AA17CR21

AS (2017) CR 21

2017 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-first sitting

Tuesday 27 June 2017 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

3.        The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website.

      Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.

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

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

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

(Sir Roger Gale, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.10 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Recognition and implementation of the principle of accountability in the Parliamentary Assembly

      The PRESIDENT – The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report “Recognition and implementation of the principle of accountability in the Parliamentary Assembly”, Document 14338, presented by Ms Liliane Maury Pasquier on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs.

      In order to finish by 12 p.m., we must interrupt the list of speakers at around 11.30 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the votes on amendments. I remind the Assembly that in Monday morning’s sitting it was agreed that speaking time in all debates today be limited to three minutes and ask colleagues to observe that limit rigidly because we have a long list of speakers and very little time.

      I call Ms Liliane Maury Pasquier, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – Today is a crucial moment in the history of our Parliamentary Assembly. Its credibility has never been as shaken as it is today, its reputation has never been as tarnished and its image has never been as besmirched. Our Assembly requires integrity, transparency and responsibility. It requires that supremacy be given to the public interest, and it requires confidence and accountability. That is what underpins the contract that exists in any society between the citizenry and the elected representatives. It is those demands that the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs seeks to remind us of in its unanimously adopted report. The duty to be transparent and accountable can be complied with only when the Assembly has true confidence in its elected members. That is a sine qua non for our existence. To represent an institution means to respect it, and to behave with integrity and honesty from the beginning to the end. Indeed, that is required for the holder of any elected office.

      The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs did not take up this issue itself; it was required to do so by the Bureau. The report was produced in an unprecedented context for the Assembly, and that should not be minimised or hidden. The President of the Assembly, the president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the president of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights visited Syria on 20 and 21 March 2017, under the aegis of Russian parliamentarians. That provoked a response from political groups, national delegations and members of the Assembly that was unprecedented in our history.

      This matter has not only highlighted the fact that holders of major elected offices must be required to abide by their responsibilities, but made it clear that the rules of the Assembly do not currently include any procedure that makes it possible to ensure that those responsibilities are acted upon. Can the Assembly stand idly by while this takes place? Is it not time for us to ensure that our rules evolve and are adapted to reflect the true needs of parliamentary democracy? It is undeniable that in a growing number of national parliaments the dismissal of the president, and in some cases vice-presidents, is recognised as being part of the executive’s true institutional responsibility. The same must be the case for our Assembly. Such institutional responsibility does have a political dimension, but in no way does it relate to criminal liability; it is not impeachment, and the two things must not be mixed up. We are talking about institutional responsibility when the confidence that we should have in our elected leader has been broken, which is why we propose a simple, transparent procedure that will allow us to ensure that responsibility and accountability are the hallmarks of our relationship with elected officials, and that when the contract of trust and confidence is broken, something can be done about it.

      In the draft report, we detail two procedures, one relating to the dismissal of a President or Vice-President of the Assembly, and the other relating to the chairpersons or vice-chairpersons of committees. We are talking about two processes: first, the normal process, following the Rules of Procedure, to look at any proposal for dismissal and consider whether it is appropriate; and secondly, a direct dismissal procedure that would involve a vote in the Assembly. Such an initiative would have to be approved by a large majority – there would have to be an appropriate number of signatures. In the report we go into some detail about how such a vote would be held and the consequences of dismissal. We have sought to provide appropriate safeguards alongside the dismissal procedure, because we recognise that such action would have to be exceptional, and remain so. It should not be something that could be invoked on a whim. We need to ensure that there could be no abuse of such a procedure, and that action could not be taken repeatedly against a single person. For that reason, for a decision of such importance, we felt that we had to be totally transparent and hold a public vote.

      Some members have indicated that they are committed to a secret ballot, and talk about parallel procedures. A secret ballot is of course the procedure for electing an official, so it would appear logical that the same procedure should be used to dismiss the President of the Assembly. However, if we are talking about someone who was elected by acclamation, the same kind of fully transparent procedure should apply to their dismissal. We must uphold the principle of accountability in the Assembly and seek to ensure that it is upheld in a way that is fair, transparent and impartial. Our committee includes equitable representation of all the political groups in the Assembly, and that is our conclusion.

      It is important for us to justify what we propose and to refute any opposing legal arguments. It has been suggested that it would not be possible for us to adopt any report that did not take due account of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the standards promulgated by the Venice Commission. I invite those who have made such claims to read our report carefully and recognise that it is the result of painstaking, legally rigorous work, and that it has been undertaken with full respect for the Council of Europe standards that we seek to promote throughout our member States.

      The Parliamentary Assembly has sovereign and exclusive competence to determine its Rules of Procedure and internal functioning. The Assembly is entirely free to modify its Rules of Procedure and to introduce new procedure as it sees fit. Our statutes, particularly Article 28, make it clear that the Assembly is entirely competent to determine its own procedures for the election of the President and the length of their term of office, and the same applies for other members of the Bureau. The Rules of Procedure cover the beginning and end of a term of office, and how a mandate begins and ends. The draft resolution sets out new provisions to be included in the Rules of Procedure, and they recognise the way we adopt procedures in our own countries and here. We all know what the non-retroactivity of a law means and does not mean. If we look carefully at the draft resolution, we can see that it is not retroactive in any way; it simply proposes that we introduce into our Rules of Procedure a new measure that Assembly members would be free to implement or not. It does not in itself call for the immediate removal of anyone from any office.

      The modification of the Rules of Procedure as foreseen is not intended to influence any procedure that is currently under way – no procedure for dismissal is under way that the new procedure can modify. Retroactivity does not apply in this situation because a new legal standard cannot attach a future effect to a past situation. The new provisions are intended to establish a procedure that can be applied in future to holders of elected office.

      I am surprised that those who oppose the report have not considered it appropriate to refer to the position of the European Court of Human Rights, which is totally clear that, for the principle of non-retroactivity to be applied to a handed-down measure, it must be considered in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention as a sanction, that is to say that there can be no sanction without legislation. The Court deemed that, if such a measure is not handed down following a sentence, it is not considered a criminal sanction or repressive. In other words, unless there is an impeachment procedure, it would not be seen as a sanction in accordance with Article 7. For that reason, the principle of retroactivity does not apply. The same applies to dismissing someone from a parliamentary mandate and saying that they are no longer eligible following the dissolution of a political party. That is clear from relevant judgments from the Court.

      Clearly, the principle of non-retroactivity should not be considered in respect of legal security. The Court and the Venice Commission have said clearly what the principle does and does not mean. As our committee sees it, we need to read this situation carefully and in a legally rigorous way. We are referring to a principle that underpins an exceptional procedure, and one that is in some ways very solemn for our Assembly. The report is important in terms of enhancing the moral authority of the Parliamentary Assembly. I therefore call on you to support it unreservedly.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you Ms Maury Pasquier. You have two minutes remaining. We now come to the spokesmen for the political groups. I call Ms Gillan.

      Ms GILLAN (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – My group welcomes the draft resolution and congratulates Ms Maury Pasquier on her work, which is of great value to the Assembly.

      Our membership of the Council of Europe should be a source of great pride for all 47 member States. The Council of Europe should shine like a beacon for democracy, the rule of law and human rights. As a human rights watchdog, the Assembly should be a role model for the global community. Our administration and the behaviour of members and leaders should reflect the highest standards in public life. When leaders fall short of those standards, it must be possible to hold them to account and, with due process, to remove them from office. If we do not have an effective power to dismiss a President or other leaders, the credibility of the Organisation is undermined and diminished, not only in the eyes of the Assembly, but in the eyes of the world.

      These recent regrettable episodes have exposed weaknesses in our governance. However, the resolution and the potential rule change, coupled with the independent investigation under Sir Nicholas Bratza, gives us the mechanisms to restore that governance. The ECG supports the resolution and the strengthening of the rules, but we should consider where we go from here and how we protect the Assembly’s reputation in future. Unethical conduct should concern us all. In the UK, following the cash-for-questions scandal, Prime Minister John Major set up a Committee on Standards in Public Life, which embraced seven principles – selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership – that apply to anyone who works as a public office holder. We should consider establishing our own organisation, such as we have in the UK, to monitor and report on the standards of conduct of our own public office holders. We should also consider the possibility of registering members’ interests, a code of conduct, and a mechanism for investigating complaints.

      Leaders in the Assembly should always avoid placing themselves under any obligations to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence their work here. Decisions should not be taken in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family or friends. Any interests or relationships should be pre-declared, and all decisions should be transparent and subject to open votes. Time is short. We need to implement remedies swiftly, and establish an independent mechanism to review compliance constantly and guard against this situation ever happening again.

      The Assembly is a fantastic multinational organisation that is a bulwark against evils that affect society. It relies on co-operation in good faith, but if it cannot sanction or implement decisions about its own representatives and demonstrate accountability, the basis of the relationships we have formed and of the whole Organisation is adversely affected. We have truly hit a reputational low point. Let us now act decisively to put our house in order, or we will forfeit the right to our existence.

      Mr HEER (Switzerland, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – My group welcomes the report by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs and thanks Ms Maury Pasquier for her presentation.

      We all know the reasons for the report. Praxis has shown that we must complement our regulatory framework by creating a procedure to bring into play the institutional accountability of holders of elected office. ALDE fully supports that in general. The Council of Europe cannot get into this situation a second time – a President cannot stick to his job even after all the groups have said that he is not trustworthy. It is sad enough that the Council of Europe has to take measures, and that the main topic of the Assembly’s work in the past months has been not human rights, the rule of law or democracy, but internal affairs, corruption and impeachment rules. ALDE hopes that, with the adoption of the resolution, the Council of Europe can get back to our work for the European people.

      We support the resolution, but there are two different opinions on retroactivity and on secret votes. There are good reasons for both opinions on the voting procedure and we will discuss it later. On retroactivity, one opinion in the group is that there is a lack of trust with the current presidency, which no one denies, and therefore that impeachment is necessary to get the credibility of the Council of Europe back. After all, the current President has been fooling us and playing for time to remain in office. Another opinion is that the resolution is retroactive – if a motion is put forward this week to remove Agramunt, it might become retroactive. Of course, that part of the group is of the clear opinion that Agramunt should step down. The political decision by all parties at the Bureau was unfortunately not followed by Mr Agramunt. The question now is whether it is legally correct to remove him by changing the code of conduct. Everybody in the group is of the opinion that Mr Agramunt is no longer fit to be President.

      Finally, let me make a personal remark to all of those making express regulations to kick Mr Agramunt out of his office. If you put in a motion to remove him, you should be 100% sure that you will get the necessary majority. If the majority is not obtained, the Council of Europe will make a fool of itself. Instead of strengthening our institution, we will run into an even deeper crisis. That is another aspect of putting in force the resolution. It is needed, but not acting on Agramunt avoids the question of retroactivity and the risk of losing the vote. That is not to protect Agramunt, but to protect our institution.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands, Spokesperson Group of the Unified European Left) – I thank the rapporteur for her work. By thanking her, I also thank the staff behind her.

