AA17CR12

AS (2017) CR 12

2017 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Twelfth sitting

Tuesday 25 April 2017 at 10.00 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 Jordana, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

      The PRESIDENT* – Our first item of business is to consider changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are in document Commissions (2017) 04 Addendum 2.

      Are the proposed changes in the membership of committees agreed to?

      They are agreed to.

2. The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey

      The PRESIDENT* – Our business this morning is the debate on the report “The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey”, Document 14282 and Addendum 1, presented by the co-rapporteurs, Ms Ingebjørg Godskesen and Ms Marianne Mikko, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee. I remind you that the Assembly decided at its Monday morning sitting to restrict speaking time to three minutes.

      In order to finish by 1 p.m., I propose to interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.30 a.m. to allow time for the replies and votes.

      I call Ms Godskesen and Ms Mikko, the co-rapporteurs. You have 13 minutes in total between you, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Ms GODSKESEN (Norway) – First, I wish to thank the Turkish delegation and the Turkish authorities for their help during our visit to Turkey. Today, our Assembly is discussing the situation in Turkey and the functioning of its democratic institutions. Let us be clear from the beginning: Turkey is one of the oldest member States of this Organisation and one of the first signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights.

      Almost one year ago, however, in June 2016, this Assembly expressed its concern about ongoing developments pertaining to the justice system, media freedom and the situation in south-east Turkey. Since then, the situation has not improved, and our requests have remained unaddressed. Since then, Turkey has experienced a failed coup d’état, leaving 248 people dead and thousands wounded. This coup was opposed by the Turkish people, who demonstrated their attachment to democracy. The Council of Europe was the first international organisation to condemn the failed coup. We are also aware that Turkey is facing continuous terrorist threats and attacks that our Organisation condemns without any ambiguity, and an adverse geopolitical situation.

      Since the failed coup, Turkey has been living under a state of emergency. Since November 2016, 12 members of parliament, from the opposition party HDP, are in detention and thousands of their officials are also in prison. More than 80 HDP mayors were replaced, or detained, and substituted by government-appointed trustees, in violation of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. About 150 journalists are in detention. That is a clear violation of freedom of media and expression in Turkey, which no longer meets European standards. The post-coup measures included the dismissal of 150 000 civil servants, who still have no judicial recourse despite the welcome creation of a commission of inquiry in January 2017. Thousands of NGOs and media outlets were closed. Critical voices were silenced.

      The constitutional referendum of 16 April was another breakthrough moment. The Turkish people were invited to decide on a profound change of the political system and the switch from a parliamentary to a presidential system. As PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) observers, we expressed our critical views on the holding of a referendum under a state of emergency, with restricted fundamental freedoms. We were critical of the unbalanced campaign, which did not provide equal opportunities for the two sides, and of the pressure to which political parties and journalists and ordinary citizens were subject during the campaign. In addition, in the course of the counting process, the Supreme Board of Elections declared as valid unsealed voting material, in contradiction of Turkish law. This causes us to raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the outcome of the referendum, which has deeply and further divided Turkish society. Despite this campaign environment, a narrow majority – 51.4% of the population – voted in favour of the presidential system, while nearly 49% did not support the proposed constitutional amendments.

      Ms MIKKO (Estonia) – The Venice Commission, constitutional experts from our member States, has indicated that the constitutional amendments do not comply with the basic principles of this Organisation, such as the separation of powers, or the checks and balances that are absolutely crucial in a democratic society, and as such mean a democratic backsliding by Turkey.

      The findings included in the report are based on the conclusions of Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms, such as the Commissioner for Human Rights or the Venice Commission, but also on the conclusions of the visits we as rapporteurs paid to the country and the observation of the referendum. We had the privilege to have numerous meetings with a whole spectrum of Turkish authorities and civil society, which expressed their continuous commitment to European values. We should not deceive them.

      That is why we were surprised and disappointed to hear that Turkey, which has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols 6 and 13, is now contemplating the introduction of the death penalty. The death penalty has no place in the Council of Europe’s membership.

      Turkey is facing challenging, extraordinary times. The newly adopted constitutional amendments do not comply with our fundamental and common understanding of democracy, and this situation brings new challenges.

      We are convinced that we should co-operate more than ever with Turkey. We should remind Turkey of its shared history at the Council of Europe and remind Turkish citizens of our commitment to ensure that the fundamental rights of all citizens of Council of Europe member States are protected and upheld. That is why we are convinced that our co-operation with Turkey should be strengthened and the serious shortcomings identified should be addressed together through a full monitoring procedure.

      The monitoring procedure means providing the Assembly with more opportunities to work in closer co-operation and discuss a wide range of the important issues that we have identified with the Turkish authorities. The two items of the post-monitoring dialogue are no longer relevant in the current context. Yes, several new constitutional provisions are a matter of concern to us, but this Organisation should do the utmost to ensure that Turkey’s constitutional framework and its implementation comply with our standards. It is an offer of genuine co-operation: we stand ready to support the authorities in proposing a generous, transparent co-operation mechanism and to work together towards a more inclusive society.

      This Assembly must meet the expectations of all those in Turkey who want their country to remain an important and strategic partner of the Council of Europe, to achieve democratic reforms and to foster a dialogue so as to address and fulfil the aspirations of all sectors in Turkish society. That is why we invite you, members of the Assembly, to support the draft resolution submitted by the Monitoring Committee as well as the seven amendments tabled by the committee, which take account of developments since March 2017, when we adopted our draft resolution.

      Mr EVANS (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I thank Ingebjørg and Marianne for their absolutely superb report, which details a lot of the things that many in this Chamber will know from press reports of what is going on in Turkey.

      The first thing to recognise is that Turkey is a country under attack. We are in France now: only last week, sadly, France experienced a terrorist attack, and Turkey has had more than its fair share of those. It is no surprise to me that Turkey is under a state of emergency, like France. France, of course, had presidential elections on Sunday under similar circumstances. I want to send a message from the European Conservatives Group to all countries, including my own, that have recently experienced terrorist attacks. Outside, it says “#NoHateNoFear”, and each member of parliament from whatever country must stand shoulder to shoulder with countries experiencing terrorist attacks.

      I had the privilege of being in Turkey during its referendum period. Although I, the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) have reservations about the conduct of that referendum, particularly prior to the day it was held, the fact is that the referendum result is there: the country has voted, by a narrow margin, for major constitutional reforms. We need to see what help we can give Turkey during this time of deep constitutional change.

      Today we face the issue of whether we want to put Turkey into monitoring. Monitoring should not be seen as a punishment, but it will be by some. We should be cautious about what we wish for. Like the rapporteurs, I agree with many of the recommendations; some of the things going on in Turkey are deeply worrying. But we need to see how we can assist the country. We want to make sure that the talks about Cyprus continue and can be constructive so that we get a resolution to that problem, which has dogged the country for decades. We also want to use leverage with Turkey against the adoption of the death penalty – if Turkey were to adopt the death penalty, that, for me, would mean it had crossed the Rubicon.

      What can the Assembly do that is short of monitoring? The one thing that I ask members to do today is to look carefully at what we can do to support Turkey, but not to put it into monitoring.

      Mr POLIAČIK (Slovak Republic, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – On behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I thank the rapporteurs for this thorough and detailed report and I thank the Turkish authorities for their co-operation. We have concerns about past and present events in Turkey and we are very concerned about possible future events there.

      As far as past events are concerned, we saw the attempted coup d’état and we are in solidarity with the Turkish people and Turkish Government on that. However, in many cases there has been great over-reaction. We are worried about the situation of media representatives and thousands of State employees. As a teacher, I am worried about the 18 000 teachers who lost their jobs following the attempted coup. We do not consider their trials or situation as fair, and we call for the Turkish authorities to put the matter right.

      When it comes to the present, we have seen what happened with the referendum. The situation before it was held was uneven and unbalanced. Not everybody agrees that the conduct of the referendum itself was democratic and fair. There are concerns about whether all the votes were legitimate and there are people who say that not every vote was cast in a fair and just way.

      As far as future events are concerned, we have to say one thing very clearly. The introduction of the death penalty in Turkey would be the crossing of a red line. A country with an active death penalty cannot be part of the family in this Chamber and many people cannot imagine a country whose legislation includes an active death penalty being part of that family. We see Turkey as a very important partner of the Council of Europe. Turkey is important in stabilising the region. We call on Turkey to stay democratic, fair and part of this family, because that is where human rights are strongest.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I thank the two rapporteurs for their excellent report. I participated in the election observation in Turkey and I have visited the country several times. I am surprised by the severe level of oppression taking place in Turkey.

      In the debate, it is important to remember the background to the situation and the run-up to the referendum. The Venice Commission made an extremely critical statement; I have never seen it make such a statement before. Its message was clear: either the Turkish Government lifted the state of emergency and secured democratic rights for its citizens or the referendum had to be postponed. As you are all aware, the Turkish Government is obliged to heed the call of the commission, but the government did not live up to its obligations. It held a referendum and severely oppressed the opposition. That did not live up to democratic standards.

      It is important for us to recall the statement by President Erdoğan following the publication of the report of the international observers, the Council of Europe observers and the OSCE – “Know your place,” he said. There has been an assault on the whole Assembly. Should we accept such an assault? No. That leaves us no option but to act. Either we stand up for the values of the Assembly, or we “know our place” under the command of President Erdoğan. For me, the decision is clear: we need to take action.

      There has been great patience with President Erdoğan in the Council of Europe. He has misused that and the situation in Turkey has become worse and worse. Owing to the developments in Turkey, we need to act to strengthen the monitoring process. We need to help its people by ensuring that the Turkish Government live up to its obligations and we need to stand up for the Assembly’s values. The people of Turkey deserve democracy and human rights. It is crucial that, when the people of Turkey are looking to us, we do not let them down and that we use all means to help them. We need to have full monitoring to help them to secure their democratic rights.

      Mr NÉMETH (Hungary, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – I congratulate the rapporteurs. This is a good report. On the question of whether there should be monitoring or post-monitoring, the EPP has a common position. Some of its members have dissenting opinions, which we respect, but the EPP’s position is that, instead of reopening the monitoring process, we need to continue the post-monitoring procedure with Turkey. We will strongly emphasise in that process, if it is continued, the death penalty issue and the importance of freeing political prisoners.

      Why does the EPP think that that should be the decision of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly? Co-operation between Turkey and the Assembly intensified after the failed coup d'état attempt. That is recognised in the resolution. We are grateful to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for leading that process and the dialogue with Turkey. We are also glad that that process is supported by the European Union. I simply do not understand why colleagues want to risk the existing process, which is supported by the Secretary General and the European Union, by symbolically stigmatising Turkey in reopening the monitoring procedure. We have the post-monitoring procedure.

      Are we aware of the danger of that proposal for the Council of Europe? I am not convinced that all of us are aware of that danger. Do we want Turkey to retreat from the Council of Europe, as Russia has retreated? Is that our intention? I simply do not understand those people who do not realise that there is that danger. Europe and Turkey have a geopolitical relationship, which has stability and focus. Migration and the stability of the broader Middle East are also issues. Therefore, maintaining the post-monitoring process is important. Thank you for your attention.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group)* – Many thanks and compliments to the authors of the report. You may be surprised that I also thank Turkey, but yesterday Gabriele Del Grande, an Italian journalist who had been on hunger strike, was released. At the same time, we recall that the German journalist Deniz Yücel is still under detention.

      On the report, how are we supposed to explain to Serbia, Georgia and Moldova that they are under monitoring but that Turkey is under post-monitoring? For us, post-monitoring means that some points still need to be clarified. However, today, more points need clarification in Turkey than would normally be the case under conventional monitoring. Therefore, I did not understand the previous speaker saying, “Well, we need to think it over.” We are supposed to be an Assembly of values, democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Today, the situation in Turkey is alarming; 10 000 people have been dismissed from public service and they have no right of appeal. In addition, 150 journalists are under detention.

      I was in Diyarbakır with our colleague Mr Hunko. Our conclusion was that this was neither a fair nor a free referendum. The 49% achieved by the opposition is a tremendous success given the repression that occurred. In reality, when you take everything into account, including the internally displaced persons, we think that the opposition amounted to about 60%. We have no alternative but to conduct monitoring – we must reopen it – as we have conducted it for other countries.

      As we know, the problem is at the top: Turkey does not really have a president. The president should be there for everyone, for all ethnic groups, because Turkey is a multi-ethnic state. This president provokes and is president for perhaps half of his country. That is what makes the situation so dramatic.

      The president is toying with the death sentence and other things, saying, “We now need to do a lot, and begin with the death sentence.” The game is constant, but we cannot prolong it – hence the recommendation that monitoring be reopened. That is the only possible option.

      Ms DURANTON (France)* – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent work.

      I observed the referendum with my colleague Josette Durrieu. Yesterday, in the Chamber, our Turkish colleague Mr Özsoy said that the Government may satisfy the preliminary conclusions of the report given the misgivings about the legitimacy of the result, but was in disagreement with our other conclusions. President Erdoğan has accused the Council of Europe delegation of supporting terrorist activities. I am deeply shocked and appalled by the accusation, which is unconscionable

      Indeed, “appalled” and “worried” are probably the words that appear most frequently in the draft resolution tabled by our Norwegian and Estonian colleagues on the basis of a very thorough report. Those two words illustrate the slippery slope that this great country of Turkey is on, which I warned this very Chamber about last June.

      The troubling evolution in respect of fundamental freedoms and the rule of law means that Turkey is sliding backwards, as the report repeatedly states. The Turkish authorities are managing the post-coup period through brutal and disproportionate measures far removed from the values and norms of the Council of Europe – mass purges of the civil service and judiciary, restrictions on freedom of expression, arrests of MPs and journalists, to name but a few. Such arbitrary measures, which are all explained in great detail in the report, justify the reopening of the monitoring procedure, as advocated by our committee

      The slide in Turkey, however, is nothing new but, above all, risks fuelling the existing difficulties of the country: diplomatic isolation; economic slump; and manifold internal weaknesses. On several occasions President Erdoğan has even called into question the 1923 Lausanne Treaty, favouring what he calls the “borders of the heart”.

      Turkey’s relations with its nearest neighbours, such as Greece and Bulgaria, are poor, and they are distant with the United States, even though the two are NATO partners, in particular because Washington has been favouring co-operation with the Kurds in Syria, which fuels Ankara’s dread of the prospect of an autonomous Kurdish region controlled by the PKK in the north of Syria – Turkey’s worst nightmare.

      Turkey became much closer to Russia in 2016 but the alliance is fragile because, apart from the circumstances of the moment, Ankara and Moscow have diverging interests. Furthermore, the risks of confrontation with Shiite Iran are not slender ones. Turkey is more isolated than ever. In Syria, Russia and the United States have blocked off in a concerted manner the advance of the Turkish army. Moscow and Washington have drawn closer to the Kurds, and Russian soldiers now monitor the ceasefire on the Kurdish territory adjoining Turkey even though Ankara was not informed beforehand.

      With a worrying domestic situation and diplomatic confrontation leading to growing isolation, Turkey is in a bad way. Europe could help, but does Turkey really want that help?

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – A few months after the creation of the Council of Europe, Turkey joined it. Turkey is a key partner for our Organisation and for the European Union and NATO. We can only stand with Turkey when it is faced with terrorism and an attempted military coup.

      The close ties between Turkey and Europe are evident but cannot be maintained regardless of the cost: the disproportionate purges that followed the attempted coup, including the arrest of opposition MPs; significant curbs on freedom of expression; the holding of a referendum in conditions in which there was no guarantee of votes being cast freely; the endless provocations of and unacceptable attacks on Germany; and the repeated threat to restore the death penalty and so to leave the Council of Europe. All that causes us at least to question whether Turkey wishes to continue sharing our values.

      Against that backdrop, reopening the monitoring procedure seems to be the very least we can and should do. Our credibility is at stake. I regret having to say this because over the past decades Turkey has made significant economic progress, which has been accompanied by progress in the fields of the rule of law and democracy. Today, all that has been called into question, which is of no benefit to anyone but a few leaders perhaps.

      Be that as it may, reopening the monitoring procedure is not of course a solution to the crisis. As I am well aware, it would be a symbolic measure. As a number of speakers have said, it is vital that we all give thought to what can be done to stop the backsliding of the past few years. We have to be very careful and vigilant about the work being carried out by the opposition. We must also provide it with support when it calls for greater democracy and rule of law.

      I hope that today’s debate and the excellent reports submitted by the rapporteurs will provide us with an opportunity to identify avenues to explore constructive and open dialogue based on mutual respect. I thank colleagues for their attention and would like to tell our Turkish friends in the Chamber that the monitoring procedure does not mean mistrust or suspicion on our part.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey)* – I thank the distinguished rapporteurs but, unfortunately, I must declare that the report has succeeded only in bringing together many biased opinions. It has carefully not bothered to state any facts.

      For example, paragraph 9 pertains to the lifting of parliamentary immunities and the detention of MPs, which the report states is in violation of the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court, but the European Court of Human Rights has established jurisprudence about political parties that support terrorism. The Court has clearly stated that parties that support the use of violence as a tool and that incite violence cannot benefit from freedom of expression. Likewise, parties that incite violence cannot benefit from freedom of assembly or association. Therefore, what Turkey has done about parliamentarians who have praised violence and call on the people to take up arms is in compliance with the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court.

      In paragraph 13, the report deals with the dismissal of public servants and says that they have been penalised by the State. In fact, the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court and the opinions of the Venice Commission are clear about countries having the right to exercise discretion about such purges. We must also state that it is a threat against democracy, the rule of law and human rights when public servants who have lost their loyalty to the State or to the constitution act in line with instructions given by terrorist organisations.

      In paragraph 22 of the report, there are some allegations about the investigations into terrorist acts in south-eastern Turkey, with claims of violations. However, we must acknowledge that when you fight against terrorism, your priority is to ensure the safety of civilians and restore public order. We try to strike a balance between freedoms and security, but unfortunately that balance is not right in Turkey at this point. All of the measures that Turkey has taken are in compliance with the principle of the rule of law, so it would be wrong for the Assembly to adopt this report.

      Mr SCHWABE (Germany)* – Turkey is one of the major States of the Council of Europe, and indeed one of the founding member States. It is a fascinating country. It faces many challenges from the refugee crisis and terrorism, but it has entered into particular commitments at the Council of Europe on human rights and the rule of law. There are conclusive signs that those central values have been greatly thrown into question in Turkey.

      We need to think about what has happened since the referendum on the constitution – more journalists have been detained than in China and other countries and there have been arbitrary detentions, mass dismissals and much more. That is why it is important that we take the developments in Turkey seriously and apply our own rules – not as a form of punishment, but so that we can enter into more intense contact with Turkey.

      I was slightly surprised by what our colleague Mr Németh said, because we obtained an overwhelming majority in the committee in favour of monitoring, including from the EPP, so I thought we would have that group’s support. If you go through the streets of Istanbul today, you can feel just how split the country is. However, there is a lively democracy there, as our colleague Mr Schennach said. Had there been a free referendum, it is more likely that there would have been a clear majority in favour of the values of human rights, in which the European Court of Human Rights plays a key role.

      We have been asked how a country can emerge from monitoring. It is actually quite easy – it can put an end to the state of emergency, release members of parliament, re-establish immunity, allow checks that will overcome doubts about the result of the referendum, release journalists such as the German journalist Deniz Yücel, and take other such measures.

      We may have differing opinions about the issue of monitoring, but on one point we cannot disagree: we have to protect colleagues who are in such countries on electoral monitoring missions. Any attacks on electoral monitors must be most emphatically rejected.

      Lord BALFE (United Kingdom) – First, I congratulate the two rapporteurs on a report that was difficult to draw up. As many members know, I have had plenty of visits to Turkey over the years, and I regret the situation that we are now in. This is the second referendum that I have had to regret in the last 12 months, the other being the UK referendum, but I say at the outset that, subject to what the OSCE has to say, we have to accept the result of the referendum. I think Turkey was unwise to hold it, and I certainly would not have voted for the proposal, but if that is the will of the Turkish people it has to be accepted.

      To an extent, Turkey is not looking after its own best interests. We went through this sort of situation in Great Britain in the 1980s, when we had the Irish Republican Army. We had death on the streets of Northern Ireland, calls for the reintroduction of the death penalty and people being murdered literally on a daily basis. In the end, the British State worked out, initially under the leadership of John Major, that we somehow had to take a different approach. Although Northern Ireland is far from being a peaceful land today, it is basically a much more settled place. The Turkish authorities would do well to stand back and think about how to deal with their problems, because the current situation will not lead where the Turkish people think it will.

      I remember discussing the PKK with Turgut Özal 30 years ago, not when he was president but when he was prime minister. Even at that time, it was quite clear that the system of süper valis and so on was not working. In my view, the new system of government in Turkey is unwise. Having a system in which the judiciary is not independent does not guarantee a good constitution.

      I think the issue of monitoring is, frankly, irrelevant. This body discusses Turkey ad nauseam – we probably spend more time discussing Turkey than any other country in the Council of Europe. What is important is that the Turkish State and the Turkish political classes take a clear and cool look at what sort of Turkey they want. Once they have decided that, they may find that the present way forward will not deliver it.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* – I was surprised to hear the spokesperson for the EPP group say that it was against the opening of monitoring. Fortunately, Ms Duranton said the contrary, so I conclude that the EPP group is divided on the matter. So that there can be no misunderstanding, I will say loud and clear that the ALDE group – I am speaking not on behalf of that group but in my personal capacity – decided to support the report and the opening of monitoring.

      I know very well that monitoring is not a solution per se, as Mr Rouquet said, but it is a step in assisting Turkey. Mr Dişli said a moment ago that the European Court of Human Rights has stated that we are not allowed to perform terrorist acts. That is true, but one cannot say that the 115 members of parliament whose parliamentary immunity was removed had committed acts of violence.        During the ad hoc committee’s visit in November, I asked for a list of offences that they might have committed, to see why they were in detention and why their immunity had been removed. I never received that list, so I cannot imagine what those offences are. I was told that those 115 members had committed more than 800 offences, but what offences? What is Turkey’s criminal code?

      Mr Dişli referred to the Venice Commission, which has issued a negative opinion on the changes to Turkey’s constitution. Eminent Turkish authorities approached me and said, “But the Venice Commission did not issue a legal opinion – it was a political opinion.” We should reject that idea, because it was an opinion given by high constitutional jurists, and our Assembly’s task is to protect the Venice Commission. If we doubt the opinions of the Venice Commission, we might as well just quit.

      I also see from different sides a tactic to destroy our Assembly – attempts to destroy what we have. We must unite to defend our values, not because of ourselves and our institution, but because of the 820 million citizens we represent. Their values and fundamental freedoms are seriously threatened in Turkey. That is why we should act: in order to aid Turkey, to help the Turks, who can be proud of their country. Through the monitoring system, we wish to help them put an end to this authoritarianism.

      I congratulate the rapporteurs on the difficult work they did. It was a fantastic piece of work and I support them wholeheartedly.

      Ms SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER (Switzerland)* – All power is being given to the Turkish president, who is not just a head of State but a head of government who can issue decrees that bypass Parliament. The president can also have a huge influence on the Supreme Court: in other words, the legislature and judiciary are being considerably weakened. All power is concentrated in a single man. This autocratic constitution is diametrically opposed to the principles of the Council of Europe. If we consider how this sole ruler has behaved in past years towards minorities and people who think differently, we see that the future is rather gloomy.

      Then, we must ask ourselves how we should behave with Turkey as a member of the Council of Europe. Should we continue to foster an open, direct and critical dialogue, as we in Switzerland have fostered with Turkey; or should we continue to call for our tried and tested systems to be applied, without being seen as imperialists?

      Although the outcome of the referendum is being doubted, it is true that many people in Turkey voted in the referendum in full knowledge of the consequences, whether we like it or not. The full monitoring procedure was removed a few years ago because the death penalty was abolished, because of the zero tolerance strategy towards torture, and because restrictions on freedom of assembly, religion and opinion were removed. In addition, a number of cultural rights were guaranteed for the Kurdish minorities. Both rapporteurs and many members of the Parliamentary Assembly feel that Turkey should complete the questionable reforms. Voices of caution were not listened to, and now we must consider further expanding the monitoring procedure. If we consider the past, we can perhaps conclude that the Council of Europe places too much trust in such developments.

      The situation is more fragile than ever and must not be played down. Is there a constructive path that we in the Council of Europe can continue on with Turkey? Would dialogue between the Council of Europe and Turkey take us further, if we are going for force it to be subject to a monitoring procedure? What advantages can such a procedure offer for the people of Turkey? Would it perhaps not make more sense, given the current state of play, to spread support for dialogue in this divided country, and to try to improve the existing instruments to ensure that Turkey does not completely slip away from us?

      Thank you very much for this report.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Our starting point must surely be the threat to democracy posed by the attempted coup of 15 July and the personal danger to many of our Turkish colleagues, some of whom are here. However, we have to balance our strategic interests against our values. If we were members of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, our priority would surely be based on the importance of Turkey to NATO. If we were Members of the European Parliament, we would be mainly concerned with trade, security, energy, the effect on accession and the migration deal in the Aegean. But we are neither NATO parliamentarians nor members of the European Parliament.

      We in this Assembly must be faithful to our remit as the main human rights organisation in Europe. We note, for example, the disturbing report of the United Nations special rapporteur, which includes clear evidence of torture by Turkey since the attempted coup. Our concern must be over the arbitrary arrests, lack of appeal procedures and treatment of the media and judges. Together, these factors allow Turkish citizens in Europe to qualify as asylum seekers. The red line, for all of us, must surely be any attempt to reintroduce the death penalty. All the institutions of our Council must be mobilised in a chorus of concern: the Monitoring Committee, which produced a valuable report; the European Court of Human Rights; and the Venice Commission, which has produced three valuable reports.

      Our concern is with the centralisation of power. All British schoolchildren are taught the dictum of Lord Acton: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We must be concerned about the cult of personality of the Turkish president, along the lines of Putin; the removal of checks and balances; and the assault on the Kemalist republican secular tradition.

      So, how should we respond? We must tell our Turkish colleagues that we understand the threat posed by the failed coup and that we are in no way hostile to Turkey. We hope they will listen to our concerns. Let us maintain the dialogue. Let us work together on matters of mutual concern such as defence, trade, counter-terrorism and action against drugs. Let us try to understand the challenges facing Turkey, our traditional friend and partner. But at the same time, we should avoid compromising our democratic norms and values.

      Finally, I make this appeal to our Turkish colleagues: please, please reflect on why you are subject to such overwhelming criticism, even from good friends.

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – We can certainly say that the situation in Turkey is very disquieting. I have just learned that Turkish forces have bombed the Shengal region.

      Anne Brasseur referred to the situation affecting hundreds of Turkish parliamentarians, particularly members of the HDP – the People’s Democratic Party – which represents the Kurdish opposition party and other minorities. The constitutional amendment adopted on 20 May 2016 by the Turkish Parliament removed immunity from more than 130 parliamentarians, including 55 of the 59 HDP parliamentarians – in other words, 93%. Our Parliamentary Assembly criticised this in a resolution adopted last June.

      After 2016, the situation got worse. A number of parliamentarians were arrested and placed under detention, based on charges related to the discharging of their office as parliamentarians, without any objective reasons being given. The mere fact of expressing a dissenting opinion seems to be behind their arrests.

      Among the parliamentarians in question are the two leaders of the HDP and 10 of their colleagues, including Selma Irmak. I mention their names so that we can realise that they are people. She has been accused of 22 criminal offences, including having taken part in a celebration of the international day of women’s rights. Selma Irmak is behind bars because she availed herself of her right to freedom of expression and refused to stand before the prosecutor. Her situation and that of her fellow parliamentarians should be seen in the context of their colleagues in local and regional authorities. Many mayors have been dismissed and replaced by government officials.

      The situation is very serious. The decision to remove immunity is not at all in compliance with the Turkish constitution, as the Venice Commission stated. Conditions of detention are also problematic – to say nothing of the follow-up – given the changes to the constitution. That of course has placed huge restrictions on democratic debate and had a huge impact on the referendum held on 16 April. It is significantly curbing parliamentary freedom and democracy and the rule of law in Turkey.

      It is very important that Turkey, faced with these numerous challenges, uses all its strength to get help from our Parliamentary Assembly. With that in mind, we would like to open the monitoring procedure to ensure that all the values of the Council of Europe are fully adhered to by a country that is one of its oldest members.

      Mr KÜÇÜKCAN (Turkey) – Ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a country that is a founding member of this House. It is a bridge between the East and the West; between Europe and the Muslim world. It is part of Europe, and it will remain so.

      The report, entitled “The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey”, was debated in the third part-session of 2016. The situation in Turkey was considered again during the fourth part-session, in the current affairs debate. A proposal to hold an urgent debate with the same title was rejected by the Assembly at the start of the 2017 session, yet here we are debating Turkey – of course, we are entitled to do so.

      Let me share some information about Turkey that is critical to understanding the context of the report and how we should react to what is happening there. Since the elections on 7 June 2015, 750 Turkish civilians have lost their lives in defence of democracy, killed by terrorists, and more than 900 members of the security forces have been killed, again in defence of the security of Turkey and Europe. That is the background.

      If Daesh, or indeed any terrorist organisation, attacks your towns and cities, killing your sons, daughters, husbands and wives, you will take action. If they bomb your parliament, as they did in Turkey, you will introduce strong measures in order to provide security and protection. That is what we have done in Turkey, and it is what we will continue to do, while of course remaining within the limits of the law. I think that members of this Parliamentary Assembly should understand that.

      Turkey is working with the Council of Europe. When we have a constructive dialogue, we can achieve success, as was shown in the January part-session, when Turkey accepted three important decrees. That was simply because we were working closely, constructively and with mutual respect. We would like our discussions to continue in that spirit, debating and working with the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly. If we really want to see the influence of the Parliamentary Assembly on Turkey, we must have a constructive dialogue and constructive steps. Reopening the monitoring process for Turkey will not do that; it will harm our relationship. As parliamentarians from Turkey, we have had good contacts with our friends the rapporteurs, and we are updating them on all developments in Turkey.

      Again, I appeal to you to recognise that reopening the monitoring process will harm our relationship, not help it. If our objective is to influence and guide Turkey, we must set up a road map and a timetable and identify structural issues that we can deal with. Reopening the monitoring process would be a premature move.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I thank the rapporteurs for their excellent work. The situation in Turkey is complex. Since 2002, when Mr Erdoğan entered the stage, things have inevitably evolved. We will recall that since the 1920s Turkey has been a Kemalist secular republic, based on the army. Under Mr Erdoğan, who is an Islamo-conservative, things have gradually but inevitably evolved. There is less secularism and the army has slowly been decimated.

      As a post-monitoring rapporteur, I have followed all the processes that are no longer being talked about. I visited prisons and saw not only journalists behind bars, but generals. Things are slowly affirming themselves. Erdoğan has positioned himself, first as prime minister and now as president. The regime is now a presidential one. In other words, there is a powerful authority, with a president governing by decree. Let us be clear that this is the end of parliamentary democracy in Turkey.

      The backdrop has been the same for the past 15 years: trials, coup d'états, imprisonments, purges and breaches of rights. The targets are always the same: journalists, academics, the army, the Kurds and parliamentarians. The lifting of parliamentary immunity was a grave event. Today there are the Gülenists, the friends of yesterday and the enemies of today; they were all Gülenists and were all terrorists therefore.

      We must beware, because fear is establishing itself in Turkey. Courageous and bold opposition succeeded in the worst of campaigns to obtain 49% of the votes in the referendum. Well, for once 49% is stronger than 51%. Yes, the presidential regime is a strong one.

      What does Erdoğan now want to do? Does he want to re-establish the death penalty? Well, we shall see. I say to the leader of the Turkish delegation, you assured us when the ad hoc committee visited you that that problem would never come before parliament because the party was against it. I told you at the time that I would remember that, and I am remembering it now, because we need to be accompanied and have solid information when we go to Turkey.

      Let us be vigilant. You might release one journalist today, but if there are 150 left in prison, plus all the others, the problem is not settled. It is about vigilance and our deep friendship with the Turkish people, and monitoring, with many positive intentions, of the evolution of the regime.

      Mr ESEYAN (Turkey)* – Since 2004, Turkey has been taken into post-monitoring and has introduced several reforms. The reforms that Turkey has introduced over the past 13 years have inspired our neighbouring countries. Terrorist groups in the region were disturbed by these developments and increased their attacks. The most dangerous attack came on 15 July 2016, when an attempted coup was organised by FETÖ. Daesh and the PKK also continued their attacks against Turkey. Turkey responded and continued with its economic stability.

      Unfortunately, those issues were not mentioned enough in the report, which I think is because of the co-rapporteurs’ biased approach. The addendum to the report, which was approved yesterday, also reflects that biased approach, because it contains unacceptable criticisms of the conduct of the referendum on 16 April this year. The referendum in Turkey was exemplary. The turnout was about 85%, which is exemplary in the OSCE.

      The co-rapporteurs seem to have disregarded the fact that the springboard for the elections contained members from all political parties in Turkey. The observation delegation’s political statements also show that the team arrived in Turkey with prejudices. The team was biased – there were PKK supporters among them, they had their photos taken in front of a so-called PKK flag and they were also involved in the PKK’s fundraising activities – so the delegation’s findings are highly suspicious and not valid.

      The referendum on 16 April gave Turkey a chance to choose its constitutional route with fair and equitable campaigns, and now a new reform programme will begin that will lift all the barriers to Turkey’s democratic development. Within this framework it would make more sense to stop this biased approach and to support Turkey in its democratic development.

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

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Mr Eseyan just disqualified our election observation mission to Turkey. Later we will discuss the Monitoring Committee’s report on its visit to Turkey, but I ask the gentleman to take back what he said about the biased nature of our election observation mission, because it is an insult to all the delegates who participated in it and an insult to the Assembly.

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

      Mr KÜÇÜKCAN (Turkey) – Mr Eseyan referred to a number of politicians who were in the observation mission. They used their social media accounts and other avenues to campaign for the no campaign in the referendum in Turkey. They sided with the no campaign; if you side with the no campaign or the yes campaign as an election observer from outside, your objectivity is questioned. He has done the right thing, and there is some evidence and proof, which we are prepared to provide to the Council of Europe.

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – Our Turkish friends are going through difficult times. The attempted coup shook Turkey to the core. We were all shaken seeing the Turkish Parliament, a symbol of Turkish democracy, being attacked. However, months have passed, and it is high time that we in the Parliamentary Assembly, a friend and partner of the Turkish Parliament, discussed the developments.

      I commend our two rapporteurs – Ms Mikko and Ms Godskesen – for their navigation of rough waters. The situation in Turkey is complicated and unpredictable. Our rapporteurs have informed us that the functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey is deteriorating. Turkish democracy is being challenged. I applaud them on a thorough and comprehensive report.

      Less than 10 days ago the Turkish people cast their ballots. They voiced their opinion on proposed constitutional changes. The election monitors declared the playing field uneven. The Turkish people, by a narrow margin, preferred the choice favoured by the current government and the president. They said yes to taking power away from the parliament and making the president more powerful. The narrow margin is proof that the Turkish people are deeply divided.

      Ahead of the referendum, Turkey received advice from the Council of Europe, not least through the Venice Commission. Our experts on constitutional law were critical of the proposed changes. The Council of Europe has numerous monitoring mechanisms. Turkey benefits from advice from our Secretary General, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Venice Commission and others. Through those mechanisms, the Assembly and the Council of Europe do their utmost to assist Turkey in a difficult situation.

      Developments in Turkey are worrying. Turkey is an important member of the Council of Europe – one of our longest standing members – and the state of the rule of law in Turkey is deteriorating. Our convention system is there to safeguard democracy, human rights and the rule of law; it is there to safeguard the rights of individual citizens. The developments that we see in Turkey do not instil confidence. I would have wanted to see Turkey being more in line with the principles on which we have built our Organisation.

      Ms KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR (Turkey) – First, I thank the rapporteurs for preparing this important report with great enthusiasm. I suppose that they have taken on a tougher task than any of your monitoring rapporteurs. After all, declaring an opinion criticising the Turkish Government today means being targeted by the Turkish Government authorities and the initiation of a smear campaign against you. The same thing happened to many of our colleagues here today.

      Turkey has not been on the Assembly’s agenda since the day it became a member of the Council of Europe. For a long time, Turkey was trying to settle a western democracy, but for the last two years it has no longer been the country that we know. As a country, Turkey holds the largest numbers of journalists in prison. Moreover, the government, which holds all the media tools, is even trying to find ways to justify that.

      This all began with the choice to wage war to win elections and open the way to the presidency. The rulers chose war instead of peace because they lost elections on 7 June. After that day, the rulers ignored our 6 million votes and arrested our elected deputies. The policy of destroying the opposition, which until now has been repeatedly carried out through military coups, has been put into practice with the decree-laws under the state of emergency and is in civilian hands. In Turkey today, majority domination is imposed as democracy. In democracies, however, the judiciary cannot be taken over, the separation of powers cannot be ignored, freedom of expression cannot be abandoned, a free media cannot be destroyed, civil society cannot be conquered and democratic values cannot be touched.

      Moreover, it is not possible to claim that a majority in Turkey supports Erdoğan. As stated in the report of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the constitutional amendment found just 51% support in Turkey, even after a very unfair campaign process and a seriously controversial referendum. The fact that to date Europe has not fulfilled its responsibilities because of military and commercial concerns and refugee treaties is one factor that causes Turkish citizens to be exposed to more serious human rights violations and to feel alone.

      As stated in the report, the monitoring of developments in Turkey needs to be intensified and broadened in order to protect the rights of Turkish citizens against despotic governance and to ensure that military coups do not happen again in the country. Reopening the monitoring procedure is the only way for the Council of Europe to fulfil its duty to protect the future of our beloved country.

      Mr Vusal HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – For almost a year, issues concerning Turkey have been the subject of many tense discussions here. That started with the failed coup attempt, which we all condemned, and I hope that it will end with our discussions today. Of course, all our debates and discussions contribute to democracy and human rights in Turkey, but we should also consider the realities and challenges for Turkey, including the post-referendum agenda, and give Turkey some time to prove that it has not deviated from the principles to which it committed when it joined our Organisation.

      Turkey strives to ensure the safety and stability of its people – that is the task of every government – and we should bear in mind that it is doing so in the face of numerous challenges: the threat of terrorism, migration issues and war. Turkey has been a committed partner in our Organisation, and an important player in contributing to the security of Europe, so we should consider carefully our decisions and our approach.

      I was an observer of the recent referendum in Turkey, as part of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe mission, and I observed a calm voting day, in which there was the active participation of citizens. That was noted in our final report. Yes, there were dissenting opinions in the referendum, but democracy is respect for the will of the people. The people not only voted for the new form of governance, but indicated their support for the government, and for its policy on safety and security.

      I call on colleagues to support Turkey in our discussions. Any concern and dissent should, in our opinion, be addressed via co-operation and joint working, rather than through the language of pressure and aggression. I am afraid that this could damage our relations and result in loss of the trust that is so important if our work is to succeed. We should think about what we want to achieve, and whether we will achieve it, or whether we will damage our relationship by reopening the monitoring mechanism or taking any other decision aimed at putting pressure on Turkey. My point is that we should give Turkey time to cope with post-referendum challenges and legislative and institutional reforms, and should support it in that process. We act as a huge European family here, and I believe that we should treat Turkey as a family member. Finally, I call on colleagues to give their support to the amendments put forward by the Turkish delegates.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – Ladies and gentlemen, and honourable rapporteurs, today we are discussing important questions. Turkey is a co-founder of this Organisation. We should do our best to help Turkey and to understand what is going on in that country, which is very important to not only Europe, but the rest of the world. Turkey is ready to take into account all the critical recommendations in the report, which is very good; it is in readiness to be together with us. Just one item has created a lot of tension – the item referring to pulling Turkey back from post-monitoring and putting it into monitoring, which is unacceptable.

      Let us think about this. What is the difference between post-monitoring and monitoring? If that decision is taken, will there be not two rapporteurs, but three, four or five of them? No. Will there be more visits to Turkey than the rapporteurs can make now? No. So what is the difference between post-monitoring and monitoring? Instead of fighting for those words, we should change the monitoring procedure. To help Turkey, we should create an ad hoc group of members of parliament, who, together with our friends from Turkey, can learn how we can help Turkey, but it seems to me that instead of taking that route, we are going to punish Turkey. The leader of the Turkish delegation said that this item alone will cause our relationship with Turkey to deteriorate. It seems to me that those who are in favour of pulling Turkey back from post-monitoring and putting it into monitoring are in favour of isolating Turkey from Europe; this is their chance to create more obstacles for Turkey. That is why we should be a little bit wiser. We should understand that some circles, and some countries, would be happy to see those developments.

      We should withdraw this item, and I ask my friends to support Turkey, keep it in post-monitoring, and stand with it at this crucial, very difficult time, not only for Turkey, but for the Council of Europe.

      Mr WIECHEL (Sweden) – I read Ms Godskesen and Ms Mikko’s excellent report with great interest, and would like to make a few additional observations. First, we have been very well served by our sizeable ad hoc committee that observed the recent constitutional referendum in Turkey. It has been fair and objective in its verdict. That makes it all the more surprising that President Erdoğan recently stated that international election observers should “know their place”. That may be the way that a dictator in the making thinks, but it is not how members of this Assembly think. On the contrary, we believe that it is for country leaders to know their place, and to do everything in their power to help observers with their difficult task.

      That is only one aspect of the new climate of fear and intimidation now gripping Turkey, as is confirmed by the many Turks in exile to whom I have spoken recently. This is a worrying development in entirely the wrong direction. It is not even that new; for some considerable time, Turkey has been putting opposition politicians and journalists in jail, and has permitted attacks on, for instance, the headquarters and leaders of the HDP Kurdish party.

      Even countries neighbouring Turkey do not feel safe. Turkish armed forces recently intervened in Iraq, in spite of the protestations of Iraq’s democratically elected government. The same holds for Syria and, historically, Northern Cyprus. In a recent speech, President Erdoğan referred to Aleppo in Syria and Mosul in Iraq as Turkish cities, and said that once Mosul was freed from Daesh, only Sunni Muslims should be allowed to live there.

      Finally, the new constitution cleared the 16 April referendum by only the narrowest of margins. That raises a question about whether the major changes that the new constitution implies will prove politically possible and gain acceptance by the Turkish people at large. Meanwhile, we can only take comfort in the near majority who voted against, in the midst of a sea of intimidation and retaliatory measures.

      Mr Rafael HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Mustafa Kemal Pasha, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, who transformed the country into a modern European State, said these famous words: “The sorrow of Azerbaijan is our sorrow; the joy of Azerbaijan is our joy.” To make a little amendment to that aphorism of the great Atatürk so that it applies to the realities of modern Azerbaijan and Turkey, any positive or negative occurrence in Turkey has an effect and resonance on Azerbaijan to a certain degree. The two States are not simply neighbourly and brotherly countries; they are like Siamese twins – they are organically interconnected. It is not accidental that Heydar Aliyev, the founder of modern Azerbaijan, rightly called Azerbaijan and Turkey “one nation, two States”.

      Not only political figures, statesmen and parliamentarians but our whole nation pay close attention to the processes taking place in Turkey. We therefore feel sensitive about the current debates on Turkey in the same way as we usually do with debates about Azerbaijan. Those who are eager to criticise Turkey succeeded in getting this report on “The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey” on the agenda after trying several times, but why has no one here remembered the events of a few months ago? Why are we not having an urgent debate about a more urgent issue relating to Turkey? Before our eyes, terrorist attacks have been perpetrated one after another for months, but what effective measures has the Council of Europe taken to unite efforts to give real support to Turkey? Turkey has proved for many years that it is a democratic State, but the current extreme conditions put Turkey face to face with very different external and internal hostile forces, which play their own roles. Democracy is necessary, but can democratic institutions function normally in a country when the security of the State and the nation are not properly guaranteed? If certain steps, which can be perceived as severe from different viewpoints, are taken, no one is entitled to assess that as a restriction of democracy. Turkey is a country with great history, traditions, and a centuries-old practice of statehood. Let us think again before making any final judgment. Perhaps Turkey is right to take the steps that we have criticised.

      Mr TORNARE (Switzerland)* – Europe has spent centuries constructing the principles of co-existence to build democracy. The principles are unavoidable fundamentals, including what Jean-Jacques Rousseau said about the rights of individuals, the separation of powers promoted by Montesquieu, the belated empowerment of women, secularism, religion remaining outside politics, the universal abolition of the death penalty, the humanitarian law of Henry Dunant – one of my compatriots who created the Red Cross – the fights against discrimination, racism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia, and the condemnation of genocide. Those principles are intangible, universal, and immutable. As Ms Brasseur said earlier, they have underpinned our Organisation since 1949. They guarantee peace, security, and well-being, and Europe has benefited from them for decades. However, it has been stated here for several years that breaches of the fundamental principles have become commonplace, and reference has been made to Hungary, Poland, and other countries that are not respecting such things.

      It is because we love Turkey that we want its destiny to be different from repression. We have been seeing arrests for some time, but I will not dwell on that now as it was mentioned a few minutes ago. I want to talk about torture. I want Switzerland to make a formal petition to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment so that commissioners are sent to look more closely at the unconscionable torture that is related to the situation since the coup d’état. We must do everything possible to ensure that Turkey does not breach the principles that are so dear to our great Organisation.

(Sir Roger Gale, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Jordana.)

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Fournier, who will be the last speaker from the floor.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – Since the referendum of 16 April Turkey has had a new constitution that will apply significant institutional changes. The Turkish people have the right to choose Turkey’s constitution and how its public bodies are set up. There is no doubt that the change should enable the executive to take strong measures to guarantee safety and security in its territory in a difficult context that is characterised by terrorism and the failed coup d’état of July 2016. That said, Turkish institutions should also guarantee fundamental rights. That obligation is linked not only to the commitments that are part of the membership procedure of the European Union and the fact that Turkey is a important member of the Council of Europe, but to the Turkish constitution, which guarantees such rights for the Turkish people. It is therefore vital that Turkish democratic institutions guarantee fundamental rights.

      If we want that to happen, there must be proper separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary, and each power should countervail the others. Unfortunately, Turkey’s constitutional reform enshrines a principle of primacy for the President of the Republic without any real countervailing power. Indeed, the elections of the President of the Republic and the Grand National Assembly, connected with the possibility that the President will remain the head of his political party, mean that he has quite some authority over that assembly. Similarly, the President will appoint the majority of the members of the Constitutional Court of Turkey and the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors, strengthening his influence over the judicial authorities.

      The regime cannot be compared with those of the United States or France. Indeed, the powers of the American President to make nominations and to decide foreign policy are subject to approval by Congress, which is not the case in Turkey. In France, the Senate and the Constitutional Council are effective counterweights to the President. If the President does not have the support of the National Assembly, it will be impossible for him to choose which policies to carry out, but that will not be the case in Turkey.

      Despite those fears, I have not forgotten that a constitution is a written document that has to be accompanied by practice. I hope that the President of the Republic elected in 2019 will be a proper president. To protect rights and to respect their constitution, the Turkish people will need the Council of Europe. I will vote in favour of the proposed resolution to reopen the monitoring procedure not to punish Turkey but to show solidarity with a people who signed up to the values of the Council of Europe as early as 1950. We want to conserve their rights and their freedoms.

      The PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who were present during the debate but were not able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report. I remind colleagues that the texts are to be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted, which is now.

      I call Ms Godskesen and Ms Mikko, co-rapporteurs, to reply. You have five minutes.

      Ms GODSKESEN (Norway) – I thank everyone for their comments about our report. It is clear that we are all concerned about the situation in Turkey today and that we all want the best for the Turkish people. I also note that we are split on the question of moving Turkey back into monitoring, but both parties in that split still want the best for the Turkish people. The best thing to remember is that we all want what is best for the Turkish people.

      Ms MIKKO (Estonia) – I thank the Assembly for an excellent debate. It was a great honour and a privilege to sit here and hear members’ concerns about Turkey. As Mr Németh said, dialogue with Turkey has intensified, but the truth is that the dialogue we faced as co-rapporteurs in recent times was more like two monologues than an enhanced dialogue. Monitoring is not a punishment and should not be unfairly demonised. It provides us with an excellent opportunity to have a sincere and deep dialogue. People in Turkey are waiting for our message today, and our European message is that we care, we understand, and we support Turkey. That is why we are absolutely confident that monitoring gives both of us – the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Turkey – an excellent opportunity to get together to discuss and solve the problems as far as democracy, the rule of law and human rights are concerned.

      The European message to Turkey is simple: together we are stronger. We support Turkey as much as we can. Surely the Turkish people deserve democracy in all means. That is why we call on the Assembly to vote in favour of the monitoring process. In other words, as Ms Brasseur said, monitoring is not the solution per se, but it is a good instrument. Or, as Ms Durrieu said, the monitoring process is all about deep friendship. Let us remember that friendship.

      The PRESIDENT – Does the Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee, Mr Preda, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – I begin by thanking the rapporteurs for the tremendous and difficult work they have done. Turkey is experiencing many problems. It has had to deal with a coup d’état and it faces terrorist threats. I would like to restate our wholehearted support for the Turkish authorities in tackling these challenges, which imperil democracy. Turkey matters a great deal to our Assembly. That is why we have always insisted on a candid, constructive and indeed critical dialogue.

      I express our warmest thanks to all our colleagues in the Turkish delegation for their co-operation in our deliberations, their willingness to exchange views and, I hope, to share our approach, which seeks to extend our support to the process of democratisation of Turkey. Our Assembly is called upon today to take a major decision. Our message is clear: we wish to continue and bolster co-operation with Turkey. It is in that vein that I call on you to support the draft resolution tabled by the Monitoring Committee.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution to which 62 amendments and one oral sub-amendment have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the revised compendium, which was reissued this morning, 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 10 amendments to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, be declared as agreed by the Assembly. These are amendments 3, 56, 12, 17, 16, 58, 60, 47, 61 and 18.

      The committee also unanimously agreed amendments 7, 11, 1, 59 and 62. However, I must call these amendments individually as they have consequences for other amendments in the compendium.

      Does Mr Preda wish to propose that the 10 unanimously approved amendments be declared agreed?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 3, 56, 12, 17, 16, 58, 60, 47, 61 and 18 to the draft resolution have been agreed.

      We come to Amendment 19. I call Mr Eseyan to support the amendment.

      Mr ESEYAN (Turkey)* – Before the 15 July coup d’état attempt, this organisation had already been identified as a terrorist organisation. The members of the organisation had already been subject to court proceedings. We are not dealing with a movement, but with a terrorist organisation.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 19 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 4. I call Mr Villumsen to support the amendment.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – The amendment would strengthen the wording of the amendment. The state of emergency has been misused to oppress the opposition and jail journalists, parliamentarians and mayors. We therefore need to call for an end to the state of emergency immediately.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 20. I call Mr Eseyan to support the amendment.

      Mr ESEYAN (Turkey)* – The FETÖ terrorist organisation has penetrated the most important State organisations and they have made use in particular of the judiciary. They have kicked out people who did not support them. As a result, the democratically elected government and parliament have been attacked and there was an attempted coup d’état, so I support the amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 20 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 21. I call Mr Eseyan to support the amendment.

      Mr ESEYAN (Turkey)* – Countries that face the threat of terrorism need to ensure order and the safety of their citizens. With that in mind, it is important that we accept this amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 21 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – Amendment 5 is withdrawn. I call Mr Villumsen to support Amendment 6. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – Dear colleagues, the amendment is in line with the demand from the European Union and Council of Europe for there to be a revised version of Turkey’s anti-terror law so that it is more correct and in line with European standards. It is important that we stress the need for that in the report; clearly, that would strengthen the report.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Eseyan to support Amendment 22. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ESEYAN (Turkey)* – The PKK is active as a terrorist organisation not only in Turkey but in the whole of Europe, and I want to draw members’ attention to that. The organisation conducts illegal activities in Europe with resources amounting to about $2 billion. The amendment should be adopted to represent our joint will.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 22 is rejected.

      I call Mr Eseyan to support Amendment 23. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ESEYAN (Turkey)* – Turkey is combating a number of different terrorist organisations concurrently. It has been more successful than many countries in its fight against Daesh, for example. In its fight against terrorism and in dealing with migration, Turkey has shouldered a lot of the burden on its own. To support its accomplishment and incentivise Turkey, we should support the amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 23 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Eseyan to support Amendment 24. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ESEYAN (Turkey)* – The coup d’état in Turkey has been monitored by everyone, but the ongoing threat and the size and nature of the events have not been fully perceived. I have personal experience of the situation. Thanks to the decrees, we have been able successfully to fight the threat. I ask members to support the amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 24 is rejected.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey)* – The development of the east and south-east of Turkey is extremely important. We have established eight different investment centres in that part of Turkey, and we are incentivising investment. We are rewriting the development programme for that part of Turkey. Demolished buildings are now being reconstructed by the government. That change must be represented in the report.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 25 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – Amendment 7 was unanimously agreed by the committee, but it is being called now because if Amendment 25 had been agreed it would have fallen. I call Mr Villumsen to support the amendment.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – The amendment would strengthen the report by including the evidence put forward by both the United Nations and Council of Europe human rights commissioners. It is important that that clear evidence is included in the report.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is unanimously in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Dişli to support Amendment 26. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey)* – Turkey’s constitutional amendment was lawfully enacted. The changes were supported by the three main parties in parliament, and 376 members of parliament supported the change. As a result, the Constitutional Court issued its opinion that the change was in line with our constitution.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 26 is rejected.

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

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – The amendment would strengthen the report by including a reference to the resolutions and recommendations made by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe; it refers to one of this Organisation’s institutions, thereby strengthening the report.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against. Six were in favour, 12 voted against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 27. If it is agreed, Amendment 9 falls. I call Mr Dişli to support the amendment.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey)* – The mayors in question did not fulfil their duties as stated in the law on mayors. On the contrary, they used their municipal powers to serve a terrorist organisation. The legally stipulated powers were being abused by those mayors. We should stand against that. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should act in line with that principle.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 27 is rejected.

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

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – The amendment makes it clear that the pro-Kurdish party whose mayors have been jailed is the Democratic Regions Party. The amendment makes that fact, which is relevant, clear.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against. Six were in favour, nine voted against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 57. Ms Mikko is moving the amendment formally. The committee is in favour.

      We come to Amendment 28. If it is agreed, Amendments 10 and 11 will fall. I call Mr Dişli to support the amendment.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey)* – The independence of the judiciary is criticised in the report. There are also certain expressions that may constitute a criticism of the right to a fair trial, so please accept the amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 28 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 10. I call Mr Villumsen to support the amendment.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – The parliamentarians belonging to the HDP have not committed any crimes but they have been put in prison. They simply exercised their freedom of speech. They have not had a fair trial, so it is important to vote in favour of the amendment and to criticise the lack of a fair trial for those jailed parliamentarians.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 10 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 11, which was unanimously agreed by the committee but is being called now; if Amendment 28 had been agreed to, it would have fallen. I call Mr Villumsen to support Amendment 11.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – The amendment would make a simple change to improve the report. It would put the sentences in a better order. It is obvious that that would be the best thing to do.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 29. I call Mr Dişli to support the amendment.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey)* –. The immunities of the MPs have been lifted by the three parties in the parliament in compliance with the law.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 29 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 30. I call Mr Dişli to support the amendment.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey)* – In Turkey, we have a situation that is described as a purge. That is not correct. What has happened in Turkey is that some public officers have been removed from office for being loyal to FETÖ, a terrorist organisation, instead of the Turkish State. I would like the expression that is used in the report to be changed.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 30 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 31. I call Ms Yaşar to support the amendment.

      Mr YAŞAR (Turkey)* – Independent Turkish courts have defined FETÖ as a terrorist organisation owing to the crimes it has committed. That organisation has also attempted a coup in Turkey. It would be wrong to call it a movement.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 31 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 32. I call Ms Yaşar to support the amendment.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – FETÖ was never an ally of the ruling party. Certain people voted for the ruling party but still supported this organisation. That does not prove an alliance. FETÖ organised itself in government and pretended to be legal.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 32 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 33. I call Ms Yaşar to support the amendment.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – The civil servants who were removed from office may still take advantage of their social security rights. Only exceptionally are anyone’s assets confiscated – only if those assets were earned through terrorist activities are they confiscated.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 33 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 12. I call Mr Villumsen to support the amendment.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – It would indeed have been a good thing had a commission of inquiry into the state of the emergency been set up by the Turkish Government, as promised to our Assembly in the January part-session this year, but that did not happen. It is therefore important for it to be stated in the report that no inquiry has yet taken place, which is a problem.

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

      I call Mr Uysal.

      Mr UYSAL (Turkey)* – We are working on forming that commission of inquiry. We have almost reached the final stages. You must appreciate that it takes time to form such an important commission, with the support of the necessary logistics and staff. It will start work very soon.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee has already indicated that it is in favour of the amendment.

      The vote is open.

      We now come to Amendment 34. If it is agreed to, Amendment 13 falls.

      I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 34.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – Paragraph 19 of the report contains some arguments that are not based on solid ground. There has been a coup attempt in Turkey, and Turkey prevented it successfully and protected its democracy. Later, Turkey also had to declare a state of emergency to fight the terrorism of Daesh and FETÖ.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 34 is rejected.

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

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – Academics are being put in prison, oppressed and scared into silence, so it is important to include them, in accordance with the amendment. I hope that you will vote in favour of it.

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

      The committee has already indicated that it is in favour of the amendment.

      The vote is open.

      We now come to Amendment 35. If it is agreed to, Amendment 14 falls.

      I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 35.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – The state of emergency was declared in order to fight against the threat posed by a terrorist organisation. The threat faced by Turkey is greater than in many other countries that have already taken similar measures. As soon as the threat is eliminated, we will lift the state of emergency. Having this statement in the report might harm Turkey’s fight against terrorism.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a substantial majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 35 is rejected.

      I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 36.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – Many people were subject to certain procedures under the decree laws, but all those procedures were applied diligently.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 36 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 37. I call Mr Önal to support the amendment.

      Mr ÖNAL (Turkey)* – On 23 January, a decree in law was adopted that re-regulated access to lawyers and pre-trial detention. Access to a lawyer is subject to rules that applied before the state of emergency.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 37 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 38. I call Mr Önal to support the amendment.

      Mr ÖNAL (Turkey)* – In 2016, a law was adopted the main objective of which was an effective fight against terrorism, but it is based on fundamental rights and freedoms, which were not impeded. Security was simply made stronger.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 38 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 39. I call Mr Önal to support the amendment.

      Mr ÖNAL (Turkey)* – In Turkey, all expressions can be made freely, and journalists can express their opinions regardless of how opposed their judgments are.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 39 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 40. I call Mr Önal to support the amendment.

      Mr ÖNAL (Turkey)* – Our anti-terror law is currently based on the philosophy of freedoms, and human rights defenders are not criminalised. The report mentions the Turkish penal code, which was amended during the alignment process to make it more democratic.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 40 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 1. If Amendment 1, which was unanimously agreed to by the committee, is agreed to, Amendments 41 and 15 will fall. I call Ms Finckh-Krämer to support the amendment.

      Ms FINCKH-KRÄMER (Germany)* – We simply want to harmonise paragraph 26.1 with paragraph 34.4, in which the same qualification is not made.

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

      The committee has already indicated that it is in favour of the amendment.

      The vote is open.

      Amendments 41 and 15 therefore fall.

      We come to Amendment 42. I call Mr Önal to support the amendment.

      Mr ÖNAL (Turkey)* – The independence and impartiality of the judiciary form the basis of our legal system, so the paragraph questioning the conduct of our judges constitutes interference with the independence of our judiciary. It is unacceptable for any report of the Parliamentary Assembly to intervene in the independence of the judiciary.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 42 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 43. I call Ms Günay to support the amendment.

      Ms GÜNAY (Turkey) – Turkey is making the necessary efforts to increase the compliance of its anti-terror law with the European Convention on Human Rights. Claiming that the anti-terror law does not comply with the Convention does an injustice to the reforms carried out in the past decade.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 43 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 44. If Amendment 44 is agreed to, Amendments 59 and 2 will fall. I call Ms Günay to support the amendment.

      Ms GÜNAY (Turkey) – The constitutional revision does not reduce the supervisory role of the parliament. On the contrary, it strengthens its role, ensuring a strict separation of powers. The Grand National Assembly of Turkey will exercise its supervisory power by means of parliamentary inquiries, general debates, parliamentary investigations and written questions, which will be answered in 15 days. If the clichéd analysis about a one-man regime is set aside, we will notice those details.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 44 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 59. This amendment was unanimously agreed by the committee but is being called now because, if Amendment 44 had been agreed to, it would have fallen. If Amendment 59 is agreed to, Amendment 2 falls.

      I call Ms Mikko to support Amendment 59 on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

      Ms MIKKO (Estonia) – It is nothing more than an information update after the holding of the referendum. It states: “The Assembly takes note of the adoption of a package of 18 constitutional amendments by the parliament on 21 January 2017 and by 51.4% of the voters during the constitutional referendum on 16 April 2017, which will result in a profound change and a shift from a parliamentary to a presidential system, granting the President of the Republic extensive powers while drastically reducing the supervisory role of the parliament. The Assembly emphasises that it is the sole right of the Turkish citizens to decide on the democratic political system they wish to have, provided that sufficient information is given to the voters and that enough time is left for public debate.”

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 therefore falls.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 45. I call Ms Günay to support the amendment.

      Ms GÜNAY (Turkey) – Parliamentary debates were broadcast on the Turkish Parliament website. Furthermore, the proposed constitution of the region was open to public consultation via debates in the Turkish Parliament. Therefore, the phrases in question should be deleted, since they do not correspond to the facts.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 45 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 46. I call Ms Günay to support the amendment.

      Ms GÜNAY (Turkey) – The referendum is Turkey was conducted under the most transparent and democratic conditions. All political parties and groups were able freely to express all their views in the election. The President of the Republic visited the public propaganda headquarters of the No voters. The Turkish authorities took all due measures to ensure the right to vote freely.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 46 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 48. I call Ms Günay to support the amendment.

      Ms GÜNAY (Turkey) – Significant changes are made in the judiciary field with this constitutional change. A strong emphasis is placed on the impartiality of the judiciary by adding the expression “impartiality” to the judiciary “independence” principle. Furthermore, the martial law procedure, in which the military initiative is strong, is completely abolished. This should be included in the report.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 48 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 49. I call Mr Gülpinar to support the amendment.

      Mr GÜLPINAR (Turkey)* – In Turkey we now have a strong presidential system alongside the parliamentary system. However, this new system will create a problem, in that a decree that was adopted by the parliament would be rendered null and void by the parliament within three months.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 49 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 50. I call Mr Gülpinar to support the amendment.

      Mr GÜLPINAR (Turkey)* – There are some clichéd claims about the new system. In fact, it makes the Parliament and the National Assembly even stronger. Now, the National Assembly will be able to appoint seven new members to various boards. The president will no longer be able to propose draft laws; only the parliamentarians will do so.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 50 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 51. If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 55 falls.

      I call Mr Gülpinar to support Amendment 51.

      Mr GÜLPINAR (Turkey)* – For the past four years we have had a monitoring process in Turkey, yet there is no dialogue report. Now, it sounds as if the parties involved are sad about the fact that the coup failed, and there seems to be a reaction against the referendum’s Yes result. These approaches seem to disregard the Turkish psychology. It is a political decision to put Turkey under monitoring.

