terrible attacks took place. Other member States have also been hit, so I offer my condolences to all the victims of terror and their families.

On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left I state clearly that we stand firm against terrorism, as we stand firm in favour of democracy and human rights. We need to protect the lives and rights of our citizens. The struggle against terrorism is a struggle in favour of democracy. Democracy should not be lost in our fight against terror – we should not give the terrorists that victory.

It is clear that the so-called war on terror has failed. Daesh could not have attained the strength it has today had it not been for the illegal invasion of Iraq. The failed wars in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan clearly show that we cannot drop bombs and expect democracy to grow. We have to support local democratic forces and the local people who fight for democracy and human rights.

Yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the Kurdish victory against Daesh in Kobanî. Today, we have the honour of having two of the leading commanders from the struggle against Daesh visiting our Assembly. We must support such people so that they can defend the millions of Christians, Arabs and Kurds against the evil of Daesh and prevent those people from being forced to flee.

I think we all agree that the evil of Daesh should be fought. People should not be allowed to do dirty deals with such evil. Daesh could not exist if people did not buy its oil, if there was not somebody who sold it arms, and if it was not allowed to receive foreign fighters. No one should be allowed to do such dirty deals, and it is time that anyone who does is prosecuted, even if they are princes in Saudi Arabia, ministers in Turkey or an emir of Qatar. The United Nations has made clear decisions on the matter that should be enforced by our member States.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Németh, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their two excellent reports. We rarely experience such a situation.

I deplore the terrorist attacks in Paris that resulted in the deaths of more than 100 innocent fellow Europeans. In the name of the Group of the European People’s Party, I express our deepest empathy with the victims and their families, and with France and the French nation.

Let us commit ourselves to fighting terrorists. I believe that 13/11 in Paris is a 9/11 for Europe. A new era has started, one of consciousness against terror, and I believe that this debate is part of that. We would not be having this debate had it not been for those terrible attacks in Paris. Terrorism largely correlates to four very serious problems of our time. Terrorism might be an old problem for us, but the combination of terrorism, migration, the serious open conflicts in the Middle East and North African region, the radicalisation of Islam and the phenomena of internal Islamic problems creates a new synergy of global problems, and that is what is new in our era.

      We had a long debate this morning about migration and we have had many debates on the conflicts in MENA in different forums, especially in NATO. I want to underline that we must make a clear distinction between the religion of Islam and the political misuse of that religion, as reflected in the reports. Religious dialogue is crucial, including clarifying our own European Christian values, and it is vital that we respect the different constitutional traditions in Europe. As for the global political problems, I underline the importance of internal dialogue in the Islamic world. The role of Islamic countries, such as Indonesia and Turkey, is also crucial. A moderate, peaceful and democratic Islam is one of the key solutions for the challenges of the 21st century.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Németh. Minister, do you want to respond to the spokespersons of the political groups?

Mr DESIR* – I thank the spokespersons of the various political groups, who have enriched this debate and added to the already very detailed analyses in the reports. Mr Nicoletti rightly stressed the role of education, and that is another battle on the frontline of values. Other speakers have stressed that, too.

Mr Van der Maelen mentioned what is done with youngsters in our cities, in our schools and in our countries who might tilt into radicalism. The way in which that happens can vary substantially. They might be fanaticised by the Internet, or drawn to Syria and other combat zones because of what they have seen on the Internet. Others are radicalised in prison, or through personal contact with people who are already radicalised. In any event, one of the frontlines of these battles is the transmission of values and a counter-narrative on prevention. That is a major priority for us.

      Mr Garðarsson also stressed the numbers of foreign fighters among those young people. The Islamic State group wishes to sow not only death but fear, strife and violence in our societies and we need to cut off its funding first of all. There is also the difficulty of the fact that the group lives off the resources of the territory it occupies. It is not a conventional State, and we certainly should not recognise it as such. The group controls territory, cities, and economic resources. It levies taxes and, as you know, appropriates certain sources of wealth that belong to the States whose territories it has conquered. That is particularly the case in Mosul in Iraq, where the Central Bank of Iraq was plundered, as were arsenals and armaments that belonged to the former Iraqi Army.

      The group has also exploited the political crisis in Iraq and the civil war in Syria, as well as internal dissensions within Islam, such as the war between Sunni and Shia. A number of senior officials in the previous Iraqi regime felt that they had been left by the wayside because of de-Ba’athisation after the war, and they slipped into the ranks of Daesh.

      Of course, this is not a conventional war, such as those we experienced in the 20th century or before that. As the rapporteur said, the first victims are often Muslims who are not the right sort of Muslims according to Daesh’s thinking. It is a very sectarian organisation, and there is confusion about Islam as a religion – the organisation kills Shias because they are Shia as well as Sunnis who, in its opinion, are not the right sorts of Sunnis. Those who run the organisation and commit these crimes might not have undergone proper religious instruction, but they convert and use jihadism as a tool to justify atrocious crimes that are simply crimes against humanity.

      Terrorism has changed in nature, as Mr Ihsanoğlu stressed. Its scale is unprecedented, especially internationally, and there is therefore a need for strong co-operation. There must be a fight at an international level against all the various sources of funding for the people who carry out such crimes. At the G20, the European institutions and the United Nations, work must be done to ensure that there are no black holes or blank spaces in the international banking system. Anonymous forms of payment are used and although credit card transactions might seem minor at times, cumulatively they make it possible to transfer funds from Daesh-controlled territories to groups in other countries to buy weapons and carry out criminal terrorist attacks.

      Mr Villumsen mentioned the battle that is under way with Kurdish fighters, and the retaking of Kobanî. There must be an inclusive political transition in Syria and the Iraqi State also needs to be inclusive, so that no component population of that country is left out and liable to be recruited by Daesh in its war. Mr Németh also emphasised the distinction that should be drawn between Islam and those who claim to be Islamic. We need to be very vigilant on that and should not confuse the issues.

      Recent events call for enormous vigilance, but we should avoid confusing this issue with that of refugees and migrants fleeing terrorism. At the same time, we must bear it in mind that terrorist groups, especially Daesh, might want to avail themselves of the migrant flows to move their fighters. We need to say this quite candidly without any naivety, but we should also warn against conflating the issues.

The refugees have nothing to do with this, of course; they are victims of the situation. However, the terrorists might use fake or stolen passports issued by the Syrian or Iraqi States before the war that have fallen into their hands. They can use that avenue, so we need to be assiduous in checking people’s identities. We should use the Europol databases and the Schengen Information System, and co-operate with Interpol. We must not conflate categories and scapegoat part of the population. We must not point the finger at a whole group just because of their religion. We should strongly defend our values and commitments in the Council of Europe. The European Convention on Human Rights is our best weapon in preserving the unity of our societies and our democratic values and in combating the terrorists who wish to destroy them.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Minister of State.

      We now come to the speakers list. Mr Nikoloski is not here, so I call Mr Harangozó from Hungary, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr HARANGOZÓ (Hungary) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent report. We learned from the dictatorships of the 20th century and the Second World War and created the Council of Europe to defend the fundamental rights of freedom and democracy. Only by following the rule of law can we prevent autocratic populists from capturing our democracies again. The strengthening and widening of liberal democracy was the basis of northern and western Europe’s success. The whole world saw it as a place of freedom and wealth.

      However, more and more people – even political leaders – believe that liberal democracies that are based on the rule of law and the fundamental right of freedom cannot successfully tackle the challenges of the 21st century. That argument is made strongly in relation to combating terrorism. There is no question but that terrorism is a serious threat and that we need real tools to fight against it. We can rethink our institutions’ roles, create new ones or strengthen the old ones, but we must not demolish or erode the achievements of the past decades. We must not give up or water down our European values, which are the basis of Europe’s wealth. Terrorists want to change our societies and demolish our political systems, and they spread fear to generate public support for such changes. They want to end Europe’s political culture of tolerance and inclusion, and they want more frustrated and disappointed people to follow them.

      If we radically limit our basic rights of freedom, we will not be serving the interests of our citizens. On the contrary, if we give up our freedom and water down the rule of law in our liberal democracies, the terrorists will have won. If Europe allows extreme populists to poison the minds of Europeans, intolerance will turn into xenophobia and exclusion. I completely agree with the rapporteur that protecting the Council of Europe’s standards is not contradictory to combating terrorism. Our values are the precondition of the fight against terrorism, so we have to take care of them.

(Ms Oomen-Ruijten, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Agramunt)

      Ms ÅBERG (Sweden) – The increase of radicalisation is a threat to the safety of our societies. Acts of violence should be punished under the law, but radicalisation must be fought with pre-emptive actions. Adults who interact with children and youths – for example, in educational institutions, social care organisations and religious bodies – have a crucial role in detecting and ending radicalisation. We must make clearer their responsibility to question and challenge extremist views.

      It is said that factors such as unemployment, housing policies and school segregation cause Islamic radicalisation, but not all Islamic terrorists are marginalised young males from the suburbs. If poverty and social injustice cause radicalisation, other nations in Europe would be significantly more afflicted than Sweden, Denmark and Belgium. We have to call things by their true names. Radicalisation is caused by an ideology. Hatred towards the tolerance of open societies, individual freedom and equality is the strongest driving force of militant Islamism. We will fight by any means necessary the idea of forcing a medieval caliphate upon the world, in which women have no value and homosexuality and dissenting belief systems are punishable by death.

      Dealing with returnees who have fought for Daesh is a great challenge. Some politicians advocate preferential treatment for returnees in the labour market and in access to housing. That is completely unacceptable. It is important that we spread the stories of people who left Daesh when they realised that, in reality, violent extremism means murder, mutilation and rape. The best means of defeating Islamic terrorism is to stabilise the situation in the Middle East and Syria, because democracies do not fight each other. Until we do that, we must intensify the fight against radicalism and extremism in Europe without compromising the foundational principles of democracy.

      Ms DE SUTTER (Belgium) – Whether they happen in Paris, Beirut, Tunis, Baghdad or Istanbul, terrorist attacks are horrible and inhuman. They should be strongly condemned by every person, religion and country. In his excellent report on foreign fighters, Mr Van der Maelen writes that we must urgently raise public awareness, co-operate within the international community in the fight against terrorism, consolidate democracy, protect human rights, strengthen the rule of law and deal with democratic security. The aim of those actions is to prevent terrorism – I stress the word “prevent”. Prevention deserves much more attention than it has so far received. Authorities acted abruptly after the attacks because something had to be done. In Belgium and France, local and national politicians took actions that I fully support, although they were mostly of a repressive nature. Society has been traumatised, and the political pressure on local authorities is huge. That is why I believe that the Assembly should give particular attention to the chapter entitled “Responses at national and local level” in the explanatory memorandum.

      There are several important questions to ask. Why do those young people, who are often highly educated, feel unwanted in our societies? What can we do to increase inclusiveness in our education systems and employment markets? How can we ensure that no more women and girls join ISIS to become jihadi brides or to fight? Why do they do that in the first place? Where did our societies fail? They have become harsher, causing some of our own young people to become depressed and commit suicide, but young Muslims go to fight for ISIS. Such questions go much further than the issues being discussed, but they are fundamental if we want to live together and respect each other in our future societies.

      In the short term, we all want to capture potential threats and eliminate them as soon as possible, but the solution is not the complete eradication of foreign fighters, because other foreign fighters are ready to fight right away, perhaps even more aggressively. We should not only alleviate the symptoms of the disease, but deal with the causes and look for a cure. In the long term, prevention is the only answer, and a strong strategy of global prevention is lacking today. We need to tackle the Internet and social media, deal with jihadist recruitment and hate speech, and install deradicalisation programmes. That is where the Council of Europe – the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers – can make a difference. Prevention should be the Council of Europe’s No. 1 priority in the fight against terrorism, in a pan-European concerted perspective. In that way we will succeed in protecting the Council of Europe’s standards and values.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Rzayev is not here, so I call Sir Roger Gale.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – Outside this Assembly at lunchtime, the Israeli ambassador reminded us of the need for tolerance and understanding, and of the need to defend against another Holocaust. Daesh wants another Holocaust, and we must all understand that. The European Conservatives Group and the British Government both believe that the way to fight that threat is through the promotion of stability and human rights in conflict zones. There is a paradox, however, because to do that, we may have to use force, as indeed we are doing with our allies in the skies over Syria and Iraq.