      This Assembly instructed the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs to draft a report on the recognition and implementation of the principle of accountability. The resolution that follows the Assembly’s instruction proposes changes in our Rules of Procedure that create the possibility of dismissing holders of elected offices within the Assembly if they no longer enjoy its confidence. Up to now, the Assembly has not had that power. We all know that the question of accountability of holders of elected office became an urgent matter after it had become clear that a conflict had arisen between the Assembly and its President. After all the political groups, many national delegations and many members of the Assembly stated that they could no longer have confidence in our President, it became clear that due to our Rules of Procedure, the Assembly could not follow up the declaration of no confidence.

      In the rules, after a declaration of no confidence, only the President himself can decide that he will leave office. In the past months, that situation has been very unproductive. We have a President who cannot act appropriately because he has not been allowed to represent us in the time between the past two part-sessions and we have an Assembly that lacks a functioning President. We very much need a President who can represent us throughout the year, so we have to overcome this situation.

      My group believes that the resolution will indeed create a mechanism for dismissing the President, the Vice-President, committee chairs and vice-chairs when there is a clear lack of confidence. That is a step forward, and my group therefore approves the improvement to our Rules of Procedure. From the moment of adoption, the resolution gives the Assembly the necessary means by which to find a way out in cases of conflict and lack of confidence. According to my group, it at the same time gives enough guarantees to avoid misuse of the new power the Assembly would give itself. Even if, after listening to us all, our President had the wisdom to step down – which I would very much appreciate – the need is still there to improve our rules to avoid this kind of conflict.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – We are talking today about a change to the rules, based on a current event – in fact, an event that is somewhat behind us now – namely, our President, Mr Pedro Agramunt, travelling to Syria, which the rapporteur mentioned. It has quite rightly triggered a lot of debate. I do not want to delve any deeper into that matter, but all the political groups, including the President’s own, have clearly stated that they no longer have confidence in him. That happened at the part-session in April. We discussed it in the Bureau, and then in this part-session on Monday we had a secret ballot and a majority of the group declared that it did not have confidence in the President and that he should therefore step down. That is why we are today talking about a change to the rules.

The rules can, of course, be amended at any point in time if there is reason enough to do so. In fact, my colleague, Mr Kox, mentioned that if Mr Agramunt were to step down, we would nevertheless have to talk about the issue. The debate, both here and in committee, has demonstrated that a lot of what is being discussed has to do with the current case. In the EPP, we spent all yesterday afternoon in our group meeting discussing the issue, and there was a great divergence of opinion within the group. Some colleagues thought that the report could be adopted as it stood; others argued that we should reject it altogether because it took us in the wrong direction. Then there were other colleagues who said, “If certain amendments could be approved by the Assembly the report could be deemed acceptable and we could make the necessary change to the rules.”

Earlier, it was rightly said that our role as an Assembly is to discuss the matter and make a majority decision. Certain questions were raised in our political group, and I would like to share them with you. For instance, the two-thirds majority was not particularly an issue for us. It is in the report and it was accepted by the group – it was not discussed much. However, we had a debate on whether we should have a secret ballot. Some were of the opinion that if according to the rules a President is elected by secret ballot, he should also be dismissed by one, but others argued the opposite. It is up to us to decide that, as an Assembly. Another issue was to whom the change would apply. For instance, should Vice-Presidents, who are proposed by their national delegations, also be covered? Another question raised was whether this should apply to everyone elected by the Assembly, including the Secretary General and the Commissioner for Human Rights.

Finally, I want to make a point about retroactivity. Today we will make a decision on important matters and we need, therefore, to think very carefully about what the ramifications of change might be. I am sure that wisdom will prevail among colleagues here in the Assembly and that at the end of the day we will have a good report and a good result.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – The accountability of elected leaders is an essential part of democratic standards and, somewhat surprisingly, our Assembly’s Rules of Procedure have so far lacked the corresponding provisions. That is a serious gap in the regulatory framework that governs the Assembly’s work. A lack of accountability inevitably leads to impunity. Even in extremely rare and exceptional cases, that is not acceptable in an organisation that aspires to promote democracy.

The founding fathers of the Council of Europe seem to have presumed that members of the Assembly who were elected to its top positions would be the most dedicated defenders of the principles and values of the Organisation. Even in a nightmare, they could not have imagined that those very people, by their actions, might undermine the values, but we have recently discovered that, unfortunately, times have changed and nowadays that is possible. That is why the gap I mentioned must be filled as soon as possible.

It is of the utmost importance to ensure that the mechanisms proposed for the dismissal of elected Presidents, Vice-Presidents and committee chairs cannot be misused for political or personal goals. The report proposes strong safeguards against such abuse. The suggested procedure is not easy to implement – it looks heavy and cumbersome – but I believe it is justified, given the seriousness and exceptionality of the issue. The use of open rather than secret ballots is another safeguard. The secret ballot is a long-established parliamentary tradition, aimed at protecting the right of elected representatives to take decisions freely and without external pressure. However, parliamentary practice is very diverse nowadays. Open ballots are increasingly used, in particular in the Nordic and Baltic States. When sensitive decisions are being taken, transparency is needed. Moreover, this is also a matter of accountability. Every member who votes for or against the dismissal of an elected leader must be able to explain and justify his or her vote, without hiding behind secrecy.

The issue of possible retroactivity has been most vividly discussed. Indeed, it is somewhat controversial. It is true that as a general principle the rules of the game should not be changed during the game, but I cannot agree with Mr Fischer. The European Convention on Human Rights clearly prohibits the retroactive application of newly adopted provisions only in criminal proceedings, and that is certainly not the case here. In other areas, it might be acceptable under certain circumstances. Both the case law of the Court and numerous legal expert opinions that have emerged in the context of the discussion of the report confirm that position. Therefore, to cut a long story short, immediate entry into force and the possible application of the new provisions will not be in breach either of universal legal standards or the principles of the Council of Europe.

On behalf of the Socialist Group, I express our full support for the report and our appreciation of the work done by the rapporteur.

      The PRESIDENT – Ms Maury Pasquier, you have two minutes remaining. Do you wish to use any of it now? I see that you want to wait until the end. I call Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – We are all striving to promote democracy, the rule of law and human rights, as mentioned in our basic principles. When we go as observers to our member States, we call on them to ensure that they have checks and balances in their legislation, but we do not have such checks and balances in our own rules. When we appoint Presidents, we have no ability to dismiss them. I am grateful to Ms Maury Pasquier for the report, which will help us to make improvements.

      Our acting President’s famous trip to Syria, his use of the Russian Government’s plane and his meeting with people who absolutely do not respect human rights and who cause bloodshed in Syria – I am talking about Assad – triggered the current situation, and we need to come up with a strong response. The report makes clear what we must do. In the past few days, we have heard a lot about non-retroactivity, but, to quote from the report, “The Assembly may terminate the functions of the President of the Parliamentary Assembly or a Vice-President of the Assembly on the ground that he or she no longer enjoys the confidence of the Assembly”. I cannot say that Mr Agramunt will restore the confidence of the Assembly after we have voted on the report, so in this case we have a political responsibility to act; the principle of non-retroactivity should not apply.

      In 1949, even the United Nations stated, in Rule 36: “The President, in the exercise of his functions, remains under the authority of the General Assembly.” We are in the 21^st century, and we have a responsibility to end the political crisis that has been brought about by the irresponsible deeds of President Agramunt and other members. I call on you to vote for the report as it stands, and immediately to start the procedure for the dismissal of the President of the Assembly.

      Mr ROUQUET* (France) – European citizens increasingly expect their representatives to show integrity and a sense of responsibility. That applies particularly to their leaders, including the President of our Assembly. Given that there is no procedure for his removal, it is impossible to strip the President of his office, however serious the faults that he may have committed. The problem, as we all know, has come to a head today. Many of us feel that the situation – in particular, the fact that the President held a meeting with one of the most awful dictators on the planet and that the whole thing was orchestrated by a state whose record on human rights is far from irreproachable – has had a deleterious impact on the image of the Parliamentary Assembly, given that our core business is to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

      The excellent Maury Pasquier report proposes changes to our rules to regulate such problems, while paying due heed to the fact that such changes and their immediate application would run counter to the principle of non-retroactivity in criminal law. I approve of that approach, and I want to underline the dangers of not including sufficient safeguards. The procedure must be exceptional, and it must relate only to heinous cases. It is vital that there is broad consensus on this decision. Let us not be naïve. There is a risk that the procedure, especially if it applies also to committee chairs, may be manipulated in the service of conflicts – of which there are many – between member States. I approve of the idea that a dismissal motion should apply to an individual only once a year.

      Finally, as the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs suggested in April, it is vital that our political groups consider adopting similar measures. Once again, I commend the rapporteur for her excellent and hard work, and I pay tribute to her.

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – Today, we are taking the first small step towards regaining the credibility of our Organisation. Those of you have read the report by the anti-corruption body GRECO on our Organisation know that it was damning. As an Organisation, we have never applied a sanction to any of our members for misbehaviour. Worse, there has been no investigation into alleged wrongdoing under the current President, and there is a long list of allegations. The President has the power, under our rules, to ask for clarification from the chairperson of the delegation or the Chairperson of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs – that happens to be the rapporteur – but he has never done so. According to GRECO, the chairperson can only investigate himself. We all know how often that happens; usually, it is your wife who does the investigating.

      We still have immunity as members of the Parliamentary Assembly, and we have no procedure for lifting immunity in cases of graft. As a result, when serious allegations were made concerning vote-buying in the Assembly and the Italian authorities conducted an investigation, the investigation had to end because of that immunity. We should develop a procedure for lifting immunity. It is designed to protect us against our own governments – unfortunately, that is necessary in some countries – and to protect our free speech. You can say whatever you want here, really. But it is not meant to protect us from criminal investigation for receiving money in exchange for doing something that we should not.

      I have a question for Sir Roger Gale, the acting chairperson. Will the Bureau take up the GRECO report and start implementing all its recommendations, one by one, to ensure that we are at the forefront when it comes to fighting corruption? If there has been vote-buying here, what does it mean for the Court in Strasbourg? The impact is huge.

      The procedure proposed in the report is good, but I have one amendment to make. I think that a simple majority should be required, rather than a two-thirds majority. Otherwise, 60% of us could vote in favour of dismissing the chair or vice-chair of a committee, and that person could stay in post. If more than half of us say of an individual, “You are not worthy of this function,” they should not remain in the role. Finally, I hear colleagues saying that such a procedure could be abused. Come on – until now, we have not applied any ethical standards. We must start applying them.

      Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia)* – I congratulate our rapporteur, Ms Maury Pasquier. Her committee has reacted very quickly. Hopefully, that will enable us to emerge from this impasse, which has been created by the wrongdoing of President Agramunt and plunged us into an institutional crisis.

      Ms Maury Pasquier also showed that we need to change our rules, which as they stand offer no solution to the current predicament. President Agramunt can remain in office despite all the pressure – moral and other – that is brought to bear. It is incredible that he has refused to stand down, even though he cannot make any statement acting as President of the Assembly, nor undertake any official missions, but that is the reality. Already, in effect, he is no longer our President, but from a legal position he is, which is intolerable.