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

      I call Mr Schennach to speak against the amendment.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – This is the key question of the whole debate and in all the meetings of the Monitoring Committee. We are against the crackdown on the rule of law, on freedom of the press and on human rights, and we decided that it is necessary and time to reopen monitoring.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 51 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 55. I call Mr Dişli to support the amendment.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – The goal of this Assembly is, and always should be, to prioritise constructive dialogue and co-operation between member States. The Assembly has already declared what it expects from Turkey. If we are to work on these issues, we must give Turkey some time after the attempted coup. Please keep it in mind that reopening the monitoring process will create very negative perceptions in Turkey.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Last autumn we decided to produce this report, which our rapporteurs have now presented, so we decided to do it in 2017 – we postponed the decision to 2017. Now it is proposed that we postpone it again. I remind members that Turkey has been in post-monitoring for more than a decade, and everything is now worse. Please say no.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against the amendment, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 55 is rejected.

      We come to Amendments 52 and 62, which are identical. Amendment 62 was unanimously agreed to by the committee, but it is being called now because it is identical to Amendment 52. I call one of the rapporteurs to support Amendment 62 on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

      Mr PREDA (Romania)* – For Amendment 62 there was unanimity.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      Amendments 52 and 62 are adopted.

      We come to Amendment 53. I call Mr Gülpinar to support the amendment.

      Mr GÜLPINAR (Turkey)* – The amendment is along the same lines as Amendment 34. We must state that, for political reasons, the dialogue report has not yet been prepared. They are trying to put Turkey into a monitoring process, and the rapporteurs have not written a report for four years, and now they are expecting an additional report. That is a dilemma in itself.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

       Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is against the amendment, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 53 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 54, tabled by Mr Mehmet Kasım Gülpinar, Mr Şaban Dişli, Mr Markar Eseyan, Mr Suat Önal, Ms Emine Nur Günay, Ms Serap Yaşar and Mr Burhanettin UYSAL, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 35, insert the following paragraph:

      “In the aftermath of the failed coup attempt, the Assembly concludes that Turkey has been transparent in all its actions and in its dialogue with the Council of Europe mechanisms. The Assembly welcomes that as a result of this constructive approach from both sides to this dialogue, high level political contacts and technical co-operation between Turkey and the Council of Europe have intensified.”I

      I call Mr Gülpinar to support the amendment.

      Mr GÜLPINAR (Turkey)* – After the attempted coup, the Council of Europe and Turkey had top-level talks, politically and technically. In order to emphasise this dialogue, we request that this sentence be added to the draft resolution. Turkey puts a lot of emphasis on the values of the Council of Europe. In fact, it has passed decrees in line with those values.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that one of the co-rapporteurs wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, which reads as follows: “In amendment 54 to delete the second paragraph and insert the following new paragraph:

      ‘In the aftermath of the failed coup attempt the Assembly welcomes that high level political contacts and technical co-operation between Turkey and the Council of Europe have intensified.’”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 call one of the co-rapporteurs to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms MIKKO (Estonia) – We propose making the amendment better than it is currently. It is the last amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 54 on the oral sub-amendment?

      Mr GÜLPINAR (Turkey)* – I have already stated my opinion. We request that it be accepted.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 54, as amended? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the committee?

       Mr PREDA (Romania)* – The committee is in favour, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14282, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

3. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday morning. There is, of course, a hearing that will take place in the Chamber at 1 p.m.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 12.50 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Changes in the membership of committees

2. The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey

Presentation by Ms Godskesen and Ms Mikko of the report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe, Document 14282 and addendum.

Speakers: Mr Evans, Mr Poliačik, Mr Villumsen, Mr Németh, Mr Schennach, Ms Duranton, Mr Rouquet, Mr Dişli, Mr Schwabe, Lord Balfe, Ms Brasseur, Ms Schneider-Schneiter, Lord Anderson, Ms Maury Pasquier, Mr Küçükcan, Ms Durrieu, Mr Eseyan, Ms Schou, Ms Kerestecioğlu Demir, Mr Vusal Huseynov, Mr Seyidov, Mr Wiechel, Mr Rafael Huseynov, Mr Tornare, Mr Fournier.

Draft resolution in Document 14282, as amended, adopted.

3. 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]

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

BAKRADZE, David [Mr]

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

BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]

BARTOS, Mónika [Ms] (CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme])

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]

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

BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr]

BERGAMINI, Deborah [Ms]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]

BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BLANCHART, Philippe [M.]

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

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BONNICI, Charlò [Mr] (FENECH ADAMI, Joseph [Mr])

BONNICI, Charlò [Mr] (FENECH ADAMI, Joseph [Mr])

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]

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]

CROZON, Pascale [Mme] (ALLAIN, Brigitte [Mme])

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

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

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

DEBONO GRECH, Joseph [Mr]

DEBONO GRECH, Joseph [Mr]

DESTEXHE, Alain [M.]

DI STEFANO, Manlio [Mr]

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]

FABRITIUS, Bernd [Mr] (HENNRICH, Michael [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])

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

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]

FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GALE, Roger [Sir]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GARCÍA ALBIOL, Xavier [Mr]

GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ, José Ramón [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])

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr]

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]

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

GOSSELIN-FLEURY, Geneviève [Mme] (KARAMANLI, Marietta [Mme])

GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme]

GROTH, Annette [Ms] (AMTSBERG, Luise [Ms])

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

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]

GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]

GYÖNGYÖSI, Márton [Mr]

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

HARANGOZÓ, Gábor [Mr] (MESTERHÁZY, Attila [Mr])

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HOFFMANN, Rózsa [Mme] (CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr])

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

HONKONEN, Petri [Mr] (ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [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]

JOHNSSON FORNARVE, Lotta [Ms] (KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr])

JOVANOVIĆ, Jovan [Mr]

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KANDEMİR, Erkan [Mr]

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

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

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

KOÇ, Haluk [M.]

KÖCK, Eduard [Mr] (AMON, Werner [Mr])

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]

KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr]

KÜÇÜKCAN, Talip [Mr]

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]

KVATCHANTIRADZE, Zviad [Mr]

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

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

LE BORGN', Pierre-Yves [M.]

LE DÉAUT, Jean-Yves [M.]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

MADISON, Jaak [Mr] (NOVIKOV, Andrei [Mr])

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] (KASIMATI, Nina [Ms])

MEALE, Alan [Sir]

MEIMARAKIS, Evangelos [Mr]

MESIĆ, Jasen [Mr]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

MULDER, Anne [Mr] (MILTENBURG, Anouchka van [Ms])

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

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

NEGUTA, Andrei [M.]

NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr]

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]

OBRADOVIĆ, Žarko [Mr]

OMTZIGT, Pieter [Mr] (OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms])

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

O'REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

ORELLANA, Luis Alberto [Mr] (SANTERINI, Milena [Mme])

PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr]

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

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms]

PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.]

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

PETZOLD, Harald [Mr] (BARNETT, Doris [Ms])

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]

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

PRESCOTT, John [Mr]

PRITCHARD, Mark [Mr]

PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms]

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

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme] (JORDANA, Carles [M.])

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

RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Soraya [Mme]

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

ROUQUET, René [M.]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.] (ZOURABIAN, Levon [Mr])

SANDBÆK, Ulla [Ms] (BORK, Tilde [Ms])

SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [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]

SPADONI, Maria Edera [Ms] (CATALFO, Nunzia [Ms])

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

STRIK, Tineke [Ms] (MAIJ, Marit [Ms])

STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]

TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr]

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

TORNARE, Manuel [M.] (MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr])

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

TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr]

TUȘA, Adriana Diana [Ms]

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

VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms]

VALEN, Snorre Serigstad [Mr]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr] (TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.])

VEJKEY, Imre [Mr]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

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

VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.]

VILLUMSEN, Nikolaj [Mr]

VIROLAINEN, Anne-Mari [Ms]

VOGEL, Volkmar [Mr] (WELLMANN, Karl-Georg [Mr])

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

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WERNER, Katrin [Ms]

WIECHEL, Markus [Mr] (NISSINEN, Johan [Mr])

WILK, Jacek [Mr]

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

WURM, Gisela [Ms]

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

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

ZELIENKOVÁ, Kristýna [Ms]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

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]

BESELIA, Eka [Ms]

BÎZGAN-GAYRAL, Oana-Mioara [Ms]

BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms]

CORREIA, Telmo [M.]

FRANKOVIĆ, Mato [Mr]

GERMANN, Hannes [Mr]

GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms]

HIGGINS, Alice-Mary [Ms]

JANIK, Grzegorz [Mr]

JORDANA, Carles [M.]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr]

KIRAL, Serhii [Mr]

LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.]

LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]

LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms]

MAGAZINOVIĆ, Saša [Mr]

MERGEN, Martine [Mme]

MERGEN, Martine [Mme]

MIKADZE, Gela [Mr]

OBREMSKI, Jarosław [Mr]

OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]

OSUCH, Jacek [Mr]

OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr]

POPA, Ion [M.]

SEGER, Daniel [Mr]

TSKITISHVILI, Dimitri [Mr]

VOGT, Günter [Mr]

Observers / Observateurs

DAVIES, Don [Mr]

DOWNE, Percy [Mr]

ELALOUF, Elie [M.]

LARIOS CÓRDOVA, Héctor [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

ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]

AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]

ERGESHOV, Almazbek [Mr]

IUSUROV, Abdumazhit [Mr]

KHADER, Qais [Mr]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]

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

the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque

(Conformément à la Résolution 1376 (2004) de l’Assemblée parlementaire)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

Erdal ÖZCENK