      That torture and mistreatment are unacceptable is a fundamental principle of all democratic governments and the Council of Europe. Investigatory powers must be backed by law and by the judiciary, but terrorists use social media and the Internet, and in defence of the sovereign freedoms that we wish to protect, we sometimes have to fight fire with fire. We must not be afraid to do so. If it is necessary to withdraw passports – we believe that more than 800 people have sought to leave Britain to go to Syria to fight in the jihad in recent times – then we must do that. If it is necessary to disrupt the return of potential jihadists from training grounds in the Middle East to the countries of Europe, we must do that. I believe that the rights that we seek to protect, and the rights of the civilised citizens of our own countries, must be paramount.

      France has declared a state of emergency, and an amendment to the report seeks to raise that issue. I hope that the Assembly will oppose that amendment, because I believe that France has an absolute right to determine what is necessary in the interests of France and the security of the French people. We have seen the bloodshed on the streets of Paris, as we have in London and other European cities, and it cannot be allowed to continue.

      Recently, after a vote in the House of Commons about whether to bomb Syria, there was an attack on a passerby in an underground station in London by a man who wielded a knife and said, “That’s for Syria”. Another young man said, “You ain’t no Muslim, bruv”. That went worldwide, and it is right – Daesh has nothing to do with Islam. We must remember that extremism has many faces, and we must beware of them all.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Blanchart is not here, so I call Ms Kronlid.

      Ms KRONLID (Sweden) – I thank the rapporteurs for two very important reports. The rise of terrorism poses a serious threat to international peace and security. All forms of violent extremism, regardless of whether it comes from the right, from the left, or from radical Islamism, must be fought with the utmost resolve. That, of course, includes the truly awful terror organisation that calls itself Islamic State, or Daesh. We feel the most profound sympathy with France, and all those who lost their near and dear ones in those horrific mass murders, and we also feel deeply for the many others who have fallen victim to terrorist acts in Europe, Lebanon, Tunisia and other parts of the world.

      The report on “Foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq” is commendable, and it raises important issues and goes deep into the psychology of would-be jihadists. I believe, however, that it could have been clearer in dispelling any notion that all that foreign fighters have to do when they return to Europe is simply go through a “deradicalisation” or “reintegration” programme, and then everything will be fine. That cannot be. We must make it clear that if someone joins and fights for a terror organisation such as IS, and perhaps takes part in killings or even genocide – of Christians, for example – they are committing a criminal act. Furthermore, more countries need to make travelling for the purposes of terror a criminal activity in order to keep people from engaging in such travel, and they must show that if people do that, there will be consequences. To my mind, that view is supported by Article 6 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.

      This Council of Europe of ours cannot signal to the world that the only things awaiting returnees are reconversion and reintegration programmes. Such programmes are no doubt important prevention measures for young people at risk, but they are not enough when it comes to people who in my view have committed crimes of terror or even genocide because they have been fighting for the so-called Islamic State. We need to carry out major changes to our justice policies, and the aim should be to prohibit any participation whatsoever in terrorist activities, including travelling from Europe to engage in such activities.

      Ms DALLOZ (France)* – One of the most fundamental rights is the right to live in security, and in the absence of that right other freedoms rapidly become merely formal. The European Convention on Human Rights, especially Article 15, speaks about the possibility of derogating from that right in cases of war or public danger that pose a threat to the life of the nation, and we recognise that. The European Court of Human Rights has specified that by “public danger” we mean a crisis, an exceptionally dangerous situation, or an imminent danger that has an effect on the whole nation and constitutes a threat to organised life within a community. The Court also added that an “imminent” danger does not mean that a State has to wait for a disaster to occur before it takes measures to stave off that danger. Therefore, France has quite legitimately relied on that provision, just like other countries before it, including the United Kingdom.

      I was somewhat surprised by some of the voices that I have heard referring to democracy. These measures are temporary, and the decision was taken with the almost unanimous approval of the French Parliament. It was done under the control of the French courts and the European Court of Human Rights. Surely that guarantees respect for the values of the Council of Europe.

I was also saddened by the strange Picrochole war, in the words of Le Monde, initiated by the French courts regarding the judicial order against the Council of State. In this period of serious crisis there is no place for naïvety or corporatist feuds.

Beyond the case of France, beyond the temporary measures, is the question of sustainable measures. It is urgent that we strengthen our instruments against terrorism. In this regard, I am pleased that the Council of Europe has quickly adopted a convention on the fight against terrorism. In general, we must try to standardise the response to terrorists in the European Union, including that of the Council of Europe.

Reform of external border controls in the current Union is also essential. We must ruthlessly prosecute and punish terrorists, respecting, of course, the right to a fair trial, but without weakness. A terrorist has clearly broken all links with the national community it seeks to destroy. However, we must be careful to avoid sweeping generalisations and stigmatising this or that part of the nation.

The Council of Europe must be an excellent platform for exchanging good practices in the fight against terrorism among member States.

      Mr. ROUQUET (France)* – Staying safe is a fundamental human right. It is therefore legitimate that States attacked by terrorism take the necessary measures to protect their citizens.

      The European Convention on Human Rights has explicitly provided partial exemptions in the event of war or serious threat. As recently emphasised by the President of the European Court of Human Rights, that refers to "temporary restrictions, limited and controlled." He also argued that we had to be realistic. That is the difficulty of finding a delicate balance between these different requirements that are currently facing the most democratic countries in the world.

      This is particularly the case in France, and I welcome the presence among us of the Secretary of State, Harlem Désir, who enlightened us on the decisions taken by France. My country has in fact taken a number of emergency measures, including the proclamation of a state of emergency, which has the effect of suspending some liberties. The state of emergency itself is of limited duration and may be extended only by a new law. This was done by equating the response to the threat and justly respecting our values. Thus, the state of emergency was approved by the French Parliament almost unanimously.

      The measures taken in this context are also subject to judicial review, in particular the Council of State and the Constitutional Council. The European Court of Human Rights will be well aware of any control measures taken. The Law Committee of the National Assembly, for its part, established a monitoring mechanism for the measures taken under the state of emergency.

      I would also like to stress that the situation is not as simple as some people imagine. The border between crime and terrorism is porous and scalable, as was unfortunately demonstrated in various recent terrorist attacks. It is therefore legitimate to attack, under the state of emergency, non-criminals directly involved in the terrorist movement. Individual errors are always possible, of course, and it is up to the competent courts to ensure redress, but, overall, all measures are part of a logic of respect for the values ​​of the Council of Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr. Zech is not present in the Chamber, so I call Mr Corlăţean.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – Let me first congratulate the two rapporteurs on the quality of their work and express my support for the two draft resolutions as amended by the competent committees. The most important point of the first report is the need to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, the duty of States to fight terrorism firmly and, on the other, their duty to guarantee fundamental rights and freedoms. This principle of proportionality is relevant in this regard. We must avoid any action that goes beyond this principle.

      In committee, I recalled an extremely important moment for United Nations member States, at which I was present: the famous resolution adopted by the Security Council in 2014 on foreign fighters and limiting the exercise of certain rights and freedoms, such as freedom of movement. This report should be read in the light of this resolution, which is legally binding on member States, which have been forced to adapt their national laws.

      I support the amendments on the term "genocide", because that is what is happening in Syria and Iraq: a crime against humanity to established communities there, including the Christian community.

      Mr. LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – I congratulate the rapporteurs.

      The international community must join forces to fight against terrorism, to defeat Islamic State and punish the attacks in Lebanon, Egypt, Jakarta, Paris, Turkey – unfortunately, everywhere.

      At the same time, the bloody civil war in Syria must absolutely be stopped. We must put an end to any business with IS and stop thwarting the forces fighting on the ground.

      The international community must also consider what it can do to address the socio-economic challenges that push so many young people to join terrorist organisations. What future is there for the younger generation, when the Middle East has the highest unemployment rate in the world and 20 million children do not attend school due to war and poverty? The outrage of the Arab world is on the face of it the crimes of other countries in the region. Think of those young people who have witnessed atrocities against the Palestinian people and the killing of children in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not to mention the sale of arms to dictators. Think of the danger that this may represent, if one adds the distortion of religious dogma.

      Finally, who financed these groups to turn those young people against hostile governments, which allowed the birth of the worst monster known to humanity since Nazism? Some NATO countries need to look at themselves in the mirror if they want to find the answers to terrorism.

      As the reports’ titles rightfully suggest, we must strive to combat terrorism in ways that do not undermine the Council of Europe’s values and standards. The Commissioner for Human Rights made a brave statement last July stressing that the war against terror, led by the United States and many European countries, has violated fundamental human rights and principles of international law, resulting in the victimisation of thousands of innocent civilians. As the results have shown, it was a failed and inefficient strategy, even if we consider that the intentions behind the war were sincere. In any case, humanity cannot tolerate yet another Guantanamo, a new Abu Ghraib, a network of secret CIA prisons, a new Afghanistan or Iraq, or new intelligence and surveillance techniques from the NSA or the “Five Eyes”.

      Mr AMEUR (Morocco, Partner for Democracy)* – The tragic events of the past few weeks and months are testing our humanity. Muslims feel that twice as much, as events are making things very difficult for them. Whether Muslim in faith or in culture, people feel dismayed at the awful things that people claim to be doing in the name of religion, even though they do the opposite of what the majority of Muslims believe in.

      When we try to analyse what is going on, we see that the phenomenon of radicalisation is the result of some big issues. On an international level, there are the unsuccessful attempts to solve the Palestinian issue, the war in Iraq and what is happening in the Middle East in general. Neo-liberal economics are excluding so many people from the economy in both the north and south of our region. People are also being excluded from democratic processes following the growth of sectarian tensions and the emergence of authoritarian regimes. There is also a complete absence of counter-arguments at the religious level of anything that could allow young people to think clearly. Instead, we see radicalising, inflammatory homilies in mosques and on the Internet. We need reformers and a resolutely progressive Islam that is based on its spiritual message. Many young people in the north and the south of the region are attracted by the ridiculous arguments put forward by Daesh because that is all that their generation is being offered. They are offered nothing else and Daesh is making use of that.

      We need an international effort to combat terrorism that is coherent and based on solidarity. We need just and lasting solutions to the conflicts in the Middle East, the southern Mediterranean, Iraq, Syria and Libya – not forgetting the Palestinian conflict. In order to establish liberal democracy, we must ensure that democracy is strengthened, that the rule of law is consolidated and that international efforts are more consistent and effective.

      Mr SOTNYK (Ukraine) – Ladies and gentlemen, I want to share with you some personal feelings. Less than a month ago, I was just 50 metres away from an act of terrorism in Jerusalem near the Western Wall and witnessed it with my eyes. A little later on, I was trying to recall what I felt at that moment and I realised that, before the act, I was totally sure that everything was okay. I thought that I was in a safe place because there were many soldiers and it is the same place for Christians and for those in the Islamic world. I felt really secure and did not realise that something could happen. After witnessing the attack, I was suddenly overwhelmed with fear and helplessness, which are what people in many countries are also feeling

      People are unsure whether their country can protect them. That is possibly the most important consideration and is why we need to consider people’s feelings when we try to find solutions. For me, the solution involves two main things: strong leadership and an objective assessment of the reasons for terrorism. However, we are still looking for such a solution and the threat of terrorism grows every day. We live in a world where States support terrorist organisations. We saw this in Donbass, where Russia supports terrorists, and we can see it in the dangerous and difficult situation in Syria. With such great support, terrorists may obtain powerful weapons and might even one day get a red button. We do not know what the results will be.

      Every day, people around the world are feeling ever more fearful and helpless. For terrorists, the norms of international law do not matter. They do not care. They will not sit around a table and negotiate. We need to consider the real reasons and the States that support terrorism.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – Mr Van der Maelen’s excellent report emphasises the scale of the phenomenon of foreign fighters since the Syria conflict took a dramatic turn. The so-called Islamic State attracts many people and fascinates thousands of young Muslims and recent converts in Europe. I fear that the flow is not about to come to an end, particularly given the bottleneck that the Syria negotiations have reached.

      We know that there is a double basis – a Ba’athist basis and a Salafist basis – for this phenomenon. We know also about the caliphate, sharia law and decapitations under this regime. Public opinion has responded strongly, particularly as a result of the Arab Spring, which has now unfortunately led to much disenchantment with the Muslim Brotherhood, even though it was democratically elected. Many of Saddam Hussein’s former officers have joined ranks with IS, which very much recalls the pan-Arabism of the Ba’athist party.

      There is an attempt to retake ground from IS, which lost 14% of its territory last year; in 2016, that trend may continue, due to harder air strikes and a certain optimism in Iraq after the Ramadi military victory – the Iraqi army’s first victory not involving military air forces. It is important to remember what happened in Afghanistan, where, unfortunately, the Taliban is regaining ground every day.