      The proposed change to the rules is intimately bound up with the conduct of the current President: we are bound therefore to establish a legal procedure to allow us to address this institutional conflict. It will also encourage all members of the Assembly to show greater accountability in fulfilling their responsibilities. The holders of elected office within the Organisation are also bound to conform to their duties and obligations, so this will affect rapporteurs, too. We must expect the same of them, as they are accountable to those who have elected them; they are bound to comply with the code of conduct and its conditions. I agree with the thrust of the report, therefore. We have created a precedent through the Monitoring Committee removing a rapporteur from office because of a conflict of interest. We felt the rapporteur did not comply with the required conditions. This has had a positive impact on our work, so I am grateful for the report.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – To all members of assemblies such as ours, the title of Ms Maury Pasquier’s report should speak for itself, but unfortunately that is not the case. That is why this report is of the utmost importance, and should be adopted unanimously. Each and every one of us has the responsibility to be respectful of our office and to be loyal to our core values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. At the end of the day, inappropriate behaviour from members of this Assembly will undermine the credibility of the whole Organisation.

      It is an Organisation that is needed more than ever. These days, Europe faces severe challenges in several areas, concerning all the core values of the Council of Europe. First, we are facing the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War. Europe has still not been able to handle the crisis in a unified manner in accordance with our human rights obligations. Secondly, we are seeing member States in armed conflict with each other due to an unworthy geopolitical game which in the end could threaten our common security. Thirdly, ethnic conflict and hate speech are on the rise in most member States. Fourthly, corruption is undermining the struggle for democracy and the rule of law in many countries. Fifthly, dictatorship-like governance is being reintroduced in some countries. Freedom of speech and of the media is under pressure. Many of our citizens are exposed to torture and ill-treatment.

      The main purpose of the Council of Europe is to combat such conditions and make Europe a model of the good life for all. The only way to make progress is through one credible and strong voice from this Assembly and our representatives. Therefore, we cannot allow any of us to misuse our positions for personal gain or evasion of our countries’ self-imposed obligations to democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

      As the only pan-European Organisation, we are in a unique position to make a difference. When someone deliberately breaks with the principle of accountability, we need to react. And to react, we need rules of procedure to sanction those in question. Unfortunately, lately we have seen examples of misbehaviour without the proper means to react. Hopefully, in adopting this report, we will have the tools required to restore the integrity and credibility of our Assembly and the Council of Europe for the benefit of human rights standards across all of Europe.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – I thank Ms Maury Pasquier for her report.

      More than others, we were and are supporters of reform in this Organisation, and we have always done a lot to support such reforms. We repeatedly raise the idea of changing the rules on ethics in the Monitoring Committee. However, what we are talking about today will have the effect of undermining the credibility of this Organisation. It is strange that when Mr Rouquet visited Nagorno-Karabakh, an illegally occupied and unrecognised territory of Azerbaijan, nobody raised this question, and that when officials and members of this Assembly visited Crimea, nobody raised the question of the undermining of the credibility of this Organisation. Yet now we are going to take these very important steps.

      I have two questions. Have we experienced any similar situations in the past? Yes, we have: a president of the Russian Federation became president of what was then the European Democrat Group, and when his presidential term here came, the rules and procedures of this Organisation were immediately changed, with a three-year term being reduced to a two-year term. Now, we are changing the rules again, not because of reforms, but because of the person. If we really want to reform our Organisation, we should change it because of a concern for the future and for securing genuine acceptance of the Organisation in 47 countries, not because we want to punish one person in this Organisation.

      We will be in favour of this if there is no retrospective application of the report’s recommendations – if we are thinking about the future, not the past. That is why we should be responsible and think about the Organisation’s image in our countries. If the opposite course is taken, it will be a witch hunt. Of those members on the current list of speakers, three are representatives of Armenia. Of course we must have freedom of speech, but why is Armenia such a great defender of this reform? They support it because they want to use the report for their own ends.

      Ms KALMARI (Finland) – Free and democratic institutions, their reliable functioning and accountability are key factors in a state or organisation that wants to be recognised as democratic. In this Assembly, we often say that the rule of law, democracy and human rights are our guiding principles, yet we have not properly and honestly looked at ourselves in the mirror. It is about time that accountability and reliability were taken seriously in the Council of Europe and all its operating bodies.

      Cases of corruption, disqualification, conflict of interest or other grave violations by our elected officials must be taken seriously and not brushed away. It is clear that openness and zero tolerance on corruption should be the ground rule for all democratically elected position holders. This, however, should be written down, not just assumed. Therefore, I warmly support Ms Maury Pasquier’s report suggesting amendments to our Rules of Procedure to ensure consequences for cases of lack of trust or inappropriate behaviour.

      I remind all colleagues that prevention and monitoring are key factors that support equal standards for everyone involved. In Finland, we have a clear system of reporting all financial support that is offered and given to us. This includes benefits not involving monetary exchanges. Our open reporting system is a reminder to everyone involved that in a democratic state or institution, opinions and decisions cannot be bought.

      As democratically elected representatives, we must take this matter seriously. We must ensure that if our trust in an elected official is lost, there will be serious consequences in which the position is at stake. We very much need prevention as well as implications for those partaking in condemnable deeds.

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – I commend Ms Maury Pasquier on a thorough and carefully prepared report on a most difficult topic – a report prepared under challenging and difficult circumstances.

      I fully support the draft resolution. The unfortunate events that we have had to spend time on this winter and spring have revealed shortcomings in our Rules of Procedure. It has become clear to us that we are not sufficiently able to hold our leaders accountable for their actions. We do not have the procedures necessary to deal with a situation in which we lose confidence and trust in our leaders.

      First and foremost, our concern is the integrity of PACE and the Council of Europe as a whole. This integrity is reliant on leaders who enjoy the unconditional trust of members and external partners, and who show in words and actions that they put the best interests of the Organisation above their personal ambition or agenda. For the Council of Europe and PACE to maintain their position as the primary human rights Organisation in Europe, a defender of democracy and the principle of the rule of law, the integrity of their members and elected leaders must be in no doubt. They must be held, and seen to be held, responsible and accountable.

      When we lose confidence in our leaders, the Assembly must have the necessary means to handle the situation in a prompt and credible manner. Not being able to do so is severely damaging to the integrity and credibility of the Organisation. By adopting these new rules, as proposed by Ms Maury Pasquier, we will take the necessary steps to restore the integrity of our Assembly. Furthermore, our Organisation will be better prepared for possible future scenarios if loss of trust were to reoccur. I therefore encourage all colleagues to consider how the proposed changes to our Rules of Procedure will contribute to strengthening our Assembly and restore trust and confidence in us and our Organisation.

      Mr CSENGER-ZALÁN (Hungary) – Let me first thank the rapporteur for her efforts to make a perfect analysis and for elaborating the amendments to the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure in a very detailed and prompt manner. We live in a changing world and we face many challenges. Besides establishing a general legal regime, one of the strengths of this Organisation is the ability to adapt its regulations to new circumstances. We are further committed to ensuring the principle of accountability by strengthening the Assembly’s code of conduct in accordance with international best practice. We fully support the fact that the new standards will be monitored and enforced regularly.

      We welcome the proposal to institute a procedure to bring into play the institutional accountability of holders of elected offices in the Assembly. The rapporteur’s proposal to dismiss the holders of high elected offices has our full support. Moreover, in order to better ensure integrity, we suggest widening the scope of the provisions to include the Assembly’s Secretary General. While underlining the importance of the new provisions to exceptional procedures, we are convinced that a vote by secret ballot could better serve the purpose of the exercise.

      As I mentioned previously, we attach great importance to full compliance with the international legal norms when setting the new rules. It is crucial for the credibility of the Organisation to fully respect standards, which were established in this Assembly and were always represented by the organs of the Council of Europe when exercising its monitoring function towards the member States. It would be very interesting to see the analysis of not only the directorate of legal advice to the Committee of Ministers but the assessment of the Venice Commission. It is one of the most appreciated bodies of the Council of Europe and has broad experience and recognised expertise in legal matters.

      I call everyone to support the amendments that aim at avoiding the blatant contradiction with the principle of legal certainty, suggest eliminating the retroactive effect of some provisions, insist on having a secret ballot and propose to widen the scope of the draft resolution with regard to high office holders.

Ms L OVOCHKINA (Ukraine) – The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is justly considered one of the key institutions for ensuring co-operation in Europe and promoting the values of democracy and human rights. The Assembly consistently consolidates its efforts to deal with global and local political crises and problems. However, it has recently faced serious challenges such as a corruption scandal and an ongoing political crisis with the presidency, and our common task is to prevent such situations in future. Recognising and implementing the principle of accountability is an important and necessary step. I thank the rapporteur, Ms Maury Pasquier, for her work, which is an example of the balanced approach required to remove the grounds for future political crises and enhance the Assembly’s overall efficiency.

The report is based on the key principles of transparency, impartiality and respect for the rule of law. I am convinced that it is also important to take reputational risk into account. Some politicians’ attempts to turn a review of the Rules of Procedure into a politicised sensation are destructive. They will shatter confidence in the Assembly and undermine its reputation, negatively influencing its efficiency and capabilities. Unlike other groups, the Socialist Group is united in supporting the report and draft resolution. We believe that such a decision must be adopted, regardless of the current situation with the President.

The Assembly is a stronghold of democracy and the rule of law for all member States. In our capacity as members of the Assembly, we should be interested first of all in consistently building up this political institution, not eroding its credibility. Therefore, our task is to treat this issue in a prudent and balanced manner. We face the dual task of enhancing the Assembly’s efficiency by amending the Rules of Procedure while preserving its credibility and reputation. This approach will allow the Assembly to safeguard its role as one of the cornerstones of European politics.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) – I thank Ms Maury Pasquier for the immense work done and for these valuable recommendations, which will become essential grounds in the years ahead for the transformation, self-purification and treatment of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, one of the largest international organisations in Europe, as it weeds out the damage caused to its dignity and the heavy negative burden that has recently been revealed in the public domain.

As a member of the Assembly for more than a decade, I can say that it is not about who visited where. It is about the fact that over the past few years, we have witnessed internal changes in the Assembly, particularly with respect to ethical and moral rules and principles. The present-day Assembly differs significantly from the truly noble, respectable and unbiased body that we joined 15 years ago. For several years, the mass media and the public sector have voiced and published accusations, complaints and displeasure about the corrupt environment in the Assembly and violations of regulations during issue resolution and the approval of decisions and reports. I thank our colleagues in the Assembly – politicians, delegations and political groups – for being persistent enough to raise these issues and for remaining committed not only to making them a subject for discussion but to finding ways to resolve them.

Recently, we established an investigative body, which along with the reports of Ms Liliane Maury Pasquier and Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger may lay the groundwork for eradicating politically and legally the corruption whose roots have penetrated our Assembly. The Armenian delegation absolutely supports the recommendations and solutions provided, because – to mention Samad Seyidov – we want to eliminate all the bad traditions that you brought and established here.

