AA17CR36

AS (2017) CR 36

2017 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-sixth sitting

Friday 13 October 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.

(Ms Schou, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.10 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

      The PRESIDENT – Our first business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2017) 07, Addendum 5.

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

      They are agreed to.

2. Youth against corruption

      The PRESIDENT – Our next business is the debate on the report titled “Youth against corruption” (Document 14395) presented by Mr Ariev, on behalf of Ms Cimbro, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

      We will aim to finish this item by about 11 a.m. We must interrupt the list of speakers at about 10.45 a.m. Are these arrangements agreed to?

      They are agreed to.

      If all the time allocated for this debate is not used, I have the discretion to call additional speakers at the end of the speaking list.

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

       Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – I am pleased to be presenting this important report.

      It is said that youth is a spark that can either burn or light up the country. Indeed, history teaches us about many social movements in which young people have taken to the streets in huge numbers in protest against corrupt governments, be it the Arab Spring or the Euromaidan in my own country. Young people today use new tools of social media that allow for quick, cheap and easy access to a large number of people, and they can mobilise quickly around a common action when the need arises.

      Young people of today shape the values of tomorrow. They must recognise that they shoulder a great responsibility, and that the fight to root out corruption and ensure that no one is above the law is ultimately in their hands. At the same time, young people are also vulnerable to corruption. It is very difficult to explain to young people that corruption is risky and does not pay, because examples of flourishing corrupt people have become commonplace. When young people see their elder peers succeed through nepotism, cheating, and purchased diplomas, they wonder why they should not do the same. Meritocracy often does not pay.

      Recent studies in European Union countries have shown that young people under the age of 25 are less aware of corruption, hold more accommodating attitudes, and are generally more tolerant towards it. That means not necessarily that they are less honest, but that their perception and awareness when identifying cases of corruption is considerably lower, and they need more guidance, awareness and formal integrity right from the earliest stage.

      In general, corruption is all too evident in today’s world, and it would be naïve to think that this report will change everything overnight – of course it will not. Ms Cimbro’s report focuses on the small but important steps that governments and young people can take to improve national policies, and the capacity of young people in the fight against corruption. At the same time, young people fighting against corruption should abstain from any political involvement. Corruption has no political colours, and it should not be reduced to the principle of “friend or foe”, as has sometimes happened in my country, Ukraine. We should find all kinds of corruption unacceptable.

      I commend Ms Cimbro’s timely report, which joins the recent report by Mr Nicoletti on political corruption, and also the report by Ms Bilgehan on the role of parliamentarians and investigative journalists, which the Assembly adopted in the June part-session. The fact that we have had three reports in such a short time shows that this topic is important. At the same time, I pay credit to new forms of media and communication that provide much easier access to information for investigative journalists, and for the public at large who benefit from transparency and accountability in our societies. Not a single day passes in the European media without a new revelation about corruption, be it in politics, public services or sport. However, it is not sufficient for young people to learn about corruption solely through TV screens or their smartphone applications.

      Ms Cimbro’s report underlines that it is essential to devise appropriate empowerment strategies at national and international level, in order to increase young people’s awareness and understanding of the negative effects of corruption, while at the same time empowering them to stand against it. All in all, the rapporteur has defined three objectives for her report: first to recognise the role of young people as stakeholders in the fight against corruption; secondly, to consider how to ensure their proper inclusion in European and national anti-corruption strategies; and thirdly, to identify tools and measures of youth empowerment in that domain. The explanatory memorandum presents a catalogue of best practices for youth engagement, both adult-led and youth-led, and it highlights four areas in which youth action can have the most impact: politics, education, ICT and sport. Education is key to preventing corruption. We cannot kill all the bugs by simply eliminating two, three or four of them; we need to spray the whole field to get a good result.

      Corruption is also present within the education systems of our countries. A corrupt education system can prevent young people from achieving their potential, and at the same time it serves as a breeding ground for corruption. Therefore, an education sector that is free from corruption is imperative for the promotion of a culture of ethics and anti-corruption among young people. Importantly, anti-corruption disciplines and education should be implemented in educational processes in all countries, from school level to universities. In that context, I commend the work undertaken by the Council of Europe Pan-European Platform on Ethics, Transparency and Integrity in Education, which was launched in 2015 with the aim of fighting corruption in education. It is currently working on ethical principles for various groups of stakeholders.

      The rapporteur concludes that on one hand, education needs to be placed in the centre of national anti-corruption strategies, and on the other hand, national curricula need to integrate anti-corruption and integrity studies as an integral part of citizenship and human rights education. Young people must be engaged at the design stage of policies that concern them. The more young people take the lead, the more chance policies have of succeeding. Some of the most innovative and efficient initiatives have been led by young people.

      Young people do not function as a homogenous group – they have different perspectives, motivations and ways of thinking, and the projects and support provided should therefore be tailored to reflect that diversity. Youth initiatives have more impact when they are integrated into larger anti-corruption campaigns. In most of our member States, anti-corruption and integrity youth groups are not particularly numerous and are rather dispersed. It would benefit them greatly if national networks could be set up so that young people can share their experiences and knowledge about corruption, and at the same time find alliances with other stakeholders such as universities, public figures and businesses.

      The rapporteur also proposes to set up a platform for integrity under the auspices of the Council of Europe and its Joint Council on Youth, which could bring together young people, educational institutions, representatives of the public and private sectors, as well as international and civil society organisations.

      Young people who stand up to oppose corruption and fraud need proper protection. There is an urgent need for all European countries to set up adequate legal and administrative frameworks to ensure the protection of whistle-blowers. In addition, the report promotes the setting up of a support fund to help young whistle-blowers to cope with the direct and indirect consequences of their revelations.

      Ms Cimbro has asked me to thank all those who contributed to completing her report. Last but not least, I thank our Finnish colleagues who moved a very relevant amendment concerning public access to all official State documents and court proceedings, which is an efficient means of exposing corruption and related crimes. I encourage you to support this amendment as sub-amended by the committee and to vote in favour of the report. I thank the secretariat of the committee and all the members of the committee, who did a huge amount of work discussing and preparing the report. It is very important for it to be voted on today. Thank you very much.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Ariev, you have two minutes and 47 seconds left.

      Now we come to the list of speakers. We start with speakers on behalf of the political groups. I cannot see Mr Kox, but he may come later from the Bureau meeting. We start with the Free Democrats and Ms Filipovski from Serbia.

      Ms FILIPOVSKI (Serbia, spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group) – The priorities in the fight against corruption should be control over public finances and strengthening parliamentary control over the spending of public finances, which are the most important aspects of the fight against corruption. Special attention should be paid to the reports of independent State authorities and co-operation with NGOs.

      Young people should be acquainted through their curriculums and programmes in schools with all aspects of the fight against corruption. In addition to schools, the media and social networks have a very important role in spreading public awareness of the importance of the fight against corruption, as well as introducing young people to the importance of national parliamentary branches of the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, which were formed in 53 countries of the world. An example of good practice is the Parliament of Serbia, which, within its controlling role, has a portal for supervising public finances.

      Mr V. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan, spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – Corruption has a negative impact on development in all spheres and undermines the future of all three pillars of the Council of Europe – the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Combating corruption is an ongoing, never-ending process and there are numerous strategies, measures and standards developed to contribute to this process. But no measure and strategy can be effective and sustainable if it does not engage young people.

      There are a lot of significant points in the report that remind us how important it is to involve youth in combating corruption. The report not only brings across the energy and potential of young people, but makes them aware and more prepared for the potential challenges of tomorrow, and empowered to be a multiplier in this field. At the same time, the report contributes significantly to the formation of an anti-corruption culture and environment in society. The more young people speak and engage in anti-corruption activities, the stronger integrity will be in their society.