      A caliphate could lead to dramatic changes; it could lead to our experiencing more jihadist terrorist attacks outside that territory. There are movements in Syria and Iraq. Daesh may well wish to activate cells abroad. We have seen this recently, in fact; there have been a great number of attacks around the world. There could be many more attacks in Libya, because it is a failed State. IS could become a nebulous force, a bit like al-Qaeda – a terrorist organisation linked together not so much by central power as by ideology, with all the ramifications that has. A political solution has not yet been found to the many problems of the region. As long as we fail to find a solution, Daesh will unfortunately continue to prosper and attract foreign fighters. Thank you.

      Mr LIDDELL-GRAINGER (United Kingdom) – The whole idea of this Assembly and the Council of Europe in 1949 was to defend democracy. It was set up in the aftermath of a war to show distinctly that we were responsible for protecting our own people. We are here because democracy is worth defending. The first responsibility of any parliamentarian, whether in this Chamber or their parliament, whether they be from the lower house or upper house, and indeed of any democrat – of anybody who represents people – is to protect their own citizens.

      It cannot have passed anybody’s notice that outside there are French troops patrolling the streets, and French armed police in abundance – and rightly so. France has rightly taken its security to the level at which it should be, given what happened in Paris; nobody disputes that. We can make great protestations, but if people are determined to set off bombs, shoot people, maim, murder and destabilise, it is the responsibility of President Hollande in France to protect his citizens, as it is of Prime Minister Cameron to protect those in my country.

      There is a difference, however, in what we are talking about today. In 1949, there was a Cold War. Two great nations faced each other. Neither was mad enough to start a third world war. I spent a lot of time looking at a wall in Germany as a soldier; I do not want to do that again – I am a bit old, anyway. The people we now face do not respect borders, democracy, or the law and order that we believe in. They certainly do not respect women, children, men – anybody. They want to destabilise our way of life. At this precise moment, intelligence services across Europe, including our own, are trying to find these people before they do more damage. We must not forget that the role of the Council of Europe is to protect the citizen, wherever they may be.

      It is trite to speak of combating international terrorism while protecting Europe’s standards and values. The only way we can protect our standards and values is to say to people who do not agree with us, “This is not tolerable in our society; it has not been since ‘49, and it isn’t now.” We forget that lesson at our peril, because history repeats itself; it has for millennia. I say to you all: do not forget what we stand for. Thank you.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – First, I want to focus on the report of Dirk Van der Maelen. Mohammed emerged from Morocco, which was mentioned a few minutes ago. On the necessity of modern values, what has happened in education and employment, as far as principles and values are concerned? This wild group has somehow succeeded in attracting young people from Europe. Obviously, these young people no longer have regard for the modern values of our society; they simply move towards criminal activities. There is money behind this as well. The question is: is there a profound crisis in the young generation – a crisis with social and religious aspects? Individuals emerge from all this as criminals. Sometimes they return injured from the countries to which they went – we have instances of that in Austria – and we have to take them back into our society and reintegrate them.

      When we look at this disastrous situation, we should see the other side of the coin, which Mr George Loukaides mentioned; we have to ask ourselves who is buying these resources. Who is buying the oil? Who is paying for these kidnappings? Who is paying for this destruction of society? It appears that it is a huge apparatus, involving the sale of weapons. There are immense logistics behind this, and a lot of money. We have to deal with this, and strike at the financial channels. This has to be dealt with at international level. We have to fight against this, because our security, individual liberties and rights are extremely important. We have to look at this collectively.

      A terrorist organisation does not have a capital or a State. This is not a war, because only countries can wage war. We are speaking about a terrorist organisation, nothing more.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Rochebloine is not here, so I give the floor to Mr Di Stefano.

      Mr DI STEFANO (Italy)* – I am glad that we have decided on what is important in this debate: the foreign fighters, and how we can fight terrorism while upholding the values of the Council of Europe. We talk about the limits of the Council of Europe, but to get to Strasbourg I had to go through passport control, as though I had arrived from a different continent. That did not happen before the terrorist attacks in Paris. I regret that the Minister of State, Harlem Desir, has left, as France has already said that it will seek derogations from a certain number of international human rights standards in the fight against terrorism. I put the question to all colleagues: do you know the value of economic trade between France and Saudi Arabia? The last agreement was €10 billion. My country, Italy, has had trade worth €9 billion with Saudi Arabia over the past five years.

      What about military trade with Saudi Arabia? For the rest of Europe, it is the highest ever recorded. We have to set political hypocrisy to one side. Terrorism today is the result of our economic and foreign policies. As was said earlier in the debate on migration, if we have instability it is thanks to the foreign policies that we have been conducting. In my country, we in the Five Star Movement tabled a motion against foreign fighters, but it calls for a genuine European policy and we do not have that. Who knows why we do not seem in a position to complete the scheme on passenger name records – having details of the identity of all passengers – or the pooling of intelligence services and Interpol? As things stand, intelligence services cannot communicate between one country and the next, for national security reasons – an overspill of the Cold War, if you like, although we face another war today.

      We need to do something about the funds fuelling ISIS. Together, we need to freeze the funds of individuals or the States that fund it, directly or indirectly. Money is getting through to it, and we know where from: Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other countries. We need to concentrate on integration. We have to ensure that those people who risk becoming foreign fighters are integrated, to avoid ghettoes such as the Parisian banlieues; otherwise we will not be able to resolve this problem.

      Ms DURANTON (France)* – The issue of foreign fighters is a sensitive one. The presumed author of the Paris attacks in November and several of its perpetrators had been to Syria, which gave rise to a great number of questions. One has still not found a satisfactory answer: what encouraged young people aged 20 or so to commit mass crimes against people they did not know, and to blow themselves us with explosive belts? What is going on in the heads of those we call jihadists?

      Olivier Roy, a French politologist and Islam specialist, believes that we face not a radicalisation of Islam, but rather an Islamisation of a radical approach. Daesh attracts young people who are already radicalised and have already become dissidents. They are not really familiar with the situation in the Middle East, but are just looking for a cause. They want to use their personal revolt to serve that cause. Two categories of people are particularly affected: so-called second-generation Muslims, and converts. For various reasons, second-generation Muslims are revolting against their parents and have hatred even for themselves. They are westernised but do not see their religion as something culturally integrated into their societies. The converts subscribe to a so-called pure Islam; they are not interested in moderate Islam. Those young people are attracted to a radical approach and feel that their families do not understand them; look at the reports published to that effect in the press.

      The Salafist and jihadist movements are products on the market of ideologies today, and they suit those young people perfectly. There is the same attraction as there was to the extreme left in the 1970s. Terrorist violence is a modern form of violence; it is a bit like serial killers in the United States of America. It is a very individualised way to approach things. These people are motivated not by utopia or sharia law, but by a death cult – a fascination with death. In particular, these crimes give those young people immediate media attention – front-page news. There is also a martyr concept that encourages young people to commit suicide; it has been a phenomenon since the war in Afghanistan, and because of social media it is gaining ground. That is why so many young people subscribe to this approach; they do not identify with their societies, even here in Europe and elsewhere in the West. We must attack those root causes if we are to stem the flow.

      Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – It is a paradox that it is not great joy but great grief that brings us together and unites us. In general, there is no good war, and terrorism is the worst war. It is not a war where people confront each other; it is a death march of the devil against humankind. Therefore, one can agree that the terrorist has no national or territorial affiliation – but not entirely. There are countries that have turned terrorism into their State policy, thus actively supporting this evil. Today, we share opinions about foreign mercenaries fighting in terrorist groups beyond Europe in Iraq and Syria. However, there is a country among us that openly supports terrorism. Its State policy is directly linked with the international network of terror.

      When we argue about terrorism without beginning our debate with Armenia, we show nothing but hypocrisy. I delivered my warnings and alarm signals 14 years ago, with a motion for a recommendation that I prepared on 14 July 2002 entitled “Network of terrorist organisations supported by Armenia on the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan”. I indicated one by one the names of those international terrorist groups. What was the outcome? No single step was taken to prevent the free movement of the knights of death in the terrorist training camps constructed by Armenia in the territories it occupied, which remain beyond international control.

      International Armenian terrorist groups such as ASALA, the union of young Armenians, the Armenian Liberation Movement, the Swedish group, Armenian Unity, the Orly group and the Knights of Vartan perpetrated new terrorist attacks in Europe, the Near East, the Middle East and North America. I draw your attention to just one. Sixty people were injured due to the terrorist attack perpetrated in Paris-Orly airport on 15 July 1983 by Monte Melkonian, an American citizen of Armenian origin. French police succeeded in arresting him and he was sentenced to six years in prison. Later, he emerged from France and came to Armenia, where the Armenian State awarded him the title of national hero, its most supreme official award. How do you like that?

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Huseynov, is this the right subject? We are speaking about the reports.

      Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – I am speaking about terrorism. I have my time; I will finish. Do not interrupt me, please.

      Why are we always late? We make our moves after calamities have occurred. Why is the Council of Europe not defining a firm position?

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – I have a point of order, Madam President. This debate is on foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq, and I have not heard a word from the last speaker on the report by Mr Kox or the excellent report of Mr Van der Maelen.

      Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Do not interrupt me. It is my right to speak here.

      The PRESIDENT – Your speaking time is over, Mr Huseynov. We are discussing the report. I give the floor now to Ms Finckh-Krämer. She is not here, so I call Mr Stroe.

      Mr STROE (Romania) – I want to emphasise the importance of concrete and efficient co-operation with NATO, the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the African Union, and of enhanced dialogue with major international actors. It is important to support and work on improving co-operation between Council of Europe institutions and national parliaments. In order to achieve efficiency in countering terrorism, co-operation in prevention, border security, critical infrastructure protection from terrorist attacks and information exchange should be intensified.

      It is important to bring to the Assembly’s attention the Romanian-Spanish initiative for establishing an international court against terrorism, which was launched last year. The initiative is valuable in at least two ways. First, it sends a coherent message that the fight against terrorism as a widespread phenomenon requires an appropriate and global response through the use of the instruments of international law. Secondly, it generates potentially beneficial ideas for unlocking the process of international negotiations, which have so far not provided a universally accepted solution.

       The international community needs to demonstrate political will and combat terrorism through the law. I strongly believe that a powerful legal instrument in the global fight against terrorism would quickly prove indispensable.

      Last but not least, I want to stress that the magnitude of the phenomenon of foreign fighters calls for increased co-operation in security matters. We need to address not only the consequences of terrorism, but its root causes.

      Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – First, I want to inform the Assembly that I am going to talk about combating international terrorism. The terrible events that took place recently in Turkey, France, Egypt, Indonesia and other countries showed that terror is a serious threat to every country in the world and that no one is immune from it. Terror based on intolerance, radicalism and extremism still affects peace, security, stability and development in various regions.

Terror is an evil that can be conquered by a consistent and widespread approach, including co-operation between all States and international organisations in accordance with international law and human rights. In the fight against terrorism, it is crucial to give priority to resolving issues conducive to the spread of the threat, such as unresolved conflicts, human rights violations, the absence of intercultural dialogue, and ethnic and religious discrimination.

I come from Azerbaijan, a country that actively participates in combating international terror and that suffers from terrorism. Terrorism is an integral part of the occupation policy of Armenia, which has committed dozens of terrorist attacks. Its law enforcement agencies directly participated in the preparation of the attacks, using international terrorist groups to achieve ethnic cleansing. Along with military aggression, they organised terrorist acts against the civilian population. As a result, 20% of Azerbaijani land is occupied and 1 million people have become refugees and international displaced persons. Armenia has also fought with the civilian population by committing acts of terrorism on public transport and critical infrastructure away from the conflict zone.

The Assembly rejected yesterday’s report on the escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh. That was a great mistake, because it means that we are not able to react properly or take action. Instead, we will continue to close our eyes to what is contributing to the spread and blossoming of terror in our region. We will never conquer it.

There are links between terrorism and separatism, extremism and organised crime, including drug trafficking, money laundering and arms smuggling. The occupied Azerbaijani territories are a source of great concern. In addition to the terrorist threat from Armenia, Azerbaijan still faces risks and dangers posed by international terrorist groups. Our country is located close to the sensitive region, which makes the threats more visible. That is why Azerbaijan actively contributes to the international efforts to prevent terrorism.