I wish to raise a highly significant matter. The high officials of the Assembly should have both a recall mechanism and rigid requirements to act in strict compliance with their duties and obligations, which should be rules of the Assembly. I suggest that these requirements apply not only to the chairperson, Vice-Presidents, committee chairmen and deputies in our Assembly but to the rapporteur, another official with an essential role in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that is directly elected with serious commitments and whose impartial and regulated work has profound influence on people and countries. In their reports about our countries, rapporteurs’ personal approach shapes the situation. Therefore, the mechanism should also apply to reports that have been approved or rejected due to unfair and corrupt behaviour.

In this context, I return to the letter written by Azerbaijani human rights defenders demanding that the report on Azerbaijani political prisoners be reopened. In order to avoid such precedents, I ask Ms Maury Pasquier and my colleagues to include points in the report referring to the rapporteur and to reports approved or rejected as a result of corrupt conduct that violates regulations.

Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – It has been very interesting to listen to today’s debate. First, it was interesting to listen to one of our colleagues argue against the report. It is important to give things their right names. Double standards, conflicts of interest and the risk of corruption are in the air of this Parliamentary Assembly. It is in our interests to recognise this and save our reputation and that of this Assembly. We have been trapped by one particular person putting his interests and ambitions above this Organisation and above all of us, and we must find a solution to this problem.

Another thing that was interesting to me is that yesterday the Monitoring Committee decided that the rapporteur on Ukraine would be Mr Jordi Xuclà. Some speakers have been discussing conflicts of interest, but how did they vote yesterday when the conflict of interest was recognised? Do they not think that there is a conflict of interest for a person who has flown on the plane of an aggressor then to prepare a report about a country that is the victim of that aggressor? Each of us needs to ask ourselves that. The principle of accountability is important. For the first time in 50 years, we need to find a solution in our procedures, because a particular person has destroyed the principles of accountability and transparency.

      There have been many debates about what I might call legal issues, such as the principle of retrospectivity or secret votes. I take this to be fear. There is nothing to discuss. If you are an honest person who is respectful and transparent, you should not be worried about this at all. That is why I totally support the report, and I thank the rapporteur.

Mr GOLUB (Ukraine)* – I would like to address recognition of the principle of accountability in the Parliamentary Assembly. As I see it, accountability in our Assembly is part of the bedrock of our work. We must ensure that we operate in a way that recognises all our duties and responsibilities. Let us not forget that members of the Parliamentary Assembly are required to act in strict compliance with their duties and obligations; these are things that bind us all. I therefore believe that we must focus on cases in which members of the Assembly, including the President of the Assembly, have acted contrary to those fundamental principles and to what the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stands for.

We must recognise that deputies from the Ukrainian Crimea, annexed by Russia, have been put into a particular situation. We should also recognise what happened when Pedro Agramunt visited Syria this year. Let us not forget that Mr Agramunt went to Syria accompanied by Russian parliamentarians – members of the Duma. Logically, that visit might well result in President Assad being invited to the Parliamentary Assembly. Why not? In the same way, we might end up inviting people from Crimea to come and express their criminal views to the whole world from the rostrum in our Assembly. We have to recognise the logical consequences of this kind of thing. Given the circumstances, our Assembly can no longer have confidence in persons who hold elected office but ignore the principles of the Assembly and discredit it in the eyes of millions of the citizens of our member States. We have to recognise that a number of people – especially Mr Agramunt and Mr Thierry Mariani – are discrediting our Organisation in the eyes of the global community.

      We are at a crossroads today, and we have to decide what to do. We need to move forward together to build a strong, democratic and responsible Europe that can defend the interests of all its citizens. I remind you that we are required to be honest and accountable in the way we undertake our duties and obligations vis-à-vis this Organisation. Serving personal political or commercial interests is not acceptable; it is hypocritical, and it cannot be seen as serving the cause of European democracy. We see people making all kinds of attacks on liberal democracies rather than seeking to uphold our fundamental rights and freedoms.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – Democracy and responsibility are inextricably linked, and I welcome the April 2017 declaration of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs on the principle of confidence and members’ duty of responsibility. That should serve as our motto. We must apply that logic to this debate and the Assembly’s attempt to tackle the toxin of corruption.

      We must be irreproachable in our conduct. We do not have financial means or military forces at our disposal; we have to remind one another that our only strength is our power of moral persuasion. If corruption has found its way into the Assembly, our task is to fight that corruption. We must recall the bedrock of our institution: confidence and responsibility, which, as I say, are bound intimately together. I am tempted to say to our colleague Mr Seyidov, who is a long-standing member of this Assembly, that he should not forget that. The credibility of our Assembly is at stake, and it is incumbent upon us to take a firm stand.

      I thank Ms Maury Pasquier. It was suggested that we add to Article 28.a of the Statute of the Council of Europe. I support the proposals that have been made, and I support the Committee’s position. There are sufficient guarantees in place to ensure that removal from office would not be arbitrary.

      Let me move on to retroactivity. As has been said, we are not talking about a criminal procedure – the circumstances are not sufficiently serious – but we must tackle this issue of the removal from office of a President who confers no honour on this Assembly. Were he to stand down, that would confer a certain honour or dignity upon him. I am perhaps the longest standing parliamentarian here, and I say this in the knowledge that I will be leaving the Parliamentary Assembly in a few weeks: “Pedro Agramunt, leave.”

      This painful episode needs a dignified conclusion, so I welcome the fact that an independent external committee of inquiry has been set up to investigate allegations of corruption in the Assembly. We need to be able to speak out freely. I feel free to turn round to Azerbaijan, Turkey and the Russian Federation and say, “Why don’t you want a committee of inquiry?” Transparency is necessary, establishing the truth is necessary, and the committee’s conclusions need to be made public. The public are sitting in the gallery, and it is important that they hear from us.

      The future of this Assembly and its credibility are at stake. We need to remind ourselves of our values and fly those values high. I have confidence in you today. That is important for the future.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Ms Durrieu. I thank you again for your work for the Assembly over so many years

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – We have in front of us a report that, as Ms Maury Pasquier said, was produced in an unprecedented context. On the one hand, I support the rapporteur and other colleagues who said that there are gaps in our rules. We need to fill those gaps and make officials who represent the Assembly more accountable. That is true. Mr Cilevičs and Mr Omtzigt referred to different cases, and I support that view. On the other hand, there are some concerns, and I would like to underline several of them.

      Ms Maury Pasquier said that the Council of Europe is sovereign in its decisions. Two weeks ago, I went to Venice to represent the Moldovan Parliament at the Venice Commission. We tried to tell the Venice Commission that Moldova is a sovereign country that has a sovereign right to make decisions about our electoral system, but we have been told by experts, by Mr Jagland yesterday and by the European Union that, even though we are a sovereign country, we must listen to what the Venice Commission says because there are fundamental principles at stake. Are we applying double standards in this situation?

      On retroactivity, I agree with Ms Durrieu and others who said that this is not about criminal sanctions, but let us imagine that a majority of the members of a parliament decided to cut the mandate of mayors and organise new elections because they believed people no longer trusted them. Those are not criminal sanctions, but is it correct to do something in the middle of the game? I used a metaphor yesterday, which I hope will be interpreted correctly. I said, “Mr Agramunt is a crashed plane, but why do we need to blow up the runway?” Why do we need to blow up the principles that are used in this Assembly? I have said many times in my parliament, “Look at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. There are principles there that people respect. There is a mature political culture there; it is based on trust,” and so on. Now what do we do? Do we want to put in our rules what trust means? I am worried about the way we are doing this.

      A proposal was made in the Bureau on behalf of my group to postpone this discussion until October. Interestingly, when we met the experts in Venice, the Moldovan Parliament was accused of making changes too swiftly. They accused us of rushing to amend the electoral code and said, “It is not good to rush to amend such things.” Why are we rushing today? Let us be clear: if we want the Council of Europe to be respected by our national parliaments, we need to apply the same rules here. I agree that we need to tackle this issue, but let us be honest with ourselves and recognise that we are applying double standards.

      Mr MASIULIS (Lithuania)* – Colleagues, we are here simply because we are bound by common values, and we need to defend and stand up for those values. If we were to destroy those values, there would be nothing left. It is a little strange, but our President seems to be of a different opinion. He took a flight on a Russian army plane to see Mr Assad, who is poisoning his very own people using toxic gas, and he has set a very bad example. However, under our rules, there are no penalties for doing so. As ordinary politicians in a normal democracy, we would all understand what to do in those circumstances, but Mr Agramunt has no such understanding. That is the sole reason why we are discussing our rules and why we must change them.

      We have been talking about Mr Agramunt for six months, and if we fail to do anything – if we fail to change the rules and solve this problem – we will be talking about him for another six months, possibly more, so we must solve this problem. There is no other solution but to return to the core values that guide us. I thank the rapporteur very much for this initiative, which shows us a way out of the crisis that Mr Agramunt has created. The report proposes a legal solution to this impasse, so I thank the rapporteur for her work and her contribution. I believe we should all support the proposed new rule.

      Ms SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER (Switzerland)* – Winston Churchill, one of the founding fathers of the Council of Europe, lived through two world wars and knew about the cultures of several European countries. He was a pioneer of our shared European values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and he said, “The price of greatness is responsibility.” I had hoped that our President, Mr Agramunt, would have shouldered his responsibilities by stepping down. Unfortunately, he has shown no greatness in that respect, which I greatly regret. On the contrary, our committees and groups, as well as the Parliamentary Assembly, have been dealing with the fate of Pedro Agramunt for months.

      I am proud of the fact that our Parliamentary Assembly has never made use of any procedure for removing someone from office, and I am sad that we must now introduce such a procedure because people have failed to abide by the fundamental principles of our Parliamentary Assembly. I had hoped that Mr Agramunt would have stood down following the visit of the King of Spain at the end of the last part-session, but he did not do so. I am convinced that there is a majority for changing the rules to introduce an impeachment procedure. I had expected Pedro Agramunt to announce that he was stepping down this morning. How can a man of honour cling to his post when both his group and the Assembly have lost confidence in him?

      I will vote for the report, but I would have preferred not to have had such a change to our rules. Every new rule is designed to solve a problem, but it can end up creating umpteen others. As a jurist, I have a logical problem with retroactivity. Why should the Council of Europe violate the rule of law? Is it worth such a violation to deal only with the actions of a very fallible President of the Parliamentary Assembly? We need to consider that very carefully. I would give precedence to the rule of law over the need to remove our President from office. Have we given sufficient thought to the group of people who will be affected by the procedure, and are we not opening a Pandora’s box? Are we sure that the rule change is not basically a Lex Agramunt? To return to the quotation from Winston Churchill, we need to show greatness in all our decisions. We should not be guided by an individual case, but we should in general assume our own responsibilities, and in that sense I certainly welcome the report.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* – “The crisis in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is due to several factors: first, a fierce attack from the left; secondly, partisan behaviour by Mr Sawicki; and thirdly, the unfair action of the EPP.” That is in fact is a quote from Mr Agramunt’s spokesperson in the Spanish press yesterday. In politics, it is obviously acceptable to attack one’s opponents, but to attack the administration of the Secretary General is unacceptable. We have to say, loudly and clearly, that enough is enough. It was already the case that enough was enough, but enough now really is enough.

      I have listened to this debate and I have followed the discussion in the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, and I must say that we should not be in this situation. If political decency had been shown, we would not be where we are, but given where we are, can we talk about “political decency”? No, I do not think we can, because those words do not go together. This role involves responsibility. Mr Agramunt no longer enjoys the confidence of any political group, but he is refusing to step down. I agree with Josette Durrieu in calling on Mr Agramunt to go now, because we – and Mr Agramunt – can still salvage something if he goes immediately. I know that he has gone back to Spain, but I am sure he is following our debate. I am speaking for the overwhelming majority of members of the Assembly when I say, please go!

      I thank Ms Durrieu, whose speech this morning will be one of her last in the Parliamentary Assembly, for all she has done for our Assembly. She has set us all a great example, and we should continue to follow her example because she has shown us how to respect our values. Josette, I wish you every success in the future, and I thank you very much for all you have done. I am speaking in a personal capacity, but I believe the whole Assembly will join me in thanking you. [Applause.]

      Mr HALICKI (Poland) – I emphasise, as an EPP member, that it is high time we approved this report, for which I thank Ms Maury Pasquier, because such a reaction is necessary given the President’s refusal to resign. We must also reflect maturely about how we can ensure the future credibility of the Assembly and of the Council of Europe as a whole. The paradox is that this crisis has given us a chance to make the Council of Europe and the Assembly stronger, and to make the position of future Presidents stronger, not weaker. Accountability requires responsibility, and the President of the Assembly is responsible for solving problems relating to criminal cases or corruption, so we must give the President the tools to act and to guarantee that such action will be taken.

      The proposal is that the President, the Secretary General, chairmen of the committees and Vice-Presidents – it is a very wide group – can be impeached if there is a lack of trust and we do not have confidence in them. We have to make the change immediately. We have to implement the report with the change of the President, even today. However, let us think about the future much more effectively, to rebuild credibility for the Council of Europe and the Assembly as a whole. We are together, and we are together responsible for that. People should not spoil the institution and they should not regard the lack of trust that exists as a mechanism to give us a guarantee. A simple majority, a lower majority, the other proposals – they are all based on lack of trust. This is the highest time to think together and to rebuild the position of the Council of Europe, to be stronger and not weaker; the President should be stronger and not weaker. I hope the whole Assembly can be stronger. Thank you, Ms Maury Pasquier, for this report today.

      Mr LIASHKO (Ukraine)* – Today. I have a unique opportunity to speak before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I have been listening very carefully to all the speeches; they are very important. However, I am surprised by one thing. We are discussing whether we should dismiss a person who is discrediting the Assembly. To me, it is obvious. In Europe, we talk about whether or not we should dismiss this person instead of talking about the violation of human rights and other very important issues. Why should we waste our time on this issue?

      Agramunt is a person who lacks conscience, responsibility and principles, so why is he not going away? Why is he not resigning? It is because he is a hostage of the Russian authorities. He used a Russian plane and Russian money to go to Syria, while Syrian children were being bombed. He was flying on a Russian plane while Russian soldiers were killing my fellow countrymen in the Donbass. In Kiev this morning, there was a terrorist attack, when a Defence Ministry official was blown up. So this guy Agramunt is discrediting the Assembly and the rule of law, as well as the responsibility of a politician. If a person is a member of parliament, they should be responsible.

      This issue humiliates each of us and it is obvious that if a person discredits a body he should be dismissed. All of you, when you go back to your national parliaments, should look into your rules of procedure. The responsibility of each member is defined there. Why should we go away from this responsibility here in this body? For me, it is very obvious that this story should be a lesson for everybody who will take the chair of the President in the future. They should be responsible; they should not harm the prestige of the Assembly. They should not harm the principles on which this Organisation was formed – respect for the rule of law and human rights. These are basic, fundamental values and principles. What principle can we talk about when the President of the Assembly is flying to Syria and using the facilities of the Russian aggressor?

      Today, the Russian aggressor has occupied our land. Today, the Russian aggressor is killing Ukrainian citizens. Ukrainians are not just defending their independence; Ukrainians are defending the independence of each of you, the independence of Europe and peace in Europe. That is why we need your support and need a functional Assembly, not an Assembly that is discredited because of the irresponsible actions of some politically impotent person.

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

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – On a point of order, Mr President. I have listened with great interest and great respect to the debate, but speakers should not misuse their speaking time to make allegations about our President that have not been proven; the situation is already difficult enough. I think the last speaker misused his speaking time and I bring that to the attention of the Assembly.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Kox, you are experienced enough to know that that is not a point of order for the chair. The chair has to determine whether the speaker is in fact in order and I determined so.

      Ms Maury Pasquier, you have two minutes to wind up the debate.

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – I will try to be brief, but I count on your understanding, Mr President, if I might just go over the time slightly, given the number of comments and questions that have been made.

      First, I thank our colleagues who have taken an active part in the work of the committee in drawing up the report and in participating in today’s debate. I repeat what I said at the beginning of the debate and reaffirm here: no provision suggested in the draft resolution runs counter to the law; I particularly refer to the debate about non-retroactivity. The principle of non-retroactivity should not be confused with the legitimate expectation principle. If people benefit from the existing law, they cannot expect the law never to be changed in the future. Applied to the Assembly, this means that persons who are elected at the beginning of the session can expect that their mandate will not be removed as they go, but at the same time we are not in any way challenging any right. Elected members are not owners of their mandate. The Assembly, exercising its regulatory powers, can change at any stage the rules that it has drawn up without the people who are subject to the new constraints being able to insist on the maintenance of the existing rules.

      The European Court of Human Rights said that no holder of elected office can insist that they have acquired rights which are personal to them. They have just acceded to the status of that function for which they have been elected and that status can change or evolve at any stage. On the question of retroactivity, the Venice Commission specifies that a person must know in advance what the consequences of their acts are. Legislation must be foreseeable and law, especially criminal law, must be non-retroactive. But outside of criminal law, the retroactivity restriction on the rights of an individual and the creation of new obligations can be admissible, but only in the public interest and in respect of the principle of proportionality.

      I could respond to all the questions, but unfortunately I have no time left. I will just say once again that our Assembly, in defence of democracy and fundamental values, must do everything it possibly can as soon as it can to reinforce the necessary conditions for the democratic functioning of the Assembly. Accountability and transparency are part of those conditions, and only they will allow for the restoration of the necessary confidence in the institution.

      The PRESIDENT – Does the Vice-Chairman of the Committee wish to speak?

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – No, thank you.

      The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs has presented a draft resolution, to which 13 amendments have been tabled. I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 9 and 10, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so, Ms Maury Pasquier?

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      Amendments 9 and 10 adopted.

      We come now to Amendment 3. I understand that Mr Rustamyan does not wish to move Amendment 3. Does anyone else wish to move it? That is not the case. Amendment 3 is not moved.

      We come now to Amendment 1. I understand that Mr Fischer does not wish to move Amendment 1. Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Zech, is identical to Amendment 1. Does anyone wish to move Amendments 1 or 11? That is not the case. Amendments 1 and 11 are not moved.

      I understand that Mr Omtzigt wishes to move Oral Amendment 1, which reads as follows:

      In paragraph 5.1(7) of the draft resolution, replace the words “two-thirds majority” with the words “a majority of the votes cast”.

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

      In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7.a. I must inform the Assembly that if this oral amendment is not agreed to, Amendment 8, which was approved by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, will be out of order as it would create an inconsistency in the text. Do 10 or more members oppose the amendment being debated? That is the case. We will therefore proceed to the next amendment.

      I understand that Mr Rustamyan wishes to withdraw Amendment 4. Does anyone else wish to move it?

      Amendment 4 is not moved.

      I call Mr Zech to support Amendment 12. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ZECH (Germany)* – I do not wish to press the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – Amendment 12 is not moved.

      I understand that Mr Rustamyan wishes to withdraw Amendment 5. Does anyone else wish to move it?

      Amendment 5 is not moved.

      I am afraid that Amendment 8 cannot be moved because Oral Amendment 1 was not agreed to, so there would be an inconsistency.

      I understand that Mr Rustamyan wishes to withdraw Amendment 6. Does anyone else wish to move it?

      Amendment 6 is not moved.

      I call Mr Zech to support Amendment 13. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ZECH (Germany)* – I do not wish to press the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – Amendment 13 is not moved.

      I understand that Mr Rustamyan wishes to withdraw Amendment 7. Does anyone else wish to move it?

      Amendment 7 is not moved.

      I understand that Mr Fischer wishes to withdraw Amendment 2. Does anyone else wish to move it?

      Amendment 2 is not moved.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14338, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 14338, as amended, is adopted, with 154 votes for, 30 against and 13 abstentions.

      We shall shortly hear the address by Mr Marković, the Prime Minister of Montenegro. He will be with us soon. The sitting is adjourned for five minutes.

(The sitting, suspended at 11.55 a.m., was resumed at 12 noon)

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

2. Address by Mr Duško Marković, Prime Minister of Montenegro.

      The PRESIDENT – We will now hear an address by Mr Marković, after which he will take questions from the floor.

      Dear Prime Minister, I wish you a warm welcome to Strasbourg and our Parliamentary Assembly. I congratulate you and Montenegro on the 10^th anniversary of your membership of the Council of Europe. Ten years ago, Montenegro joined the Council of Europe as an independent nation committed to upholding the values and principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Since then, the commitment has been exemplified by the important progress made by Montenegro in the implementation of its obligations as a member State of the Council of Europe, and by its advances on the path towards the European Union.

      I am proud that the Council of Europe and our Parliamentary Assembly have helped Montenegro to make substantial progress in reforming its constitution, strengthening democratic institutions, entrenching the rule of law and implementing human rights standards. We continue to provide that support, including through the Assembly’s post-monitoring deal. Your visit to us, Prime Minister, is an opportunity to discuss new avenues of co-operation.

      The main responsibility for the success of the ongoing reforms belongs to Montenegro’s institutions and political actors. During our meeting this morning, the Prime Minister and I agreed that constructive co-operation on key laws and strategic reform priorities are the responsibility of both the majority and the opposition. I trust in the value of political dialogue and compromise. Dialogue is the only way to make progress towards consensus on reforms, and is a prerequisite for their successful implementation.

      Prime Minister, I wish you and your country success in your reforms, and many more years of successful membership of, and co-operation with, the Council of Europe.

      Mr MARKOVIĆ (Prime Minister of Montenegro)* – Dear Mr Chairman, Secretary General Jagland, President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, and members of the Parliamentary Assembly, it is my pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to you on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of Montenegrin membership of the Council of Europe. In the past 10 years, Montenegro has worked hard to achieve its strategic priorities, of which I would like to give a brief reminiscence.

      On 5 June 2017, Montenegro became a fully-fledged member of NATO. That came not only as a result of the committed work of the government I represent but was an achievement of all the governments that preceded this one that had our NATO membership on their agendas as a priority foreign policy goal. It is also the result of the efforts of the entire Montenegrin society. Our NATO membership is the legacy we are leaving to future generations that, for the first time in the history of Montenegro, have an opportunity to work in peace and stability on achieving the goal of having a better and higher-quality life.

      As for the European integration agenda, Montenegro has opened 28 negotiation chapters and temporarily closed three. We are ready to open another three or four chapters by the end of year, and thus practically to finalise that part of the accession process. We expect that that will be followed by the extensive closing of the chapters. We therefore believe it is realistic to expect that, in the following four to five years, we will manage to do what it takes to prepare our country for European Union membership.

      There is no doubt that we have achieved significant results in the last decade, but there is also no doubt that we face numerous challenges. That is reflected to a significant extent in the monitoring and post-monitoring reports adopted in the Council of Europe. To remind everyone, the Parliamentary Assembly’s monitoring of Montenegro was abandoned in January 2015. The challenges we have recognised are identical to the ones identified by the co-rapporteurs of the Parliamentary Assembly in their post-monitoring visits. Dealing with those challenges will bring us a step closer to European Union membership. That is why we, as a candidate for membership, appreciate the communication between the Council of Europe and the European Union. We find that the strategic partnership based on the memorandum of understanding is particularly important and purposeful for our goals.

      We have had significant results in respect of strategic judicial independence and efficiency, and in respect of the legislative and institutional set-up. We have achieved concrete results in combating corruption and organised crime. We are committed and consistent in implementing the recommendations of CPT, GRECO, ECRI and MONEYVAL, and the recommendations of the committees dedicated to the protection of minority nations and languages. We are improving our efforts to combat discrimination. We are developing our society to be an inclusive society with equal opportunities for all, including LGBT people, people with disabilities, displaced and internally displaced persons and all other vulnerable categories. In co-operation with the Venice Commission, we are developing and adapting the legal framework for that. However, I would like to use this opportunity to mention the challenges that my government remains focused on.

This year’s report by the Secretary General on the state of democracy, human rights and the rule of law recognises that all European societies face growing populism, which, I believe, reduces the room for genuine debate about the problems. It also generates polarisation through the promotion of the narrow interests of political agents, and that does not lead to progress but, rather, takes us back to the past, to the things we should long ago have learned to avoid. In that respect, it is with regret that I have to say that the full complement of our national delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly is not here. The representatives of the opposition have boycotted the Assembly and also the national Parliament of Montenegro. The October 2016 election results have been recognised by this Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE, the ODIHR, the European Union and the entire international community. Only the Montenegrin opposition does not recognise them. In spite of numerous invitations, the opposition will not come to the national parliament and use it as the place for genuine political debate that it alone is. Such behaviour is irresponsible, and shows how the lessons from our past have not been learned.

At a decisive time for Europe, when it is faced with the challenges of populism, migration, terrorism, religious radicalisation and financial crisis, among many others, boycotting the national parliament and this Assembly deepens the crisis of parliamentarism. It endangers democracy, weakens the role of parliamentary diplomacy and erodes the values on which all our European societies are based. It seems that not all of us have learned that it is only through democratic elections that power can be taken, that one has to work hard to develop an international reputation and that to participate in dealing with European problems one has to be here in this Parliamentary Assembly – one has to participate actively in debates and dialogue.

The behaviour of our opposition leads to an additional polarisation of our society, including the polarisation and politicisation of the media. The process of increasing the awareness of decision makers about citizens’ right and need to know must go hand in hand with the professionalisation of the media scene and the development of pluralism in the sector. Montenegro recognised that mechanism in the early stages of its restored sovereignty. We took the first necessary step by decriminalising defamation. At that time I thought, and I still think, that the government should be proactive in that respect, regardless of the fact that we have yet to accomplish the professionalisation of the media. It is a process that takes time, and we have not yet completed it, even though we had very optimistic expectations at the beginning.

I also think that self-regulation of the media must become a reality in Montenegro. The Government of Montenegro supports the Council of Europe’s activities related to the promotion of the freedom of the media. We support a platform to promote the protection of journalism and the safety of journalists. Our position is that we will co-operate even in situations where we do not fully agree, because we are aware that we will be closer to meeting the needs of our citizens as the mechanisms of control get stronger.

Montenegro has ratified 84 Council of Europe conventions and has signed five more that are in the process of ratification at the national level. I know that this has been heard many times, but I reiterate that the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has been, and will continue to be, a guide for us all. It should remain our starting point and our goal. The European Court of Human Rights is of the opinion that there are no systemic violations of human rights in Montenegro. Our constitutional complaint has been recognised as an effective legal remedy. We recognise that the Court is the basis of the system for the protection of human rights and we are therefore consistently implementing the recommendations of the key declarations on the Court’s reform. We also show a wholehearted willingness to accept and implement the principle of shared responsibility. We understand the process for the appointment of a new judge from Montenegro to the Court and are aware that by submitting a list of the best candidates from among those who apply we will influence the quality of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the long run.

I would like to use this opportunity to express my support for the six-month Czech presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and my congratulations on its having selected the priorities so well, particularly in the fields of the rule of law, the protection of vulnerable categories and, the one I would like to say a few more words about, the strengthening of gender equality. In 2013, Montenegro ratified the Istanbul Convention, which tackles one of the country’s most sensitive issues. That ratification reinforces our national legislation and policies that have the aim of zero tolerance towards violence against women and domestic violence. An encouraging signal in this field came only a few days ago, when the European Union signed the Istanbul Convention in front of this room, confirming that there are still reasons to worry but that there is also a willingness to combat violence against women. Through our policies aimed at the economic empowerment of women, the promotion of women’s participation in political life and in managerial positions and the strengthening of awareness of gender equality at the local level, we are working to transform what is perceived as a traditional society into one of equal opportunities for all.

An equally sensitive topic for Montenegro is that of respect for the rights of LGBTI people. During the last decade, Montenegro worked in a committed manner to raise awareness about respect for the human rights of LGBTI people, not only through legislation but through special programmes of training in the implementation of the laws. In co-operation with the NGO sector, the government worked on strengthening the visibility of LGBTI people and also on providing support to victims of discrimination. Through such policies we achieved a lot, in practice, in a very short time. We have come a long way in the three years since Montenegro’s first gay pride in 2013, which was a serious challenge for public peace and order and caused protests, attacks and incidents. In 2016, gay pride took place without incident in a peaceful atmosphere.

Dear parliamentarians, allow me to draw your attention to some of the key challenges the Western Balkans region faces today. Since the restoration of our statehood, good neighbourly relations in the region have been a priority in our foreign policy. We want to be connected with our neighbours. We want to use to our benefit our common history, the fact that we understand each other when we speak in our own languages and have similar cultural matrices and almost identical behaviour patterns. That is the capital we have invested in joint co-operation projects in the field of international law, in our joint border crossings, in our joint diplomatic representations and particularly in our joint efforts in the energy and infrastructure field. We have started to implement our ambitious plan to develop the road infrastructure that our region lacks, and that is why we in the region need clear, continued support for our regional co-operation, which we expect to come from the European Union in the form of a stronger financial presence. It is also the most significant indication that the enlargement policy remains a priority of the European Union. In that respect, we look forward to the Western Balkans Summit, which will take place in Trieste on 12 July, within the Berlin process for the promotion of peace, stability and shared values.

      We believe that the Council of Europe is the optimum framework for the protection and promotion of human rights, the rule of law and democracy. It is important that the Secretary General should analyse the state of democracy in our country annually and identify the challenges that we face. The strength of that mechanism lies not only in the identification of good and less good practices, but in the combination of expert observation and constructive political pressures. Montenegro fully supports this approach to drafting the report, and we consider it one of the important European control mechanisms. We will continue to be a constructive partner, implementing Council of Europe recommendations at a national level and complying with the commitments that we made when we signed the Council of Europe conventions.

      I emphasise the importance of the fact that the Riga protocol will soon come into effect. We have already introduced some amendments to our criminal code to make travelling abroad to fight on foreign battlefields a criminal offence. Allow me to assure you that we follow and implement with due care your recommendations – not only those that relate directly to Montenegro, but those that relate to the wider region.

      We are aware that the challenge that you are facing has repercussions for our society, and for our joint institutions and organisations. I firmly believe that if it is resolved efficiently, it will strengthen us all and encourage us in our efforts to preserve democracy not only as our heritage – that goes without saying – but as an ideal that we have to defend and advocate every day. Thank you for your attention and for the constructive dialogue that I expect to follow.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Prime Minister, for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you.

      I remind members that questions must be limited to 30 seconds. Colleagues should ask questions and not make speeches.

      Mr SCHENNACH* (Austria, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – Prime Minister, we are very concerned about the new Balkan virus of boycott, and perhaps we can find solutions to it. It is good to hear that you are strengthening relations with the former Yugoslavian area. After the events of last year, and given your current membership of NATO, how will you shape your future relations with the Russian Federation?

      Mr MARKOVIĆ* – We have had some problems with the translation and I could not hear the whole question, but I understood the essence of it. It referred to our new position as a NATO member and our relations with Russia. This is not a dilemma for Montenegro. When we chose to join NATO, we did not have a hidden agenda that Russia did not know about. The Russians have traditionally and historically been our friends, and they knew what our agenda was.

      When we restored our independence in 2006, we adopted a declaration of independence in the Montenegrin Parliament and we defined our two key foreign policy priorities: European integration and integration into NATO. In partnership with NATO, we established a programme of accession – a membership action plan – of five cycles over five years. That was a public process, which was transparent to those both within and outside the country. During that period, Russia made no serious remarks about our process of integration into NATO. Even if Russia had made remarks, they would not have changed our decision.

      We see our integration into NATO not as a threat to our partners and friends, but as a way of helping us to strengthen our values, improve our society and give our citizens a better quality of life. Quality of life is at a low level in Montenegro and the western Balkans. We lag behind developed Europe, not because we are not competent or we have no vision, but because we had the misfortune to have to deal with our differences through wars. We then had to go through the reconciliation process after those wars, counting the people who were lost and the resources that were destroyed. Just when we thought that everything was fine, we had to deal with new conflicts.

      Montenegro has said no to the continuation of such conflicts in the western Balkans. We want to cherish the values of Europe and the world, and we have chosen to do so by becoming a member of the European Union and NATO. Unfortunately, when we were about to finalise the latter process, Russia decided that it could not accept it and started to obstruct the process in the least democratic way possible. That posed a threat to our constitutional system, our security and our democracy. Russia made public and financial threats, and used political and intelligence pressure, but Montenegro resisted that pressure and is now a member of NATO. The political elite and our citizens proved their dedication and commitment to that decision. That is why we are here today, and that is why we were in Washington on 5 June. Today, we celebrate the results of our 10 years of co-operation with the Council of Europe.

      That is also why we opened 28 chapters in the negotiations with the European Union. We believe that Russia will understand what is going on in the Balkans and the priorities and wishes of the Balkan nations, and that they will understand that nobody can dispute that this is our sovereign right. We will use our NATO membership to ensure peace, prosperity and stability in Europe and the world.

      Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – While recognising the good progress that, as a European Union candidate, Montenegro is already making to meet the necessary requirements, what further steps will be taken to reform public administration, fight organised crime and corruption, and promote freedom of expression and human rights standards?

      Mr MARKOVIĆ* – Yesterday, in our collegiate body meeting that I chaired, we concluded that Montenegro should enter a new stage of negotiations with the European Union. In the last five years, we have made significant progress. For a small administration of modest capacities, it is extremely difficult to lead in parallel two processes of negotiations. It was a serious challenge, but we are very proud of the result that we have achieved. We opened 28 chapters and closed three, and intend to open all the other chapters by the end of the year. But that is not our final goal.

      Our goal is to work in a more dedicated way on closing the chapters. We must try to close all the chapters that we have opened in the next five years, so that we can start the process of formalising our membership of the European Union. We must do that to improve our society, strengthen our institutions and make them sustainable, and create new opportunities for the development of our economy. Integration is needed, but we must also strengthen our economy, raising the level of development, increasing employment and creating better opportunities for the young.

      It is not in our interests for politicians to be happy with the integration process and praise the number of chapters. What is important is to make changes in the real world and help the citizens of Montenegro feel they have a better quality of life. We know they will not feel that immediately or even over a five-year period, but we must put the process into their hands in the following five years.

      We must therefore do everything possible to improve the functioning of the rule of law and make our judiciary more efficient. We must reduce corruption to the lowest possible level, too; we do not have the ambition to eliminate it from our system as that is impossible, of course. We are realistic about that, but we do want to reduce it to a level where it will not detract from the functioning of the institutions.

      We must also improve human rights; we must ensure higher quality protection of human rights. We want to create a society of equal opportunities for all. That requires us to stabilise our economy, make our public finances more sustainable and improve our business environment, giving more opportunities to the domestic business world and to foreign investors, which we need; we need foreign investment in tourism, the energy sector, agriculture and infrastructure. These are our goals.

      We want the rest of the process of integration to offer real opportunities to our young people in particular. We do not want them to leave Montenegro. That is our key interest and our key goal.

      Ms PALLARÉS (Andorra, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – You explained well the big challenges currently facing your country. Addressing them is not going to be easy with a divided parliament, so, on the boycott of the Montenegro Parliament, what steps are you taking to open dialogue with opposition parties to construct stability in your country?

      Mr MARKOVIĆ* – We tried to establish that dialogue immediately after the election results were proclaimed, and immediately after the opposition said it would boycott the parliament and not recognise the election results.

      I remind you that we started the elections through a specific, unique model. In order to ensure the adequate implementation of the new election registration, with electronic identification of the voters and the meeting of other requirements so that the citizens can trust the election process, we invited the opposition to become part of the government before the elections were organised. We established the government of electoral trust. We did not need to do so, because we had a majority, but we still gave the opposition the positions of ministers of finance, agriculture, labour and social welfare and of deputy prime minister and minister of the interior. We gave them all the key ministries they claim can be used for political purposes and achieving advantage in elections. That is the atmosphere in which our election took place.

      The turnout was huge. More than 2 000 observers were present, and all the reports, including that of the Council of Europe, say these were the best organised elections. The 73% turnout showed that citizens trust the election process, and the vote showed that the ruling parties won and that the opposition had an excellent result. We invited them to come to the parliament, because they belong there. As prime minister to be, and as the prime minister later, I invited them to take part in the government, although they did not have any right to take positions in the government on the basis of the election result. But I knew at that time, as I know today, that there is no democracy or progress in society if there is no cohesion in society. So the door to the government is open to them, but we cannot talk about repeating the elections so that they can take the positions in the institutions. We cannot do this outside of the institutions, as that is where the dialogue about all outstanding issues must take place.

      I offer this invitation to the opposition even today. We need a dialogue; that is in the interests of our state and our citizens. The language of blackmailing and not recognising the election results is something we will not accept. That is not democratic; it endangers our stability, our political system and our sovereignty. This government cannot risk that.

      Mr HANŽEK (Slovenia, Spokesperson of the Group of the Unified European Left) – Throughout history, the Montenegrin people have defended their independence from various enemies. This is confirmed by the magnificent poem “Gorski Vijenac” by Vladika Petar Petrović Njegoš. Montenegro will allocate €110 million for armaments due to its NATO accession. How do you assess that the citizens of Montenegro will accept this, taking into consideration that the government has not given them the chance to decide through a referendum?

      Mr MARKOVIĆ – Let me say first that we have the expenses for the army, even without NATO; we have costs for maintenance and equipment. We allocate 1.6% of our GDP to the army. The agreed rate of financing by 2024 is 2% in NATO, so there is nothing dramatic about financing Montenegro’s army as a member of NATO. Our annual contribution will be only €400 000. That is not a burden for Montenegro; we see it as an investment in the future, in stability and peace. Without stability and peace, there is no progress, no security for the individual, the family or the State. Without security, we cannot progress, and we are fully aware of what we want to achieve in the future.

      As for the referendum, we have had a dialogue about NATO membership for five years. It is not only about meeting the requirements – political, defence, intelligence or any other criteria. There have been five years of discussion in Montenegro about whether NATO membership is in our interests, giving everyone an opportunity to say whether they are for or against NATO, and why. For five years, we had a public, open debate about NATO membership.

      A referendum has a consultative character; it is not binding, and we would have spent money and political resources discussing the same issue that we have been discussing for five years. Parliament has the right to decide on this question, and there is a required majority for NATO membership. Parliament is the reflection of the will of the citizens of Montenegro, so we did not violate any rule of democracy or any democratic procedure. Our decision is based on the constitution and democratic standards.

      The PRESIDENT – We will now take questions in groups of three. The first question is from Mr Ariev from Ukraine, but he is not here, so the next question is from Mr Corlăţean of Romania.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) — Prime Minister, a number of years ago I was extremely privileged to work on behalf of Romania with the Montenegrin authorities on the different strategic projects in Montenegro, first with the Foreign Minister, Igor Lukšić. I congratulate you sincerely on your accession to NATO and on the important democratic reforms you have promoted, including in the intelligence domain, and on defeating the hybrid war on the Montenegro State coming from Russia. Can you identify one or two domains for European Union accession? They are much more complex and you might feel the need of friendly assistance and support from some other member State.

      The PRESIDENT — The next question is from Mr Özcenk, Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community. He is not here, so I call Ms Bilgehan.

      Ms BILGEHAN (Turkey)* — At the last election, I went your beautiful country as an observer. You had a quota for female candidates, but generally they were at the bottom of the list. Nevertheless, I hope many of them were elected. As you said, Montenegro has ratified the Istanbul Convention on violence against women and was indeed the first country to do so. Have you carried out any reforms in education on violence against women?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) — Prime Minister, I am very glad that you are here today and that relations between the Republic of Moldova and Montenegro are going well. The Foreign Minister’s recent visit to Moldova proved very good. You mentioned several challenges; there are many similarities between the Republic of Moldova and Montenegro. How do you face those geopolitical challenges? We are faced with them almost every day, so it would be good to hear you share your experience with us.

      Mr MARKOVIĆ — Allow me to express my gratitude to the MP from Turkey. I agree that the friendship between our two countries is very strong and is developing on several different fronts. We have excellent relations at the highest political level but we also have strong economic co-operation. I want to focus particularly on the rights of women. I said earlier that Montenegrin society is very traditional, just like other countries in the western Balkans. For a long time, our attitude was that women should stay at home. Of course, everything has changed in that respect, and we want to turn those traditional relations into something else. We want to use the power of women to develop our society and economy, and all our policies aim to do so. We have an increasing number of women in very important managerial positions, not only in protocol but in decision-making positions. I am very happy with that, as I have shown by example. When I was Minister of Justice, all heads of departments were women – that is why I can say that I was a very successful Minister of Justice. We have mechanisms to ensure that this policy is sustainable and that it contributes to the development of our society.

      I thank my dear colleague from Moldova for his question. I agree about our relations. I have mentioned how strange the Balkans are. We live next to each other but not together; most frequently we talk about our differences, not the things we have in common. How is it possible that Montenegro, with its small population, could find the model to be a friend to everyone in the region and to develop a good partnership with the European Union, the United States and China? There is the ability to recognise the interests of the individuals and to meet their needs. We are there not to generate problems but to solve them, to ensure that dialogue is the key element of searching for solutions when we come across challenging, difficult and demanding questions.

Montenegro is increasingly taking initiatives. We offer good proposals to improve the situation in our country, the region and beyond; we do not bring problems to the table. We have always been able to take responsibility for tough decisions. I will give one example from my region. You remember when Kosovo proclaimed independence; it was a traumatic question in the region, particularly for Serbia, our neighbour and friend. We have excellent relations with that country – we are more like family than friends – and have had for centuries, but Montenegro was the first in the region to recognise Kosovo, and it almost ruptured our diplomatic relations with Serbia. Our ambassador in Serbia was almost declared persona non grata.

We did not make that decision because we wanted to inflict damage on Serbia; we did it because we knew it was an important decision for the region. Some 80% of our citizens were against it at the time, but we thought that it was good for the region. If we had accepted the atmosphere at that time, we would not have the good relations with Kosovo that we now have, or such excellent relations with Serbia – they are the best they have been for 30 years. Today, as you can see, Serbia and Kosovo can discuss their issues. Small Montenegro had leaders who could see beyond its borders and think outside the box. That is how we look at circumstances in the region and the world, and that is how we act. As you can see, it brings benefits for us.

I thank our colleague Mr Corlăţean, the former minister from Romania, and his country for their support of Montenegro during NATO and European Union accession. I went to Romania as minister of justice to learn about its experience during the European Union accession process, and I found it very helpful. Thank you for everything.

Ms FINCKH-KRÄMER (Germany)* – My question concerns relations with Kosovo. There is a section of the border whose status remains unclarified and emotionally charged. What chances do you see of reaching some agreement with Kosovo on a clear and mutually acceptable border?

Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – Prime Minister, I congratulate you and your whole nation on your accession to NATO just a few weeks ago. Hungary has always supported your aspiration to join NATO, and we believe that Montenegro will now play an important role in stabilising the Balkan region. What form do you think your co-operation will take with NATO operations already under way?

Mr KROSS (Estonia) – Prime Minister, last year an assassination attempt was made against your predecessor, Milo Ðukanović. We understand that it was most probably orchestrated by the Russian military intelligence service. Can you update us on the investigation into this incident? Have you had any co-operation at all from the Russian side, and what will be the outcome of the investigation? Also, what is your general assessment of the current threat from the Russians towards democracy and constitutional order?

Mr MARKOVIĆ – The question of the demarcation of the border with Montenegro is finished. We did this with a joint commission between Kosovo and Montenegro. The demarcation of borders was based on realistic documents and facts. All the members of both sides of the commission signed the document, and it was not disputed. The Montenegrin Parliament ratified the agreement. The Kosovan Parliament has not yet ratified it, but we think that that is due to internal disagreements unrelated to its attitude towards Montenegro. That is why Montenegro did not send any message that would have made the situation in Kosovo more difficult.

I have spoken with European officials in Brussels, asking them not to make demarcation of borders a condition for visa liberalisation for citizens of Kosovo. That was our proposal. Maybe it was not logical, but we asked them not to make that a condition. However, it is for the European Union to decide its own policy. We believe that constituting the Kosovo Government will solve the problem in one way or another. We are not anxious about it; we are very patient. We want to help our neighbours to resolve the situation, not to make it more difficult for them.

On the second question, from Ms Hoffmann from Hungary, we have had several operational programmes on various levels with NATO. Our co-operation is very good. Our army has a number of programmes that it implements with NATO. Before we were a member, we participated for several years in NATO ISAF missions, and now we financially support the strengthening of the national forces for defending Afghanistan and combating terrorism there. Our programmes with NATO go as planned, and we prove to be a credible partner, able to respond to the challenges.

On the attempted coup, the special prosecution service has brought an indictment that the court has confirmed, and the first hearing is scheduled for 19 July this year. The indictment has been brought against the leaders of the Democratic Front, as their political organisation was instrumental in causing the terrorist actions in Montenegro aimed at assassinating our former Prime Minister, destroying legitimately elected powers and stopping our membership of NATO. Those threats have not stopped, and we are concerned about them. We do not understand why they exist, or why Russia has such an attitude towards Montenegro. Russia says that the reason is that we introduced sanctions on Russian citizens, but we just joined the European Union in imposing sanctions on Russia for the annexation of Crimea.

      A couple of days ago, we closed negotiations on chapter 30 of the acquis communautaire, which means that we have to align our foreign policy with European Union policy. Russia treats only Montenegro in that way; that is not how it treats other countries that introduced sanctions against it. We are determined to preserve Montenegro’s right to decide its own future independently.

      The PRESIDENT – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Marković. Prime Minister, thank you very much for your address, for sharing your views and for the answers you gave to questions. You highlighted the important progress that Montenegro has made as a member State of the Council of Europe and on the path of Euro-Atlantic integration. It was important to hear your views about the political situation and the challenge you face. It is important to maintain constructive dialogue between the majority and the opposition, both inside parliament and outside. I wish you, your government and the people of Montenegro every success. Congratulations once again on the 10th anniversary of membership of the Council of Europe. Thank you very much.

      Mr DIVINA (Italy) – Mr President, I would like to ask my question –

      The PRESIDENT – I have already said that we have finished. The Secretariat will explain the process to you.

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.

      The sitting is closed.

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

CONTENTS

1. Recognition and implementation of the principle of accountability in the Parliamentary Assembly

Presentation by Ms Maury Pasquier of report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, Document 14338.

Speakers: Ms Gillan (United Kingdom), Mr Heer (Switzerland), Mr Kox (Netherlands), Mr Fischer (Germany), Mr Cilevičs (Latvia), Mr Ariev (Ukraine), Mr Rouquet (France), Mr Omtzigt (Netherlands), Mr Rustamyan (Armenia), Ms Christoffersen (Norway), Mr Seyidov (Azerbaijan), Ms Kalmari (Finland), Ms Schou (Norway), Mr Csenger-Zalán (Hungary), Ms L Ovochkina (Ukraine), Ms Naghdalyan (Armenia), Ms Sotnyk (Ukraine), Mr Golub (Ukraine), Ms Durrieu (France), Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova), Mr Masiulis (Lithuania), Ms Schneider-Schneiter (Switzerland), Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg), Mr Halicki (Poland) and Mr Liashko (Ukraine)

Reply: Ms Maury Pasquier (Switzerland)

Amendments 9 and 10 adopted.

Draft resolution in Document 14338, as amended, adopted

2. Address by Mr Duško Marković, Prime Minister of Montenegro

Questions: Mr Schennach (Austria), the Earl of Dundee (United Kingdom), Ms Pallares (Andorra), Mr Hanžek (Slovenia), Mr Corlăţean (Romania), Ms Bilgehan (Turkey), Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova), Ms Finckh-Krämer (Germany), Ms Hoffmann (Hungary) and Mr Kross (Estonia)

3. Next public sitting

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]

ALLAVENA, Jean-Charles [M.]

AMORUSO, Francesco Maria [Mr] (SANTANGELO, Vincenzo [Mr])

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]

ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ÁRNASON, Vilhjálmur [Mr]

AST, Marek [Mr] (TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr])

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

BAK, Osman Aşkın [Mr] (TORUN, Cemalettin Kani [Mr])

BALÁŽ, Radovan [Mr] (PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.])

BALFE, Richard [Lord] (DAVIES, Geraint [Mr])

BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]

BARTOS, Mónika [Ms] (GULYÁS, Gergely [Mr])

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]

BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BILLSTRÖM, Tobias [Mr]

BÎZGAN-GAYRAL, Oana-Mioara [Ms] (PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms])

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

BOGDANOV, Krasimir [Mr]

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms] (MAEIJER, Vicky [Ms])

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]

BULIGA, Valentina [Mme]

BUSTINDUY, Pablo [Mr] (BALLESTER, Ángela [Ms])

BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr]

ĆATOVIĆ, Marija Maja [Ms]

CENTEMERO, Elena [Ms]

CEPEDA, José [Mr]

CERİTOĞLU KURT, Lütfiye İlksen [Ms] (DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr])

ČERNOCH, Marek [Mr] (MARKOVÁ, Soňa [Ms])

CHITI, Vannino [Mr]

CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Anastasia [Ms]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

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

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]

CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]

COZMANCIUC, Corneliu Mugurel [Mr] (CIOLACU, Ion-Marcel [Mr])

CROZON, Pascale [Mme] (KARAMANLI, Marietta [Mme])

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr]

CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme]

DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme]

DE PIETRO, Cristina [Ms] (CATALFO, Nunzia [Ms])

DESTEXHE, Alain [M.]

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]

DOKLE, Namik [M.]

DUNDEE, Alexander [The Earl of] [ ]

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]

DURRIEU, Josette [Mme]

DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

EVANS, Nigel [Mr]

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

FIALA, Doris [Mme]

FILIPE, António [Mr] (ROSETA, Helena [Mme])

FINCKH-KRÄMER, Ute [Ms]

FISCHER, Axel [Mr]

FOULKES, George [Lord] (WINTERTON, Rosie [Dame])

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]

FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GALATI, Giuseppe [Mr] (BERGAMINI, Deborah [Ms])

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GATTI, Marco [M.]

GENTVILAS, Simonas [Mr] (VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr])

GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GILLAN, Cheryl [Ms]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GJORCHEV, Vladimir [Mr] (ZZ...)

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

GOGA, Pavol [M.] (MAROSZ, Ján [Mr])

GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms] (KVATCHANTIRADZE, Zviad [Mr])

GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr])

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr]

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]

GOSSELIN-FLEURY, Geneviève [Mme] (ALLAIN, Brigitte [Mme])

GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme]

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]

GUNNARSDÓTTIR, Bjarkey [Ms] (JAKOBSDÓTTIR, Katrín [Ms])

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

HAGEBAKKEN, Tore [Mr] (VALEN, Snorre Serigstad [Mr])

HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr]

HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr]

HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr]

HAMID, Hamid [Mr]

HAMOUSOVÁ, Zdeňka [Ms] (ZELIENKOVÁ, Kristýna [Ms])

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

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HOFFMANN, Rózsa [Mme] (VEJKEY, Imre [Mr])

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HRISTOV, Plamen [Mr]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]

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

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

JACQUAT, Denis [M.]

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

JENSEN, Michael Aastrup [Mr]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]

JOHNSEN, Kristin Ørmen [Ms] (JENSSEN, Frank J. [Mr])

JORDANA, Carles [M.]

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KANDEMİR, Erkan [Mr]

KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr]

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

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

KOÇ, Haluk [M.]

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KRESÁK, Peter [Mr]

KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]

KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr]

KÜÇÜKCAN, Talip [Mr]

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

L OVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms]

LE BORGN’, Pierre-Yves [M.]

LE DÉAUT, Jean-Yves [M.]

LESKAJ, Valentina [Ms]

LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.] (MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr])

LIASHKO, Oleh [Mr]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr] (LABAZIUK, Serhiy [Mr])

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

MADEJ, Róbert [Mr]

MAHOUX, Philippe [M.]

MAMMADOV, Muslum [M.]

MARAS, Gordan [Mr] (MESIĆ, Jasen [Mr])

MARKOVIĆ, Milica [Mme]

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]

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

MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness] (SHARMA, Virendra [Mr])

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

MEALE, Alan [Sir]

MERGEN, Martine [Mme] (HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme])

MESTERHÁZY, Attila [Mr]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MİROĞLU, Orhan [Mr]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

MULLEN, Rónán [Mr] (CROWE, Seán [Mr])

MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr]

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])

NAGHDALYAN, Hermine [Ms] (FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr])

NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

NOVIKOV, Andrei [Mr]

OBREMSKI, Jarosław [Mr] (BUDNER, Margareta [Ms])

OMTZIGT, Pieter [Mr] (MULDER, Anne [Mr])

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]

O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr]

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]

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

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

POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms]

POPA, Ion [M.] (KORODI, Attila [Mr])

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

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

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

REICHARDT, André [M.] (GROSDIDIER, François [M.])

RIGONI, Andrea [Mr]

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

ROJHAN GUSTAFSSON, Azadeh [Ms] (OHLSSON, Carina [Ms])

ROUQUET, René [M.]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

SANDBÆK, Ulla [Ms] (BORK, Tilde [Ms])

SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms]

SANTERINI, Milena [Mme]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

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

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

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

SCULLY, Paul [Mr] (GALE, Roger [Sir])

SEKULIĆ, Predrag [Mr]

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr]

SILVA, Adão [M.]

ŠIRCELJ, Andrej [Mr]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

STIENEN, Petra [Ms]

STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]

SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (DUMERY, Daphné [Ms])

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TILKI, Attila [Mr] (NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr])

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

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

TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.]

UNHURIAN, Pavlo [Mr] (YEMETS, Leonid [Mr])

USTA, Leyla Şahin [Ms]

VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms]

VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr] (BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms])

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.]

VILLUMSEN, Nikolaj [Mr]

VIROLAINEN, Anne-Mari [Ms]

VITANOV, Petar [Mr] (JABLIANOV, Valeri [Mr])

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WILSON, David [Lord] (CRAUSBY, David [Mr])

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

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

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

ZAMPA, Sandra [Ms] (QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO, Lia [Ms])

ZECH, Tobias [Mr]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]

ZOTEA, Alina [Ms] (GHIMPU, Mihai [Mr])

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

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

BESELIA, Eka [Ms]

BILOVOL, Oleksandr [Mr]

BONET, Sílvia Eloïsa [Ms]

BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr]

EFSTATHIOU, Constantinos [M.]

ELENA, Eric [M.]

EROTOKRITOU, Christiana [Ms]

JANIK, Grzegorz [Mr]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr]

KIRAL, Serhii [Mr]

LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]

LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms]

MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.]

OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr]

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]

TORNARE, Manuel [M.]

TSKITISHVILI, Dimitri [Mr]

WOLD, Morten [Mr]

ZELIENKOVÁ, Kristýna [Ms]

Observers / Observateurs

ALLISON, Dean [Mr]

LARIOS CÓRDOVA, Héctor [Mr]

MALTAIS, Ghislain [M.]

OLIVER, John [Mr]

SIMMS, Scott [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]

AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]

CHAGAF, Aziza [Mme]

HAMIDINE, Abdelali [M.]

LABLAK, Aicha [Mme]

LEBBAR, Abdesselam [M.]

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