      We agree with and support the position noted in the report that education is a key area to raise awareness about corruption among the youth and to ensure their active participation in the implementation of anti-corruption reforms. But we also emphasise the role of specialised and informal education. If, by providing better general education we make young people better decision makers and better informed on anti-corruption, then by providing specialised anti-corruption education we make them professionals and anti-corruption fighters. We also believe that subjects on anti-corruption should be the part of university and even higher and secondary school curriculums if applicable.

      The second important point is the engagement of and support for the youth, as educated youth would need to be listened to, to be reacted to and to feel that they contributed to something. They need their ideas to be applied and developed. We need to be mindful that young people are very sensitive and vulnerable and require a special approach and attention.

      We welcome the proposal that, apart from expecting civil society organisations and youth associations to create e-platforms, the Council of Europe can itself initiate the establishment of a single e-platform for youth to submit their concerns, to share their views and to be involved in the decision-making process of the Organisation. Only in that case may the youth feel that they are key stakeholders in anti-corruption efforts.

      I also want to note the part of the report that touches on the Internet and social media. In a contemporary world, when we talk about youth and corruption, these concepts should be seen as tools for combating corruption, because the young generation are more capable users of new media for anti-corruption purposes. It can be a very helpful instrument to reach out to youth, as well as to deploy their capabilities to hold online campaigns.

      To conclude, I note that corruption can be fought off only when all the players in society share the same commitment. Youth stands in the centre of this system, providing greater access and impact mechanisms for the whole society. I thank the rapporteur on behalf of our group for her interesting report and proposals, which has higher practical applicability and impact on increasing transparency and fighting corruption.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria, spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group)* – I commend Eleonora Cimbro, who cannot be here as she is detained by a vote of confidence in the Italian Parliament. I genuinely thank her for her commitment to putting together the report, because she has put her finger on a very important issue.

      Corruption seems to be a modern-day scourge. That is why we need to put in place a set of ethics for young people, who are a very important partner in our fight against corruption. But that also means we have to protect them; we have to provide all appropriate platforms to that end if young people uncover corruption.

      Ms Cimbro talks in her report about young people and technology. We have to do everything in our power to see to it that young people are not thrown into jail because they make their views known for investigative purposes. They shine a light on painful episodes. We have people such as bloggers. In no way can we allow them to be sent to jail. It is important that we improve legal safeguards and protection for whistle-blowers. In recent years thought has been given to an assistance fund for young people who find themselves under threat from the law enforcement authorities for this reason.

      Ms Cimbro rightly pointed to the importance of the education system, because all this starts with knowledge as to precisely what corruption is. Corruption is not some kind of a gentlemen’s agreement. You have to prevent children engaging in any kind of minor corruption during their school years.

      Obviously children should be made to feel uncomfortable about corruption. We need to listen to them even though they may feel unease talking about such issues. That is why we believe there should be a pan-European platform for education in transparency. Alongside that we should also call on the European Commission to do something in the framework of the Erasmus programme and lifelong learning. It needs to introduce anti-corruption strategies and training. Many people speaking in the debate know about the introduction of anti-corruption training and certification systems for public servants. I say pointedly that that needs to apply to the law enforcement authorities – to the police as well – which is something I think young people wish to see. I very much hope that we will adopt the report unanimously today.

      Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom, spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – Nothing that I say in the next few minutes should be taken as indicating that I am against tackling youth corruption – quite the opposite – but I think that we should do so with our eyes open. One of the most instructive paragraphs in this report is paragraph 7 of the report’s main body; it sets out the negative factors that affect youth. Whether we are talking about Transparency International, the Eurobarometer, the Ernst & Young Fraud Survey or Generation Y, they show that youth are as subject to corruption as older generations, if not more so. That does not mean that we should not make big efforts with this group, but we should do so with utter frankness.

      One such example is social media, which has the potential to be a useful force, but in reality is one of the most corrupt and corrupting powers known on this earth. The British Parliament, among others, has looked into this issue and has come to some conclusions. It found that social media was misused and was potentially misusing, particularly with regard to the young. Social media tells gross lies that go beyond differences in public opinion or politics – mostly conducted by young people. It makes a hateful contribution to growing social unrest as well as the corruption of individuals, who are told stories that they know not to be true. It contributes to the appearance of lies in the fabric of society.

      Back in the United Kingdom, I am the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Nigeria, a country that has a reputation for corruption. One thing that has most influenced the successful treatment of corruption by the Nigerian Government has been legislation to allow whistle-blowing. I give my full support to the recommendations in the report for anything that can be done to improve the situation for whistle-blowers. Whistle-blowing has had a very significant effect on dealing with corruption in Nigeria and it would be useful for the committee to look at this issue.

      I am not sure what is going to succeed – although I think whistle-blowing will – but those who take the report forward should set up an effective mechanism to monitor the success of the different proposed activities, so that we know what actually works.

      Mr WASERMAN (France, spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – On behalf of the ALDE Group, I say that the work done by Ms Cimbro was excellent, and I agree with my friend and colleague Stefan that this is a very important subject. I was the president of a civic action for youth movement, and I know that young people in France and other countries can transform our societies. They can move mountains and take a new look at societies and change them for the future. We in the Council of Europe should appeal to young people and take advantage of their commitment and values to a greater extent than we do. That is why investment in education on integrity, ethics and on combating corruption is, first and foremost, a democratic investment. As leaders and citizens, young people will bring to bear that new way of looking at society.

      I stress that the proposals formulated in the resolution are very operational. They could also be used to measure the progress that can be made in our educational systems. When I became a civil servant, I had my first course on ethics at the age of 38. It is never too late to learn, but it would be better if such training and education were provided earlier in the educational system.

      I also stress that an important aspect of the report is what it says about whistle-blowers, which my group is particularly interested in. In 2014, there was a decision on this issue by the Committee of Ministers and then, in 2015, there was a resolution and a report on whistle-blowers. We believe, as the report suggests, that it is now high time to put this subject back on the table and see where we stand and how laws work in various countries with regard to whistle-blowers, whatever their age.

      Congratulations once again to the rapporteur and thank you very much for producing such a pragmatic, operational report.

      The PRESIDENT – I see that Mr Kox has arrived. There is an opportunity for you to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, Mr Kox.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands, spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – Thank you very much, Madame President. I am sorry; I was in a meeting of the Bureau and I cannot split myself into two people, although that would be great.

      I read the report with great interest and my group supports a lot of its suggestions. What makes me hesitate is when people speak about youth being more vulnerable to corruption than the rest of society. To be honest, I do not believe that. Youth are vulnerable to corruption if the circumstances are right for them to be corrupted. It is not the case that when people are born they still have to develop skills so that they do not become corrupted. When people are born in a non-corrupt environment, they will probably have only a very small chance of being corrupted. If you are not aware of corruption because it is not there, you will not be vulnerable to it. That is why less corrupt societies also have the fewest corrupt young people. I understand that we are responsible for protecting our youth against being vulnerable to corruption, but if our children and grandchildren are vulnerable to corruption, the blame lies with us. We have allowed societies to become corrupt.

      I therefore endorse an appeal to our governments to make young people less vulnerable to corruption, but that must go hand in hand with the fact that our governments and we politicians have to end corruption. In this Council of Europe with its 47 member States, there are many member States in which the level of institutional corruption is far too high. The report is missing an appeal to governments to systematically attack corruption. Our Secretary General said that, if we cannot get away from corruption, there is no need to talk about human rights, because they are inter-related. My group endorses the report, which has several reasonable proposals, but in the end it is not young people who are the main threat; it is us, who are responsible for our societies. We should already have done far more to fight corruption instead of leaving it alone, and through that, letting our youth be threatened and making them vulnerable to corruption.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – I congratulate our colleague, Ms Cimbro, and the secretariat on this report on such an important subject.