We live in a world where religious ignorance is used to fuel conflicts with ethnic, religious and cultural groups. It results in various forms of radicalisation and Islamophobia, which contribute to the spread of extremism and terror.

The PRESIDENT – Stop. This is not the subject we are discussing.

Ms FATALIYEVA – We are discussing combating terrorism and that is what I am talking about.

The PRESIDENT – Yes, but you are discussing yesterday’s subject. I now call Ms Allain.

Ms ALLAIN (France)* – Most western countries have adopted laws that derogate from democratic principles and public freedoms. The common feature of those laws is the absence of any definition of what constitutes a terrorist act. The fight against terrorism seems to justify the considerable beefing up of police powers, without any guarantees as to their use.

In France, a state of emergency has given power to the police to place people under house arrest and to carry out searches and seizures on the basis of a simple administrative decision. The application of that measure is turning out to be something of a problem. Agents of the State have carried out searches of the homes of people who have no link whatsoever to terrorism. Thousands of searches have taken place, terrorising families and their children, and for the most part there have been no legal consequences.

Often, the action is justified by reference to judicial oversight and scrutiny, but I have some doubts on that score. When people have their homes broken into, forcefully and brutally, in the middle of the night, a posteriori judicial control is scant consolation. At best, one might hope for some kind of compensation. The use of such a measure must be strictly regulated.

The problem with exceptional measures is that they tend to last. Law enforcement authorities in France and elsewhere are constantly requesting further powers based on the justifiable fears of the population and the government’s desire to be seen to be doing something in the absence of any visible or rapid results in the face of a phenomenon as complex as terrorism, which is linked to dictatorships and fundamentalism.

The French Government has now announced that it wants to write the state of emergency into the constitution – the exception therefore becomes the rule. We are experiencing an erosion of democracy, and public freedoms are being reduced to the hypothetical status of the safety of the individual.

I salute the courageous intervention of the Commissioner for Human Rights and the human rights defender, Jacques Toubon. Unfortunately, they are voices in the wilderness. I welcome Mr Van der Maelen’s recommendation to invite the Committee of Ministers to provide a general legal definition of what constitutes terrorism. I also thank the rapporteurs for their work.

We need to do more to fight against racism and discrimination, and consider how we can best promote inclusion and social and cultural justice for everyone on the planet, so that young people can see themselves as fully fledged citizens of the world.

Mr JENSSEN (Norway) – We cannot and should not give away our personal freedoms, open societies and rule of law to combat terrorism, because we need them. A fundamental line of defence is the response of ordinary men and women who insist on carrying on with their everyday lives, even when their own neighbourhoods have been attacked. Our way of life is precisely what the terrorists want to harm – our freedoms, rule of law and democracies.

This week, Europol expressed concern that IS extremists are planning further attacks on so-called soft goals in Europe. There is particular concern about France. Europol suspects that IS has established a group capable of operations resembling those of military special forces, and it also points to the possibility of cyber-attacks, which are another way of disturbing modern societies. That is a reminder that terrorism has many forms and that prevention of and the fight against terrorism require a variety of measures. That is exactly what is being done in both the action plan against violent extremism and radicalisation by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers and the conclusions from the European Union Ministers of Justice in November. Several of the European Union proposals could include the increased control of citizens within the Schengen area – for example, the adjustment of laws, the use of technology and information sharing. All that is important, and we must trust that any steps taken will not interfere with citizens’ fundamental rights.

      I stress the importance of helping countries to help themselves out of poverty and instability. Giving young people the possibility of a better future is extremely important for reducing the extremists’ appeal to anyone in danger of taking the path of terrorism. The international community should do more to encourage trade that promotes economic growth and should support educational systems and the establishment of stable, non-corrupt institutions.

      The Norwegian Government recently launched a white paper with a holistic approach to various global threats, including cyber-attacks, terrorism and the financing of militias and terrorist groups by criminal networks. The fight against terrorism is complex and global, but it is the single individual who feels anxiety and fear. I urge all Assembly members to do all they can, both at home and abroad, to keep our citizens and our societies safe and free. We must manage both.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Quéré

      Ms QUÉRÉ (France)* - Speaking to the French Parliament after the attacks on 13 November, President Hollande said: “The French Republic has overcome many other ordeals and it is still alive and well. Those who intend to defy the Republic have always lost out in historical terms, and it will be the same this time.” That reinforces my conviction that when dealing with terrorism the best defence is not to let ourselves be terrorised and to lead as normal a life as possible. As many of our fellow citizens said after 13 November: “Not afraid.”

We must show no weakness as we stand up to acts of terrorism, which are the absolute antithesis of our values of freedom and democracy. That is why I approve of the proclamation of a state of emergency in France, which was decided perfectly democratically with the oversight of the constitutional council and the appropriate judicial authorities under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I will vote to extend the state of emergency, because the video that was published online yesterday by Daesh shows us that the threat is still there and can re-emerge at any moment. In the face of such danger, it would be a true negation of our values were we to fail to defend our societies. Not only men and women were targeted on 13 November or 18 January: our way of life – our democratic model and our very lifestyle – was being targeted.

Let us not allow hatred, a withdrawal into our own communities or nationalism to dictate our political choices. Let us not allow our young people to fall into the trap of Daesh’s rhetoric. No, there is not a better world after a martyr’s death. No, the lives of IS combatants’ wives living together as sisters in joint marriage is not a good thing – it is something close to horror and a clear negation of women’s rights, for which so many women in the Arab World fought for so long.

I respect the Committee of Minister’s adoption of an additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism as a response to the problem of foreign terrorist combatants. France has started the ratification process and, although our Parliament’s agenda is very full, we will try to complete it as soon as possible. However, I regret the position taken by the Secretary General on the extension of the state of emergency in France. The state of emergency does not prevent us from respecting our values or, in particular, from roundly condemning all acts of hatred or anti-Semitism. It does not prevent us from welcoming Syrian refugees or carrying out our duty of solidarity, and neither does it prevent us from continuing to protect human rights everywhere that they are threatened.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Ms Kavvadia.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece)* – On 25 November 2015, at the Council of Europe, the Secretary General made an announcement in which he said that the French authorities had provided information on the measures that would be adopted as part of the declaration of a state of emergency, and that those measures might make necessary the derogation of certain rights that are guaranteed by Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The French derogation is a source of great concern. There are certain dangers, particularly in an environment of crisis and the discrediting of European institutions. Specifically, there is a risk that a temporary state of emergency becomes permanent and is incorporated into legislation. That would mean that the threat of and fear of terrorism had led to the curtailing of human rights and liberties. We have to consider the fact that changing the constitution is already being contemplated. That would result in a political state of crisis – a kind of protracted state of emergency. There is also a danger of rights being curtailed, activities being supressed and individuals who have nothing to do with terrorism being prosecuted. We have to be extremely vigilant and everyone – the Council of Europe and concerned citizens – must be on watch, so to speak.

The European Convention on Human Rights is the core that brings together all the jurisprudence and rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. It is an extremely important and complete corpus and part of our culture and civilisation. Of course, every country has the sovereign right to examine, decide on and implement the measures it feels are necessary for the protection of its citizens, but we have to consider how desirable it is to have in place a situation that might, to a certain extent, threaten our culture. We must also consider the Council of Europe’s role, as its main mission is to protect human rights. Terrorists cannot and will not distort our principles and values. We have to consider the fact that our values might also be threatened by the curtailing of human rights and liberties because of the fear of terrorism.

      Resolving the war in Syria is the main issue. We have to look at it very seriously because of the refugees who are flowing into Europe. There is an almost primordial proxy war in Syria that involves many different powers. At the Council of Europe – at the European level at least – all the parties that are involved are participating. It is here that the process of consideration, consultation and negotiation has to begin.

      Ms EL OUAFI (Morocco, Partner for Democracy)* – We condemn most vehemently these acts that cannot be justified on any religious or political basis. The extremist ideology and the organisations that act on it are very dangerous. We should condemn them while at the same analysing the root causes. We need to avoid a loss of confidence among the people fighting Daesh, so should not generalise and tar everyone with the same brush or react with xenophobia. A self-respecting European society should not equate terrorists with Muslims and should avoid any kind of generalisation, because that will change nothing. We need to combat Daesh at a strategic level and offer political solutions in Syria and Libya. That is the best way to respond to the terrorist attacks.

In other words, the European Union can strengthen its support for an economic and democratic tradition for the young democracies formed after the Arab Spring. Fighting terrorism and Daesh means acting where social problems have produced these monsters, and politics can offer adequate ways of protecting young Muslims and avoiding social economic marginalisation. Otherwise, people are condemned to social segregation, which leads to people who, after all, come from a European society being drawn towards this murderous ideology that we must combat – one that fetes death and has nothing to do with Islam, which is based on tolerance, peace and freedom.

      Fighting Daesh also means protecting young people from manipulation by Daesh on a religious or ideological basis. From a religious point of view, we must use experienced interlocutors and take social problems seriously to avoid the marginalisation of possible targets. Fighting Daesh means protecting the values of the Council of Europe – democracy and the rule of law – and Muslims are the first victims of this terrorism. It is not Islam that creates this terrorism; these people have nothing to do with Islam. They are the product of all the divisions in society and the complexity of the international situation.

      We are convinced that the response to terrorism should involve giving citizens civil education and taking social measures to offer a feeling of pluralist citizenship based on European values. Involving Muslims in a multicultural society means that everyone can make a great contribution to society, and there should be interreligious respect.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker should be Ms Lībiņa-Egnere, but I do not see her. I call Ms Mateu.

      Ms MATEU (Andorra)* – We are examining two reports today, and they are excellent. We have not discussed their contents much, but they are about a twofold phenomenon with which we are already familiar: international terrorism, which we have contended with for a long time, and our related Council of Europe standards and other European standards, which are also well known and well enforced, and the more recent emergence of fighters leaving for Syria and Iraq. Some have gone to fight there and some have come back here to carry out terrorist attacks.

      With these reports, we are not only taking stock and trying to understand the situation, but trying to define a number of guidelines to see what can be done to prevent such phenomena. I have heard many people saying that we need more security and to build fences and walls, but I want to tell you about a personal experience. In July 1995, an attack took place on the Paris underground. I was in the compartment next door to where it happened, and I am here. I am one of the survivors. I had problems with my eardrums and nothing else, but what stayed with me was the fact that innocent people were affected – this was 20 years ago. At the time, the Vigipirate plan was introduced in France, but now the situation has worsened and we have a state of emergency.

      Much bigger attacks have taken place since in Madrid, New York and everywhere in the world. The phenomenon has gone from bad to worse. The security aspect must be catered for, of course, and it is good that people feel a little safer, but over these 20 years these measures have not contributed to stemming these phenomena, which have become worse. We need to ask the right questions. The guidelines that one of the reports tries to define must be explored. We have education, of course. Young people who feel lost and do not know where to turn need guidance, which is why I recommend we adopt both reports and try to move forward.

      Ms AHMED-SHEIKH (United Kingdom) – I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the Chamber today for the first time on this important issue, particularly as today we mark Holocaust Memorial Day and remember to learn from the lessons of the past as we look to the future.

      Last month, I was privileged to chair an event in the House of Commons organised by Syria Solidarity UK, which gave a platform to the female perspective on the Syrian conflict. One participant made a crucial point. She said, “The opposition to terrorism must be civil society”. The promotion and protection of free and open civil society is essential to the values we hold dear. The struggle we face is not that of the West versus the Muslim world but of justice and freedom against murder and oppression. Muslims and the Muslim world are not enemies. We, too, are victims of the tyranny of terrorism – victims of the terrorist cult that is Daesh.

      I recently met Syrian women who talked about peace initiatives and practical ways in which women on the ground could help their communities. For example, women have been at the forefront of action in Syria to combat child recruitment to armed groups and have led and co-ordinated the disarmament of men in public places and in some refugee camps so that children can walk around freely without witnessing men with weapons and arms. I believe that only by supporting women and such community-led action can we prepare Syrian society for a future beyond the current conflict there and across the region.

      When I visited the Nizip United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) camp in Turkey last autumn, I spoke directly to those who have fled to safety. All they want to do is go home. That is why we must act now, beyond military action, to ensure that we have firm foundations on which to build a peaceful future for the region. We must also reach out to other countries in the region and share with them our human rights values and practices.

