1704241100E

AA17CR10

AS (2017) CR 10

2017 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Tenth sitting

Monday 24 April 2017 at 11.30 a.m.

In this report:

1. Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

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

(Mr Agramunt, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 11.35 a.m.)

1. Opening of the second part of the 2017 ordinary session

The PRESIDENT – I declare open the second part of the 2017 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

2. Statement by the President

The PRESIDENT* – Dear colleagues, I would like to start my official statement with a few words about my recent visit to Syria, which was undertaken with other members of the Parliamentary Assembly in my capacity as a Spanish senator. Many of you have raised questions and voiced concerns about this visit, and I recognise and understand those concerns, given the way in which the visit was covered by certain media outlets. That coverage put our Assembly and Organisation in a very complicated situation. This morning, in the Bureau meeting, I provided members with a full explanation of the visit, both in written and oral form. A document setting out written answers to questions from members of the Bureau has been prepared, and this afternoon I will request that it be made publicly available to all members of the Assembly. In the meantime, I would like to make the following statement.

This visit was a mistake; I recognise that now that I have seen its full consequences. I offer members an apology for this mistake. My first mistake was to underestimate the reaction within the Assembly to the visit. Since taking office, I have conducted some 50 official visits, and until now nobody has raised any questions about them. As a result, in all sincerity, I simply did not expect any doubts to be voiced about this visit. I have always robustly defended dialogue, and when it comes to defending the fight against violence and respect for human rights I felt it was wise for us to listen to al-Assad, with a view to securing the best possible future for Syria and its people. I am clearly very concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Syria. I want to help find solutions to war and avoid further refugee crises, and I thought that the visit gave me the opportunity to make a contribution to that.

The second mistake I made was not to give notice of my visit to the leaders of the political groups or the Bureau, although I would add that no meetings of the Bureau had been scheduled. However, that does not mean that I did not inform other people; as this visit was conducted in my capacity as a member of the Senate of Spain, I informed my Government beforehand.

A third mistake, although this is beyond my control, was to allow the visit to be manipulated by certain Russian media outlets and parliamentarians. The only statements that I made in Syria were to stress that I was visiting as a member of the Spanish Senate, and was not there to represent the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, or to offer any support whatever to the al-Assad regime. I would like to state clearly that the policies being pursued by Bashar al-Assad deserve our condemnation, and, as I have said, full respect for human rights and freedom in Syria are fundamentally essential. Our Assembly has adopted a series of resolutions condemning the situation in Syria, and I fully support them. I state clearly once again that despite what is being said in many media outlets this visit should not be used to undermine the credentials and image of the Council of Europe, or the values that our Organisation defends.

We are living in extremely challenging times, and European and world democracies are facing numerous threats. There is violent radicalisation, terrorism, wars, conflicts, and confrontational rhetoric on the international scene. Democratic values are being eroded, and there is shrinking space for human rights. Populist, nationalist and xenophobic movements are rising from both the right and the left of the political spectrum. The latest threat – populism – is one of the most serious dangers because it destroys our values and institutions from within. In these difficult times, we must remind ourselves of the origins of the Council of Europe and of our raison d’être: peace, dialogue, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Populism directly threatens those values, and defending them is our common responsibility. I firmly believe that we are moving in the right direction, and the recent victories of mainstream democratic political forces over populist movements in the Netherlands, Austria, Germany, and Spain reinforce my conviction. The populists are losing ground, because behind their rise is the protest vote of citizens, who naturally seek quick and easy fixes to the everyday problems they face. However, by simplifying complex issues, populists offer only words and promises; they cannot bring about real solutions. That is when mainstream political forces, with experience, responsibility, and a sense of the State, should regain their footing on the political scene.

Yesterday, democracy won another battle in France, but we should not lower our guard. The second round of the French presidential election and the forthcoming parliamentary elections in France, the United Kingdom, and Germany will be important tests for democratic political forces. As responsible politicians who adhere to democratic values, we should confront populism in an open, realistic, and democratic political debate. We must address the questions, concerns, and expectations of our citizens. At the same time, however, we must denounce the acts and manifestations that contradict the very foundations of the European project: nationalism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia. This morning, the Bureau supported a proposal to hold a current affairs debate on that topic, and I urge the Assembly to do the same when we come to adopt the agenda for our part-session.

Each terrorist attack is a new test for the foundations of our societies and for the values of openness and tolerance that are essential for a vibrant democracy. In recent months, Germany, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Sweden, and Russia have become the scenes of atrocious attacks. Such events add grist to the arguments of those, such as populists, who equate terrorism and terrorists with immigrants and refugees. Even more worrying is that the profile of terrorist attacks is changing. Organised terrorist groups are no longer the main danger. More and more often, the threat comes from individuals or small networks of people who become radicalised on the Internet or through social networks. This only reinforces the feeling of fear and anxiety among our citizens because anyone anywhere could become the victim of an attack. We must provide them with our full support. Therefore, this Assembly, and all democratic political forces across the board, must send a clear message to the terrorists: they will never win because the common values that bind our societies together – democracy, human rights, freedom, and the rule of law – will not be undermined by fear and hatred. I call on all of you to stand firm against the hate and fear that terrorists seek to instil by supporting the #NoHateNoFear initiative. I urge you to take the #NoHateNoFear message back home and become our ambassadors in your parliaments and constituencies. The #NoHateNoFear light box, with a professional photographer present all day on Tuesday, is available to you outside the Chamber, and the media box stand is also available for the whole week to record interviews or messages. I count on your support.