      In the presentation of my own report, “Parliamentary scrutiny over corruption: parliamentary co-operation with the investigative media”, just a few months ago in this Chamber, I did not hesitate to speak of corruption as a metastasising gangrene that insinuates itself everywhere in our economies and our societies, eroding the trust of our fellow citizens in the rule of law and undermining our democratic systems and institutions.

      It is quite true, as was stressed by our rapporteur, that young people are an integral part of the process of the formation of tomorrow’s values. They have an important role to play in the fight against corruption, through building a new culture of integrity at all levels of society. If we look at history or the present, we quickly realise that some very significant social movements have been triggered by young people, inspired by social demands connected to cases of corruption. The committee chairperson reminded us of young people protesting in Maidan Square; we could also think of the first meetings in Tahrir Square, those in Tunisia, or the first demonstrations in the Gezi Park in my own country, Turkey.

      Recent history has also seen entire movements of young people concerned about corruption being transformed into political parties and even winning elections. In several member States, young people are politically active on issues connected with elections. They create non-governmental organisations, with a view to making sure that free and fair elections are held and with a view to scrutinising electoral procedures. I would mention the young persons’ movement Vote and Beyond in Turkey as an example of good practice. Our rapporteur mentioned several other examples of seeking to promote the involvement of young people in combating corruption.

      The report also shows how serious and contagious this scourge is. We have not succeeded in eradicating it. According to a recent survey, young people aged 25 to 34 anywhere in the world are more pre-disposed than other age groups to justify behaviour that is contrary to ethics, in order to secure the survival of a company or to achieve financial objectives or career promotion. That is not surprising, because the education sector is corrupt.

      I would also mention the importance of sport. We know that corruption is widespread in the field of sport, which is a cause for serious concern. We have worked on that subject quite a bit already in our committee.

      I stress again the important role of the investigative media. We must do everything possible to protect whistle-blowers.

      Mr BÜCHEL (Switzerland)* – I am delighted that we are having this debate this morning, although it is a pity that so few of us are here to listen to it. As Mr Schennach rightly said, corruption is a scourge that afflicts society as a whole. We are responsible for dealing with that, at least in part, but in the future, it will be up to young people, because they are the citizens, the voters, the business owners, the managers, the civil servants and the politicians of the future. They will then be responsible. They are going to have to do things better than we have, particularly when it comes to tackling corruption. They are going to have to do more in the private sector, in the economy and in sport, but even more so in the public sector and at State level.

      Obviously, young people can also fall into temptation. They might accept bribes; it is not that they are better people or that they are immune to corrupt practices. There are people who simply look the other way and do nothing. I have been giving some thought to what is worst: bribing someone, accepting a bribe or looking away. There are a number of factors at play.

      Do we have to protect people? Yes, we do need to protect genuine whistle-blowers – but not corrupt young people. Corrupt young people must be punished; we must come down on them with the full force of the law – Mr Howell put that very well. I really could not care less whether someone is young or old, fat or thin, tall or short, good-looking or ugly, a man or a woman. We have to fight corruption wherever we find it.

      Over the last couple of days, our Assembly has put itself in a position to be able to speak out. We have had certain problems in recent months, but we are on the way to resolving them. We have taken some very positive steps forward and we must stay on track. It is not that I do not want to protect young people; it is that I am very clear that we must do everything in our power to see to it that the fight against corruption is mainstreamed across all our school curriculums as well as in the programmes that we support in the Council of Europe. We should not just be debating and writing reports. It is time we acted, both here in the Council of Europe and back home in our families and our parliaments.

      Mr REISS (France)* – None of us can say that corruption does not exist in our countries. A scandal breaks, we hear of personal enrichment, “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”, and there is profound cynicism, whether in the corrupter or the corrupted. Ms Cimbro’s excellent report on youth against corruption gives us a very clear-cut picture and proposes solutions. She is right to say that the role of youth is crucial in establishing a new culture of integrity at all levels of society.

      Today, a new, active, responsible generation is being raised, which will change things, and it is on that generation that we should focus our efforts. With training on the environment and equality already taking place, there needs to be similar education vis-à-vis corruption. The best way of combating the scourge is through education.

      Children have an innate and high sense of justice and fairness. A well-informed person may very well see people who are sorely tempted to join in on corruption. They need to be supported and given the means to intervene, and they need to be protected when they are whistle-blowers.

      The idea of strongly involving the European Commission through the Erasmus+ programme is an excellent one – we know the major success of that European programme. Proposing a common foundation for studies against corruption and support for projects carried out by youth organisations would make it possible to bring all the young people from different horizons together under a single ideal. Bad habits can develop quickly – Aristotle tells us that habit is second nature. We can only fear the worst if people are not properly educated.

      The Internet is also a powerful tool. The Greek platform that has been developed is an interesting one and should be emulated in other European countries. Denouncing corruption in many European countries often puts the person at risk and I am in support of a common legislative basis that would define protection and support for whistle-blowers. The more corruption there is in a country, the less whistle-blowers are inclined to come forward, so we need to break the vicious circle with awareness of the corruption problem, support for young people and protection for those who denounce corruption.

      Those should be the three basic strands of an ambitious European policy. Let us not forget that, to overcome corruption, young people need models more than criticism. We must all play our role in that regard.

      Mr MARUKYAN (Armenia) – This is a very important day for me, because I came into politics from civil society and started my career in a youth organisation as a human rights activist. I then worked as a human rights lawyer on cases in the European Court of Human Rights and on corruption cases.

      I see this report as very important and I see the youth as an important force against corruption. Corruption is a cancer in our societies and we must put all our efforts into fighting it.

      In the global corruption barometer survey, experts ask respondents to choose the three biggest problems facing their country from a list of key issues including the economy, unemployment, crime, immigration, health, education and corruption. One in three citizens from across Europe and central Asia says that corruption or bribery is one of the biggest problems facing their country.

      To resolve that situation, it is important that we give this active, brave and intelligent layer of society effective tools to identify, combat and overcome corruption on all levels and in all its guises. That is why it is important to put maximum effort into educating the youth. In my party, we say that young people are not the future of their country, but the present of their country. They should fight in the present day and not wait for the future. They should have such benefits in the present moment; not wait for everything to be nice in the future. No, the present day is for the youth and they should fight in the present day to move us on. It is they who must prevent and fight corruption, because they are the engine of all societal changes and the bearers of new cultures and approaches.

      It is critical to mention that corruption is nothing new; it has been passed down throughout history. That means that the older generations are the ones who have practised it and used it as a tool, and they therefore cannot be effective fighters of corruption. The youth are not the inventers or the beneficiaries of these systems of corruption, so they might be the most important players once they have been adequately prepared and armed. We, as politicians and people who support the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, must support the youth and give them the tools to fight corruption.

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – There is a saying in my country: “He who is not an idealist in his 20s has no heart, and he who is not a realist in his 40s has no brain.” Developing in that way as we mature and grow older is often to the good: it is part of the natural process of coming to grips with the realities of the world and abandoning some of the illusions of youth. However – and here is where the excellent report by Ms Cimbro comes in – if we want our civilisation to develop and prosper, it is essential that we remain idealists throughout our lives in at least one area: namely, in our determination to fight corruption and similar types of wrongdoing in our societies. If that is so, we must start with our young.

      Ms Cimbro’s range of remedies has great merit. Among other things, she suggests that we organise anti-corruption seminars for young people and that anti-corruption should be a subject in schools and universities. If I may make some additional suggestions, I would say, first, that we must maintain free and dynamic media that may report on anything they discover. Young people are eager consumers of news. Freedom of expression and information must be sacred. Secondly, we must have enforceable legislation that ensures that there is transparency in public life, including in companies. A young person’s idealism is fostered when he or she knows that strict measures are the law of the land and that whistle-blowers, who are often young and idealistic, are given the necessary support.

      There is a battle going on in the world right now as part of the process of globalisation – a battle between the harmful forces of fraud and corruption on the one hand and the good forces that try to defeat, or at least to contain, corruption in order to preserve honest and upright societies. We have duties as individuals. Personal morality in public life must be anchored in our philosophical and ethical outlook. Such an outlook might easily be gained from attending a course or two on the teachings of leading thinkers throughout history. Only if we can strengthen our moral backbone against dishonesty and corruption will we keep them at bay.

      Ms Cimbro’s enlightening and courageous report on the need to form our younger citizens accordingly is fully in line with such a belief. We thank her and the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media for what they have achieved.

      The PRESIDENT – Given that we have not used all of the time allocated for the debate this morning, I invite spontaneous contributions from members who have not spoken in the debate. Would anyone like to speak?

      I call Ms Pallarés.

      Ms PALLARÉS (Andorra)* – The report, which we will soon vote on, is interesting and important. I echo the various comments that have been made in the Chamber this morning.

      I would like to stress one point. Colleagues will be aware that children and young people tend not to do what you tell them to do, but to copy what they see. That is why it is important that we take action back at home. We cannot have a situation in which companies do not get public tenders even though they offer better terms, or in which bosses get their children into university when other children have higher grades. We need a meritocratic system, not an admissions system based on a series of telephone calls. We must put an end to such practices. It is time to look at the situation in our own countries and at the advantages that are afforded to people there.

      If we want future generations that not only fight against corruption, but see a good example set by their politicians, we need to put an end to the situation whereby a phone call to someone in the governing party suffices to give better access to contracts, universities or whatever. We must offer young people a much better future than what we have today.

      Ms TOPCU (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur for this important and comprehensive report. In democratic regimes, States are supposed to raise their children and youth in accordance with universal ethics, democracy and social norms. The family, educational institutions, authorities, law enforcement agencies and non-governmental organisations are part of that mission.

      States that owe their existence to their citizens are supposed to protect them from trouble while providing them with security and meeting their needs for social unity and solidarity. One of the most contagious social diseases, which harms social unity and solidarity, demolishes harmony and, if not cured, destroys the hopes and dreams of the next generation, is corruption.

      To minimise political corruption, the State, as controller and regulatory authority, has a great responsibility. The State should reconstruct itself as an impartial, strong, efficient and determined problem solver, planner and stabiliser. For the sake of the integrity of the law, pre-emptive regulations should be adopted to prohibit politics from interfering with the judiciary’s independence. To ease social conscience and to allow the promise of youth to flourish, there must be universal anti-corruption regulations. Trust in the institutions of the State comes only if those regulatory steps are taken.

      Only strategic planning and determined action can blast contagious social diseases. The cure comes from society’s basic institution: the family. The family should raise children according to national and universal values, ethics, the rule of law, and social and judicial norms. Likewise, educational institutions should consider the importance of values-based education.

      Corruption is directly proportional to authoritarianism. Corruption is less or even non-existent in proper democracies. State institutions that are reviewable, transparent and in line with democratic values have a great role to play in the fight against corruption. The less the corruption, the greater the hopes and dreams of children and young people about the future of the State. We should not forget that, just as a plant cannot flourish in darkness, youth – our hope for the future – cannot be as productive in an uncertain environment.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I regret that Ms Cimbro is not with us today. She deserves our appreciation for the report that she prepared for our Assembly. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media also deserves our appreciation for a good report.

      Several years ago in the Republic of Moldova, we had a big protest. Young people were protesting in Chişinău’s central square, with the slogan, “The youth generation is the salvation of the nation”. Young people bring hope. When we look around us, we are so discouraged by the many corruption scandals and problems, but when we look at children and young people, we see hope. I am therefore glad that the report puts a strong emphasis on education. As Ms Topcu said, we need to stress the importance of education for the younger generation if we want to tackle problems such as corruption.

      I would also like to emphasise that family plays an important role, and I was pleased to hear Ms Topcu say that. School has an important role, but so does the family. There are many social problems, and we must admit that families cannot give their children the best. For example, in my country, there are so many young people in schools, yet according to polls, the majority of them would like to leave the country. I regret that. It is my country, but we need to be aware that there are social and economic pressures on young people, and we must tackle all those issues to help them.

      We can provide a good background and great assistance for forming people of good character and integrity in our countries. It is part of our responsibility as politicians. I recently launched a project, which I called the “academy for integration and leadership”. I want to invest in young people to help form leaders of integrity for our nation.

      The report is timely and important. It deserves our attention and we should support it, and not just here. As usually happens on a Friday, few Assembly members are here, but we should take the report back to our countries and do our best to raise a healthy young generation that will lead and save our nations.

      The PRESIDENT– Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi.

      I call Mr Ariev, rapporteur, to reply. You have three minutes.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – All the speeches in the debate were relevant and supported the report. I really appreciated that.

      The main point of the report is the importance of young people in the fight against corruption. We have had many discussions on the protection of young whistle-blowers, and we voted on a special report on that.

      I want to point to the importance of paragraph 8.2 of the draft resolution: “as regards anti-corruption education and the fight against corruption in education…introduce integrity studies, from the earliest age, in the national school and university curricula, including both aspects of personal values and ethical behaviour and a human-rights based approach”. That is especially important for States where there is a high perception of corruption.

      As I have said before, it is just like eliminating the bugs on the potato field. You can kill one or two by regular methods, but without spraying chemicals over the whole field of plants, you will not eliminate the root problem. Corruption permeates to the lowest level of society and that is why anti-corruption education is so important from the earliest age in schools and universities, especially in States with a high perception of corruption. I call on all member States to implement the resolution wholeheartedly, but to attend especially to the educational recommendations.

      I ask the Assembly to support the report with the amendments and sub-amendments. Again, I thank the secretariat for a great job. I say hello to Eleanora Cimbro from Strasbourg and send our best wishes to Italy. Let us start the voting process.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – It is a bit unusual for me to be given the floor on two occasions, but I am happy to represent the committee this morning. Again, I offer the committee’s thanks to Ms Cimbro. As I said, she is back home in Italy for a vote of confidence in the Italian Parliament. Of course, we will invite her to prepare a further report.

      Tiny Kox said that he thought it was a very dark day indeed when we had such a report on the agenda. Paragraph 1 of the draft resolution states that many young people have the desire and capacity to transform the world and that we need a new culture of ethics and integrity at all levels. In other words, young people are going to be players, not subjects. They are going to play an active role in this process of change; they are not simply going to be victims of the status quo. What is happening is the opposite of what Tiny Kox said. We have to support young people as promoters of change, and we do that through education.

      Mr Ghiletchi and others have said that we should remember the demonstrations in the Republic of Moldova. I remember the colourful revolution in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, where school children and students protested against corruption by refusing to go to class. I also remember the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in connection with the Arab Spring. That was also an anti-corruption drive. I also remember the situation in Azerbaijan and the youth movement in Turkey. We should also not forget the young Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. The situation in Maidan was characterised to a large extent by young people fighting against corruption. We must view young people as activists, not victims.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schennach.

      The debate is closed.

      The committee has presented a draft resolution to which one amendment has been tabled.

      We come to Amendment 1, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8.4.2, insert the following paragraph: “as regards legislation and public policy at national level: introduce as law in Council of Europe member States where this has not already been done, the so-called “offentlighetsprincip” (used, for instance, in Scandinavian countries), the principle of public access to all official, non-secret documents kept by a State or other public authority, and public access to court proceedings and political meetings, on the grounds that it has proven to be an efficient means of exposing corruption and related crimes, and thereby also instilling confidence in society among the younger generation.”

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

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – My argument in favour of this amendment is that those who want to expose corruption have to be able to find what they are looking for legally, wherever possible. Public access does not open up all the skulduggery that may exist, but if we apply it, public authorities will at least have to be on their toes in their actions, which itself is a good way to nip much corruption in the bud.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Nissinen.

      We come Sub-Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in Amendment 1, replace the words “at national level” with the words “in general”; and delete the following words: “the so-called “offentlighetsprincip” (used, for instance, in Scandinavian countries),”.

      I call Mr Schennach to support Sub-Amendment 1.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The sub-amendment seeks to replace the words “at national level” with the words “in general” because we have federal as well as national States. We also seek to remove the Scandinavian word because, although we German speakers understand it, it is not helpful for the general reader, so the sub-amendment makes the draft resolution easier for them to read.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment? I call Mr Nissinen.

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – I agree.

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

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

      The vote is open.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee? I call Mr Schennach.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

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

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14395, as amended.

      The vote is open.

3. Free debate

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the free debate.

      I remind members that this debate is for topics not already on the agenda of this part-session. Speaking time will be limited to three minutes.

      The free debate will finish by about 11.50 a.m. when we must interrupt the list of speakers. If all the time allocated for this debate is not used, I have the discretion to call additional speakers at the end of the speaking list.

      The first speaker is Ms Christoffersen.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway, spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – The Council of Europe has repeatedly acknowledged the right of Turkey’s democratically elected government to declare a state of emergency and initiate other measures to prevent coups d’état and terror.

      It is about time that, in return, the Turkish authorities showed their willingness to respect fundamental human rights. We have underlined that the state of emergency measures and their duration must be proportionate. We have questioned the extent of mass arrests, redundancies, long-lasting pre-trial detentions and the lack of basic freedoms.

      During our debate in April, I raised another, smaller, but nevertheless highly important issue for those concerned, namely the situation of people with a Turkish background living in other countries, including my own. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a worrying and rising level of conflict among the Turkish diaspora, between followers and opponents of President Erdogan and staged by the Turkish authorities themselves. Turks living abroad are encouraged to report on opponents of Erdogan. The result is deep divisions between former friends and even relatives. Turks living abroad have even found their names and pictures exposed in the Turkish media and have been described as terrorists.

      Another result of such squealing is that ordinary, decent people, no longer dare to visit their elderly parents, children or grandchildren in Turkey. They are afraid of being held back, deprived of their travel documents and being arrested. That is even the case for Turks who hold citizenship in other countries.

      The problem escalated last summer. People were held back in Turkey and told to consult the local police because something was wrong with their passports. At the police station they were questioned about possible relations with the Gülen movement. The Norwegian broadcaster raised that issue, both with the ministry of foreign affairs and with the Turkish embassy in Oslo. The embassy referred to cancelled or invalid documents, but offered no further explanation. The ministry was familiar with and critical of that Turkish practice – it was also worried about people’s legal protection – but it could do very little about it, even for those who hold Norwegian citizenship.

      The situation is the same in several countries. As in April, I urge the Turkish authorities to stop spreading poison into our local societies and to leave decent people alone. The Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group also urges rapporteurs to take note in their future work of the worrying situation.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – When the Russian Federation invaded Georgia eight years ago, many people, including members of this Assembly, thought that we were dealing with a conflict “in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing”, to paraphrase a statesman of the 20^th century. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 showed that view to be mistaken. Now, the Russian Federation is occupying the territory of two of its neighbours. In the resolution that deprived the Russian delegation of its voting rights, the demand to withdraw Russian troops from Georgia and Ukraine was clearly stipulated.

      The Russian Federation is not only not complying with those demands, but it is deepening occupation. For example, Russian forces are systematically demolishing houses formerly occupied by Georgians who were expelled from their rightful homes. In addition, more than a year ago, a member of a paramilitary proxy Russian force killed a Georgian civilian, Giga Otkhozoria, in cold blood on unoccupied Georgian territory. It has been more than a year, but the Russian Federation has done exactly nothing to hold the murderer accountable.

      Unfortunately, I have to report that democracy continues to be eroded in Georgia. We were once viewed as a success story in our region. An unelected person, Bidzina Ivanishvili, continues to be in charge of the Georgian Government, with all ministers accountable to him. Today, the Georgian Government is overcoming a presidential veto to amend the constitution to the detriment of Georgian democracy. The Venice Commission negatively assessed key parts of those constitutional amendments, especially those relating to the postponement of the enactment of the proportional system and the scrapping of the direct election of the president, although that has to be put in the wider context, because there are democracies where presidents are elected indirectly.

      In Georgia, which is supposedly a parliamentary system, the prime minister, a former personal banker of Mr Ivanishvili, has been to parliament exactly zero times since his nomination. Ministers also routinely refuse requests from the parliamentary minority to appear in parliament and face questions on various important issues of the day.

      Dear colleagues and friends of Georgia and democracy in our part of the world, I urge you to be vigilant on democracy in Georgia and our region, as well as on the Russian Federation’s continuing occupation of Georgian territories and the Russian Federation’s behaviour.

      Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan)* – First, I would like to say a few words about myself. Who am I? I am a member of the executive council of the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh, but I am not in a position to visit my own country, and that is true of other refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh. Armed force has been used to cleanse that area, and that is our history.

      What about tomorrow? What are we going to do tomorrow? We are proposing a dialogue between the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities in Nagorno-Karabakh, and I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to appeal to our Armenian colleagues to promote and provide for such dialogue. That is the road we want to follow. We set up a platform for peace, but that did not result in dialogue, even though we invited members of the Armenian community. What will happen if we do not have any discussions? They may be difficult discussions, but if they do not start at all, we will not get anywhere.

      Working in the Assembly, we all say that everything should be based on dialogue, debate, discussion and exchanges and that we should move forward by speaking to one another. Even the Armenian representatives say that, but that unfortunately remains a dead letter, and there is no action. Two days ago, a representative from the European Court of Human Rights spoke to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. He said that cases are not being resolved and judgments are not being executed.

      I appeal to all of you to help us resolve the painful issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. If we do not do that, completely innocent young people on both sides are going to lose their lives. Let us all sit down at the same table, engage in dialogue, build a new relationship and give impetus to the resolution of the problems in the Caucasus.

      I now turn to Resolution 1416. It said that there should be a committee on Nagorno-Karabakh – it could not act at all – where we could all come together and talk, with exchanges between the Armenian and Azerbaijani delegations. Through that, we could have a genuine, open and frank dialogue that would allow us to solve this thorny issue.

      Ms GÜNAY (Turkey)* – The recent terrorist attacks in Europe have once again stressed the need for international solidarity for the security of our citizens and to preserve European values. Terrorism is a phenomenon that transcends borders, and it cannot be resolved other than through cross-border solidarity and co-operation. None the less, we see that certain European States have still not taken that approach and have chosen to behave in the opposite manner. As we know only too well, the PKK has been defined as a terrorist organisation by the European Union.

      According to the 2017 report by Europol, the PKK has organised attacks against a number of Turkish institutions and cultural centres and property belonging to Turkish nationals. As a result of those attacks, more than €1 million of damage has been caused. Notwithstanding those incidents, certain European countries have continued to support the PKK. For example, the Belgian prosecutor’s office began an investigation in 2010 against 37 individuals and legal entities related to the PKK. It opened that investigation, but it never culminated in criminal proceedings.

Another example is the demonstrations in Cologne, Germany on 16 September this year. During those demonstrations, the effigy of Öcalan was displayed on banners – the symbol of PKK terrorism – and messages were read out praising the PKK. All that took place despite of statements from German politicians that they would no longer allow such events to take place.

At present, we know that there are Rojava representative offices representing the YPG in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. The double standards shown by certain European States are unacceptable. All European States must battle terrorism on the basis of solidarity. Justifying events caused by a terrorist organisation on the grounds that that terrorist organisation is going to fight other terrorist organisations is not acceptable, so I call on all European States to take an approach that is based on combating all forms of terrorism.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan)* – I wanted to speak about something different today, but I am sorry to say that over the past few days some members have been making certain accusations against my country, Azerbaijan. I have been coming to the Assembly for about 12 years now, and I see that there are members who throw accusations against Azerbaijan on the pretext that we are violating human rights, whereas Armenia, a member State, has occupied 20% of Azerbaijan’s territory and has caused 1 million Azeris to be displaced who now to have to live as refugees.

      So why does this Assembly do nothing to bring any pressure to bear on Armenia? Why do you not provide a response to this dilemma of the Azeris? We know that 613 people were massacred by Armenians in the space of one night in Azerbaijan. It was a genocide. Very few were able to escape or go back home. Why does this Assembly do nothing to safeguard the human rights of these people? Why do you always operate double standards? People in my country are awaiting a reaction. This Khojaly genocide, which was orchestrated by certain individuals, does not seem to have been any obstacle to these same individuals taking up high-level government posts in Armenia.

      Other people have spoken out against Azerbaijan. There have been direct appeals to the President of Armenia, but Armenia has failed to respond in any way to these appeals. How come so much pressure is put on Azerbaijan? Dilgan Asgerov and Sahbaz Kuliyev’i should be freed, whereas they are still in detention. You will be aware of the terrorist organisation ASALA – the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia. Garabedian, who is a member of this terrorist organisation, caused the deaths of eight people, and 55 further people were injured, when he carried an attack on the offices of Turkish Airlines at Orly airport. How can it be that members of a State who lionised this terrorist as a hero should not be criticised, whereas my country is? I would like an investigation to be carried out into these people.

      You will be aware that there is also a genocide against Muslims going on. This Assembly has chosen not to speak of this incident and has also chosen not to have resolution. Please do not remain silent in the face of such events.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate should not be about items debated earlier during the session. There has been a discussion about Azerbaijan.

      I call Mr Çağlar.

      Mr ÇAĞLAR (Cyprus) – I would like to give you a bit of information about the failure of the recent negotiation process in Cyprus. The current negotiation process started with the joint statement of the two leaders, Mr Eroğlu and Mr Anastasiades, on 11 February 2014. With this statement, the two sides for the first time committed themselves jointly to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation based on political equality and the equal status of the constituent States. Following the election of Mr Akıncı as the Turkish Cypriot leader, the negotiations entered an intensive phase. As stated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, during the past two years of the negotiations between Akıncı and Anastasiades, unprecedented progress was achieved. During the last phase of negotiations, a series of highly sensitive issues such as territory, security and guarantees were discussed.

      In Mont Pèlerin, the two sides submitted for the first time maps with their proposals on territorial adjustments. Finally, the efforts towards a comprehensive settlement culminated in a five-party conference that took place in Geneva and in Crans-Montana, where the sides discussed the issue of security and guarantees with the participation of the guarantor powers. In Crans-Montana, Secretary-General Guterres introduced a six-point framework and narrowed down the differences between the two sides, in order to enhance the sides with a tool to make proposals on the remaining issues.

      From the very beginning, the Turkish Cypriot side, together with Turkey, made brave proposals including a new security regime and the rapid decrease of the military presence, as well as the establishment of a monitoring mechanism, in order to ensure the functioning of the new partnership and evaluate the abolition of the guarantees after one or two election periods in Cyprus. However, the two sides were unable to come to an agreement, and the conference did not result in a settlement.

      At this point, it is expected that the negotiation process will resume following the presidential elections on the Greek side. As the Turkish side, we are committed to the United Nations parameters and the joint statement of 11 February 2014. However, it is a great concern that the negotiations are doomed to fail if we continue with the current format. We believe that the Secretary-General could help the sides to come to a solution if his mandate were enhanced, enabling him to take initiatives on the remaining few issues.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – My contribution relates to whether we in the Assembly are serious about checking the implementation of our own resolutions or whether we are content to be a sort of university debating chamber. I believe our credibility is at stake.

      The example I give relates to the case of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian whistle-blower. You will recall that he exposed massive corruption and theft of funds, and for his pains was imprisoned and tortured to death. In 2014, by an overwhelming majority, our Assembly passed Resolution 1966. I pay tribute to Andy Gross, who drafted that resolution. In it, the Assembly agreed to follow closely the implementation of the concrete proposals. It further resolved that if, within a reasonable time from 2014, the competent authorities had failed to make an adequate response, as a last resort to follow the example of the United States in adopting targeted and sanctions. It said that if it appeared that, if there were no adequate response, other member States would be encouraged to follow that example.

      Well, what has been the response? Let me say in passing that this initiative is not anti-Russian because Andy Gross stressed that he had received help from many good Russians concerned about corruption and asset theft in their country. The response from the Russian authorities has been none. The response from member countries has been more encouraging – for example, in my own country, the United Kingdom. Here I pay tribute, as a socialist, to the Conservative Government who passed a law that goes wider than Magnitsky which says that anyone who commits human rights abuses can be made the subject of sanctions, be it asset freezes or visa bans. That is now the law in my country.

      In April this year, I tabled a motion for a resolution, but in June the Bureau simply noted the resolution. There may have been a misunderstanding, I concede, but we had hoped, as the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, that it would lead to a resolution. When the issue went to the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, it unanimously returned to the charge. Then I was told that the Bureau would not reconsider a decision to note and that it would retroactively pass a new process not to reconsider. This morning, the Bureau postponed again. I hope that there is nothing sinister about this. When the Bureau meets again in Copenhagen in November, I hope and expect that, this time, there will be a more positive response to the Legal Affairs Committee resolution on this very important case.

      Mr MELKUMYAN (Armenia)* – We discussed various important issues in the debate earlier this week, so I will focus on the specific issue of conventional democratic institutions and the economic and social situation in Europe and my country.

      Is it possible for conventional democratic institutions to contribute to addressing the economic and social situation? I do not think so, because when talking about economic growth we need to talk about economic development, and our institution should support that process. It is necessary to build democratic innovation in our institutions, and we need to gear a democratic citizenry and economic progress towards humane values that can provide solutions and a common response.

      We are seeing increasing threats from unemployment and poverty, and traditional democratic institutions have not been able to be fully active and productive, so what is the solution? One answer could be taking an innovative approach to strengthening our democratic institutions. We need to make business circles more competitive, with better synergy and a proper balance between economic freedom and relevant state mechanisms to ensure that the economy works hand in hand with social protection.

      Is it possible to come up with rapid solutions at a time of social polarisation? The answer, of course, is no. It is a real challenge at a time of 2% and 3% growth to ensure visible progress. However, even economic growth cannot remedy the situation alone. The quality of economic growth must also change. Unacceptable, excessive enrichment should be taxed in order to protect public assets. We need economies that respect social rights, which are indivisible from human rights. Wealth needs to be fairly distributed.

      I must respond to Ms Pashayeva. Khojaly was a problem of the previous Azerbaijan Governments of Mutallibov and Elchibey. It is obvious that several political figures have been bought by the Azerbaijan Government, but the balloon is now bursting because of the Aliyev regime’s inability to advance his interests through political means – if they do not do this, they will lose the war. I call on the President of Azerbaijan to take his hands off international institutions and organisations.

      Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – War is ruthless, but even war has rules to prevent the deliberate, targeted murder of innocent people. I draw the Assembly’s attention to issues bothering Azerbaijani people today. Every day we receive reports of the shelling of Azerbaijani territory by Armenian military forces. The Armenian side is actively demonstrating its aggressive policy and its disinterest in observing the ceasefire regime. The worst thing is that innocent Azerbaijani civilians have died as a result of this shelling.

      Avoiding the negotiation process, the Armenian side is initiating military provocation, as a result of which civilians have been killed. One provocation occurred on 4 July, when Armenian armed forces fired heavy grenade launchers at the village of Alkhanli in Fuzuli, as a result of which an 18-month-old girl, Zakhra Guliyeva, and her 50-year-old grandmother, Sakhiba Guliyeva, were killed. Such cases go far beyond military crimes; they are human tragedies. They are the tragedy of one family, of a mother and of a nation.

      Events on the frontline between Azerbaijan and Armenia fall completely on the criminal regime of Armenia. The current criminal leadership of that country is interested only in maintaining the status quo in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Armenia has disgraced itself in the eyes of the world community by committing such crimes, by openly declaring itself an aggressor country and by continuing to shed the blood of innocent people, women and children.

      I remind the Assembly of the events of 8 March 2011 in the village of Orta Garvand in the Agdam region of Azerbaijan. A nine-year-old boy, Fariz Badalov, was killed by a sniper. In 2011, in the village of Alibayli in the Tovuz region of Azerbaijan, which borders Armenia, a 13-year-old girl, Aygun Shahmaliyeva, was blown up by an explosive device built into a toy. In all his speeches, the current President of Armenia, far from diplomacy, tries to justify the country’s aggressive policy of occupation. How many more children should suffer before the Assembly reacts properly, before members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe open their eyes and understand the reality?

      We should return this Organisation to its real values of humanity. We should demand that all member States respect international law, implement the decisions of this Organisation and call on Armenia to implement its obligations and stop its policy of occupation.

      Ms ŞAHİN USTA (Turkey)* – On 15 July 2016, we experienced a cruel coup d'état attempt that sought to overthrow the democratic order in Turkey but, thanks to the courage of the Turkish people, we were able to resist. The terrorist organisation of Fethullah Gülen perpetrated that attempt to change the regime in Turkey. Turkey will continue to combat that terrorist organisation, as well as the PKK and Daesh. It is important that the struggle continues not just in Turkey but elsewhere, because Gülen describes himself as the “imam of the universe” and there is no difference between him and Baghdadi, the leader of Daesh. The idea that Gülen is a moderate is simply mendacious and erroneous.

      Unfortunately, we do not receive the support we need from our allies to combat FETÖ, the Gülenist group. The statements of non-governmental organisations in Europe have a significant impact on the perception of FETÖ, which is present in Europe. FETÖ tries to present itself as a peaceful educational movement that seeks to promote dialogue among religions, and that strategy has worked well in the countries of northern Europe. FETÖ uses all forms of lobbying and public relations to present itself as something it is not. For various reasons, Germany supports FETÖ’s activities, and Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have allowed the movement to continue collecting funds.

      Individuals affiliated with FETÖ have managed to move around by dealing with the consulates in their country of residence. Others have sought to change the perception of that organisation in Europe. Confronted with that form of criticism, such efforts have been successful, but we must be vigilant about the false information and propaganda that is disseminated by this group.

      Let me say a word about Germany and Greece, because we cannot accept the fact that those two countries are harbouring members of FETÖ as refugees or asylum seekers. That does not conform to the principle of good relations among allies. The perpetrators of the coup d’état – the putschists – must be extradited to Turkey. Otherwise it will be very deleterious for our bilateral relations.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – Yesterday, not far from here – 115 kilometres from Strasbourg, in Mulhouse – I attended the funeral of Nihal Ertuc, a young mother who died following a fire set by the PKK. She had young children aged six, seven and nine, who also perished in that fire.

      Those families are suffering, and that is the result of an Islamophobic discourse that is unfortunately becoming more widespread across Europe. Some high-level politicians have even spoken in this Chamber and used Islamophobic language, and I call on them to be more careful and cautious with the language they use. If they use the words “terror” and “Islam” in the same sentence, that is a direct call to Islamophobia. Those who carry out terrorist attacks have no justification for that, be they Jewish, Muslim or Christian. A terrorist is a terrorist – that is all we need to call them and there is no need for any further qualification. No religion supports such incidents, and no religion deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the word “terrorist”.

      Xenophobic parties are on the rise across Europe, and we know that in recent European history there have been deplorable examples of such parties. This resurgence of right-wing political parties can only have negative outcomes. The achievements of European society today are hard-won, and we have paid a high price for them. We in the Parliamentary Assembly should try to combat racism, and we should act speedily to counter xenophobia – otherwise it will be far too late for all of us.

      Mr KÜÇÜKCAN (Turkey) – I wish to draw the Assembly’s attention to the plight of the Rohingya people in Myanmar. Myanmar is not a member of the Council of Europe or the European Union, so perhaps we do not want to hear its voice. Unfortunately, however, a huge crisis is taking place. The people there are mainly Muslims, and this huge tragedy should be a cause of concern for all those who respect human rights and the rule of law.

      I thank the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for its statement yesterday on the humanitarian situation facing the Rohingya people. That statement emphasised that a constructive and humanitarian approach to this issue is of utmost importance. The United Nations has announced that nearly half a million Rohingya Muslims – almost 60% of whom are children – have fled to Bangladesh for safety in the face of an army campaign in northern Rakhine state that includes mass murder, gang rape and the burning of villages without mercy. Problems in Rakhine state may have implications on regional security, as indicated in the final report of the Rakhine Advisory Commission. People fleeing their homes are trying to find a safe haven in Bangladesh, and the Government of Bangladesh already faces serious difficulties in addressing the situation.

      If immediate action is not taken, the humanitarian catastrophe in Rakhine will only get worse. Turkey – my country – is doing its best to raise awareness in the international arena, and to contribute to finding a solution to the crisis. During the recent visit of the First Lady, Ms Erdoğan, and the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, to the Rohingya camps, significant humanitarian aid was delivered by Turkey. Turkey has also delivered the first batch of humanitarian aid to the area, in agreement with the Myanmar authorities.

      There is much that Council of Europe members can and must do to stop the ongoing humanitarian tragedy, and the first step must be to stop the ongoing violence and to provide unimpeded humanitarian aid to the region. I remind the Assembly once more that Myanmar and the Rohingya people are not members of the Council of Europe, but their rights are universal rights and we should therefore be concerned and ready to help them.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – Yesterday, we heard a debate in the Assembly on crimes against humanity committed by the Islamic State – also known as Daesh – which bear all the hallmarks of genocide. My statement is based on the fact that yesterday the list of speakers was closed very early, and I was not able to take advantage of my right to speak about the horrors inflicted – quite intentionally and selectively – on the Yazidi and Christian minorities in the region.

      It puzzles me that the delegate from Azerbaijan spoke about terrorism, despite the fact that her country acts like a terrorist group, and its army is full of hired killers. According to reputable international media, among the mercenaries in the Azeri army, one can find killers who come from the Islamic State and who kill by decapitation, cutting throats, and mutilating the bodies of soldiers and civilians. The aggression of Azerbaijan against Nagorno-Karabakh in April last year is the best proof of what I am saying.

      I call on the Assembly to look at a publication based on an investigation carried out by the Bulgarian daily, “Trud”. It states that, over the past three years, official authorities in Baku have illegally provided arms to conflict areas around the world by using diplomatic flights. According to that investigation, the Azerbaijani airline, Silk Way Airlines, has carried out more than 350 secret flights under diplomatic cover, with aeroplanes full of arms and munitions to supply terrorists. Such diplomatic flights are not subject to international oversight and regulation, and that method has been used to provide arms to terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Congo.

      We must not ignore these very serious facts, all the more so as it is the members of the Azerbaijani delegation who are making disloyal attempts to sully this platform by making declarations full of lies and by spreading false information. As the proverb tells us, it is the thief himself who is the first to cry “catch the thief”.

      In closing, I say something in Russian to Mr Rzayev from the Azerbaijani delegation. Tell us where you were born. In one session you told us it was in Shusha; in another it was in some other place completely. Perhaps you could finally make it clear to us where you were born.

      The PRESIDENT – I remind colleagues that speeches must be in a civil and ordered manner.

      Given that we have not used all the time allocated for the debate this morning, I invite spontaneous contributions from members who have not spoken in the debate.

      Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – I immediately reject the usual unconstructive, lying and slanderous speech of our Armenian colleagues.

      It is a known and old tradition that physicians take the Hippocratic oath that they will always be loyal to the golden rules of their profession. Nevertheless, irrespective of the degree of symbolism, all speciality fields need a specific oath for their profession. Unfortunately, neither physicians nor academics and politicians always adhere to the principles of the supreme morals of politics.

      Edmund Herzig, a professor at the University of Oxford, through a special report based on lies and fraud and delivered by him in front of an audience mostly composed of Armenians at the University of California in Los Angeles on 25 April 2017, insulted the people of Azerbaijan, denying its cultural past and history, as well as using expressions that were humiliating to that people. However, 40 days later in London, in a speech made before an audience organised by Oxford University and this time mostly composed of Azerbaijanis, he completely contradicted his ideas, expressing a completely different position on the high culture of Azerbaijan and its people during the Middle Ages. The point is that the same approach is repeated in the pseudoscientific writings of this person.

      Today, Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a state of war. When investigating the historical roots of this conflict, we find out that the split and confrontation between two peoples have always been provoked by forces with a devil’s nature. Edmund Herzig, with deeds are fully unworthy of a person called a scholar, serves the same insidious policy.

      In only the most recent thousand years the nation of Azerbaijan has given world culture such exceptional personalities as Memar Ajami, Nizami Ganjavi, Mahsati, Khāqāni, Tusi, Khatai, Fuzulî, Sultan Mohammad, Bairam Khan and many others. Their names are famous around the world. Their works are preserved in the biggest museums and libraries in Europe, Asia and America.

      The worst thing is that the name of a person who has been hypocritically using science for various political games and frequently changing his mask is associated with Oxford University. I hope our colleagues from the Parliament of the United Kingdom will keep this extremely sensitive issue in focus and express a principled attitude to such undesirable activities of Edmund Herzig, who, following political conjunctions, promotes enmity between nations and countries and whose indicated activities are a stain on the name of English oriental studies.

      Mr BECHT (France)* – I had not planned to speak in this debate, but I think I should respond to the remarks made by our Turkish colleague earlier on the subject of the fire that unfortunately killed six people in Mulhouse about a week ago. It was a very tragic incident. It just so happens that I am a Member of Parliament for Mulhouse. An investigation is under way. It would appear that it was a criminal act. Having said that, there is nothing at all to suggest that this is in any way an Islamophobic act.

      France is a secular country. As such it respects all religions. We see to it that acts against religions are sanctioned extremely heavily. We should not muddle up different issues. France is a country that respects human rights and religion. There is nothing at this stage to connect this criminal act to an act of Islamophobia.

(Ms Kyriakides, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Schou).

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is now closed.

4. Progress report of the Bureau and Standing Committee (continued)

      The PRESIDENT – We turn now to the progress report of the Bureau.

      This morning the Bureau has proposed several references to committees. They are set out in the progress report (Document 14409 Addendum 3). These references must be submitted for ratification by the Assembly in accordance with Article 26.3 of the Rules.

      Are there any objections to these references?

      There are no objections. The references are therefore approved.

      I now propose that the other proposals in the progress report (Document 14409 Addendum 3) be ratified. Are there any objections?

      The progress report is approved.

5. Voting champions

      The PRESIDENT – I am pleased to announce the names of our voting champions – those members who have taken part in the most votes during this part-session. They are: Ms Lise Christoffersen from Norway, from the Socialist Group; Ms Susanne Eberle-Strub, from Liechtenstein, from the ALDE Group; Ms Liliane Maury Pasquier from Switzerland, from the Socialist Group; and Mr Stefan Schennach from Austria, from the Socialist Group.

      I congratulate all of them. As is traditional – I can see you there, Mr Schennach – we have small gifts for the champions and I invite them to come and collect them.

6. Closure of the part-session

      The PRESIDENT – We have now come to the end of our business.

      I would like to thank all members of the Assembly, particularly rapporteurs and chairpersons of committees, for their hard work during this part-session.

      I would also like to thank Sir Roger Gale, Acting President, and all the Vice-Presidents who have chaired during this part-session: Mr Corlăţean, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Hovhannisyan, Mr Jordana, Mr Logvynskyi, Ms Oomen-Ruijten, Ms Schou, who was just in the chair, and Ms Trisse. I am also grateful to those who volunteered to chair but on this occasion did not preside.

      Of course, I would also like to thank the staff and interpreters, both permanent and temporary, who have worked so hard to make the part-session a success.

      The first part of the 2018 session will be held from 22 to 26 January 2018.

      I declare the fourth part of the 2017 session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe closed.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 12.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.        Changes in the membership of committees

2.        Youth against corruption

Presentation by Mr Ariev of the report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media

Speakers: Ms Filipovski, Mr V. Huseynov, Mr Schennach, Mr Howell, Mr Waserman, Mr Kox, Ms Bilgehan, Mr Büchel, Mr Reiss, Mr Marukyan, Mr Nissinen, Ms Pallarés, Ms Topcu, Mr Ghiletchi

Draft resolution in Document 14395, as amended, adopted

3.        Free debate

Speakers: Ms Christoffersen, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Rzayev, Ms Günay, Ms Kasimati, Ms Pashayeva, Mr Çağlar, Lord Anderson, Mr Melkumyan, Ms Fataliyeva, Ms Şahin Usta, Ms Yaşar, Mr Küçükcan, Ms Zohrabyan, Mr R. Huseynov, Mr Becht

4.        Progress report of the Bureau and Standing Committee (continued)

5.        Voting champions

6.        Closure of the part-session

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]

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]

BECHT, Olivier [M.]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr] (FIALA, Doris [Mme])

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

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

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

FATALIYEVA, Sevinj [Ms] (MAMMADOV, Muslum [M.])

FILIPOVSKI, Dubravka [Ms] (ZZ...)

GERMANN, Hannes [Mr] (HEER, Alfred [Mr])

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (LABAZIUK, Serhiy [Mr])

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]

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

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]

HOLÍK, Pavel [Mr] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

HUSEYNOV, Vusal [Mr] (HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr])

JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms] (GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr])

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr] (BAKRADZE, David [Mr])

KLEINBERGA, Nellija [Ms] (BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.])

KOÇ, Haluk [M.]

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KÜÇÜKCAN, Talip [Mr]

LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

MARUKYAN, Edmon [Mr] (RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.])

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.] (FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr])

NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr]

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]

REISS, Frédéric [M.] (ABAD, Damien [M.])

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

RZAYEV, Rovshan [Mr] (GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms])

ŞAHİN USTA, Leyla [Ms]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

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

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

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

VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

WASERMAN, Sylvain [M.]

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

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

ANTL, Miroslav [M.]

MAKHMUDYAN, Rustam [Mr]

POPA, Ion [M.]

Observers / Observateurs

---

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

---

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