      I recently visited Iran and spoke to ministers there about human rights issues. As we welcome the country back into the international community, we should use the opportunity to explain how our values of freedom and justice translate to a fairer and more just society. It is clear to me that taking any action that would marginalise the role of women in that struggle or, worse, action that would impede the human rights of women in Europe would be a regressive and dangerous step. It is our values that will save us from extremism. The promotion of equality and human rights in Europe and beyond is essential to defeating our enemies here and across the world. It is freedom and equality that terrorists fear most.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – I want to talk about international terrorism, which has been a painful matter for Ukraine in the past two years. The issue on the political agenda for the West seems to be set for the near future as terrorism and refugees. Since those issues seem to be bound up with Russia, the European Union might be tempted to risk another reset. However, some stuff will stand in the way: an annexed Crimea; support for the separatists and terrorists in parts of Donbass; and thousands dead in Ukraine. What is that if not terror organised by Russia against Ukraine? We have every indication that it is organised international terrorism and nothing else. Who were the mercenaries in Donbass? Russians, Serbians and citizens of other States took part in combat in eastern Ukraine. Last month, Russia and its terrorists changed tactics. Heavy artillery, multiple rocket launchers and sabotage and reconnaissance forces are key elements of the special operations against Ukraine. I have a book about Russia’s crimes that was presented today at a roundtable discussion on international terrorism in Ukraine. It contains only the main cases.

      The PRESIDENT – Order. For the last time, we are debating the reports on combating international terrorism and foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – On a point of order. I am sorry, but you are using the Rules of Procedure incorrectly. I am talking about a matter of international terrorism.

      The PRESIDENT – I and all members have to follow the Rules of Procedure. Members must stick to the subject under discussion. You no longer have the floor, Mr Ariev.

      I call Ms Pashayeva from Azerbaijan. I warn you to stick to the subject; otherwise I will turn off the microphone.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan)* – I am a representative of a country that has suffered from terrorism, and I have lost a best friend to terrorism. I want to say a few words about what we should do to fight terrorism. I support the rapporteurs’ views on how we can fight terrorism more effectively. Terrorism, no matter where it happens, is a significant phenomenon. We must not distinguish between those who engage in terrorist actions. To carry out more effective action against terrorism, we must not have double standards.

      I am a Muslim, and I support the fight against Daesh as much as you do. Islam is a religion of peace; it does not accept the killing of innocent people. Daesh does not represent Muslims. It poses great harm to Muslims and Islam as a religion. I talked to representatives of the Turkmen who came from Syria and Tal Afar in Iraq. They are Muslims, and they told me what Daesh has been doing. Anyone who listens to them will understand the effect that Daesh is having on Muslims. We have to explain that to people in Europe, because some people are using Daesh to attack Muslims and Islam. It is important that we fight against such calls. We should think carefully about the consequences of our actions and about the rise of Islamophobia. We need more inter-cultural dialogue. That is what we have to tell our young people.

      To fight effectively against terrorism, we have to co-operate. Today, Europe is in even greater need of co-operation. Terrorism is the enemy of mankind, so we need to fight against it in unison. We must not have double standards. I have a sibling who lives in Istanbul, and when the bomb went off in the Sultanahmet district, I was unable to reach them for a few moments. I remember the anxiety that I felt at that moment. Turkey shares a long border with Syria and Iraq. It has been dealing with the phenomenon of terrorism, and I believe that its efforts deserve more support. We should not allow people to turn this into a religious issue.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. You understood the subject perfectly. It was a pleasure to sit here for an hour and a half.

(Ms Guzenina, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair.)

      The PRESIDENT – I will give the floor to two more speakers, and then we will move on to the amendments.

      Mr STOILOV (Bulgaria) – There is a history to the conflicts in the Middle East, but they cannot be understood unless we take the external influences – in particular, those of the western world – into consideration. The naive expectation that the Arab Spring would democratise the region was quickly proved wrong. In some countries the State has been nearly destroyed, and in others radical Islamic groups are in power. The situation is further complicated by the involvement of foreign fighters in armed actions, some of whom come from counties in the region of the conflict. Their motives for participating in military actions are not only financial. Our Assembly has strongly condemned such actions, but that by itself will not make the world a safer and better place.

      Citizens, including Europeans, have the unpleasant feeling that the dependence on financial and corporate organisations considerably limits the ability to make major political decisions. Social polarisation, extreme individualism and a lack of attractive life prospects lead to alienation, the emergence of primitive identities and, in some cases, fanaticism and aggression. We should promote social inclusion and provide access to education and employment. We should be against extreme inequality and the erosion of the social State. We need to restore the substance of democracy and bring politics closer to people’s real-life problems and expectations.

      I urge you to give problems their real names. For example, let us stop talking about the moderate opposition in Syria. Let us talk instead about the political and military resistance to the government. We should not equate radicalism with extremism. That is a matter not of degree but of meaning. Not everything radical is bad. Radical change to politics and institutions is the most effective means of preventing religious, ethnic and political extremism.

      The fight against Daesh should not be influenced by the interests of big countries. It should be placed on an equal footing with the safeguarding of our core values – human rights, peace, security, freedom, equality and brotherhood. Let the competition of ideas revive the meaning of politics. Let us fight against terror not only with military means but with consistent security policies and by addressing economic and social problems.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – The title of this report is “Combating international terrorism while protecting Council of Europe standards and values”. I thank Mr Kox for the opportunity to discuss this issue. The main problem with the report is that it does not contain one word about State terror. It is right that we discuss terrorist organisations such as ISIS and others, but we must also discuss State terror.

      There is no difference between the terrorist acts that caused thousands of deaths in Lviv, Kiev, Kharkiv and other cities, and the terror attacks in Paris. Terrorism does not have a name such as “Islamic” or “Orthodox” or anything else. What does terrorism mean? We should stop discussing “Islamic terrorism” or “Orthodox terrorism”; we must discuss what terrorism means. It is what happens when somebody wants to solve political questions not by elections or discussions, but with weapons and killing people. We must include those characteristics in all our reports, and we must not speak about “Islamic”, Orthodox”, “Christian” or other types of terrorism.

      Importantly, we must also understand that when the so-called Islamic State has a policy, that is one thing, and we can organise an entire movement to struggle against that policy. However, a State having that policy is the most dangerous because a State has to organise movements all over the world in order to use all organisations, including our Organisation and the United Nations, to stop State terror.

      Finally, this is not about asking why somebody is killed in a terror attack, or what the nationality of those killed is. We must ask who it is who uses such methods of terror. I think that is lacking in this report, although we have seen that other reports provide answers to those questions.

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

      I call Mr Van der Maelen, rapporteur, to reply. You have one minute left.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – I will use my minute to touch on two important topics. Colleagues, when you go back to your parliaments and discuss the problem of foreign fighters, I have two pieces of advice. First, it is important to develop a very good counter-narrative. Daesh has a professional way of influencing young people, so I advise you to try to bring in the best public relations experts in your country to develop that counter-narrative. You should also make use of people who have returned from Syria, because they are the best ones to convince young people who could be attracted by Daesh. Finally, we need a gender-specific approach. It is a new phenomenon that a lot of young women and girls are going to Daesh. They are attracted by other things, and they should be approached in a different way. Until now, I know of only one or two countries that have developed a gender-specific approach, and members of the Assembly should ask their governments to pay more attention to that specific problem.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Kox, rapporteur, to reply to the debate. You have two minutes.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I have heard broad support for the conclusions and proposals in my report and resolution, and I am grateful for that. I am also grateful that all political groups and most of the speakers agree with the essence of the resolution. I will not have time to respond to all the remarks, but I hope that most speakers have already found their observations in my report and resolution, on which we will soon vote.

      I say to Mr Ariev, Mr Sobolev and others that the memorandum explains that the report focuses on so-called “Islamic” terrorism. That is described in the memorandum, and I did not hear any objection in the committee about the fact that I limited my report to that. I saw that there was general support for the conclusion that combating terrorism and protecting Council of Europe standards and values were not contradictory but complementary, and that conclusion places on us an obligation to follow that up with what we do in our 47 member States. The resolution calls on the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to follow the counter-terrorism measures by member States, and to evaluate and assess their proportionality, as appropriate in the context of an inquiry under Article 52 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Secretary General should also keep this Assembly regularly informed so that we can continue our debate.

      I heard support for cutting off the financial lifelines of terrorist organisations in general, and Daesh in particular, and the resolution calls on our parliaments and governments to implement effectively the United Nations and Council of Europe conventions against the financing of terrorism. The resolution on which we will soon vote calls on our member States and neighbouring countries to sign and ratify urgently – if they have not already done so – the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, and its new protocol. Finally, the resolution, which hopefully we will soon adopt with a large majority, urges our governments to eradicate the breeding grounds for terrorism, especially through education, social politics, and inclusive societies.

      The fact that this report has such broad support has everything do to with the great support of the staff, who yet again were even better than I already thought they were. I thank them very much for their excellent work in such a short time.

      The PRESIDENT – Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – I thank our rapporteurs for their great work. We have had good co-operation so that almost all the amendments were included in the work of the committee. The report on “Foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq” is the outcome of several discussions in the committee, including an exchange of views with experts, and with Gilles de Kerchove, who is the European Union Counter-terrorism Coordinator. He stressed that it is important that we have close co-operation with the European Union on this issue.

      Mr Kox’s report was produced in a short period of time, and our committee also had the pleasure of receiving the Secretary General, Mr Jagland. Our discussion with him surely contributed to the preparation of the report. We should also highlight the action plan that we greatly support, and the focus on cutting off the finances of terrorist groups, which is important.

      In conclusion, I reiterate the main message of today’s debate, including the intervention by the French Minister of State who honoured us with his presence. Combating terrorism and protecting the values upheld by the Council of Europe are not contradictory; they are complementary. Saying anything to the contrary would only reinforce the position of terrorists whose main objective is, as we know, to change our lifestyles and make us live with a constant feeling of fear and oppression.

      The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution on “Combating international terrorism while protecting Council of Europe standards and values”, Document 13958, to which two amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

      I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 1 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

Is that so, Mr Jensen?

Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – Yes.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

That is not the case.

      The PRESIDENT – We come now to Amendment 2. I call Mr Le Borgn’ to support Amendment 2 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr Le BORGN’ (France)* - The amendment aims to enable the Venice Commission to assess the draft constitutional reform provision with regard to the state of emergency and the deprivation of nationality, not in order to judge the draft but in order to shed light from this organisation, whose authority is recognised by all. That approach would contribute to a better parliamentary debate.

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

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – It seems to me that this is entirely a matter for the Government of France and not for the Venice Commission – I am sorry that the French Minister is not here to hear this. The amendment is wholly inappropriate.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The PRESIDENT – We will now proceed to a vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13958, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution on “Foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq”, Document 13937, to which 17 amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which five amendments have been tabled.

They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that the president of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 6 and 12 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 34.11.

Is that so, Mr Jensen?

Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – Yes.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

      That is not the case.

      Amendments 6 and 12 are adopted.

      The PRESIDENT – We come now to Amendment 4, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 2, insert the following words:

"and who may have perpetrated acts of genocide and other serious crimes punishable under international law. States should act on the presumption that ‘IS’ commits genocide and should be aware that this entails action under the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide".

      I call on Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment 4 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – The amendment speaks for itself.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Omtzigt wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows:

      In Amendment 4, delete the word “may”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

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

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – The terrorist entity Daesh has perpetrated acts of genocide. We discussed this in our committee, and even the United Nations committee was convinced about this. We therefore feel we can use the wording proposed in our oral sub-amendment.

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

      That is not the case.

      Mr Omtzigt is obviously in favour.

      What is the view of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the oral sub-amendment?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The oral 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 on the amendment, as amended?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 4, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

The PRESIDENT – We come now to Amendment 5, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, after the words "which openly reject and attack", insert the following word:

"European".

      I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment 5 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – We propose an oral sub-amendment, because it would be strange to talk only about European values if we are also talking about Syria and Iraq. These values are universal.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows:

      In amendment 5, replace the word “European” with the word:

“universal”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I therefore call Mr Van der Maelen, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – I support it.

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

      Mr Omtzigt and the committee are in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral 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 on the amendment, as amended?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 5, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 7. I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment 7 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – We are faced with an enormous number of refugees, and countries have great difficulties in keeping the political will to receive these people. They have often suffered at the hands of Daesh fighters; they or their families have suffered from genocidal acts. It is therefore very important that we do not give refugee status to the very people who have threatened the real refugees and who may be threatening our society. That is why we say that we should not grant them refugee status.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – The amendment, as it stands, uses the word “may”, which makes it problematic if we are asking for a fair trial for everyone. We therefore have to oppose the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 8, which I understand Mr Omtzigt does not wish to press.