I turn now to a crucial debate that we are going to hold during this part-session. It concerns Turkey, one of our member States. Turkey is a key actor within the Council of Europe and a member of our family united by the values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. We greatly value Turkey’s commitment to the Council of Europe, and it has been a major contributor to the Organisation’s budget since 2016. We greatly appreciate Turkey’s role in the management of the refugee crisis and mixed migratory flows, as well as the generous support that Turkey is providing to more than 3 million refugees. We acknowledge Turkey’s legitimate right and obligation to defend the State and the population against terrorism, while respecting human rights and democratic standards.

We are fully aware that the failed coup d’état attempt on 15 July 2016 has left profound wounds within Turkey’s institutions and society. We fully understand the need for the democratic State of Turkey to investigate the events of last summer, bring to justice those responsible and safeguard its institutions and society against the repetition of such events. But while showing our full understanding and support, we cannot remain silent when democratic standards and fundamental rights and freedoms are restricted beyond the threshold of what would be a normal, necessary and proportionate response in a democratic society.

We cannot remain silent when we hear statements calling into question the fundamental principles of the Council of Europe, such as the abolition of the death penalty. We cannot remain silent when fundamental reforms – implying profound changes to the system of governance and checks and balances – are rushed through parliament and when serious concerns have been raised by both the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly monitors of the recent popular vote.

Tomorrow’s debate will be an opportunity to discuss, together with our Turkish colleagues and friends, the challenges the country’s democratic institutions are facing. We need a frank and respectful debate based on objective facts and the legal standards that exist within our Organisation. Let us put emotions aside and focus on practical steps – a road map for co-operation – to address the problematic issues, so that together, with the help of the Council of Europe’s standards and expertise, we can provide the best of our support to Turkey. I look forward to the debate.

(The speaker continued in Spanish)

Dear friends, for me any accusation of corruption must be taken seriously, both inside and outside this Assembly. This afternoon, the Bureau of the Assembly will adopt a series of initiatives regarding cases of behaviour that are ethically questionable. Our Assembly has to be a model when it comes to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Now, more than ever, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is uniquely qualified to promote dialogue between the parliaments of member States. Now, more than ever, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is a unique space in which an open dialogue between parliamentarians of all member States can be conducted. Now, more than ever, members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe must show great coherence and consistency in the messages that we send out to member States, with a view to supporting and improving their democracies.

We cannot ask for others to respect the separation of powers, the presumption of innocence and judicial and parliamentary independence unless each and every one of us lives up to those principles and ensures that our actions accord with them. As President of this Assembly I will always defend the rights and obligations of each and every one of us as legitimate representatives of the citizens in our respective member States. We have an agenda and deadlines and as a result I will not accept unacceptable interventions from outside this Assembly that would represent a violation of the independence and autonomy of each and every member. Above all, this Assembly is a space for dialogue to enable us to talk together about the challenges facing Europe. Proof of that came three weeks ago when the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, asked me to convey her congratulations to the Assembly as a whole on the work we have been doing on the refugee crisis.

In conclusion, I remind everyone that this week the Assembly will hear addresses from high-level visitors – Mr Prokopis Pavlopoulos, the President of Greece; the President of the Committee of Ministers and Chairman in Office, Mr Ioannis Kasoulides; and His Majesty the King of Spain. Their points of view and opinions are, of course, very important to us. As I am sure you can imagine, it is a great honour for me that His Majesty the King of Spain has decided to visit Strasbourg during my mandate as President. It is the first visit by King Felipe VI since he became king almost three years ago. Moreover, this visit is highly symbolic as this year we will celebrate the 40^th anniversary of Spain’s accession to the Council of Europe. His Majesty’s address will take place almost 37 years after his father, His Majesty King Juan Carlos, attended the 30^th anniversary of the founding of the Council of Europe in October 1979.

I have said many times before, and I wish to repeat it once again, that Spain is profoundly committed to the values and principles of the Council of Europe. In the almost 70 years for which this Organisation has existed, Spain has defended those values, which are as relevant today as they were in 1949. We are living through a period of great uncertainty and anxiety in our societies, and we have a duty to listen to appeals for solidarity and unity in Europe – appeals that have been made by many Heads of State, Prime Ministers and Ministers. Together, we form a driving force for those who believe in the unity of Europe.

Thank you for your attention.

Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – I would like to raise an issue on behalf of the Socialist Group on the order of the business that has to do with the work of the President of this Assembly. We have listened to the explanations he has given regarding his visit to Syria, characterising it as a serious political mistake. We believe that was irresponsible. We believe that political responsibility has to be taken for that action. Our rules do not provide for impeachment, but we have to respect the principle of rotation in the Assembly when it comes to the different political groups. We believe that this was an act of political responsibility and for that reason we call for him to be removed from his office as President of the Parliamentary Assembly. We are making this appeal because we believe that the seriousness of the mistake must be matched by the seriousness of the consequences.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Nicoletti; I have taken note of what you have said. I call Mr Fischer.

Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – Now we have heard the statement about the trip to Syria. The European People’s Party group has dealt with this issue: we condemn the visit and the visits of the other members as well. We feel that they have tarnished the image of the Assembly and we propose a hearing with representatives from both the larger and smaller groups during which questions will be posed and responses heard. Thank you.

The PRESIDENT – We will continue in the Bureau this afternoon. I am sorry, Mr Fischer; I did not have a translation just now. I call Mr Omtzigt.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – Let us see whether you get a translation this time.

We are making a serious proposal. Three members of this Assembly went to visit President Assad, who has killed tens of thousands of citizens. You do not visit such a man to build bridges. Please – the apology was so weak that I would not have accepted it from my children. Mr President, are you willing to be subject to a hearing, together with Mr Xuclà and Mr Destexhe and conducted by seven members of the Assembly, in which you give a public explanation for the irresponsible actions that you took? Are you willing for the hearing to take place either tomorrow or Wednesday, after which the Assembly can debate what further actions are needed? Thank you.

The PRESIDENT – I must say that I had an audience at the Bureau this morning and I will have another this afternoon.

Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Mr President, I appreciate your apologies, but now is a crucial moment for the Assembly. We need transparency on your part and clarity about your position. If we do not get that, you should not be surprised if someone tables a vote of no confidence in you.

The PRESIDENT – I had a problem with hearing what Mr Fischer said, but that was clear. I have no problem with this – I accept: no problem. We will discuss this at the start of the Bureau meeting this afternoon. I will tell Members what we are doing at the beginning of this afternoon’s sitting.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – I have put a concrete proposal to you. You do not have to refer it to the Bureau; it concerns you as a person and a President. Are you willing to be subject to a public hearing tomorrow first thing – we can cancel all other meetings – at which seven, eight, nine or 10 of our members are able to ask you, Mr Destexhe and Mr Xuclà, who will also be invited, to explain why you tarnished this Assembly and the Council of Europe? Are you willing to say yes so that we can start organising that and move to other business? Otherwise, we will remain in this situation for the next hour.

The PRESIDENT* – I have already said yes, but I will say it now in Spanish. I have said that there is no problem whatever in going along with Mr Fischer’s suggestion. At the beginning of this afternoon’s sitting, we will talk about how to proceed. I have already said yes. There is no problem.

Mr MASIULIS (Lithuania)* – I do not understand. Do you understand or not that you represent the Assembly, not the Bureau? The important question is the one being posed to you, and you represent the Assembly. In our view, you simply cannot represent us any longer.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I said that I accept this proposal. We will see.

Lord FOULKES (United Kingdom) – If you accept this proposal, if two of the largest groups in this Assembly are rightly criticising you for what you have done and if there is to be a hearing into your suitability, how can you continue to chair this Assembly today? You should stand down and let one of the Vice-Presidents take over.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much. We will do it tomorrow morning.

Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – Mr President, I am a member of the European People’s Party group and you are chairing this Assembly on behalf of our group and all the others. It is evident to all of us here in this house of democracy that you have lost trust, and not only within the EPP group. You were debating this topic for hours before this sitting started, and all the political families here were involved. This is a political crisis. We all face political crises in our own countries. There is a wise and politically correct way out, and that is to step down, Mr President.

Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – Dear colleagues, it is absolutely disgusting that the leader of our Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was around the person who was gassing and bombing his own people. Now we are hearing childish things from you, Mr President – “I don’t know. Somebody has been manipulating things. I went there but now I have read this paper, I am shocked. I went there to visit Aleppo, but I did not go to Aleppo.” You went to Syria on a Russian military jet from the Russian Ministry of Defence, not the Syrian Parliament. I ask you to resign. I am sure that you can no longer lead our Assembly. You have cast a shadow not only on yourself, but on the whole Parliamentary Assembly and all the Council of Europe. If you are a real caballero, you will resign now.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – Further to that point of order, Mr President. Earlier this morning, as the leader of the United Kingdom delegation, I said that you would have to come to this Assembly, to hear the views of members and to decide whether your position was tenable. I have to say to you, Sir, with great sadness that your position is no longer tenable.

Sir Alan MEALE (United Kingdom) – Further to that point of order, Mr President. It has become very clear from the statements by the leaders of the main political groups in this place that there is no confidence in your ability. Therefore, I would like you in the Assembly, which is fully attended today, to put to the vote whether you have the confidence of the Assembly. It is as simple as that – yes or no.

The PRESIDENT – I said that I accept the proposal from Mr Fischer. We will have that audience without problems. May I go on now to the normal business? [Members: “No!”] The first –

Sir Alan MEALE (United Kingdom) – Further to that point of order, Mr President. Will you please put that question to the vote in the Assembly? Yes or no?

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Further to that point of order, Mr President. You have to decide to put to the vote the question of whether the Assembly does or does not have confidence in you. That must be sorted out, independent of the discussion on hearings.

The PRESIDENT – Before I go to the other questions, I suspend the sitting.

(The sitting, suspended at 12.10 p.m., was resumed at 12.30 p.m., with Sir Roger Gale, Vice-President of the Assembly, in the Chair.)

The PRESIDENT – You may have noticed that a new person is sitting in the Chair. In order to progress business, I have agreed to take the Chair for the remainder of this sitting. Mr Sawicki will tell you now what will happen next.

Mr SAWICKI (Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) – The President of the Assembly has agreed to have the hearing requested by several members of the Assembly tomorrow. It will be open to all members of the Assembly, and questions agreed by the political groups will be put by the designated representatives of the groups. At the beginning of the afternoon sitting I will inform you exactly when and where this hearing will take place. We need to check the modalities first. It is likely to be in Room 1, but the exact timing I can give you only at the beginning of the afternoon, once we have checked the availability of rooms and so on.

The PRESIDENT – I shall now endeavour to proceed with the agenda as you have it before you.

3. Examination of credentials

The PRESIDENT – The first item on the agenda is the examination of credentials of new members.

The names of the representatives and substitutes are in Document 14293. If no credentials are challenged, the credentials will be ratified.

Are any credentials challenged? That is not the case.

The credentials are ratified. I welcome our new colleagues.

4. Election of a Vice-President of the Assembly in respect of Romania

The PRESIDENT – The next item on the agenda is the election of a Vice-President of the Assembly in respect of Romania. The candidate is from the Romanian delegation, Mr Corlăţean. If there is no request for a vote Mr Corlăţean will be declared elected.

As there has been no request for a vote, I declare Mr Corlăţean elected as a Vice-President of the Assembly. He will take precedence following the Vice-Presidents previously elected.

I congratulate Mr Corlăţean on his election.

5. Changes in the membership of committees

The PRESIDENT – Our next item of business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in documents Commissions (2017) 04 and Addendum 1.

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

They are adopted.

6. Proposals for urgent debate and current affairs debate

The PRESIDENT – Before we adopt the draft agenda, the Assembly needs to consider requests for a current affairs debate and debates under the urgent procedure, which we will consider in the following order: a request from the Turkish delegation for a current affairs debate on “European values under threat: addressing rising xenophobia, antisemitism and Islamophobia in Europe”; a request from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for an urgent procedure debate on the “Political consequences of the new Israeli Settlement Regulation Law”; a request from the Committee of Ministers for an urgent procedure debate on a “Draft Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property”; a request from the Socialist Group for an urgent procedure debate on “Alarming developments in Hungary: New NGO law restricting civil society and closure of international university”; and a request from more than 20 members of the Assembly for an urgent procedure debate on “Introducing an impeachment procedure for Members holding elected office in the Parliamentary Assembly”.

At its meeting this morning the Bureau agreed to support the request for a current affairs debate. The Bureau agreed to support the requests for urgent procedure debates on a “Draft Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property” and “Alarming developments in Hungary: New NGO law restricting civil society and closure of international university”.

The Bureau agreed to recommend to the Assembly that it should reject the requests for urgent procedure debates on “Political consequences of the new Israeli Settlement Regulation Law” and “Introducing an impeachment procedure for Members holding elected office in the Parliamentary Assembly”.

I am going to go off script now and say that either of the debates rejected by the Bureau may be put to a vote, but will have to be carried by a two-thirds majority of those present if they are to be debated.

First, we come to the request for a current affairs debate.

Does the Assembly agree the recommendation of the Bureau that there should be a current affairs debate on the topic set out in the draft agenda?

The proposal is agreed to. The current affairs debate will be opened by Mr Küçükcan.

We now come to the request from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for an urgent debate on the “Political consequences of the new Israeli Settlement Regulation Law”.

At its meeting this morning the Bureau agreed to recommend to the Assembly that this request be rejected.

Is the Bureau’s recommendation accepted?

The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted, and the request for an urgent procedure debate on this topic is therefore not approved.

We now come to the request from the Committee of Ministers for an urgent debate on the “Draft Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property”.

At its meeting this morning the Bureau approved this request, and therefore recommends to the Assembly that the matter be debated during this part-session as set out on the draft agenda as issued.

Does the Assembly agree to this recommendation?

The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted, and the request for an urgent procedure debate is therefore approved.

The Bureau proposes that the topic of the debate we have just agreed to be referred to the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media for report.

Is this agreed?

The reference is agreed to.

We now come to the request from the Socialist Group for an urgent debate on the “Alarming developments in Hungary: New NGO law restricting civil society and closure of international university”.

At its meeting this morning the Bureau approved this request, and therefore recommends to the Assembly that the matter be debated during this part-session as set out on the draft agenda as issued.

Does the Assembly agree to this recommendation?

Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – As head of the Hungarian delegation, I would like to inform you that there is no such law as the Socialist Group talks about. There is a plan to create transparency for non-governmental organisations’ foreign financing, and we are in the process of negotiation. I do not think this debate could add to the process in Hungary, so I kindly ask members not to hold the urgent debate.

The PRESIDENT – There is an objection to the Bureau’s recommendation on the request for an urgent procedure debate on the “Alarming developments in Hungary: New NGO law restricting civil society and closure of international university”. We must therefore proceed to a vote.

On this question only the following may be heard: one speaker for the request, one speaker against – we have already heard him – the chairperson of the committee concerned, the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, and a representative of the Bureau speaking in its name.

Who wishes to speak in favour of holding this debate?

Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The freedom of NGOs, and particularly human rights NGOs and civil society, is one of the cornerstones of our Assembly’s work. Some time ago we strongly condemned the so-called law on foreign agents in Russia, which put serious obstacles in the way of the free functioning of NGOs. Unfortunately, from what we have heard, the Hungarian draft law – we are speaking about not a law but a draft law – is very much along the same lines, and I believe we all have an interest in clarifying the matter as soon as possible and enabling our Hungarian friends to speak out and explain the situation. That is why the matter is urgent. We should request the opinion of the Venice Commission on the issue, which I do not believe the majority of the Hungarian delegation want to do. The proposal for the debate is well reasoned, and it should be supported.

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

Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – I support Mr Cilevičs’s argument that we need to ensure that all Council of Europe member States apply the core values of our Assembly, including freedom of expression and freedom to work for NGOs. I therefore support the debate.

The PRESIDENT – The Bureau is obviously in favour.

We shall now vote on the request for urgent procedure. The decision requires a two-thirds majority. Those who are in favour of holding an urgent procedure debate on the “Alarming developments in Hungary: New NGO law restricting civil society and closure of international university” should vote yes; those who are against holding such a debate should vote no.

The vote is open.

The request for urgent procedure is agreed to.

The Bureau proposes that the topic of the debate we have just agreed to be referred to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report. Is this agreed?

The reference is agreed to.

Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – I would like the Secretary General to clarify the position, because it seemed that the vote did not get the two-thirds majority required.

Mr SAWICKI (Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) – Mr President, the result I have on my screen is clear: 102 in favour, 44 against. That is a two-thirds majority. Abstentions, which were 19, do not count in this calculation, so you compare 102 to 44, which is more than the two-thirds majority required.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I trust that satisfies you, Mr Németh.

We now come to the request from more than 20 members of the Assembly for an urgent procedure debate on “Introducing an impeachment procedure for Members holding elected office in the Parliamentary Assembly”.

At its meeting this morning, the Bureau agreed to recommend to the Assembly that this request be rejected.

Is the Bureau’s recommendation accepted?

Ms GODSKESEN (Norway) – I ask the Assembly to put this urgent debate back on the agenda. It is very important.

The PRESIDENT – There is objection to the Bureau’s recommendation on the request for an urgent procedure debate on “Introducing an impeachment procedure for Members holding elected office in the Parliamentary Assembly”. We must therefore proceed to a vote.

On this question only the following may be heard: one speaker for the request, one speaker against, the chairperson of the committee concerned, the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, and a representative of the Bureau speaking in its name.

Who wishes to speak in favour of holding this debate? Ms Godskesen has already spoken.

Who wishes to speak against?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – The only thing that I would like to say, speaking on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which has not as yet considered this issue, is that if you ask us to do so, we will certainly take the steps required this week for an urgent debate. We will perhaps do this through a comprehensive report, rather than an urgent debate, but we will certainly look at the issue.

The PRESIDENT – Prior to events later in the morning, the Bureau was against.

We shall now vote on the request for urgent procedure. The decision requires a two-thirds majority. Those who are in favour of holding an urgent procedure debate on “Introducing an impeachment procedure for Members holding elected office in the Parliamentary Assembly” should vote yes; those who are against holding such a debate should vote no.

The vote is open.

The request for urgent procedure has failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority, so that debate falls.

7. Adoption of the agenda

The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the adoption of the agenda for the second part of the 2017 ordinary session (Document 14272 prov 2). The draft agenda submitted for the Assembly’s approval was drawn up by the Bureau on 10 March 2017 and updated this morning.

I remind you that we have just agreed to hold a current affairs debate on “European values under threat: addressing rising xenophobia, antisemitism and Islamophobia in Europe”. I propose that the debate take place as the second item of business on Wednesday afternoon. The sitting on Wednesday will end at 20.30.

I remind you that we have just agreed to hold an urgent debate on “Alarming developments in Hungary: New NGO law restricting civil society and closure of international university”. I propose that the debate take place as the first item of business on Thursday morning.

We have also agreed to hold an urgent debate on the “Draft Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property”. I propose that the debate take place as the second item of business on Friday morning.

Is the draft agenda, as amended, agreed to?

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – Mr President, I do not want already to be thinking about what is going to happen tomorrow at the hearing with three MPs, so it is wise not to take a decision on whether to have a debate on it. But could we decide that after the hearing, we have another session in which we can re-open the agenda of the plenary so that, if members want to propose to discuss the outcome, it can be discussed publicly within the plenary, where it should be?

The PRESIDENT – Mr Omtzigt, I entirely understand your concern and the reason for your question. Events, as they say, are moving fairly quickly. I do not think I am in a position at the moment to determine that. Would you allow us to agree the agenda as I have presented it, with the strict and clear proviso that, if it needs to be changed in the light of anything that takes place tomorrow morning, those changes will be made? Would that be in order?

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – Yes.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much indeed.

In that case, the draft agenda, as amended, is agreed to.

Details of the debates are set out in each sitting’s Organisation of Debates document.

To enable as many members as possible to speak, the Bureau proposes that speaking time be limited to three minutes on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Is that agreed?

It is agreed.

We may, as I just indicated, make further proposals on these matters as required.

8. Adoption of the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee

The minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee in Madrid on 10 March 2017 have been distributed (AS/Per (2017) PV01).

I invite the Assembly to take note of these minutes.

9. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee, and observation of the early parliamentary elections in Bulgaria

The PRESIDENT – The next item on the agenda is the debate on the progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee, to be presented by Mr Jordi Xuclà. For obvious reasons, we have only 10 minutes remaining. I propose that we open that debate, and it will then be continued tomorrow, depending on other circumstances.

This debate will be combined with consideration of the report of the ad hoc committee of the Bureau on the observation of the early parliamentary elections in Bulgaria, to be presented by Ms Marie-Christine Dalloz. I remind members that speaking time will be limited to three minutes.

The sitting must conclude at 1 p.m., so I shall interrupt proceedings at that point. Mr Xuclà, you have 13 minutes in total, but I would be grateful if you limited your remarks to 10 minutes, so that we can rise at 1 p.m. You have the floor.

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – Thank you, Mr President. As members will be aware, the progress report essentially provides a rundown of all the work that has been done by the Bureau and the Standing Committee between the January part-session and 23 April – Sant Jordi’s day, by the way.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights received a report from Ms Lundgren and other members of the Assembly on the need to shed light on the murder of Boris Nemtsov, and that will be on the committee’s agenda this week. It is late in the day, but I very much hope that the committee will be able to appoint a rapporteur in order to shed light on that political assassination.

The Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights has decided to issue a report – it does not normally produce reports – on its plans for improving the process for appointing the three candidates that the Assembly is then called upon to elect, on a proposal from the member States.

I ask the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons to bring forward proposals for the thematic debate on the refugee crisis, which is scheduled for an entire day during the June part-session. On 27 January, just as the previous part-session was drawing to a close, we issued a call for nominations for the Václav Havel Prize.

It is worth mentioning that in January we held a debate on the credentials of the Slovak delegation, which at the last minute submitted a new list containing no female members, the one female member previously on the list having been appointed to a ministerial post, as often happens. We always seek to achieve gender balance, and I was appointed as rapporteur for that. My proposal was that we provisionally ratify their credentials while awaiting a new list that complies with our rules. The credentials were presented at the Standing Committee meeting in March in Madrid.

It is also worth mentioning the election observation mission to Bulgaria. The head of the mission, Ms Dalloz, will say more about that shortly. We have also had presidential elections in Serbia and parliamentary elections in Armenia. On 16 April, of course, we had the very important constitutional referendum in Turkey.

Ladies and gentlemen, as you will have seen for yourselves, this part-session is taking place against a rather unusual backdrop, to say the least. We are talking about an exceptional set of circumstances and a climate of tension. For that reason, the Bureau was unable to look at all the matters on its agenda this morning, which is why we plan to hold a second session of that meeting this afternoon, between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. I am therefore unable to present all the Bureau’s conclusions from this morning’s meeting.

However, if I may speak on behalf of the leaders of the five political groups, later this afternoon I will present a proposal for a memorandum for an external investigation body to look into the allegations of corruption within the Parliamentary Assembly. This decision was taken back in January, and the Presidential Committee agreed in Madrid that it would produce a document. We are poised to publish that document, which will then be approved by the Bureau, but I will not have another opportunity to present a progress report, and therefore to comment on that report.

The plan is that there should be three high-level experts, ideally former judges of the European Court of Human Rights – the Bureau will have to decide that – and possibly even former constitutional court judges from member States. I firmly believe that the investigation body must be external, because we need to place the matter in the hands of highly qualified individuals.

The PRESIDENT – Order. Mr Xuclà, you are straying off the report and into matters that have not yet been decided by the Bureau. I must ask you to confine your remarks to the report.

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – Mr President, I understand your point and will heed your wishes, but I believe that this is an exceptional week. We have a progress report being introduced on a Monday and voted upon on a Friday, and clearly on Friday the Bureau will be voting on the appointment of an external investigation body. I will absolutely heed your injunction, because you are quite right that the Bureau will make that decision formally this afternoon. I just wanted to talk to colleagues here in the Chamber about an issue that they are already discussing widely.

I would like to conclude, using less than one minute of my speaking time, by apologising to this Assembly for the damage that I have caused by travelling to Syria. I will do so only if you will authorise me to continue using my speaking time in that way, Mr President. If not, then I will stop there.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Xuclà. You have just under five minutes remaining.

Ms Dalloz, you now have two minutes in which to present the report of the ad hoc committee of the Bureau. We will endeavour to offer you some injury time, as I will explain later.

Ms DALLOZ (France)* – Thank you, Mr President. Colleagues, this was my first time heading a mission for the Parliamentary Assembly. I would like to thank everyone involved in the work with me. We were 15 parliamentarians from 12 different member States of the Council of Europe, and all five political groups were represented. I emphasise that the Venice Commission worked with us very well indeed; its work was excellent and added real value. I note that the Parliamentary Assembly has been observing all elections in Bulgaria since 1990 – 27 years – and it is therefore a long-term approach.

On polling day, we noted that voters were able to make a choice freely. The elections were generally well organised and the electoral code allowed all Bulgarian citizens, regardless of ethnic origin, to elect representatives to the parliament. A few problems were noted. Sometimes polling stations did not have disabled access. There were also some problems at the border with Turkey; we saw some vehicles with Turkish number plates that had brought in bunches of people to vote. We also saw that some procedures were not fully complied with at some polling stations. However, none of that had any effect on the outcome of the election.

That is really all I have time for. There is so much more to say, and it is rather frustrating when you find that you have so little time. I want to emphasise that people and voters in Bulgaria truly feel disillusioned about politics in general. It particularly struck me that people feel disillusioned. We also noted fatigue; people are fed up because there have been so many elections in recent years. In fact, there have been six elections in the country since 2013. It is up to the newly elected Bulgarian assembly to think about the situation. They have to reduce tension, both within the country and beyond its borders. There is also a responsibility that has to be borne by all political parties and their leaders in seeking to combat all forms of discrimination and corruption in elections.

I went to observe elections in a district in the town of Plovdiv. Where there is a poor level of education and people who do not speak Bulgarian as their first language, we find that they end up working in an underground economy – the black economy. That has to be condemned, because it does not allow them to exercise their rights fully. Nonetheless the elections were, generally speaking, transparent. We do, however, have to enhance transparency in a number of areas, particularly media ownership. They also have to look carefully at campaign accounting – the way funding is provided for political campaigns. Attention also has to be paid to the opening of polling offices outside the country, and it has to be ensured that everyone, whatever their ethnic origin, is able to participate fully in the electoral process regardless of their mother tongue.

I am convinced, however, that we, the Assembly, will continue to work with Bulgaria through the monitoring process and in co-operation with the Venice Commission, and am sure that will all prove fruitful in the future.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Dalloz. I am grateful to you for your forbearance in terms of time, and know that the Assembly appreciates the hard work that you have put in to this matter. I must now interrupt the debate, which will continue on Tuesday afternoon at 4 o’ clock.

10. Next public business

The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the agenda that was approved this morning.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Opening of the second part of the 2017 ordinary session

2. Statement by the President

Speakers: Mr Nicoletti, Mrs Fischer, Mr Omtzigt, Mr Ariev, Mr Masiulis, Lord Foulkes, Mr Farmanyan, Mr Goncharenko, Sir Roger Gale, Sir Alan Meale, Ms Lundgren.

3. Examination of credentials

4. Election of a Vice-President of the Assembly in respect of Romania

5. Changes in membership of committees

6. Proposals for urgent debate and current affairs debate

7 Adoption of the agenda

8. Approval of the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee (Madrid, 10 March 2017)

9. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee

Speakers: Mr Xuclá, Ms Dalloz

10. Next public business

Appendix / Annexe

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the register of attendance in accordance with Rule 12.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of members substituted follow (in brackets) the names of participating members.

Liste des représentants ou suppléants ayant signé le registre de présence, conformément à l'article 12.2 du Règlement. Le nom des personnes remplacées suit celui des Membres remplaçant, entre parenthèses.

ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]

ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Thorhildur Sunna [Ms]

AHMED-SHEIKH, Tasmina [Ms]

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ÁRNASON, Vilhjálmur [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

BADEA, Viorel Riceard [M.] (BRĂILOIU, Tit-Liviu [Mr])

BALFE, Richard [Lord] (GILLAN, Cheryl [Ms])

BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]

BARTOS, Mónika [Ms] (CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr])

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]

BENKŐ, Erika [Ms] (KORODI, Attila [Mr])

BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]

BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BILLSTRÖM, Tobias [Mr]

BÎZGAN-GAYRAL, Oana-Mioara [Ms] (TUȘA, Adriana Diana [Ms])

BLAZINA, Tamara [Ms] (ASCANI, Anna [Ms])

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BOSIĆ, Mladen [Mr]

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

BUDNER, Margareta [Ms]

BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr]

CENTEMERO, Elena [Ms]

CEPEDA, José [Mr]

CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Anastasia [Ms]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CHUGOSHVILI, Tamar [Ms]

CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms])

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]

CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]

CROWE, Seán [Mr]

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme]

DAEMS, Hendrik [Mr] (DUMERY, Daphné [Ms])

DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme] (MARIANI, Thierry [M.])

DAVIES, Geraint [Mr]

DESTEXHE, Alain [M.]

DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr]

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]

DJUROVIĆ, Aleksandra [Ms]

DOKLE, Namik [M.]

DROBINSKI-WEISS, Elvira [Ms]

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]

DURRIEU, Josette [Mme]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

ESEYAN, Markar [Mr]

ESTRELA, Edite [Mme] (ROSETA, Helena [Mme])

EVANS, Nigel [Mr]

FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr]

FATALIYEVA, Sevinj [Ms] (HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr])

FAZZONE, Claudio [Mr] (BERNINI, Anna Maria [Ms])

FEIST, Thomas [Mr] (OBERMEIER, Julia [Ms])

FIALA, Doris [Mme]

FINCKH-KRÄMER, Ute [Ms]

FIRAT, Salih [Mr] (BABAOĞLU, Mehmet [Mr])

FISCHER, Axel [Mr]

FOULKES, George [Lord] (SHARMA, Virendra [Mr])

FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GALE, Roger [Sir]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GARCÍA ALBIOL, Xavier [Mr]

GATTI, Marco [M.]

GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GODSKESEN, Ingebjørg [Ms] (WOLD, Morten [Mr])

GOGA, Pavol [M.] (MADEJ, Róbert [Mr])

GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr]

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]

GORROTXATEGUI, Miren Edurne [Mme] (BALLESTER, Ángela [Ms])

GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.] (MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr])

GÜLPINAR, Mehmet Kasım [M.] (TORUN, Cemalettin Kani [Mr])

GULYÁS, Gergely [Mr]

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]

GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]

HANŽEK, Matjaž [Mr] (ŠKOBERNE, Jan [Mr])

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HOLÍK, Pavel [Mr] (MARKOVÁ, Soňa [Ms])

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]

HUOVINEN, Susanna [Ms] (GUZENINA, Maria [Ms])

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

HUSEYNOV, Vusal [Mr] (PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms])

JAKOBSDÓTTIR, Katrín [Ms]

JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms] (OHLSSON, Carina [Ms])

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

JENSEN, Michael Aastrup [Mr]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]

JENSSEN, Frank J. [Mr]

JORDANA, Carles [M.]

JOVANOVIĆ, Jovan [Mr]

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KARAPETYAN, Naira [Ms] (ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme])

KATSARAVA, Sofio [Ms]

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

KLEINBERGA, Nellija [Ms] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])

KOÇ, Haluk [M.]

KÖCK, Eduard [Mr] (AMON, Werner [Mr])

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KRONBICHLER, Florian [Mr]

KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr]

KÜÇÜKCAN, Talip [Mr]

KVATCHANTIRADZE, Zviad [Mr]

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

LANGBALLE, Christian [Mr] (HENRIKSEN, Martin [Mr])

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LIDDELL-GRAINGER, Ian [Mr]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr] (DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr])

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms] (KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr])

MAHOUX, Philippe [M.]

MAMMADOV, Muslum [M.]

MARKOVIĆ, Milica [Mme]

MAROSZ, Ján [Mr]

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]

MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr] (ŠAKALIENĖ, Dovilė [Ms])

MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness] (CRAUSBY, David [Mr])

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

MAVROTAS, Georgios [Mr] (ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms])

MEALE, Alan [Sir]

MIGNON, Jean-Claude [M.]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

MULLEN, Rónán [Mr] (HOPKINS, Maura [Ms])

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr])

NAGHDALYAN, Hermine [Ms]

NEGUTA, Andrei [M.]

NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr]

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

NOVIKOV, Andrei [Mr]

OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]

OBRADOVIĆ, Žarko [Mr]

OMTZIGT, Pieter [Mr] (MAIJ, Marit [Ms])

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]

O'REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

ORELLANA, Luis Alberto [Mr] (QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO, Lia [Ms])

PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr]

PALIHOVICI, Liliana [Ms] (BULIGA, Valentina [Mme])

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms]

PARVIAINEN, Olli-Poika [Mr] (ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms])

PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.]

PECKOVÁ, Gabriela [Ms] (KOSTŘICA, Rom [Mr])

PLEȘOIANU, Liviu Ioan Adrian [Mr]

POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.] (KLICH, Bogdan [Mr])

PODOLNJAK, Robert [Mr] (HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr])

POLIAČIK, Martin [Mr] (KAŠČÁKOVÁ, Renáta [Ms])

POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms]

POPA, Ion [M.] (STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr])

POSTOICO, Maria [Mme] (VORONIN, Vladimir [M.])

POZZO DI BORGO, Yves [M.] (GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme])

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

PRITCHARD, Mark [Mr]

PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms]

RIGONI, Andrea [Mr]

ROCA, Jordi [Mr] (BARREIRO, José Manuel [Mr])

RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]

ROJHAN GUSTAFSSON, Azadeh [Ms] (GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr])

ROUQUET, René [M.]

SALMOND, Alex [Mr]

SANDBÆK, Ulla [Ms] (BORK, Tilde [Ms])

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHNABEL, Paul [Mr]

SCHNEIDER, André [M.] (ROCHEBLOINE, François [M.])

SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER, Elisabeth [Mme] (LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.])

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHRIJVER, Nico [Mr]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

ŠEPIĆ, Senad [Mr]

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr]

SILVA, Adão [M.]

ŠIRCELJ, Andrej [Mr]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

ȘTEFAN, Corneliu [Mr] (CIOLACU, Ion-Marcel [Mr])

STRENZ, Karin [Ms]

SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.])

TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr]

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

TORNARE, Manuel [M.] (FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.])

TROY, Robert [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])

TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr]

UYSAL, Burhanettin [Mr] (USTA, Leyla Şahin [Ms])

VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms]

VALEN, Snorre Serigstad [Mr]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VEJKEY, Imre [Mr]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VENIZELOS, Evangelos [M.] (BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms])

VIROLAINEN, Anne-Mari [Ms]

VOVK, Viktor [Mr] (LIASHKO, Oleh [Mr])

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WURM, Gisela [Ms]

XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr] (BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr])

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

ZAVOLI, Roger [Mr] (D'AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms])

ZELIENKOVÁ, Kristýna [Ms]

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le register

Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote / Représentants ou suppléants non autorisés à voter

AST, Marek [Mr]

BAKRADZE, David [Mr]

BESELIA, Eka [Ms]

BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms]

BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr]

CORREIA, Telmo [M.]

GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms]

HIGGINS, Alice-Mary [Ms]

JANIK, Grzegorz [Mr]

LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.]

MAGAZINOVIĆ, Saša [Mr]

OBREMSKI, Jarosław [Mr]

OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr]

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

SEGER, Daniel [Mr]

TSKITISHVILI, Dimitri [Mr]

VOGT, Günter [Mr]

Observers / Observateurs

DAVIES, Don [Mr]

DOWNE, Percy [Mr]

MALTAIS, Ghislain [M.]

O'CONNELL, Jennifer [Ms]

OLIVER, John [Mr]

ROMO MEDINA, Miguel [Mr]

TILSON, David [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ALHEISAH, Marram [Ms]

ALQAISI, Nassar [Mr]

ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]

KHADER, Qais [Mr]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]