      We come to Amendment 9. I call Mr Omtzigt to support the amendment.

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – Several countries have taken action to remove the nationality of foreign fighters, but the conventions that relate to the prevention of statelessness must be obeyed. If people have double nationality or have acted against the interests of the state, their nationality can be taken away, but nationality cannot be taken away without good reason.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment as follows:

      “In Amendment 9 before ‘admissible’ insert the word ‘only’.”In

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

      That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Van der Maelen on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – I support the oral sub-amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of Mr Omtzigt, who moved the original amendment?

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 9, as amended?

      That is not the case. What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment, as amended?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 10, which I understand Mr Omtzigt does not wish to press.

      I have received an oral amendment from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 20.1 with the following new paragraph:

      “work out a comprehensive response to the foreign fighters problem, striking the right balance between repression of criminal behavior, protection of populations and of human rights, prevention of radicalisation, de-radicalisation, and reintegration of returnees into their home communities after appropriate punishment has been served, applicable, as well as to address the root causes of radicalization”.Th

      The President may accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

      If the oral amendment is adopted, Amendment 11 falls.

      In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? I call Sir Roger Gale.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – I think the original words –

      The PRESIDENT – There has to be opposition from more than 10 members. I see only one, but you will be able to speak against the oral amendment.

      I call Mr Van der Maelen to support the oral amendment.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – I support the oral amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? I call Sir Roger Gale.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – I am against the oral amendment purely on the basis that the original words said exactly what they meant and were very good.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 22. I call Ms Kronlid to support the amendment.

      Ms KRONLID (Sweden) – The amendment seeks to make it clear that merely travelling to join a terrorist group such as Daesh is likely to be considered a criminal offence. Article 6 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism makes it a crime “to join an association or group, for the purpose of contributing to the commission of one or more terrorist offences by the association or the group.” I therefore ask the Assembly to support the amendment.

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

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – I speak against it for two reasons. First, it is not correct that merely travelling is criminal in most of our countries. That is one of the objectives of the convention that is not yet ratified. Secondly, Article 6 of the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism is about recruiting for terrorism, not travelling to a region to commit acts of terrorism.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 22 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 19, which is: “In the draft resolution, replace paragraph 20.6 with the following paragraph: “make active use of all communication channels, including the Internet and social media, and draw on the expertise of the best available public relations specialists, to spread counter-narratives aimed at exposing extremist discourse and dissipating illusions about the real situation in the territories held by ‘IS’ and the fate of its recruits, in particular by using testimonies of returnees who have witnessed at first hand the nature of ‘IS’;”.

      Amendment 19 has a sub-amendment. If Amendment 19 is agreed to, Amendment 13 falls. I call Mr Van der Maelen to support amendment No. 19. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – Amendment 19 would make two changes to the text that were agreed in the Commission in Brussels. First, we would love to use the expertise of the best available public relations specialists to construct good counter-narratives. Secondly, it would be very useful to ask returnees to convince young people not to leave their country.

      The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment as follows: “In Amendment 19, replace the words ‘to spread’ with the words: ‘for spreading information about the heinous crimes committed by Daesh, and’”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I call Mr Van der Maelen, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – I support the oral sub-amendment.

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

      The committee is in favour. I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 19, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 14, which is: “In the draft resolution, after paragraph 20.8, insert the following paragraph: ‘strongly condemn and, if need be, impose sanctions on religious leaders preaching hate and violence and otherwise attacking European fundamental values’.”

      I call Mr Omtzigt to support the amendment.

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – We have seen cases of so-called religious leaders doing a lot of hate preaching. That preaching goes completely against the values enshrined in the Convention, and against fundamental rights such as equality and the right to life. We should not refrain from taking measures against these people. I will propose an oral sub-amendment in a second, because the text should refer not to “European fundamental values” but to values enshrined in the Convention; it should be made clear that we are talking about the European Convention on Human Rights.

      The PRESIDENT – As you have heard, Mr Omtzigt proposes an oral sub-amendment as follows: “In Amendment 14, delete the word ‘European’ and at the end insert the words: ‘enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights’.”

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

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

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – I support it for the reasons I just gave.

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

      What is the view of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the sub-amendment?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is in favour.

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

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 14, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 14, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      I understand that Mr Omtzigt does not wish to press Amendment 15.

      We come to Amendment 16. I call Mr Omtzigt to support the amendment on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – This is in line with an earlier amendment, and the purpose is not to allow in anyone who is strongly suspected of having perpetrated acts of genocide or other serious crimes. If there are strong suspicions of that, but there is not yet proof, Article 1F of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees allows States to not give that person refugee status, and to ask for a further investigation. You should not give someone refugee status at that point, and then later take it away; you should be very clear at the point of entrance. We should stress that, to keep up support for receiving refugees.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – My argument is along the same lines as before. Earlier, we wanted to add “only” to “as long as international law and proper judicial procedures are followed”, to make sure that those judicial procedures were there. Here we are talking about genocide, which is very serious, and we are just using “might have”. I do not think we should go down that route, even if that is in Article 1F.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is unanimously in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The PRESIDENT – I have received an oral amendment from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is: “At the end of paragraph 20.12 insert the following words: ‘after appropriate punishment has been served, if applicable.’”

      The President may accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated. In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I call Mr Van der Maelen to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – I support the oral amendment.

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

      The committee is in favour. I will now put the oral amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      I understand that Mr Omtzigt does not wish to press Amendment 17 in the light of the previous oral amendment. Is that the case? He is nodding.

      Does anyone else wish to move the amendment? That is not the case.

      I have received an oral amendment from Mr Mogens Jensen on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is as follows: “Throughout the draft resolution: Replace all references to ‘IS’ or ‘Islamic State’ (‘IS’) with the following word: ‘Daesh’”.

      The President may accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated. In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I call Mr Van der Maelen to support the oral amendment.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – I support the oral amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment?

      Mr BAPT (France)* – Daesh is an acronym of “Islamic State” in Arabic. It is used in the West, the idea being to avoid saying “Islamic State”, but they amount to the same thing, so I cannot see the point of the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is in favour. I will now put the oral amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13937, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft recommendation, to which five amendments have been tabled.

      They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

      I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 20 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Mr Jensen?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendment 20 to the draft recommendation has been agreed.

      I call Mr Küçükcan to support Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr KÜÇÜKCAN (Turkey) – The amendment was tabled because we need a political transition; otherwise, the breeding ground for foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq will remain.

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

      I call Mr Van der Maelen.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – The objective of the recommendation is to emphasise to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe that we, the Parliamentary Assembly, expect it to implement as soon and as strongly as possible everything it promised in its action plan. The text is very general – I do not have any problem with the content – but it should not be in the recommendation; it should have been in the resolution.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      I call Mr Küçükcan to support Amendment 2. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr KÜÇÜKCAN (Turkey) – We withdraw the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Küçükcan to support Amendment 3. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr KÜÇÜKCAN (Turkey) – In the report, there are lots of useful recommendations, but while we are listing reasons for foreign fighters we have forgotten to mention the role of the State. We need to highlight that there is also a responsible regime in that country. We talked about genocide and massacres; those are carried out by not only Daesh but the regime itself. We should highlight that reality on the ground.

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

      I call Mr Van der Maelen.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – There is no problem with the content, but the recommendation is strictly limited to the action plan agreed by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, so I am against.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      I understand that Mr Omtzigt does not wish to press Amendment 18.

      I call Ms Kronlid to support Amendment 21, which is in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 5, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to work towards concluding agreements with third countries, the terms of which would guarantee:

- that they stand ready to receive nationals of theirs expelled from Council of Europe member States on account of terrorist offences;

- that, in accordance with international law, such persons will not be subjected to torture or capital punishment.”

      You have 30 seconds.

      Ms KRONLID (Sweden) – The amendment is meant to facilitate our member States’ exploring the possibility of expelling people convicted of terrorist crimes to their home countries. We should at least try to influence countries to make real progress in respecting human rights, and should receive official guarantees that we could reasonably trust. The amendment is also about monitoring and verifying that the people in question would not, in accordance with international law, be subjected to torture or capital punishment.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that the committee wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows:

      In Amendment 21, replace the words “Committee of Ministers” with the words:

      “member States”.In

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

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

      I therefore call Mr Van der Maelen, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – I support the oral sub-amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of Ms Kronlid, who moved the amendment?

      Ms KRONLID (Sweden) – I can accept the oral sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the amendment, as amended.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

       Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I have received an oral amendment from Mr Jensen, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, as follows:

      “Throughout the draft resolution:Re

      Replace all references to ‘IS’ or ‘Islamic State’ (‘IS’) with the following word, ‘Daesh’.”

      The President may accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of its promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

      In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – The word “IS” is in only the resolution, not the recommendation, so there is no instance in which it appears in the text.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Van der Maelen to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr VAN der MAELEN (Belgium) – In favour.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 13937, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Schnabel, on a point of order.

      Mr SCHNABEL (Netherlands) – On a point of order, Madam President. I hope you will allow me to correct a mistake I made in a vote yesterday afternoon. In the vote on our partnership with the Jordanian Parliament, 114 members voted in favour and one abstained – me. It was not my intention to abstain, so, given the symbolic value of the vote, I would like my vote to be corrected to being in favour of our relationship with the Jordanian Parliament, to show that the Assembly accepted it unanimously.

      The PRESIDENT – That will be accepted.

3. Debate: Challenge on procedural grounds of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Republic of Moldova

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the debate on the “Challenge on procedural grounds of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Republic of Moldova”, Document 13962, presented by Mr Vareikis on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs.

      I remind you that under Rule 10.3:

      “members of a national delegation whose credentials are challenged…shall not vote in any proceedings relating to the examination of credentials which concern them.”I

      I call Mr Vareikis, rapporteur of the committee. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and your response to the debate. I urge you to be as brief as possible.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Thank you, Madam President. I will try to be as brief as possible, because of the time.

      At the opening of this part-session, the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Republic of Moldova were challenged on the grounds that, for the second consecutive year, the Moldovan Parliament had presented an incomplete delegation, which does not allow fair representation of the political parties or groups represented in that parliament.

      Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Procedure states that national delegations should be composed so as to ensure a fair representation of the political parties or groups in their parliaments. First, the Moldovan delegation comprises only seven members instead of 10. Secondly, the composition submitted for ratification does not allow full representation of all the political tendencies in the Moldovan Parliament, since one of the main political parties – the Liberal Party – has no representative in the delegation.

      The Rules Committee has been seized of the grounds under Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure to verify whether those credentials comply with the procedural requirements set out in that rule and, in particular, whether the composition of the Moldovan delegation does not lead to the unfair representation of national political forces.

      This is not the first time that the Assembly has been asked to take a position on a challenge to credentials on the grounds of a lack of fair political representation of political parties or groups. There were a few precedents for the Rules Committee to consider.

      In the examination of previous challenges to credentials, it was pointed out that the Assembly must avoid any interference in the internal political affairs of the member State. In principle, the Assembly must simply ensure that the main political currents of a parliament are represented and, in particular, that the delegation includes opposition parties. That position is enshrined in the principles used to assess whether political parties or groups in national parliaments are fairly represented in Parliamentary Assembly delegations, as laid down in Resolution 1798 in 2011.

      The Rules Committee has a clear mandate; it is not the Monitoring Committee. Although it cannot make any decision while totally ignoring the political and parliamentary situation in Moldova, the committee shall not go beyond its remit. Therefore, the report does not make a detailed analysis of the current complex political context in Moldova. However, the Rules Committee noted that the information provided by the Moldovan Parliament regarding the delegation’s credentials is not fully up to date, owing to recent political upheavals when Pavel Filip’s government was set up.

      Therefore, the draft resolution contains an invitation to the Monitoring Committee and its co-rapporteurs to ensure, within the framework of dialogue with the Moldovan authorities, that the Moldovan Parliament is properly informed of the requirements laid down in the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, and that it will take due account of them in subsequent changes to the composition of its parliamentary delegation, particularly when filling the three remaining seats on the delegation.

      The Rules Committee also took note of the explanation provided by Ms Palihovici, chairperson of the Moldovan delegation, who said that the country’s parliament was unable to meet the deadline to formally appoint members already nominated by their political group. She gave the committee assurances that the delegation will be completed in time for the Assembly’s April part-session.

      The Rules Committee therefore proposes that the Assembly ratify the credentials of the Moldovan delegation, but, in accordance with Rule 10.1 of the Rules of Procedure, that it should also provide for the automatic suspension of the voting rights of the delegation’s members in the Assembly and its committees, with effect from the beginning of the Assembly’s April part-session, if the composition of the delegation has not been brought into conformity the Rules of Procedure by then.

      Lastly, the Rules Committee would like to seize this opportunity to recall that the procedure of verifying the credentials of delegations at the start of each annual session allows national parliaments to update their political representation, taking into account any party political developments that may have occurred within those parliaments. Therefore, parliaments must be diligent and make the necessary changes so that their delegation remains politically representative. That applies in particular to parliaments where majorities come and go in the context of significant governmental instability.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Vareikis. You have seven and a half minutes remaining.

      We now come to the list of speakers, but I urge colleagues to be as brief as possible so that we can allow as many speakers as possible to voice their opinions. We are tight on time.

      I call Mr Donaldson, on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr DONALDSON (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Madam President. The European Conservatives Group supports the ratification of the credentials of the Moldovan delegation. I do not think it is the only delegation that has vacancies. I have visited Moldova and had the honour of meeting many of the parties and members of parliament on many occasions. I recognise that there are political difficulties there at present, but I do not think it is for us to interfere in those internal processes. The question for us is whether the current delegation is in order, notwithstanding our hope that the vacancies will be filled reasonably soon. Members of the Moldovan delegation have indicated that they hope to have them filled by the next part-session in April.

      We should not punish the other members of the Moldovan delegation just because one political party has failed to nominate its representatives. That clear principle should be established in the Assembly. I hope that that party will make its nomination; indeed, I am assured by the Moldovan delegation that there is no question of that party being excluded or of any move to exclude it. If some people are tardy in making their nominations, we should not punish an entire Parliament and country. I hope that the nominations will be made soon.

      On the question of fairness in representation, the fact of the vacancies does not render the current nominations unfair. For example, the Liberal Democrats are not represented in the United Kingdom delegation, and nor is the United Kingdom Independence Party. Between them, those two parties secured several million votes in the United Kingdom general election. Is anyone suggesting that the United Kingdom delegation is unfair in its representation? We need to understand what is meant by fairness, because that argument does not apply in this case. In any event, the fact that people have not made their nominations should not mean that we can describe the current composition of the Moldovan delegation as unfair and unrepresentative. I am confident that we can resolve this matter quickly. Let us get on with ratifying the delegation today.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Kox, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I am sorry to have to say this to Mr Donaldson, but we are dealing with the rules here. He can shake his head, but what he proposes would lead to the Moldovan delegation being entitled to have only seven members for the whole year. We challenged the credentials to give the delegation its only chance at a fully fledged delegation by April. We should adopt the report proposed by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. It was accepted by the head of the Moldovan delegation because she realises that this is the only chance for her delegation to have 10 members in April.

We cannot just add members; this is the only way. I urge the Assembly to adopt the committee’s report, which has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with giving the Moldovan delegates the chance of a fully-fledged delegation by April. Ms Palihovici told the committee that it will be possible to ensure that, so there will be no problems for the Moldovan delegation and it will be able to function like all the other delegations. We should not try to invent new rules. We already have rules, and I have described how we can help Moldova to have a fully-fledged delegation by April. We should stick to the report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, because it is not a political report.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – On a point of order, Madam President. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs met this afternoon and the report was amended. Mr Kox was not present so he is probably unaware of that.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Further to that point of order, Madam President. I said that the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs decided on this report. We make amendments here in the Chamber, Sir Roger; the committee does not make amendments. The report was proposed and accepted, and it was also accepted by the Moldovan delegation – I will say this again – because it is the only way to help Moldova to have a fully-fledged delegation. All those who are now reacting could hinder Moldova’s chance to have 10 members in the near future. That would be a shame.

      The PRESIDENT – We will continue with the speakers list. I call Mr Badea, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* - The Republic of Moldova is a young democracy that has achieved major results in the past few years on its road to Europe. The consistency of its efforts has been defeated by internal events. The contesting of its credentials could set a dangerous precedent for other States that, for whatever reason, do not manage to form a complete delegation. Assembly members who are planning to vote to challenge Moldova’s credentials should act responsibly, because we want to support fully the voting rights and active participation of members of the Moldovan delegation in the Council of Europe’s debates. The arguments put forward by the Moldovan delegation show that the composition of the delegation that was sent to the Assembly was purely technical in nature and does not in any way represent a political statement. I appeal to all colleagues present in the Chamber to ratify the Moldovan delegation’s credentials.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Schennach, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* - In German, we would say that this challenge by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs is a shot across the bows – a warning. This is not the first time we have had problems. As the former chairman of the Monitoring Committee, I have sent X number of letters to the leader of the Moldovan delegation to ensure that they nominate the required number of people. It is lucky that the rapporteur does not have to pay from his own pocket.

The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs tried to find a form of words that reflects the current very tense situation in Moldova. We tried to make the wording helpful. Although I have in the past few hours submitted a serious report on the state of prisons in Moldova and the democratic crisis it is going through, I have sought to support the Moldovan delegation through the two amendments. I am making sure that the resolution will be translated into Moldovan so that there is an opportunity to bring things into line for April. I thank Ms Palihovici for withdrawing her objection to Amendment 3, because it is very important. I hope that the Assembly will support the report.

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

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* - The key words in this debate are “to perfect”. The report is, I think, based on a lot of good will. It is a message aimed at the Moldovan Parliament so that it completes its delegation, thereby making it more perfect. The report goes against no one. It is not aimed at the delegation. It has no hidden political argument or agenda. It is a way of promoting standards in this organisation, which stands for human rights and the rule of law. The Moldovan Parliament has submitted an incomplete delegation for two consecutive years. It is important that it is made complete and displays pluralism. If one party in the Moldovan Parliament has decided not to take part in the delegation, the speaker of the parliament should send a letter outlining the arguments. There are three vacant seats on the delegation, so we need to help to improve it.

As Mr Kox eloquently said, the point is whether we want to encourage a delegation with only seven members for a whole year or whether, through our vote, we want to send out a clear, constructive and democratic message among parliamentarians to the effect that the Moldavan Parliament must complete its delegation and fill those three vacant seats. The formula that the committee has come up with is very apt – that is, that we should ratify the credentials provided that before the April part-session we have those additional names. I think that that is the most appropriate solution, and, in the Rules Committee yesterday, we listened to the head of the Moldovan delegation expressing her will to bring that about.

      I wished to raise the issue of the credentials at the beginning of the week, but in a way that was meant to defend parliamentary democracies and our rights, and to ensure that we protect each other when parliaments have political tensions like those that contributed to this situation. We need to vote in favour of the report and of parliamentary democracy.

      Ms PALIHOVICI (Republic of Moldova) – I thank Mr Vareikis for the report and the Secretariat of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs for their work.

      In this Chamber, we usually discuss the most important challenges to European society and democracy. That is happening this week too. However, we are now discussing the credentials of the delegation of the Republic of Moldova. We are in favour of the current discussions, so let me take this opportunity to ensure you that the Republic of Moldova will continue to demand more democracy and is willing to be an active and involved actor in this forum. The Moldovan delegation, present today in the room, deserves all your support and hopes for your favourable vote on the ratification of the credentials. As the head of the Moldovan delegation, the credentials of which were challenged on procedural grounds – namely because they are incomplete – I should provide you with all the relevant information, so that you have the details that will enable you to vote for the resolution.

      The Moldovan delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is composed of 10 members – five representatives and five substitutes. After the parliamentary elections that took place in the Republic of Moldova in November 2014, all political parties that entered Parliament were invited to nominate their representatives to the new delegation. In April 2015, the Parliament of Moldova voted for the new composition, formed of eight MPs. Two seats remained vacant because of the refusal of one party to nominate its representatives.

      Credentials were submitted to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Bureau for seven members of the delegation. I would like to emphasise that there are objective reasons for this situation. First, a former member of the delegation lodged his MP’s mandate. His party presented a new proposal and the request was approved by the bureau of the parliament at the end of December 2015. According to Moldovan rules, the final decision will be taken by the parliament, which will start its next session in February 2016. The Liberal Party, which did not nominate its representatives for participation in 2015 when the parliamentarian delegation to the international organisations was established, has changed its position and addressed a request to the permanent bureau, nominating representatives to the delegation. The request will be examined by the parliament in February. The third request concerns the Communist Party, which requested the replacement of its substitute. The change will also be voted on in February.

      Given those conditions, I express my full confidence that during the spring part-session in April the Republic of Moldova delegation will be complete. I assure you that the Moldovan Parliament will be diligent and will shortly make the necessary changes to the delegation. We will take care to keep up the number of political representatives, as has been requested.

      I have a nota bene for Mr Schennach. All letters sent to the Moldovan Parliament from the Monitoring Committee were answered and actions were undertaken. It is not about letters, but a technical condition of the parliament. Thank you, and I hope for your positive vote.

      Mr NEGUTA (Republic of Moldova)* – With regard to Mr Vareikis’s report, there is a rapporteur for Moldova and we think that he continues to monitor the situation. Mr Vareikis has, we believe, put together a proper and decent report. I thank him for that.

      As for the credentials of our delegation, I have already spoken in the Chamber during the free debate. I would like, perhaps, to make a few amendments to the report. The Moldovan Parliament has already planned to consider this question on the first day of February, when its session begins. The Democratic Party has already made its proposals to change the credentials of its representatives and substitutes and to appoint new representatives. The Communist Party has also proposed a new substitute. As regards the point about Rule 6.2 and the requirement for “fair representation”, it is perfectly true that when we set up the Moldovan delegation the Liberal Party challenged some candidates, but then it became part of the component majority of the Government, and since September 2015 there has been no problem with that party. The Liberal Party is not challenging that situation, which answers the question of whether it is fair.

      There will be no problem in setting up a fair and complete delegation, but we are a little surprised by the insistence of the Rules Committee on examining the question of the credentials of the Moldovan delegation only in the plenary session. That is interpreted by our delegation as a signal to other countries. The delegations of six countries that are larger than that of Moldova are also working in an incomplete formation. Yes, the Rules Committee should consider the Moldovan delegation, but it should also consider those of other countries.

      The PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers – [Interruption.]

      I call Mr Corlăţean to make a point of order.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – With all due respect, Madam President, you are aware that there are only three members of the Assembly still on the list of speakers. It is not our fault that the programme and schedule of this Assembly, which were adopted following a vote by this Assembly, were not respected because of the prolongation of the debate on the previous set of reports. I want to assert the right of those three speakers to have the floor.

      The PRESIDENT – For me, that is fine. Does the Assembly give its permission? I will give the speakers slightly less time so that we do not run over too much. Will that satisfy you? We return to the speakers list. I understand that this subject is very important to the speakers.

      Ms BULIGA (Republic of Moldova) – I would like to thank you for this technical debate on the parliamentary delegation of the Republic of Moldova. I hope that this issue will soon be settled. I represent the parliamentary majority, which, with the Filip Government, has taken on a greater role and greater responsibilities for bringing our country closer to Europe. We created a consolidated majority around the government programme that secured the association agreement between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union.

      The government in Chișinău is well aware of how complex the situation in our country is, and it will persevere in its fight against corruption to reinforce our State. It is important that we regain the people’s trust by improving inclusion and promoting social unity among the whole of the Moldovan population. Our domestic situation is far from simple, but there is clear and unanimous support for immediately implementing measures and reforms in line with the population’s expectations. We thank the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly for their assistance to our country. We invite you to continue with that constructive co-operation, which is so important for our country.

      Mr KIRAL (Ukraine) – I want to speak in support of the Moldovan delegation. Like my colleague Mr Donaldson, I encourage you look deeply at the root causes of the situation. I strongly oppose those such as Mr Xuclà and Mr Kox who say that this is not a political but a rules-based issue. If you read the news in the Russian, Ukrainian and Moldovan media, you will see that this issue is already being used for political purposes. Like Georgia and Ukraine, Moldova is striving to split from the domination of Russian interests, and pro-Russian forces will do everything they can to prevent it from doing so.

      I am sorry that this debate is taking place. I strongly encourage the Assembly to support the Moldovan delegation. Its members have been constructive, effective and productive in contributing to the work of this Assembly. Like Georgia and Ukraine, Moldova is striving to join the European community. It signed the association agreement and made difficult reforms. It needs our support, and we should not stab our friends in the back. I realise that this issue relates to the rules, but let us respect the wishes of the Moldovan delegation. We should support them and remain by their side.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania)* – Thank you, Mr President, for your decision to let everyone speak. I support the rapporteur’s proposal to ratify the credentials of the Moldovan delegation, but I disagree with his other two proposals, and I would like to explain why. I disagree that the draft resolution should mention the decision to suspend voting rights of the members in April if things do not move in the right direction. The head of the Moldovan delegation set out the objective reasons why things have not moved in the right direction. They include the high level of political tension, the lack of a government and the violent street demonstrations that prevented the parliament from carrying out the nominations and completing the list. Our rules set out the consequences if things do not move in the right direction.

      We have produced a draft resolution, and the Moldovan Government has committed to settle this matter when the parliamentary session begins on 1 February. I do not want the decision to be mentioned in the draft resolution because it seems like a threat. I would like the Monitoring Committee to ensure that the Moldovan Parliament is correctly informed of the requirements. This official document should not be used to ask the Moldovan authority to do its work. The Rules Committee has the competence to judge the question of credentials. For all those reasons, I am against asking the Monitoring Committee to intervene and follow this matter up.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Vareikis, the rapporteur, to reply. You have seven and a half minutes, but we would all appreciate it if you can be briefer.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – I will say only a few sentences for clarification. I thank the committee’s experienced secretariat for producing this very precise report. I must stress that this is a report of the Rules Committee. I have sympathy with some things and not with others. I often disagree with Mr Kox, but I have to agree with him on this Rules Committee report. We discussed the possibility of assisting Moldova in completing its delegation. The report will help it to do that, so I encourage you to support it. It was the only way of enabling it to present a full delegation next time. That is all I wanted to say.

      The PRESIDENT – Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak?

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – I will be brief. Mr Vareikis’s report is excellent. I just want to add to that our rules are there to protect us and ensure that we can do our work. This is not about punishing a delegation; it is about allowing us to do our work.

      I would like to clarify one thing. The text of the resolution that the committee adopted yesterday suggested ratifying the Moldovan delegation’s credentials but suspending their voting rights if, at the end of the April part-session, the list has not been submitted according to the rules. You will see from the amendments that the committee took a contrary position when there were very few people present. That contrary decision – in particular, Amendment 2 – modifies the original text by proposing ratification of the credentials. We are simply asking the Republic of Moldova to present the list before the beginning of the April session. It is because different people were present in the committee that the two positions seem to contradict each other. I leave it up to the Assembly to decide.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee has presented a draft resolution to which three amendments have been tabled. I remind members of the Assembly that under Rule 10.3, a “member of a national delegation whose credentials are challenged…shall not vote in any proceedings related to the examination of credentials which concern them.”

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 1.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I propose to delete the words in paragraph 2 because the reason we do not have a full delegation is not because we did not want fair representation, but because a party did not nominate its candidates. The vacant seats are not the result of unfair representation. To be correct, I propose to delete the phrase in the draft resolution.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Ms Palihovici to support Amendment 2.

      Ms PALIHOVICI (Republic of Moldova) – We propose to replace paragraph 3 of the resolution with the words,

      “The Assembly decides to ratify the Moldovan parliamentary delegation’s credentials and requests that the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova present the updated list of the delegation’s composition, in line with Rule 6.2a of the Rules of Procedure, before the beginning of the Assembly part-session in April 2016” Th

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Ms Palihovici to support Amendment 3.

      Ms PALIHOVICI (Republic of Moldova) – I do not wish to press the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone else wish to speak on Amendment 3? I call Mr Corlăţean.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – I support the amendment. I strongly oppose the request for the Monitoring Committee to be in charge and to inform the Moldovan Parliament about its requests and so on. First, the Moldovan Parliament is informed by each and every possible channel, and secondly the draft resolution that will be adopted will be the most official way to inform and request the parliament to do the things that are requested. Thirdly, we should respect the competence of the Rules Committee, and not give the Monitoring Committee a competence that does not exist.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I am sorry, but we need a compromise and soon the rapporteurs will go to Moldova and speak with the well-known president of the parliament. We should follow the compromise that we came to with the Moldovans, which was to withdraw this amendment. We should vote against the amendment. It is clear that in political talks we must discuss this issue.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) – The committee is against the amendment.

      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 13962, as amended.

      The vote is open.

4. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday morning.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 8.15 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Changes in the membership of committees

2. Joint debate: debate under urgent procedure: combating international terrorism while protecting Council of Europe standards and values, and foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq

Presentation by Mr Kox of the report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 13958

Presentation by Mr Le Borgn’ of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13960

Presentaton by Ms Bilgehan of the opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 13966

Presentation by Mr Van der Maelen of the report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 13937

Presentation by Mr Omtzigt of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13959

Statement by Mr Desir, Minister of State for European Affairs of France.

Speakers: Mr Nicoletti, Mr Garðarsson, Mr Ihsanoğlu, Mr Villumsen, Mr Németh, Mr Harangozó, Ms Aberg, Ms De Sutter, Sir Roger Gale, Ms Kronlid, Ms Dalloz, Mr Rouquet, Mr Corlăţean, Mr Loukaides, Mr Ameur, Ms Sotnyk, Mr Fournier, Mr Liddell-Grainger, Mr Schennach, Mr Di Stefano, Ms Duranton, Mr R. Huseynov, Mr Stroe, Ms Fataliyeva, Ms Allain, Mr Jenssen, Ms Quéré, Ms Kavvadia, Ms El Ouafi, Ms Matieu, Ms Ahmed-Sheikh, Mr Ariev, Ms Pashayeva, Mr Stoilov, Mr Sobolev.

Amendments 1 and 2 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13958, as amended, adopted

Amendments 6, 12, 4, as amended, 5, as amended, 7, 9, as amended, oral amendment, 19, as amended, 14, as amended, 16 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13937, as amended, adopted

Amendments 20, 21, as amended, and oral amendment adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13937, as amended, adopted

3. Challenge on procedural grounds of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Republic of Moldova

Presentation by Mr Vareikis of the report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, Document 13962.

Speakers: Mr Donaldson, Mr Kox, Mr Badea, Mr Schennach, Mr Xuclà, Ms Palihovici, Mr Neguta, Ms Buliga,

Mr Kiral, Mr Corlăţean.

Replies: Mr Vareikis, Ms Maury Pasquier

Amendments 1 and 2 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13962, as amended, adopted

4. 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

Tasmina AHMED-SHEIKH

Brigitte ALLAIN

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA/Christian Barilaro

Werner AMON/Eduard Köck

Luise AMTSBERG*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN

Iwona ARENT*

Khadija ARIB/Tineke Strik

Volodymyr ARIEV

Anna ASCANI/Tamara Blazina

Mehmet BABAOĞLU

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE*

Gérard BAPT

Doris BARNETT

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Guto BEBB*

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Jana Fischerová

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Guguli Magradze

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA/Oerd Bylykbashi

Włodzimierz BERNACKI/Jarosław Obremski

Anna Maria BERNINI/ Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Tobias BILLSTRÖM/Kerstin Lundgren

Oleksandr BILOVOL/Serhii Kiral

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Tilde BORK*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

Anne BRASSEUR

Piet De BRUYN

Margareta BUDNER

Utku ÇAKIRÖZER

Nunzia CATALFO*

Elena CENTEMERO

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI*

Anastasia CHRISTODOULOPOULOU

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Paolo CORSINI*

David CRAUSBY*

Yves CRUCHTEN/Martine Mergen

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Geraint DAVIES/Khalid Mahmood

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Renata DESKOSKA

Alain DESTEXHE

Manlio DI STEFANO

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA*

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Namik DOKLE*

Jeffrey DONALDSON

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON

Josette DURRIEU

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV*

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Markar ESEYAN

Franz Leonhard EẞL*

Nigel EVANS

Samvel FARMANYAN*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER

Bernard FOURNIER

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ

Martin FRONC

Sahiba GAFAROVA

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO/Sergiy Vlasenko

Tina GHASEMI/Boriana Åberg

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Oleksii GONCHARENKO/Vladyslav Golub

Rainer GOPP

Alina Ștefania GORGHIU*

Sylvie GOY-CHAVENT*

François GROSDIDIER*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Gergely GULYÁS/István Hollik

Emine Nur GÜNAY*

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Maria GUZENINA

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV/ Sevinj Fataliyeva

Andrzej HALICKI*

Alfred HEER/Jean-Pierre Grin

Gabriela HEINRICH*

Michael HENNRICH/Bernd Fabritius

Martin HENRIKSEN/Rasmus Nordqvist

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

John HOWELL*

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Ekmeleddin Mehmet İHSANOĞLU

Florin IORDACHE*

Denis JACQUAT/André Schneider

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Andrzej JAWORSKI*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Frank J. JENSSEN

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA/Viorel Riceard Badea

Ögmundur JÓNASSON*

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ/Dejan Kovačević

Anne KALMARI

Erkan KANDEMIR

Mustafa KARADAYI*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Pascale Crozon

Niklas KARLSSON

Nina KASIMATI/Evangelos Venizelos

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU

Ioanneta KAVVADIA

Filiz KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR*

İlhan KESİCİ

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Aleksander Pociej

Manana KOBAKHIDZE*

Haluk KOÇ/Metin Lütfi Baydar

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR*

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN*

Rom KOSTŘICA*

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Florian KRONBICHLER*

Julia KRONLID

Eerik-Niiles KROSS*

Talip KÜÇÜKCAN

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Inese LAIZĀNE*

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Luís LEITE RAMOS

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Ian LIDDELL-GRAINGER

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

Filippo LOMBARDI/Roland Rino Büchel

François LONCLE/Catherine Quéré

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA*

Philippe MAHOUX/Petra De Sutter

Muslum MAMMADOV*

Thierry MARIANI/Marie-Christine Dalloz

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Duarte MARQUES*

Alberto MARTINS*

Meritxell MATEU

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE/Virendra Sharma

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ana Catarina MENDES*

Attila MESTERHÁZY/Gábor Harangozó

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Jean-Claude Frécon

Marianne MIKKO*

Olivia MITCHELL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Thomas MÜLLER/Hannes Germann

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Hermine NAGHDALYAN*

Marian NEACȘU/Titus Corlăţean

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Julia OBERMEIER*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Suat ÖNAL

Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN

Joseph O’REILLY/Rónán Mullen

Kate OSAMOR*

Tom PACKALÉN

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Florin Costin PÂSLARU*

Jaana PELKONEN*

Agnieszka POMASKA/Killion Munyama

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT/Phil Wilson

Mark PRITCHARD/Liam Byrne

Gabino PUCHE

Lia QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO*

Carmen QUINTANILLA

Kerstin RADOMSKI

Christina REES*

Mailis REPS

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ

Helena ROSETA*

René ROUQUET

Alex SALMOND

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Milena SANTERINI*

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Paul SCHNABEL

Ingjerd SCHOU

Koos SCHOUWENAAR*

Nico SCHRIJVER

Frank SCHWABE*

Predrag SEKULIĆ*

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV/Vusal Huseynov

Bernd SIEBERT*

Adão SILVA

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Jan ŠKOBERNE/Matjaž Hanžek

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuț-Marian STROE

Dominik TARCZYŃSKI*

Damien THIÉRY

Antoni TRENCHEV*

Krzysztof TRUSKOLASKI*

Goran TUPONJA/Snežana Jonica

İbrahim Mustafa TURHAN/Burhanettin Uysal

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Leyla Şahin USTA

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN/Tore Hagebakken

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ/Egidijus Vareikis

Nikolaj VILLUMSEN

Vladimir VORONIN*

Viktor VOVK

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER/Annette Groth

Jacek WILK*

Andrzej WOJTYŁA

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Bas van ‘t WOUT*

Gisela WURM*

Serap YAŞAR

Leonid YEMETS

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN/Anne-Yvonne Le Dain

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Croatia*

Vacant Seat, Croatia*

Vacant Seat, Croatia*

Vacant Seat, Croatia*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Spain/Pedro Azpiazu

Vacant Seat, Spain/José María Chiquillo

Vacant Seat, Spain/Jordi Xuclà

Vacant Seat, Spain*

Vacant Seat, Spain*

Vacant Seat, Spain*

Vacant Seat, Republic of Moldova/Valentina Buliga

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

----

Observers

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Armando LUNA CANALES

Ulises RAMÍREZ NÚÑEZ

Partners for democracy

Hamidine ABDELALI

Benazzouz ABDELAZIZ

M. Lebbar ABDESSELAM

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

M. Hassan ARIF

Nezha EL OUAFI

Omar HEJIRA

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM