AA18CR09

AS (2018) CR 09

2018 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(First part)

REPORT

Ninth sitting

Friday 26 January 2018 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.

(Mr Ariev, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

The PRESIDENT – Our first item of business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. They are set out in Document Commissions (2018) 01 Addendum 6.

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

      They are agreed to.

2. Jurisdictional immunity of international organisations and rights of their staff

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report titled “Jurisdictional immunity of international organisations and rights of their staff”, Document 14443 presented by Mr Volker Ullrich on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, with an opinion presented by Mr Stefan Schennach on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 14487.

      In order to finish by 10.50 a.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 10.40 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote. The time limit on speeches in today’s debates is four minutes.

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

      Mr ULLRICH (Germany)* – The subject of the report is the jurisdictional immunity of international organisations and the rights of their staff. We are talking about a very specific legal issue, but it is a fundamental one. It is all about how we can guarantee that these staff have access to their rights.

      As you know, international organisations, in a similar way to States, have so-called immunity. That makes it very difficult to hold them accountable under domestic law and in the courts of the countries in which they are based. The principle of immunity is right and proper and fully complies with long-standing international law. However, there are sometimes shortcomings concerning the rights that should be enjoyed by the international staff of these organisations.

      The staff of these organisations cannot take employment-related disputes to a conventional domestic court. Of course, international organisations have dispute resolution mechanisms or internal tribunals that staff can turn to, but those do not have the same effect or offer the same protection to civil servants that individuals would normally be afforded through conventional domestic courts. As a result, and in particular due to recent events such as those unfolding at the European Patent Office in Munich, where a large number of staff have been complaining about restricted access to rights, the Council of Europe Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has given thought to exactly what can be done to protect international civil servants’ rights. The conclusion is that we want members of staff to have improved access to rights, because access to rights is provided for in the Charter of Human Rights. We do not want to place restrictions on the basic immunity of these organisations. We simply want to improve staff’s access to their rights.

      In drafting the report, we took on board the views of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. One proposal made was to look at surrounding issues, as it is important to identify the fundamental rights of members of staff and how those can be guaranteed through international organisations. I am grateful to my colleague, Mr Schennach, for incorporating those issues into the report. I also thank the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights team, who greatly helped me in drafting the report. The Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights is not here. I am here as a member of the committee, and I commend the report to you.

      The PRESIDENT – You have almost nine minutes remaining. I call Mr Schennach on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. You have four minutes.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I too at the outset would like to mention the European Patent Office in Munich. In fact, that was the reason behind the motion for a resolution. There has been an awful lot of upheaval as a result of an overhaul of the organisation, with people sent into early retirement and a lot of harassment and unease within it.

      We are talking about social rights and employment rights – human rights, in other words. As Mr Ullrich pointed out, we are dealing with international organisations, so it is not possible for a national court to get involved. International organisations have jurisdictional immunity, which means that they lack transparency. Most of them, like the Council of Europe, have only one legal remedy. The court of first instance is, in most cases, the only court, whereas in all our legal systems there is an appellate body and a second tier of jurisdiction.

      In small international organisations, the staff are not necessarily better off in legal disputes. The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has suggested that smaller international organisations might turn to larger organisations that already have an administrative tribunal, as happens in the Council of Europe. In disputes, such international organisations would go to that administrative tribunal to seek a ruling. After that, in the Council of Europe, the trade unions can take cases to the Court. We want a situation in which works councils or staff committees, independently of trade unions, can have recourse to administrative tribunals. If an administrative tribunal is staffed by only one side, as it were, in the form of the judges, that is a problem. That is why we have also said that it is important that, in constituting these tribunals, both sides are represented.

      Another important point is raised by the case of the European Patent Office. The leadership of an organisation must not be able to issue instructions to a tribunal on how it should rule in a labour dispute. That is a basic human rights premise. There is a direct link to the European Social Charter, which clearly states that staff in international organisations that have jurisdictional immunity should still be able to enjoy their human rights.

      The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development unanimously decided to table the seven amendments, which have been unanimously adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Therefore, the report, with its amendments, has been agreed to unanimously by the two committees. That is why I commend the draft resolution.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is open. The first speaker for the political groups is Ms Rojhan Gustafsson.

      Ms ROJHAN GUSTAFSSON (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – I thank the rapporteur for this important report. For social democrats, the rights and security of employees are core values and principles of our ideology. The report addresses many aspects of these values.

      The situation today is that the jurisdictional immunity of international organisations puts those organisations outside national employment law. That means that the staff of international organisations can be deprived of their right to a just and transparent procedure when disputes emerge. I stress the importance of transparency. Some organisations have internal tribunals that handle conflicts, but there are no guarantees that the employee will be granted access to the process or be able to oversee how the case has been handled and how the outcome has been reached.

      Working at an international organisation is a fantastic and unique opportunity, so many people disregard their rights as an employee at the organisation. That means that the risk of exploitation increases, as the employees are dependent on their relationship with their employers. The report says that jurisdictional immunity should not create an area outside the rule of law and that staff members of international organisations are entitled to just and transparent trials.

      Our international organisations are important bodies, mostly working for human rights and promoting democracy and welfare all over the world. These organisations must uphold the values that they promote and the report provides solutions on how those values can be maintained. Once more, I thank the rapporteur for this important report.

      Mr van de VEN (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – I read with great interest the report by Mr Volker Ullrich of the Group of the European People’s Party on the jurisdictional immunity of international organisations and the rights of their staff. On behalf of ALDE, I congratulate him on the balanced but realistic approach that he has taken in the report.

      International organisations are created by States and are associations of States. An international organisation must be given special status in relation to the exercise of jurisdictional authority by individual States. The independence of an international organisation is an essential element of its status and it must be ensured by the granting of privileges and immunities as necessary to enable it to achieve, without being subject to undue interference, the aims for which it was created.

      The functional needs of the organisation should be one of the principal criteria used to determine the extent of any privileges and immunities that are to be granted. Since international organisations are created by States that are equal with one another, the States should be on an equal footing vis-à-vis the international organisation of which they are a member.

      This constellation of facts means that an international organisation is a kind of golden birdcage. On the one hand, international organisations and their staff members should be shielded against undue interference by outsiders. On the other hand, this immunity of what is a quasi-independent body could be misused by the executive of the international organisation to the detriment of staff members.

      The evidence given by the Netherlands expert Ms Zegveld during the December 2016 hearing on the case of the staff union of the European Patent Office was testimony to how the executive of international organisations should not operate. The executive should maintain proper respect and give recognition to its staff in the case of a conflict of interests, such as an employment dispute. Based on reciprocity, the rule of law applies for international organisations in an employment conflict in the same way as that rule applies to the principles of justice for a State.

      The question is whether the immunity of the international organisation should be lifted in an employment dispute. ALDE is not yet convinced – having due regard to the case law described in Mr Ullrich’s report – that the immunity of international organisations should be lifted for employment disputes. Any person who starts to work for an international organisation should realise that he or she steps into a golden birdcage. It is the personal decision of the individual to enter into an employment contract with an international organisation. Employment disputes may arise for the same reasons as in society. Nevertheless, the protection for staff members under the system of privileges and immunities for international organisations is a reality and this reality is defensible, even justified.

      ALDE acknowledges that the protection of staff employees is not equal to the protection of employees in society or under civil service law. The scale of an international organisation as an offspring of States is very limited indeed and a solution for maintaining a working relationship in the golden birdcage is far more a matter of integrity for both the executive and staff members. ALDE proposes to follow closely the developments in employment relations between international organisations and their staff. Even recognising that, regrettably, not all employment disputes in international organisations can be avoided or solved, ALDE does not endorse a conclusion that the immunity of international organisations should be lifted for such cases.

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group) – I thank the rapporteurs for this good and comprehensive analysis and report. Without any doubt, staff competency has a direct link to operational efficiency. To recruit competent staff and build a long-term employment relationship with them, it is of the utmost importance for international organisations to offer a peaceful working environment to staff. Disputes between employee and employer are inevitable, like in every relationship. What has to be avoided is letting disputes remain unresolved and making the staff feel that they have no means to protect their rights. In this context, I attach great importance to the rapporteur’s proposals on legal protection, transparency of international organisations and appeals about employment disputes.

      Finally, I would like to address another issue that affects international organisations’ credibility and legitimacy: the objectivity and the impartiality of the international organisation. These attributions can only be granted by the objective and the impartial attitudes of the organisation’s staff in their work. I am of the opinion that all international organisations should make a self-evaluation and develop mechanisms and take measures to enforce impartiality and objectivity in their institutions.

      The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers on behalf of the political groups. Mr Ullrich, you will reply at the end of the debate, but would you like to say something now? That is not the case.

      I now open the list of speakers. There is only one name on it, that of Mr Gutiérrez, but he is not here. As we have time, does anyone wish to speak?

      That is not the case, so I have to give the floor to Mr Ullrich. You have eight minutes and 50 seconds remaining.

      Mr ULLRICH (Germany)* – I certainly will not take the full eight minutes. I thank those who spoke in the debate for their interesting contributions, and they have obviously got to grips with the subject.

      Mr van de Ven, I am fully aware of the legal and international importance of immunity as far as international organisations are concerned, but international organisations can only function properly if they have immunity, because that protects them from interference from other States. We are not calling that into question in this report. The aim is, in the context of this immunity, to improve the individual situation of members of staff as regards employment-related issues. In other words, we are talking about immunity and improving the legal situation, and I do not think these are mutually exclusive. They can complement each other. If we are to improve the report, I think other discussions need to be held, certainly within the Committee of Ministers. As we know, it is important for there to be a dispute resolution mechanism within the context of legal immunity. There must also be an appeals board that can ensure that rights are properly protected for individual members of staff. If that is not possible, it is important that there be access in labour law to domestic tribunals. The aim, once again, is not to challenge or attack immunity as such but rather to improve the conditions for members of staff so that they can access their rights. It is related to the clarification of working conditions and to the Social Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights.

      I commend the report and ask members to approve it.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I want to mention one more thing, because it will affect this Organisation in a few weeks or months. International organisations do not necessarily have the same dismissal policies as national governments, so redundancy decisions are different from dismissals and can be challenged. This is important to the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, because we are, of course, defending social rights. If things go wrong in international organisations, people are dismissed and that means that you do not have the same safety net or protections as under national law. That is something we have been calling for in all conventions and in the European Social Charter, and it is important in our eyes that they should be implemented in international organisations. The Council of Europe, in its role as an employer, should explicitly apply social rights in future and introduce a two-tier system. There should be an appellate body. Not only that, it should also authorise the setting up of works councils.

      The PRESIDENT – Does Mr Schwabe, the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, wish to reply? You have two minutes.

      Mr SCHWABE (Germany) – The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights adopted this report at its meeting last October following a motion for a resolution raising the issue of jurisdictional immunity for international organisations and rights of their staff. Although this issue sounds very technical and concerns a limited group of international civil servants, there are some interesting human rights issues at stake. This report rightly points out that international civil servants’ right of access to a tribunal is very limited. They lack adequate legal protection in employment disputes, especially in cases concerning harassment and discrimination at work.

      For these reasons, on behalf of the committee, I fully support this report, which contains a detailed analysis of this very specific problem. I thank the rapporteur and the secretariat, and I thank the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development for its important amendments, which we unanimously adopted.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution to which five amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which two amendments have been tabled, I understand that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Mr Ullrich?

      Mr ULLRICH (Germany) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

      Mr van de VEN (Netherlands) – Unfortunately, I was not present during the committee meeting yesterday, otherwise I would have expressed some concerns and comments on Amendments 2 to 6.

      The PRESIDENT – There is an objection, so each amendment will be taken individually in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I call Mr Schennach on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development to support Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The amendment is as clear as it can be. We make a link to the European Social Charter. I do not know what is wrong with the amendment and it was adopted twice in two committees unanimously.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour, so I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

       The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is agreed to.

      I call Mr Schennach, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, to support Amendment 2. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Many smaller organisations are too small to have their own administrative bodies. That does not mean that the protection for employees is better; sometimes it is a little more difficult. We say that such small organisations should ask bigger international organisations whether their employees can use their administrative bodies, and here in Strasbourg some of them use the administrative body of the Council of Europe. The amendment was unanimously adopted.

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

      Mr van de VEN (Netherlands) – International organisations are on an equal footing vis-à-vis States and other international organisations. Tribunals of other international organisations should declare themselves not competent for addressing employment disputes, both in absolute terms and in relative terms.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHWABE (Germany) – The committee was unanimously in favour.

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

       The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is agreed to.

      I call Mr Schennach, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, to support Amendment 3.        You have 30 seconds.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The amendment provides that not only workers unions but staff committees elected by the employees and staff associations can apply to such administrative tribunals. This is plural and open, and makes it more transparent and directly personal. We are also fighting for the rights of employees in such organisations.

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

      Mr van de VEN (Netherlands) – Staff committees and other staff associations are not organs of an international organisation, and as these are very small entities, I propose that we should not allow them this means of redress.

      The PRESIDENT –The committee is obviously in favour, so I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

       The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is agreed to.

      I call Mr Schennach, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, to support Amendment 4.        You have 30 seconds.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – This follows Amendment 2. Again, we have some very small international organisations with employees where no such tribunal now exists. But the employees face conflicts, and at the moment they have to leave or live with the situation. We invite, as is practised in the Council of Europe, small organisations to ask bigger ones if their employees can use their tribunals.

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

      Mr van de VEN (Netherlands) – Like Mr Schennach, I reiterate my comments on Amendment 2. International organisations are on equal footing vis-à-vis States. Tribunals of other international organisations should declare themselves not competent for addressing employee disputes, both in absolute and relative terms.

      The PRESIDENT –The committee is obviously in favour, so I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

       The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is agreed to.

      I call Mr Schennach, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, to support Amendment 5.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I gave an example of this in my speech. The best tribunal would not work if only one party to the conflict can nominate the person who makes the decision – say, the judge. In the social courts in our countries, both sides can nominate the decision maker. In this paragraph, we explicitly formulate the workers’ rights and how the administrative body is nominated. Again, all the amendments were unanimously agreed by the two committees.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14443, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has tabled a draft recommendation to which two amendments have been tabled. I understand that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 6 and 7 to the draft recommendation, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Mr Ullrich?

      Mr ULLRICH (Germany) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

      Mr van de VEN (Netherlands) – For reasons pointed out in respect of Amendments 2 and 4 relating to the independence of our States and other international organisations, I do not support these amendments.

      The PRESIDENT – There is an objection, so each amendment will be taken individually in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I call Mr Schennach, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, to support Amendment 6. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – We contend that, at the moment, workers’ associations are not allowed to fight against anything in the administrative tribunal of the Council of Europe. We want workers’ associations to be able to apply to that administrative body. In the Council of Europe, we do not have only one level – the final level – of decision making. We can also apply to a second level if there is a disagreement. Both committees unanimously adopted the amendment.

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

      Mr van de VEN (Netherlands) – I am against this amendment. The independence of international organisations should be upheld as much as possible, and should not be reduced for individual employment disputes. They should be settled within international organisations themselves, based on the integrity of the executive and the employee.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is in favour, so I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is agreed to.

      I call Mr Schennach, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, to support Amendment 7. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I am surprised that this is being questioned, because we are only saying, first, that there are not only human rights but social rights, as we did in the resolution on the social charter; and, secondly, that when there is a conflict in an international organisation about ending people’s employment, there should not be only one answer with no possibility of intervention.

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

      The committee is in favour.

      I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14443, as amended. A two thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      I thank the rapporteurs and the committee for their good work.

3. Strengthening international regulations

against trade in goods used for torture and the death penalty

The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the debate on the report titled “Strengthening international regulations against trade in goods used for torture and the death penalty”, Document 14454, presented by Mr Vusal Huseynov on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      In order to finish by 11.45 a.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.30 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote. I remind members that there is a four-minute speech limit in this debate.

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

      Mr V. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – I am pleased and honoured to present to you my report on strengthening international regulations against trade in goods used for torture and the death penalty. This might seem to some like a rather technical subject, but it has huge potential to prevent torture, ill treatment and the enforcement of the death penalty in practice. I therefore encourage you to see it from a more practical angle.

      As we know, there is an absolute prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment in all relevant international agreements, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture. This prohibition is so strict that it also requires States to take measures to prevent such cases from happening in third countries, especially where their policies could have an impact on them. It is therefore an established legal fact that the authorities of Council of Europe member States have an obligation to prevent the commission of torture in third countries. In other words, we cannot easily abolish the death penalty and prevent torture in non-European countries, but at the very least we should not supply the tools that can be used to torture and execute. We do not want those who commit the worst kind of human rights violations to do so with equipment that was made in Europe, sold by European companies or promoted at European trade fairs.

      Since the early part of this century, the international community has been active in eliminating these practices, and work has also been under way at the United Nations to promote the regulation of the trade in goods used for torture. With the encouragement of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, successive United Nations special rapporteurs on torture have done ground-breaking work in this field. In 2005, this led to the European Union’s adoption of a regulation that is considered the most advanced regime in this regard. This regulation distinguishes in the main between two types of goods, as noted in its annexes, and accordingly introduces respective regulations, such as banning or applying certain limitations. The relevant types of goods are: first, those that have no practical use other than for the purposes of the death penalty and torture, the trade in which should thus be prohibited; and, secondly, goods that are designed for legitimate use by police or security forces, but which could be abused for the purpose of torture or inhuman treatment or punishment, the trade in which should require authorisation.

      The definition of “trade” given in the regulation includes import, export, brokering of transfers, the provision of technical assistance, buying or selling to third parties, and so on. The regulation also requires member States to put in place “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” penalties for breaches of the regulation and imposes information-sharing obligations on the competent authorities, which have to notify all major stakeholders – member States and the Commission.

      The European Union has not limited its activities to within the European Union, but has set itself the goal of addressing the situation at the international level. Earlier this year, the European Union, along with the Governments of Argentina and Mongolia, established the Global Alliance to end trade in goods used for capital punishment and torture, adopting a political declaration that aims to commit States also to take regulatory action at the national level and to co-operate at the international level in this regard. Most Council of Europe member States have already joined the alliance and signed up to its political declaration.

      Despite all these international frameworks, initiatives and measures at the national level, there are still serious concerns in this area. Unfortunately, we also face such cases in our member States. Research conducted by the Omega Research Foundation – a specialist United Kingdom-based non-governmental organisation that worked with us in drafting the report – and Amnesty International showed that the trade in goods used for torture and the death penalty continues in several European countries. You will see a worryingly long list of examples in my explanatory memorandum, some of them very recent and in violation of existing regulations.

      To get a better understanding of the situation and the measures taken at the national level, we submitted a questionnaire to our member States – it was also the aim of the original motion to investigate and report on the trade in security equipment in member States. Analysis of the responses indicates a strong need for development in this area at the national level, as we discovered that in some member States there was a lack of any regulation. Some member States seemed to have limited information on these issues, indicating that there were no companies involved in the trade of such goods; however, information on their participation at several trade fairs and the selling of such goods was in the public domain. We were also concerned to see commercial activity in member States in goods prohibited under the respective annexes of the relevant European Union regulation.

      My report derives from these concerns and aims to boost developments in this area. It therefore makes several recommendations and invites major stakeholders in this field – the European Union, our member States and the Committee of Ministers – to take specific action to strengthen the existing mechanism, expand its coverage and make the system even more effective. We make a call on the European Union, even though it is frontrunner in this area, as there will always be room for improvement, especially in the implementation of its regulation and in updating and considering the list of regulated goods in the annexes. More specifically, we expect it to encourage its member States that have not yet done so to publish annual reports, consult independent civil society bodies, continue to promote the Global Alliance throughout the world and to co-operate with the Council of Europe.

      We also call on our member States, as there is no reason why all Council of Europe member States should not adopt similar regulatory regimes that are compatible with that of the European Union. In legal and administrative terms, there is nothing revolutionary or even particularly difficult that needs doing. As all Council of Europe member States are subject to the same basic obligations, the justification and foundations for a pan-European regulatory system are already in place. Even though most member States are also members of the European Union and therefore already covered by the jurisdiction of the European Union regulation, our stand on this issue and the call we are making can bring more value to our non-European Union members.

      We should also note that the most relevant regulatory standards that apply to all Council of Europe member States are non-binding and substantively inadequate. They cover only trade in goods that can be used only for prohibited purposes, not trade in goods that could be abused for such purposes. Therefore, improvements in this area at the national level heavily depend on domestic provisions. Harmonisation of legislation and efforts at the national level also create an effective platform and space for the further exchange of information and co-operation in this field. Therefore, it is important that all our member States apply general standards as defined in the European Union regulation and in this report.

      The Assembly should actively support the Global Alliance. We should also recommend to the Committee of Ministers that the Council of Europe as a whole, which has always played a leading role in promoting the prohibition of the death penalty and torture, should do the same. The abolition of torture and the death penalty have quite rightly been core issues for the Council of Europe for many years. We can be proud of our achievements, but that does not mean that we can rest easy. We must do more. My report is an example of how we can make a further contribution. I therefore trust that it will find support among all Assembly members, and I invite you to vote for it.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Huseynov. You have five minutes and 18 seconds remaining. In the debate I first call Ms Pashayeva.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group) – I thank the rapporteur for this important report. I believe it provides clear guidelines for member States on how to deal with the issue.

      Torture and the death penalty are prohibited within the borders of the Council of Europe. The European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. According to the Convention, a derogation from the prohibition of torture during a state of emergency is not permitted. In addition, the prohibition of torture is considered a norm of customary international law and a mandatory norm of international law. Protocol No. 6 to the Convention, which has been ratified by nearly all Council of Europe member States, abolishes the death penalty. Therefore, as the human rights promoter in Europe, the Council of Europe serves as a model for the world and should further strengthen its position in this field.

      It is obvious that the trade in goods used for torture and the death penalty is unlawful and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Unfortunately, contrary to the principles and commitments of this Organisation, such goods are still produced, marketed and sold in some Council of Europe member States, as noted in the report. The regulations against the trade in such goods should be stricter. I fully agree with the report that the Assembly and member States cannot allow companies operating in their territories to be involved in the trade in goods used for torture and the death penalty. Any impunity in this regard may result in tragic outcomes for us and for humanity generally.

      Of course, approving the legislative acts related to this issue is a precondition for combating these practices, but it is not enough. Reinforcement of the implementation mechanisms of the regulations is important as well. Member States should act in good faith in this direction. Additionally, the Assembly should take further responsibility, and not only pass a single recommendation. However, this does not mean that I overlook the importance of this excellent work and recommendation. I welcome and support the establishment of the Global Alliance to end trade in goods used for capital punishment and torture, which is a crucial step for ending this type of illegal practice.

      I again thank the rapporteur for his excellent and important report, and call on you all to support it.

      (Ms Trisse, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Ariev.)

      Mr MULLEN (Ireland, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – I compliment Mr Huseynov and all those involved in this troubling, but necessary, report. In this debate, we are considering a fundamental question of human dignity. We like to think of ourselves as inhabiting a part of the globe where the death penalty, torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are becoming or have become things of the past. Certainly, progress has been made, especially considering the almost complete ratification of Protocol No. 6 and Protocol No. 13 on abolishing the death penalty in peacetime and in all circumstances. Only a few countries – the Russian Federation, Armenia and Azerbaijan – still have a way to go with ratification.

      But this issue is not just about what happens in our own part of the world. As Mr Huseynov’s report makes clear, we are talking about structures of sin, whereby countries that would not allow cruel, inhuman and degrading practices themselves can easily – through a lack of regulation and vigilance – become complicit in allowing others to carry out horrible atrocities on human beings. We are fortunate to have a gold standard in the European Union regulations of 2005, and to have the emergence of the Global Alliance. The draft resolution calls on member States to take effective measures to prevent activity in our jurisdictions that might facilitate any of the horrible realities of capital punishment, torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. When considering structures of sin, we need to establish structures of virtue, whereby our countries work to ensure that we are in no way complicit, and this report is about helping to establish those structures of virtue.

      Reading through the report, I came across things that really should not even exist in our imaginations – much less in our reality. The report lists instances such as: thumbscrews sold by French and German companies; weighted restraints sold by Czech and German companies; body-worn electric restraints sold by a German company; cage beds sold by a Czech company; electric shock batons for sale from companies in Poland and in Bosnia and Herzegovina; chemical irritants for sale by “companies in many Council of Europe member states”; and acoustic devices designed to heat or burn human skin for sale from a Finnish company. I was astounded to read about the Milipol trade fair in France, where weighted restraints were exhibited by a Chinese firm in 2015 and 2017, and about a German company producing handcuffs. Even the marketing of such devices was astounding, with a remote control shock treatment advertised with the slogan, “You never saw an escaping person stop so quickly!” Reading about this brought to mind how quickly people who would regard themselves as perfectly civilised can become implicated in the traffic and trade of truly horrific things.

      We know that we are in an imperfect world, and the efforts we make cannot be designed to exclude these most unpleasant realities completely, but it is vital that we never let up in our efforts. That is why we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr Huseynov and all those involved in the production of the report.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – I congratulate Mr Huseynov on this important report. Indeed, the abolition of the death penalty and the prohibition of torture are the key obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The abolition of the death penalty is the main precondition for membership in the Council of Europe, and we continually discuss this with observer States. Article 3 of the Convention defines a special and absolute right, and it is one of the very few rights where no derogation is possible. As well as our very special Convention, we have a very effective body in the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

      This problem has both legal and moral aspects. It goes beyond only negative obligations – not to execute and not to torture. We should do more. Member States must do their best to prevent executions and torture in third countries. From a practical point of view, resolving this issue is not that simple. In fact, almost anything can be used for torture and, to a lesser extent, for execution. For example, the sad example of Guantanamo shows us that just water, music, light and so on can be used as tools of torture. However, a lot of work has been done to clarify the matter. Normative provisions have been adopted by the European Union, and the establishment of the Global Alliance mentioned by previous speakers has become the next important step.

      Regrettably, the Council of Europe has so far lagged behind, despite the fact that this problem is exactly within our competence, rather than that of the European Union. Mr Huseynov’s report fills this gap. The detailed clarification of the notions and approaches, and the practical proposals and guidelines are of great use for those governments, private companies and non-governmental organisations that are eager to combat the spread of goods used for execution and torture, but that lack the practical awareness to do so.

      On behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group, I fully support the report and the draft recommendation. I hope that the Committee of Ministers will, without undue delays, accept the recommendations and act immediately and resolutely.

      Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I think this is a debate on which we are all going to agree, and I am not going to dissent at all. I warmly congratulate the rapporteur on this excellent report. I hope that he is not disappointed that there are so few people in the Chamber today. He will have to take my advice that this is a question of quality, rather than quantity, and that we are all supportive of the conclusions he has reached.

      The Council of Europe stands against the death penalty, and I urge it to keep up that stand. The issue has raised its head again with developments in political parties throughout Europe, and not just on the right. Whenever the issue is discussed in political debates, we need to stand firmly against the death penalty. It is right that the report also considers torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. Its use of examples is first-class; I was particularly pleased to see the results of the pressure we have exerted to reduce the supply of materials for the death penalty to those states of the United States that still use it as a punishment. It would be a very good thing if we could exert pressure on other places in that way.

      We need to be careful to ensure that goods likely to be used for more than one purpose are correctly identified, and let me say straight away that I believe the report does so. I suspect that the argument will be made that, in an age of widespread terrorism we should take a stand against it, but my view is that we should not sacrifice or undermine our own decency and humanity when we face terrorism. It is excellent that the report puts particular emphasis on training, recognising that a tremendous amount of training, particularly of police forces, crosses the border of the decency we want to maintain.

      The Committee of Ministers is already active in this sphere, and the request to them is a particularly good one. I urge the Council of Europe to support the Global Alliance with Argentina and Mongolia – well, we have to start somewhere. Let us grow it into a real world power against the death penalty, because it completely supports the Council of Europe’s aims.

      Ms BRUIJN-WEZEMAN (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – I have already had the opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Vusal Huseynov, on his excellent report, but I repeat my congratulations. It is horrific that there are people devising and developing instruments whose sole purpose is to torture fellow human beings. What is being conceived, produced and traded goes far beyond my imagination and that of many other right-minded people. If we are to take human rights seriously, protecting the integrity of the human body and providing safety, we must do everything in our power to combat the production and trade of such terrifying goods.

      The absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in all circumstances is a strict norm of international law. The death penalty, which is now unlawful in all Council of Europe member States, is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment that has no proven significant deterrent effect and that allows judicial errors to become irreversible and fatal. All member States should take effective measures to prevent any activity within their jurisdiction that might contribute to or facilitate capital punishment, torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. That should include effectively regulating trade in goods that may be used for such purposes.

      Although there are many encouraging signs, there is still work to be done to make access to tools and equipment used for inhuman and degrading treatment more difficult. The resolution calls on the six remaining member States to join the other 41 in the Global Alliance to end the trade in goods used for capital punishment and torture. The Committee of Ministers is invited to call on member States that have not already done so to introduce legislation and regulation on that trade. The report makes a clear recommendation to follow the existing regulations of the Council of the European Union, which set out current global best practice. Another important recommendation in the report calls on the European Union to encourage member States that have not yet done so to publish annual reports on their regulatory activities in this area, as requested under European Union regulations, which is the next step towards justifying those regulations and making their effects transparent.

      The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports the ambitions set out in the report and expresses the hope that it will be a step forward in preventing people from suffering torture and capital punishment.

      Mr P. EIDE (Norway, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I thank the rapporteur and the previous speakers. We all seem to agree on the direction of the report. It is shocking, alarming and disturbing that such goods are still on the market in many European countries. Yesterday I attended a side event at which pictures of different items were shown – innovative items produced by engineers and doctors to cause pain, control riots and humiliate people in absolutely the worst way. It was deeply emotionally shocking to see them.

      The worldwide ban on torture is a strong ban, but we must beware. There are voices that argue – very wrongly, in my view – that the fight against terrorism requires that the ban be modified. I believe that one of the reasons why the market in torture items still exists is that such voices seem to argue that it is necessary.

      The campaign against the death penalty has had results: fewer and fewer countries are sentencing people to capital punishment, although there are some exceptions. However, despite strong bans and a European Union prohibition, this market still exists. A few months ago, as we have heard, Amnesty International discovered illegal torture equipment for sale at a trade fair in Paris. Horrible instruments, designed to cause pain, exert control and extract information, were proudly displayed. This was not a black market or hidden market, but an open and supposedly legal market intended for the French police and military. It is shocking that such markets still exist.

      Strengthened legislative action against the trade in goods used for torture and the death penalty is imperative. It may not prevent the death penalty or torture, but it is still important. It is totally unacceptable that anyone should capitalise on the trade in torture and execution instruments – I say that not only as a socialist but as a human rights defender. I believe that European countries need to implement regulations to persuade other countries to stamp out this cruel trade. Torture by police, military and prison staff is a huge problem in Europe, and this trade gives those people a signal that torture is acceptable. We need to make it clear that the opposite is true. So this recommendation calls on all member States to implement national legislation and regulations. It is very important, sending an important signal to several countries in Europe.

      Fighting torture and the death penalty is a cornerstone of the human rights framework, and stopping this business is imperative in our common struggle for human rights.

      The PRESIDENT* – The rapporteur does not wish to respond at this stage, so we move to the general debate, in which we will have only two speakers. I call the first of those, Mr Reichardt.

      Mr REICHARDT (France)* – Echoing the speakers on behalf of the groups, I congratulate our colleague Mr Vusal Huseynov on an excellent report, but I do so all the more because, as you know, I am French and so I am deeply affected by what he has written about the existence of professional fairs for members of the forces of law and order in my country.

      The member States of our Organisation have abolished the death sentence in time of peace or have instituted moratoriums. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights specifies that no one may be subjected to torture. That shows that our societies respect the individual human being, who must not be subjected to inhuman treatment. The positions we have taken are the foundation of a certain perception we have of justice: it is not vengeance or revenge, and may make mistakes – that does occur. So we have decided to abolish the death sentence and torture, doing so in the name of universal values.

      When reading the report, some may have doubts about the values that France really holds, but I assure you that France is very attached to these universal values. But it is not enough for us to have them; we do this in our respective countries and we need to promote it elsewhere. Obviously, we should not interfere in the domestic affairs of sovereign States, but we can limit the recourse to the death sentence and to torture by prohibiting the trade in goods used for such purposes. Council of the European Union Regulation 1236/2005 and its appendices represent a basis for legislation that could be adopted by each of our member States. Legislation restricting the trade in goods used for the death sentence has shown itself to be effective. Such legislation makes it more difficult for certain states to carry out the death sentence, so this is something that should certainly be done. Of course some might say, “If we don’t produce these goods, someone else may do it”, which may be true, but in the meantime by prohibiting such trade we will be defending our values, and that is what is important.

      The Global Alliance, launched with the support of the European Union, makes it possible to raise the awareness of States around the world on these issues. It is a political declaration condemning the trade in goods used for the death sentence or for torture, and it has been adopted by 58 States, some of them from Asia and South America. We must continue this awareness-raising work. Furthermore, we have seen in practice that legislation restricting the trade in goods used for the death sentence does limit the ability of certain States to carry out the death sentence.

      Of course, these declarations and regulations will have an impact only if they are really applied by member States. We have seen from the report that that is not always happening, even within the European Union. Our role, as parliamentarians, is to do whatever we can to make sure that national legislative provisions prohibiting the production of and trade in goods used for torture and the death sentence are truly applied. We must also control and monitor the action of our governments in this regard in order to ensure that the recommendation proposed in this report is truly implemented.

      Ms McCARTHY (United Kingdom) – I welcome the report’s recommendations and some of the detail set out in it about the extent of the trade in goods used for the death penalty, torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As has been said, in order to be a member of the Council of Europe, States must sign up to not using the death penalty, but it is still very much the case that companies within the member States could be involved in this trade. The fact that the report has drawn attention to that is very welcome.

      I have been talking recently to people from Amnesty International, which, together with the Omega Research Foundation, has identified a company in the Czech Republic that trades in devices that administer an electric shock, as well as in pepper sprays, restraints and batons. The company trains security, military and police forces in using such devices to place prisoners into the “hog-tie” position, despite the fact that the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has recommended that such techniques should not be used. The company’s website shows these things being demonstrated to a range of police forces, including those in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China and Togo. We would not allow these things to happen in our own countries, and we need to be very vigilant to ensure we do not inadvertently allow companies based in our countries to facilitate the use of these things in countries that are not part of the Council of Europe. Amnesty International also highlighted the repeated use of electric shock batons by Italian police. It found them being used on newly arriving refugees and migrants, particularly to enable them to be forcibly fingerprinted in police stations. Even children were subjected to this treatment.

      The Global Alliance for torture-free trade, established by Argentina, the European Union and Mongolia in September last year, is a very welcome development, not just for its work on controlling and restricting exports used for capital punishment and torture, but for what it will do to monitor trade routes and exchange information between countries. Not all Council of Europe countries are members of the alliance, and I hope that they will all make haste to join, so that we can fully co-operate on these matters.

      The European Union has led the way with binding measures to control the export from European Union member States of certain dual-use pharmaceuticals, which, though they may have legitimate medical uses, could be used in executions. There has been much debate in the United Kingdom about certain companies exporting products to the United States for use in executions by lethal injection, and I am glad that such exports are being brought to a halt. On a wider point, the European Union’s “Everything but Arms” trade policy with the world’s least developed countries, providing tariff-free trade on all goods except arms for those states classified as “least developed”, demonstrates how the European Union is a global leader in these matters. I sincerely hope that, once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, we will continue with these exemplary practices.

      We must remain vigilant towards practices taking place within Europe that facilitate the trade of goods used for torture or the death penalty. We can be proud of the Council of Europe’s efforts so far, but there is so much more to do, in Europe and elsewhere, before we can rid the world of this terrible trade. I therefore very much welcome this report.

      The PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Huseynov to reply. Rapporteur, you have five minutes and 20 seconds.

      Mr V. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – I thank all my colleagues for their comments and their support, which, once again, indicate that we are moving on the same line; we accept that there are concerns in this area and actions need to be taken. I wish that there were no goods used for these purposes in the world. I, too, was at yesterday’s side event, and you really do wonder why this technology, science and innovation is being applied in this way. I do understand that such a view is a bit unrealistic, but I believe that this report is realistic and it shows how we can contribute.

      The European Union Council regulation was adopted in 2005, yet 13 years later we are still discussing and expressing the concerns existing in the field. We talk of the companies and of the regulation, which once again indicates that we should pay attention to enforcing this regulation and to developments at national level. We should also pay attention to the harmonisation of the legislation among member States and, of course, to training and education. Those are also very important. Once again, I thank the other civil society organisations for their input – I see my colleagues here. I also thank members of our secretariat, and, once again, I call on members of the Assembly to support the report.

      The PRESIDENT* – Mr Schwabe, as chair of the committee, do you wish to respond?

      Mr SCHWABE (Germany)* – I would very much like to thank Mr Huseynov, as well as the secretariat, for all the commitment and determination they have put into the report. As I said at the outset, there is a great deal of unanimity when it comes to fighting torture and the death penalty, and I think the debate has borne that out.

      The fact that there are no amendments to the report shows that there is a great deal of agreement, and we will therefore try to make sure that Council of Europe member States are not responsible for providing instruments of torture. I know of a situation in my own country in which a company is not happy with that, and the case is often that products are exported. However, I think the report can go some way towards supporting the international debate and making some progress, so it would be really helpful if we had a great deal of consensus. I hope there will be overwhelming support for the report.

      The PRESIDENT* – That concludes the debate. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft recommendation contained in Document 14454, to which no amendments have been tabled, which means that we can put it to a vote. I remind members that a two thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

4. Free Debate

      The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the free debate, under Rule 39.

      I remind members that this debate is for topics that have not already appeared on the agenda of this part-session. Speaking time will be limited to four minutes. All speakers must start off by outlining the subject of their contribution.

      The free debate will finish by about 12.50 p.m., when we must interrupt the list of speakers. I call Dame Cheryl Gillan.

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – On behalf of the European Conservatives Group, I welcome the potential return of the free debate to the beginning of the part-session. We think it most important that members have the opportunity to raise novel issues at the beginning of the week. Although I understand the difficulties of that for this week, I know our voices have been heard, and I thank the Secretariat for that.

      I particularly want to raise the stark inequalities faced by people with autism and their families. Research indicates that one in 100 people are autistic, which means approximately 5 million people in the European Union, and up to 75 million people worldwide, are on the autistic spectrum. Regrettably, even in the most developed countries, people with autism face barriers to education, employment and access to health care and public services on a daily basis. They are much more likely to have contact with the police, and ultimately more likely to die, from a range of physical and mental health problems. In 2016, a landmark study in Sweden found that autistic people die decades before the rest of the population. In the same month, a study in Denmark found that they were twice as likely as their peers to die early.

      Early diagnosis can help autistic people gain access to appropriate services. However, it can take years to obtain a diagnosis, and often damage to and discrimination against the autistic person and their family will have occurred. Failure to obtain early diagnosis can lead to mental health problems, exclusion from education, isolation, criminality and endless problems for families struggling to support their children or relatives.

      I was very privileged to steer the only disability-specific piece of legislation in the United Kingdom – the Autism Act 2009 – through the House of Commons, with the help of a socialist colleague in the House of Lords; it was a truly cross-party issue. I am pleased to report that one of the achievements since then is that this year, for the first time, initial teacher training will contain a module on autism. We are trying to spread that awareness.

      I encourage the Assembly to take a lead on this issue among our member States and to start to respond to what is in fact a growing social movement around neurodiversity by encouraging governments and businesses to recognise the benefits of ensuring that autistic people are included, not excluded. Because I thought I might speak on this topic at the beginning of the week, I tabled Document 14489, which has been widely supported so far. It tries to encourage the Parliamentary Assembly to inquire into attitudes and prejudices and produce a resolution that will help member States to increase the support and provision for and understanding of autistic people and their families.

      Denmark has the chairmanship of the Council of Europe, and when I raised this issue with the Danish Foreign Minister, he stated that disability will be one of its priorities. This is a golden opportunity for the Assembly to do some work on this hidden disability. The people who face discrimination have this hidden disability, and I think we can go a long way towards eliminating prejudices against people with autism and helping those families to have access to public services and justice. I hope the Assembly will listen to my contribution.

      Ms ŞUPAC (Republic of Moldova, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I will inform colleagues about the situation in the Republic of Moldova. All State institutions in the Republic of Moldova are controlled by the ruling Democratic Party and its leader, Vladimir Plahotniuc. Among them are the prosecutor general’s office, the national anti-corruption centre, the central electoral commission and the constitutional court.

      Parliament is also controlled by the Democratic Party, although in the last election it took only 19 MPs out of 101. During the last three years in the Republic of Moldova, 38 MPs have quit their parties and joined the government. Can anyone name even one other State where the number of political tourists reaches one third of the total number of MPs?

      In the last local elections, representatives of the Democratic Party were elected as mayors in 287 localities. Today, almost 600 mayors are members of the ruling party. What is the secret of the attractiveness of the Democratic Party to MPs and local elected representatives? The recipe is simple: money, pressure and intimidation. Those who try to resist are hunted. The most well-known recent cases are the criminal proceedings against the mayors from Taraclia and Basarabeasca, as well as against the chairman of the Dubăsari district. There are already several examples of local representatives and opposition activists asking for political asylum in European Union countries. Last week, local councillors from Bălți – the second largest city in the Republic of Moldova – even went on a hunger strike to protest against the governmental pressure on them.

      At the end of this year, regular parliamentary elections should take place in the Republic of Moldova. The Democrats spat on the recommendation of the Venice Commission and have changed the proportional electoral system to a mixed one. After all, that is the only way that the Democrats can retain control in the next Parliament.

      At the end of 2017, civil society in the Republic of Moldova initiated a legislative referendum on abolishing the mixed electoral system. Opposition political parties on the left and right have supported that idea, but several weeks ago the Central Electoral Commission – one of the captured institutions – refused to register the initiative group.

      Another captured institution is the constitutional court, which adopts decisions imposed by the ruling party. In October last year, the chairman of the Party of Communists, Mr Vladimir Voronin, appealed to international bodies, including the Council of Europe leadership, to pay serious attention to our constitutional court’s lack of independence. Since 2011, the court has made at least 12 decisions that obviously violate the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, instead of guarding it. What else needs to take place in the Republic of Moldova for the Council of Europe and its structures to be firm and to condemn publicly the authoritarian methods of the Moldovan Democrats?

      The Group of the Unified European Left calls on the leadership of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the co-rapporteurs on the Republic of Moldova to begin consultation with all political groups, in order to develop a common resolution on our country. It is time to officially recognise that the Republic of Moldova is a captured State and to work on mechanisms to return it to a real democracy.

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group) – I want to talk about the situation in Egypt, which has now passed the seventh anniversary of the 25 January Revolution. Exactly seven years ago, the Arab world was shaken by a great social movement expressing freedom, democracy and honour, generated from the deepest folds of society. The name “Arab Spring” was given to the revolutionary atmosphere created by that movement.

      We in Europe need to stand by our values and principles with regard to democracy and the rule of law. We need to denounce the imprisonment of more than 60 000 political prisoners in Egypt, including the first elected president, Dr Mohamed Morsi, the speaker of parliament, Dr Katatni, and tens of elected parliamentarians and ministers, as well as tens of thousands of people of all political colours. In the past few weeks, the al-Sisi regime has executed 21 young men after very fragile trials. Tens of them are on death row, waiting for execution. The Egyptian regime has indulged in the killing of Italian citizen Giulio Regeni and imprisonment of many European journalists. Human rights groups have been shut down, and the regime has passed a new law that almost bans non-governmental organisation work.

      Political Islamic parties in the Middle East are part of communities. We need to stand by our values more than our ideologies. It is not in our interests to stop talking to parties of all political colours, as Arab Spring countries are going to witness another wave soon. All political factions and wings need to talk to one another and to find, through that dialogue, better ways of managing their differences while holding on to stability and accountability. A regime that killed more than 800 peaceful demonstrators and holds many in prison, not receiving medical treatment, needs to be denounced. We must push for a more reasonable line.

      The latest situation is that former Chief of General Staff Sami Annan, who announced his candidacy against the military putschist Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on Tuesday, was arrested four days ago, just because he declared his candidacy, just as the former candidate was also forced to withdraw.

      In those days seven years ago, the Arab Spring erupted all across the region, with people dreaming of freedom and equality. Today, more than ever, Europe needs to show solidarity with the youth and their dreams. Our interests will always be better served by a wise democratic regime, rather than a fascist one that chooses to come out of weapon boxes rather than ballot boxes. We should always have solidarity with people who want only democracy, freedom and an honourable life – those are the motives of the Arab Spring – and with the people of Egypt who have never deviated on to the path of violence or armament, even to defend themselves against crude attacks by the existing coup d’état government.

      Mr MULLEN (Ireland, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – I would like to speak up today for a man called Andrew Craig Brunson, an American citizen and a Christian pastor from North Carolina who is being detained in Turkey because he has been accused, with no evidence brought and no access to his file, of political and military espionage and attempting to overthrow the government, constitutional order and so on.

      While it would seem to be the settled understanding of every member State of the Council of Europe that anybody accused of a serious offence, or any offence, is entitled to a fair and speedy trial and an opportunity to examine and test the accusations against him or her, what Turkey is doing to Pastor Brunson is very different. The Turkish Prime Minister appears to be insisting that Mr Brunson will be tried and released when Fethullah Gülen is handed over to Turkey. It beggars belief that, in this day and age, one person could be held without access to the file on what appear to be trumped-up accusations, effectively as a hostage, as some have called it, including German commentators.

      For more than 23 years, Pastor Brunson has lived peacefully in Turkey together with his wife and three children, who were educated in Turkish schools and two of whom were born in the country. He has been a pastor in the city of Izmir. As the religious leader of the congregation, he is known and respected by his church and other Christian congregations. The Brunson family are people who love and respect Turkey and Turkish society. He is a man who would specifically have worked to keep himself and his church away from political activity. His lawyer explains that he considered that establishing political and financial relationships with governments or other groups could endanger his capacity to promote his and his church’s religious beliefs. He has always defended his right to stand apart from politics.

      How strange and appalling it was that more than 400 days ago, in early October 2016, he arrived home to find a written summons to report with his passport to a local police station. He thought it was a routine issue with the renewal of his residence visa, but he was informed by the police that an order of deportation had been entered against him, because he had been deemed a threat to national security.

      It got worse. From that day, he was held in detention and denied access to an attorney for over two months, when he was transferred in the middle of the night to a high-security prison in Izmir. At that time, he was informed that he was being detained as a suspect, although “evidence had yet to be gathered”, he was told, on the grounds of his alleged membership of an armed terrorist organisation. The ensuing months were filled with multiple appeals contesting his detention, citing the legal deficiencies of the Turkish authorities’ decision. All those appeals were summarily denied, with no evidence ever brought forward to substantiate claims that he had been involved in criminal, seditious or revolutionary activity. Neither he nor his attorney has been able to access files or evidence about the accusations being made.

      More than 400 days later, this man is being arbitrarily detained in a Turkish prison, deprived of his rights by a member of the Council of Europe, without any reason. Despite the fact that Turkey is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, it continues to maintain this person imprisoned and separated from his family. This is part of a pattern. There have been illegal and long detentions by Turkey criticised by Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg. What is most scary is that President Erdoğan publicly demands a swap of Pastor Brunson for Fethullah Gülen. We call on Turkey to honour human rights and to release this pastor, and we call on member State representatives to put pressure on Turkey to rectify this injustice.

      Ms ENGIN (Turkey, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group)* – I want to talk about the march for justice that took place last year in Turkey and about relations between Turkey and the European Union. As a new member of the Turkish delegation to the Assembly, I pay tribute to this Organisation.

      Recently, there has been a lot of dishonesty about Turkey’s relations with the European Union. Indeed, Mr Macron alluded to that and to the hypocrisy that surrounds the debate. That view is shared by many European leaders, but they do not come out and say so openly. Turkey has made considerable efforts in the last 59 years. Unfortunately, however, we have seen a chilling in the relations between Turkey and the European Union. A lot of countries oppose Turkey joining the European Union.

      Many Turks are now losing confidence, even though they previously supported the idea of Turkey’s accession. We now run the risk of having a complete breakdown in relations between the European Union and Turkey, which would not be in the interests of the European Union, Turkey, the Middle East or the world at large. We have a great deal of complementarity in many areas. Stability is vital, which is why I appeal to all Europeans, starting with members of the Parliamentary Assembly, to take the initiative immediately to support and encourage Turkey’s membership of the European Union.

      My party, the People’s Republican Party, is in opposition, but we strongly support Turkey’s accession to the European Union. We believe that benefits would accrue both to Turkey and to the rest of Europe. Mustafa Atatürk founded our republic in 1923 and set in motion many reforms in order to integrate Turkey into the contemporary democratic world.

      In 2018, our country is being governed by emergency decrees, which bypass parliament. We have seen backsliding in many areas, including democratisation and fundamental freedoms, as well as a considerable weakening of the rule of law. That is why, in 2017, we embarked on a march for justice. It was an unprecedented march over a distance of more than 400 kilometres. Our party brought together a huge gathering in Istanbul, which was attended by millions of our fellow citizens. The event showed how strong the thirst for justice is in our country. We are determined to pursue this course. We will continue to fight for fundamental freedoms in our country – respect for human rights and a democracy founded on the principle of the separation of powers – and for a secular and social State.

      The PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers on behalf of the political groups. We now move on to the general debate. I call Ms Jansson.

      Ms JANSSON (Sweden) – I will talk about the situation in Turkey. In May 2016, the Turkish Parliament stripped 138 opposition members of their immunity from prosecution. That was an unacceptable act to enable President Erdoğan to change the electoral outcome in his favour and to push the HDP out, thereby removing a critical voice from the Turkish Parliament. Since then, 13 parliamentarians from the HDP have been arrested and detained. Two of them, party co-leader Selahattin Demirtaş and former co-leader Figen Yüksekdağ, have been in detention since November 2016.

      At the beginning of December last year, a group of parliamentarians from various European countries visited Turkey at the invitation of the HDP. Our purpose was to attend the trials of Figen Yüksekdağ and Selahattin Demirtaş, which had been moved from the court to a prison outside Ankara. Despite the fact that the group was accredited according to the court’s rules, we were denied access to the trial against Yüksekdağ. Even national and international non-governmental organisations were denied access. It was the same procedure at the trial against Demirtaş, who was not permitted to appear in court. Journalists were not allowed to interview us and, after a threat that water cannon would be used against us, we had to leave the area.

      It is difficult for me, as someone who lives in Sweden, even to imagine how it must feel for politicians, lawyers, journalists and human rights defenders in Turkey to wake up in the morning and wonder if they will be the next to be arrested and detained, just because they defend human rights, freedom of speech and democracy. Last summer, 11 human right defenders, including Amnesty International Turkey’s director, İdil Eser, were detained. The chair of the organisation in Turkey, Taner Kılıç, was arrested and sent to prison. The situation for journalists in Turkey is frightening. Recently, five journalists were sentenced to prison. Today, more than 150 journalists are in prison in Turkey. That is a bad record.

      Turkey is obliged, as are all the 47 member States of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, to allow journalists and the media to freely review the government, to guarantee to all citizens, including minorities, their human rights and to respect the rule of law. We should never stop pushing Turkey in a democratic direction. The country is so much more than its current leadership.

      Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – This coming February will mark the 30^th anniversary of a democratic movement that has become known in world history as the Karabakh movement – an unprecedented democratic and peaceful coming together of millions of Armenians at the southern shore of the empire of the Soviets. Along with the independence movements in the Baltic States, the Solidarity movement in Poland and similar democratic uprisings in other eastern European countries, the Karabakh movement came to challenge the very foundations of the socialist camp and the Soviet Union, thus fuelling its final dissolution at the end of 1991.

      On the eve of this historic anniversary, it would be useful not only for historians but also for politicians to look back at and reflect on these democratic campaigns in the world’s media and political institutions in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The recourse to history is important not only for getting the facts together, in considering a possible comprehensive solution to an existing problem, but also for sniffing the air of that time in the world and in Europe. That gains even more significance given the useless attempts of Azerbaijani State policy to massively falsify history and to reinvent the past century as part of Azerbaijan’s ongoing process of nation-building – a process that is unfortunately built on a platform of anti-Armenian hatred. As I have said before in this Chamber, if lies are heard in Strasbourg, the voice of truth should be heard even louder.

      In its resolution on 12 January 1989, the European Parliament named Nagorno-Karabakh as a region that had "been arbitrarily given by Stalin to Azerbaijan." In another resolution of January in the same year, the European Parliament concluded "the conflict now taking place is largely the result of dividing up the territory imposed by Lenin in Transcaucasia and particularly the forced integration of Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan in 1923." In a resolution of 10 November 1994, this Assembly of the Council of Europe called on Azerbaijan "to immediately end the blockade of Armenia." In its decision of 24 October 1992, the United States House of Representatives concluded "United States assistance may not be provided to Azerbaijan unless the Government of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh."

      Hundreds of other resolutions and statements by different international organisations and national parliaments, well-known intellectuals and rising leaders of democratic movements across Europe, as well as thousands of publications in the world media, came to reflect the large scope of sympathy and support in the democratic world of late ‘80s and early ‘90s for the desire of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to enjoy freedom and independence. We are thankful to the democratic world for the fact that this support continues today, despite the ongoing nightmare of democracy and increasing darkness in Azerbaijan.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Aleksandar Stevanović is not here, so I call Mr Makhmudyan.

      Mr MAKHMUDYAN (Armenia)* – During the autumn session of the Parliamentary Assembly, I had the honour of reporting to my colleagues on the genocide of the Yazidis in the Middle East, and, in particular, in northern Iraq, committed in 2014 by terrorist fighters. I also reported on the publication of mounting evidence of these crimes.

      The aim of my intervention was to trigger a discussion about whether this amounted to genocide, and in this context it is high time that we turned words into deeds. Innocent people are being beheaded and buried alive, but talking about it is very little use if the people committing these crimes are not being caught. By a fortunate coincidence, at the same meeting, our colleague Mr Omtzigt, a parliamentarian from Holland, published a document that called for the creation of a temporary tribunal to bring the Islamic State perpetrators to justice. Without doubt, this is one way of turning words into action, and I call on my colleagues to give their unconditional support to this document at the summit meeting.

      Armenia itself has taken concrete steps. Three months after my intervention, all political parties in the Armenian Parliament unanimously approved a declaration to condemn the Yazidi genocide committed in 2014 by terrorist fighters in the territory of Iraq under their control. It is important to report on this, to acknowledge it and to condemn the genocide of the Yazidi people. The declaration not only condemns these acts but calls for the creation of an institutional legal framework to identify, punish and hold to account the perpetrators of these crimes. I hope that the prevention of genocide and, parallel to that, the 70^th anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, will encourage member States to condemn Yazidi genocide, identify the perpetrators and ensure that they are brought to justice. I also hope that this will help stop and prevent crimes against humanity, which are threatening ever more peoples in the world and, in particular, the Yazidi people.

(Mr Seyidov, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Trisse.)

      Mr BATRINCEA (Republic of Moldova)* – As a delegate representing the Republic of Moldova, I welcome the adoption by this Assembly in this part-session of a resolution on the defence and promotion of regional and minority languages. This is a standard that is very important for all citizens living on the European continent and provides real guarantees, independent of their ethnic origin or mother tongue. Unfortunately, however, the Republic of Moldova has not ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which has resulted in quite a lot of tension. The declarations of the Moldovan authorities are very populist, but there are no real mechanisms in the Republic of Moldova to protect these values.

      Over the past 20 years, four rapporteurs from the Council of Europe and the United Nations have come to the Republic of Moldova and observed violations of the framework convention. There are great difficulties confronted by these citizens, and the resolution adopted just a few days ago states that national minorities should be represented in the authorities, especially the central authorities. In the Republic of Moldova, there is no single representative in the government and no minister from a minority group. In this small country, there are citizens who would identify themselves as representatives of ethnic and national minorities and they are confronted with all sorts of difficulties, as the OSCE has observed. They do not have real access to justice, because most of the courts make it impossible for individuals to defend themselves in legal proceedings in languages other than the official State language. There are huge problems with access to education.

      The resolution states that States should make budgetary resources available for genuine bilingualism or even multilingualism in education, but, in the Moldovan education code, no language is referred to other than the State language. In fact, even the Russian language, used by a very large number of people as their mother tongue, is taught as a foreign language, so the Republic of Moldova is violating a large number of its commitments under international conventions. That is the genuine policy of the authorities. The Moldovan Parliament has enacted a law that limits access to education and prohibits certain news programmes and information reports, especially those in languages other than Moldovan, and especially in Russian. This is censorship, and this is all being done in the 21^st century under the not-so-watchful eye of the international authorities.

      The Council of Europe is insisting on standards being applied whatever the political situation, and it should be reacting and doing what is possible to apply pressure and ensure that the Republic of Moldova honours its commitments and obligations as a member State of the Council of Europe. There can be no double standards in this regard. Our Assembly adopts very good and exhaustive resolutions that call for the genuine rule of law and the protection of human rights, but then, unfortunately, the geopolitical interests come into play, and when there is a violation of the rights of citizens we all turn a blind eye. I appeal to the recently elected Commissioner for Human Rights in this regard. I have here a petition signed by 17 NGOs in the Republic of Moldova dealing with the human rights of minorities and calling for a real approach to this. In the next session of the Moldovan Parliament, we will submit the resolution adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly for consideration.

      Mr ŠEŠELJ (Serbia) – I wish to speak about the situation in Serbia. It will soon be 10 years since the so-called Republic of Kosovo declared independence. Although the Kosovo declaration of independence was illegal under both international law and the law of the Republic of Serbia, it was strongly supported by the European Union and all the European institutions, including the Council of Europe. The independence of Kosovo was welcomed with open arms by all those institutions.

      After 10 years, we can see the consequences. The so-called Republic of Kosovo is nothing but a terrorist organisation led by gangsters and war criminals. The main economic activity in so-called Kosovo is trafficking human organs taken from abducted and captured Serbs and Albanians, so the European Union has assisted in the creation of a 100% terrorist State in the heart of Europe. Today the European Union commissars are saying loud and clear to Serbia’s officials that the Republic of Serbia has to accept the independence of Kosovo if it wants to be a member of the European Union. That is the official position of the European Union and all the European institutions.

      I am proud to say that the Serbian people do not want to be in the European Union. The Serbian people do not want the Republic of Serbia to join the European Union and, most importantly, the Republic of Serbia will never accept the independence of the so-called State of Kosovo.

      Ms MEHL (Norway) – As a new member of the Assembly, I have been surprised to find that attendance decreases so much through the week. We just need to look around. The result is that the Assembly is adopting resolutions, recommendations, reports and so on that might have only a few votes behind them, even if they are unanimously adopted by the people actually present.

      I will give an example from yesterday. The resolution on “Protecting children affected by armed conflict” was adopted by the Assembly in the evening session, at a time when only 41 Assembly members were present for the vote. That means that fewer people were present than would have been if every member State had had one parliamentarian present. In fact, in the vote on that resolution, only 17 member States were represented. That means that 30 member States were not here and have never voted on that resolution.

      One of the core values of the Council of Europe is the promotion of democracy. The Parliamentary Assembly is a democratic organ where we come together as representatives from our countries on behalf of our parliaments and citizens to discuss and adopt common statements. But I have asked myself this week if we can really call this fair representation in all cases. This practice is challenging the legitimacy and credibility of statements adopted by the Assembly. It is also diminishing the debate. When a debate and vote is missing the representation of 30 member States, it is safe to say that we are also missing diversity and important views and insights that might differ from our own.

      In some cases, the Assembly adopts statements that call for member States to take certain actions in their own States or in terms of diplomacy. But in what degree do member States feel obligated to do so when they might not even have been present for the debate or part of the vote? I find it strange and also a little challenging that there is no system for ensuring a quorum or the equal representation of countries or political groups in the votes – or if there is such a system, that it is not used.

      There are as many reasons for absence as there are people absent. My point is not to provide answers, but there are important questions to be asked to determine whether we could make changes to make sure that the Council of Europe has more legitimacy and credibility behind its work and its statements in the future.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Kürkçü, but he is not here, so I call Ms Pashayeva.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – To our regret, a member of the Armenian delegation gave false information in the Assembly.

      In exactly a month, we will commemorate the anniversary of the Khojaly genocide committed by Armenia in 1992. Those responsible for this crime are still walking free in Armenia and have not been brought to justice. Resolution 1416 of the Parliamentary Assembly, which demanded the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan including Khojaly, has been ignored by Armenian officials for the last 13 years. However, no serious steps have been taken by the Assembly in protest against such behaviour.

      Two young Azerbaijani men, trying to prevent the next provocation by the Armenian armed forces, lost their lives in January. Upon adoption of the resolution, the Armenian armed forces brutally murdered three children called Zahra, Fariz and Aygun, and dozens of other civilians, and destroyed and burned their homes. If the resolution had been implemented, many people – including those two young men and dozens of children and civilians – would not have lost their lives.

      Unfortunately, instead of placing pressure on Armenia to fulfil the resolutions, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe invited the President of this occupying country to our Organisation and he was given an opportunity to make a speech, which was based on lies. We condemn that and protest against it, because the President of Armenia directly participated in the occupation of Azerbaijani lands and in committing the Khojaly genocide. As the President of Armenia, he has refused for many years to implement Council of Europe and United Nations resolutions demanding the withdrawal from occupied Azerbaijani lands and allowing 1 million Azerbaijani refugees to return to their native homes.

      To our great regret, the Assembly did not require the leader of an occupying country that has not implemented a resolution calling for withdrawal from occupied Azerbaijani lands, and to allow 1 million Azerbaijanis to return to their native lands, to stop those actions and implement the resolutions during his visit to the Council of Europe. We call on the Assembly to stop such double standards. We call on the Assembly to respect its own resolutions and take serious measures against Armenia for failing to implement Resolution 1416 and the resolution on the Sarsang reservoir. One million Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs who cannot return to their homes expect this from you.

      Armenia also ignores the calls of the Council of Europe and refuses to release two Azerbaijanis, Dilgam Asgerov and Shahbaz Guliyev, who are held hostage. The leaders of our Organisation should demand that Armenia release them and protect their human rights, which have been violated. At the same time, we call on the Assembly and the leaders of our Organisation to make a statement on the eve of the anniversary of the Khojaly genocide condemning that terrible crime. Together, and for humanity, we must bring those who committed that terrible crime to justice.

      A few days ago, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey joined launched the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, which connects Europe to Asia. That great project is important not only for us but for all of Europe. The continued tension caused by Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani lands is a great threat to our interest and European interests. Therefore, our Assembly should play a more active role in resolving that issue.

      Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan)* – Unfortunately, I feel duty bound to state that the authorities of Armenia and my friend, Mr Farmanyan, have distorted the historical truth. Nagorno-Karabakh is my small fatherland. The town in which I was born and raised is now occupied, and for 25 years I have not been about to visit my homeland because the Armenian armed forces are there. To talk about a democratic movement in Nagorno-Karabakh is, of course, absurd. The ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis that occurred there was carried out under the cover of the Russian armed forces that at the time were present in Nagorno-Karabakh. The former Armenian Minister of Defence was the leader those CIS armed forces. To say that democracy in Nagorno-Karabakh should be welcomed in this house of justice in Strasbourg is not a serious proposal.

      That is our history – that is what we have experienced, and we do not have the right ever to forget it – but what about the future? As a member of the executive committee of the Azerbaijanis of Nagorno-Karabakh, I have been seeking dialogue between the two communities for a long time. We believe that that is the only way for us as politicians to achieve progress, to give our people some sense of stability and peace, and to make progress in the implementation of the Minsk Agreement. I appeal to all of you to support our initiative to engage in dialogue among Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh.

      Samvel Farmanyan could perhaps stand hand in hand with me so we can help our two communities to speak to and trust one another. That would be a positive contribution in this house of justice in Strasbourg. We are looking for justice, peace, stability and democratisation. Each and every one of us, as political decision makers, must think of our people: they are innocent and they deserve our support. I am bold enough to believe that this appeal will be heard by colleagues in the Armenian delegation. We can do something together in the Caucasus to achieve peace and stability for all in that region.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr Rzayev, for that appeal for dialogue. I call Mr Önal.

      Mr ÖNAL (Turkey)* – In recent years, natural gas exploitation activities have been taking place in the east Mediterranean. The region has become very important in terms of energy. Greek Cypriots are working on the exploitation of hydrocarbon resources. All Cypriot citizens have equal rights to the country’s natural resources, but the Greek Cypriot administration is obstructing the rights of the Turkish Cypriots to the natural resources and is conducting hydrocarbon exploitation activities on its own without including Turkish Cypriots.

      Recently, the southern Cypriot administration granted some licences for the Turkish Cypriot area, and lot No. 6 included exploitation activities in the Mediterranean. Given that long-lasting peace and stability has not yet been established in Cyprus, it is not acceptable that the Greek Cypriot administration, which assumes that it is the sole administration and that it represents the whole island, is conducting natural resource exploitation activities on its own. Turkey has warned the Greek Cypriot administration about protecting the Turkish Cypriot side as well as its own territorial rights, and has made declarations to that effect. The fact that the Greek Cypriot administration is conducting exploitation activities on its own constitutes a significant threat to peace and stability in the east Mediterranean. Certain energy companies have assumed responsibility for the exploitation of hydrocarbons and natural resources in the area, which has further complicated the situation.

      In that context, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is focusing on protecting the legitimate rights of the Turkish Cypriots to natural resources, and has given licences to Turkish energy companies for such exploitation activities. The owners of the licences, including those companies, will be involved in natural resource exploitation activities in the east Mediterranean.

      Earlier in this debate, two colleagues said that anti-democratic activities are taking place in Turkey at present, and referred to detained members of the press and so-called anti-democratic tendencies in Turkey. Following the failed coup attempt in 2016, there have been attempts to the find and detain the perpetrators. It is the duty of the judiciary to do that.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – This Organisation’s relationship with its largest member State, the Russian Federation, is of course of huge significance. Some advocate the return of the Russian members, but the majority of us are still against that. The fact that the Russian Federation not only occupies the territory of more than one of its neighbours but resents its neighbours’ sovereignty rightly overshadows the entire discussion.

      Today, I want to raise one particular case. On 19 May 2016, a representative of the occupying Russian armed forces crossed from the occupied Georgian region of Abkhazia into unoccupied territory and killed a citizen of Georgia, 31-year-old father and family man Giga Otkhozoria. The Russian occupation has cost Georgia and other countries many lives, but this murder is different from other murders. By coincidence, the CCTV camera of a nearby shop recorded the entire crime. The murderer, Mr Kanji-Ogli, went back to the occupied territory and was symbolically charged, but unfortunately he has not been brought to justice. The proxy authorities of occupied Abkhazia halted proceedings against this individual due to a “lack of evidence”.

      Unfortunately, my government is not pursuing justice in this case as much as I think it should, so I am using this opportunity to register the case before you. I call on the Council of Europe and its member States, particularly the member States of the European Union, to put this case on the agenda in their dealings with the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation, as an occupying power according to international law, exercising what is known in international law as “effective control” over the occupied territory, bears responsibility for human rights there. The Russian Federation therefore bears full responsibility for this crime, and it is important that the perpetrator is brought to justice.

      Specifically, the perpetrator should be included in the Schengen blacklist and must be prevented from obtaining visas from European Union member states, something that unfortunately has still not happened – he may be travelling freely on European Union territory. First and foremost, European Union member States should declare Mr Kanji-Ogli at large, and not only through Interpol but on a bilateral basis. Hopefully, this and other injustices committed by the Russian Federation will not be forgotten, but in this case justice should be served and the criminal should be punished.

      Mr MARUKYAN (Armenia) – It is difficult not to answer my Azeri colleagues. As I understand it, this whole Assembly and all the parliamentarians – everybody – is fed up with all these lies and all the fake information that our Azeri colleagues are spreading in this Assembly. I call on my colleagues to go back and fight for a democratic Azerbaijan. Then, finally, a democratic Azerbaijan will be ready for a resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh. If the country can become democratic and fully developed in the rule of law, democracy and human rights, then it will be able to recognise the fundamental human rights realities overall.

      I congratulate the new Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Dunja Mijatović. This is the first time that a woman candidate for this high post has won the election. It is important to support the new Commissioner for Human Rights, because human rights, democracy and the rule of law are in retreat throughout Europe. However, although Council of Europe institutions have faced many challenges recently, this should not be a cause for disappointment or demotivation, because often the guarantees they set and the standards they foresee not only serve as minimal standards for national institutions, but stand for international opinion and justify recommendations for improvements to domestic situations and legislation.

      Without underestimating any other institution of the Council of Europe, I would like to highlight the importance of the European Court of Human Rights, the Commissioner for Human Rights and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The periodic, thematic and ad hoc reports and judgments delivered by these institutions make a valuable contribution to the development, improvement and reform of human rights, democracy and rule of law, assisting national advocators and human rights activists working on the ground to tackle the most urgent issues and suggesting internationally tested and successful solutions for decision makers, while also supporting their proposals with argumentation and justifications provided by internationally recognised institutions.

      Due to recent developments in human rights and the emergence of new challenges, universal solutions should be found that are in line with standards stipulating the best balancing of human rights of different groups. On this issue in particular, the work of the Commissioner for Human Rights is greatly prioritised, as it should be. I should add that Armenian civil society has high expectations of the new Commissioner for Human Rights. As a member of this Assembly, I fully support the new Commissioner in the fight for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

      (Mr Nicoletti, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Seyidov.)

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I completely disagree with the speeches of some of our Armenian colleagues, which have been full of false information. However, that is another story.

      The opinions voiced by politicians promoting xenophobia and racism in some countries over recent years should concern us all. At a time of increased terrorist attacks in Europe, when a number of civilians have become victims of terror, calls for fascism and religious discrimination should be condemned. We believe that the populist approach, which aims to manipulate public opinion, will not find support in the European community. We must not allow such tendencies in public opinion to expand. The rights to life, human dignity, equality of treatment and freedom of thought, conscience and religion are universal human rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human rights.

      The protection and promotion of these rights are intimately linked with the fight against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and xenophobia. Of course, it is unacceptable to associate any religion with terrorism or to describe it as a religion of terror, because all religions, including Islam, encourage peace and call on people to live together in peace. The idea of seeing Islamophobia as a problem of the representatives of the Islamic religion is completely the wrong approach. Muslims played a significant role in the formation of European values.

      The fact that some politicians are targeting a particular religion and voicing racist, xenophobic thoughts can lead to dangerous results in the future. We know that the stable atmosphere enjoyed in Europe nowadays was not achieved easily. We have given millions of lives and suffered severe privations to get where we are now. Surely we do not want the mistakes of some irresponsible politicians to cause us to return to those troubled times. Returning to the years when racial, religious and ethnic discrimination was rampant in Europe will bring no good to anyone. I strongly believe that the primary way to eliminate discrimination is to ensure tolerance, multicultural values and inter-cultural dialogue.

      I have spoken several times in this Assembly about the multicultural atmosphere in my country. I am proud that, in my country of Azerbaijan, representatives of different nations and religions live together in a peaceful and friendly way. Such attitudes cannot be imposed administratively, as tolerance is a voluntary recognition and respect of everyone’s way of expressing themselves, even if that conflicts with one’s own opinion. That is an integral part of our traditional and cultural moral values. The Christian and Jewish communities in Azerbaijan enjoy the same rights as the majority Muslim population. People have never been mistreated for their religion or ethnicity. In conclusion, let me emphasise my belief that nowadays the ideal pattern of integration is to achieve peaceful co-existence through the development of cultural and religious tolerance. The preservation of diversity can only enrich nations.

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) – As one follows what is going on in Davos in Switzerland, it becomes clear that there are two world views. The question has become, “Where does Europe want to go and how can it contribute to a world in which globalisation really is a fact of life?” In this context, Europe is so preoccupied with itself and its problems that it sometimes does not heed the problems, issues and concerns of its southern neighbours.

      The Council of Europe has been an excellent forum for the countries fortunate enough to become partners for democracy. But at the same time that the Council of Europe – and specifically the Parliamentary Assembly – requires its partners for democracy to be consistent with the values championed by the Council of Europe, there is a reciprocal responsibility on the Council of Europe. It must see to it that, if it cannot help solve the political, economic and social problems of the southern partners for democracy, it helps to promote solutions through its associations with the European Union and through consolidating a European position that can bring stability and peace, particularly in the Middle East.

      I am really concerned about the way things are going today in the Middle East between Israel and us Palestinians; the future looks very dim and grim indeed, unless something gives. But at this point we really do not know what that something is. The United States is unfortunately not pursuing its proper, diplomatic, conscientious and long-held policies of encouraging a kind of peace process between Palestinians and Israelis that would at last bring the conflict to an end. My question is whether there is a role for Europe. If there is not, we at least need to ask what Europe can do in good faith to promote the kind of peace that will bring our part of the world some stability and some form of peace, so that people can live side by side and accept each another.

      In this Assembly, I am always reminded of the #NoHateNoFear campaign. We need to work on the education of our young people in order to promote understanding and acceptance, irrespective of the other conflicts and issues with which we are concerned.

      The PRESIDENT – As Mr Søndergaard is not here, I call Ms Zohrabyan.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – I wish to speak today about an important and urgent issue: the inalienable right to education of people living in unrecognised States.

      At present, there is a serious problem. The citizens of unrecognised States are deprived of their right to be included in European educational programmes and are thereby excluded from the European education area. Let me remind you that back in 1960, UNESCO adopted the Convention against Discrimination in Education, which clearly stipulates that every citizen has the right to education regardless of their place of residence.

      I once again appeal to the Assembly to take up the issue of recognition of higher education qualifications of the people of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. We are talking about an essential principle of human rights, and the protection of human rights is a fundamental value of our Assembly. At present, students and pupils living in Nagorno-Karabakh are deprived of their right to education – a right that is consistent with international standards – and of the possibility to be involved in the European education area.

      It has been repeated several times in this Chamber that there should be no black holes in Europe, and that citizens of unrecognised States should enjoy the same rights as each and every one of us. Today in the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, there are 219 secondary schools, six educational institutions and five higher education institutions, and yet the citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh are still confronted with obstacles that they cannot overcome, such as the non-recognition of their diplomas. That creates serious problems for thousands of students in the higher education institutions of Artsakh. The students of Artsakh are excluded from the European education area and cannot benefit from programmes offered under the Bologna Process.

      One thing is clear: whatever the status of a State, the European community has the responsibility to guarantee the protection and exercise of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the citizens of Artsakh. That is our joint responsibility, even if some people sitting in the Chamber are opposed to that right. I propose that the Assembly constitutes a working group entrusted with finding effective means for including people living in unrecognised States in European educational programmes and having them participate in the educational process.

      Ms TOPCU (Turkey) – As you know, millions of refugees have been fleeing from conflict and danger, seeking more secure places and, if lucky, international protection. To survive, they have been risking their lives by heading through extremely dangerous escape routes. We have witnessed instances of these shameful scenes in Iraq, Syria, Myanmar and elsewhere.

      Turkey has borne the biggest burden of the current humanitarian crisis. The number of refugees in Turkey has reached over 3.5 million, making Turkey the country with the highest number of refugees in the world. Those refugees include Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians and Somalis among others. Almost 230 000 people are hosted in 21 camps run by the Turkish authorities, where refugees have access to shelter, healthcare, education, food and social activities. Syrian refugees outside camps have access to basic services. In a period of 75 months, more than 225 000 children have been born. Refugees now constitute 4.6% of the total population of Turkey, and Turkey has so far spent more than $25 billion.

      From the beginning, Turkey has put enormous effort into sharing this humanitarian responsibility with others, and it is still willing to do so. Unfortunately, however, the involvement of other States in sharing the burden has remained limited. The needs far exceed the resettlement and humanitarian admissions programmes provided. Flexible visa policies, expanded family reunification, academic scholarships and private sponsor schemes must also complement such measures. States in Europe and the Gulf region should consider offering more such opportunities in order to alleviate the pressure on Syria’s neighbours and give a greater number of refugees an alternative way of accessing safety.

      Finally, I would like to express that it is heartbreaking to see how Syrian people are being treated while fleeing from a horrible war and risking their lives to find protection in Europe.

      Mr MİROĞLU (Turkey)* – I wish to speak about the HDP. I consider the Council of Europe’s discussion of the HDP to be of great significance.

      First, I pose a question: can a democratic system continue to tolerate forever the support extended to an armed organisation by a party that took part in free elections and received 6 million votes? Unfortunately, we have seen such tolerance in Turkey for the last 25 years, but today the situation has changed. Kurdish parties in Turkey have engaged in politics under various names over the years, and their establishment is safeguarded by Turkish law, but tolerance of their support for the PKK and of their failure to denounce the PKK’s terrorist and violent strategies, which have resulted in thousands of deaths, has come to an end. Before the HDP can explain its case to the Council of Europe, it should explain it to its voters, but it cannot. It acts as though nothing has happened. Its voters are so unable to understand that that it cannot exercise politics even in constituencies in which it has received 80% of the votes.

      It was said in this Chamber yesterday that there is no problem with terrorism in Turkey, but that the government was acting as though there were, in order to intimidate and put pressure on the opposition. I have been involved in politics for 40 years. I am an MP from Mardin, a strategic city near Syria and Iraq. The PKK has been carrying out terrorist activities in the area for a long time. As a result of those actions and especially because of the mistaken policies of the State in the 1990s, we continue to shed a lot of tears in our city. Fourteen people lost their lives to a PKK bomb in Diyarbakır – nothing was left of them but 60 kilos of tissue parts.

      A colleague said yesterday that Europe faces a terrorist threat from Daesh. Does that mean that Europeans consider organisations that cause them no harm not to be terrorists? Do they consider them legitimate? I have in my hand a book that I have written, “The New Century: Kurds and Independence”, which is about people who have lost their lives to terrorism. It is 900 pages long. I wish it had been translated into European languages, because the normalisation of relations between Turkey and the European Union hinges on what we call the Kurdish issue. We should have diversity in our ideas and look beyond the bulletins of the PKK or the HDP.

      Voters who supported the HDP unconditionally, guaranteeing it a presence in our parliament, are now questioning the HDP’s policies. When Demirtaş, the then leader of the HDP, called people out on the streets during the events of 6, 7 and 8 October, 50 people lost their lives and he acted as though nothing had happened. Trenches dug by the PKK have become the burial place for 7 000 people. It is a long-standing PKK policy to criminalise legitimate Kurdish movements and parties. Unfortunately, until the HDP opposes that PKK policy, neither the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights nor the Constitutional Court of Turkey can help Selahattin Demirtaş and his friends.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Psychogios, Mr Abushahla and Ms Alqawasmi are not present, so I call Mr Santana García.

      Mr SANTANA GARCÍA (Observer from Mexico)* – On behalf of the Mexican delegation, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the first part-session of 2018. I begin by recognising the role of this Assembly. Its debates, which are centred on human rights, democracy and the rule of law, contribute to improvements in member States and observer States. The debates in this part-session on the defence of the legal profession, good governance in football and sport in general, protection of minors in armed conflicts and the serious consideration of basic citizenship income show just how important those issues are.

      I would like to raise a fundamental issue that should be on the agenda of all member States and observers: the promotion and implementation of a culture of legality, which must take inspiration from a parliamentary culture. We need to raise awareness in society to achieve greater responsibility on the part of individuals, working together to preserve the rule of law. As governments and ordinary citizens, we have a shared responsibility. A culture of legality can influence education and even spatial planning, putting in place the basic prerequisites to allow our citizens to live in decent conditions to avoid illegality, corruption and many other problems. It can also help us to avoid popular indifference.

      We seek a culture of peace, as advocated by the United Nations, and to resolve conflicts peacefully. The idea has been taken up by the Latin American Parliament, which seeks a framework of laws and a model of legislation. We seek to define peace as about tolerance and mutual respect. Many parliamentarians play an active role, seeking to incorporate all those principles in our legislation and ensure that our governments determine the principles that make all our citizens – adults and children – respectful of the law. The media, without a shadow of a doubt, need to be brought in as our leading allies in this struggle.

      It is important that we uphold these values and impart knowledge of these basic principles, which must be respected across society as a whole. As citizens, we must co-operate with the bodies responsible for the administration of justice. As parliamentarians, we must therefore foster and forge these values through our law making, to be upheld by our institutions. I very much hope that in future we will be able to discuss this idea in greater depth. We need to talk about the future of a culture of legality.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

5. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee

      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 14455 Addendum 4. 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 14455 Addendum 4, be ratified. Are there any objections?

      There are no objections, so the progress report is approved.

6. Constitution of the Standing Committee

      The PRESIDENT – The final business today is to constitute the Standing Committee.

      The membership of the Standing Committee is fixed by Rule 17.2, as follows: the President of the Assembly; the Vice-Presidents of the Assembly; the leaders of the political groups; the chairpersons of the national delegations; and the chairpersons of the general committees. A full list of members is set out in Document Commissions (2018) 2.

      The Standing Committee is accordingly constituted.

7. Voting champions

      The PRESIDENT – I am pleased to announce the names of our voting champions – those members who have taken part in all votes during this part-session. There is only one person this time, and that is Ms Lise Christoffersen from Norway, from the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group. I congratulate her.

8. 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 all the Vice-Presidents who have assisted me by presiding over sittings of the Assembly this week. They are: Mr Werner Amon, Mr Volodymyr Ariev, Mr Jonas Gunnarsson, Ms Ana Catarina Mendes, Mr Joseph O’Reilly, Mr Samad Seyidov and Ms Nicole Trisse.

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

      The second part of the 2018 session will be held from 23 to 27 April 2018.

      I declare the first part of the 2018 session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe closed.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.        Changes in the membership of committees

2.        Jurisdictional immunity of international organisations and rights of their staff

Presentation by Mr Ullrich of report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in Document 14443

Presentation by Mr Schennach of opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development in Document 14487

Speakers: Ms Rojhan Gustafsson, Mr van de Ven and Mr Aktay

Replies: Mr Ullrich, Mr Schennach and Mr Schwabe

Amendments 1 to 5 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14443, as amended, adopted

Amendments 6 and 7 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14443, as amended, adopted

3.        Strengthening international regulations against trade in goods used for torture and the death penalty

Presentation by Mr V. Huseynov of report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in Document 14454

Speakers: Ms Pashayeva, Mr Mullen, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Howell, Ms Bruijn-Wezeman, Mr P. Eide, Mr Reichardt and Ms McCarthy

Replies: Mr V. Huseynov and Mr Schwabe

Draft recommendation in Document 14454 adopted

4.        Free debate

Speakers: Dame Cheryl Gillan, Ms Şupac, Mr Aktay, Mr Mullen, Ms Engin, Ms Jansson, Mr Farmanyan, Mr Makhmudyan, Mr Batrincea, Mr Šešelj, Ms Mehl, Ms Pashayeva, Mr Rzayev, Mr Önal, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Marukyan, Ms Gafarova, Mr Sabella, Ms Zohrabyan, Ms Topcu, Mr Miroğlu and Mr Santana García

5.        Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee

6.        Constitution of the Standing Committee

7.       Voting champions

8.        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.

ADAM, Claude [M.] (HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme])

AKTAY, Yasin [Mr]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

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

BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr]

BECHT, Olivier [M.]

BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr]

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms] (MULDER, Anne [Mr])

ĆATOVIĆ, Marija Maja [Ms]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

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

COMTE, Raphaël [M.] (FIALA, Doris [Mme])

CROWE, Seán [Mr]

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

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

EIDE, Petter [Mr] (EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr])

ENGIN, Didem [Ms] (BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr])

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

FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GILLAN, Cheryl [Dame]

GOGA, Pavol [M.] (KRESÁK, Peter [Mr])

GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme])

GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.] (LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.])

HAIDER, Roman [Mr]

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

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

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

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

KAPUR, Mudassar [Mr] (SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms])

KERN, Claude [M.] (GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme])

KILIÇ, Akif Çağatay [Mr]

KLEINWAECHTER, Norbert [Mr]

KLICH, Bogdan [Mr]

KOBZA, Jiři [Mr] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])

KOÇ, Haluk [M.]

KOPŘIVA, František [Mr]

KOVÁCS, Elvira [Ms]

KYTÝR, Jaroslav [Mr]

LACROIX, Christophe [M.]

LAMBERT, Jérôme [M.]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

MAKHMUDYAN, Rustam [Mr] (HOVHANNISYAN, Arpine [Ms])

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

McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms]

MEHL, Emilie Enger [Ms]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MİROĞLU, Orhan [Mr]

MULLEN, Rónán [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])

MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr]

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

NICK, Andreas [Mr]

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

NORDQVIST, Rasmus [Mr] (JENSEN, Mogens [Mr])

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

O'REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]

PODERYS, Virgilijus [Mr] (BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr])

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

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

ROCA, Jordi [Mr] (MATARÍ, Juan José [M.])

ROJHAN GUSTAFSSON, Azadeh [Ms] (KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr])

RZAYEV, Rovshan [Mr] (AGHAYEVA, Ulviyye [Ms])

SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

ŠEŠELJ, Aleksandar [Mr]

SILVA, Adão [M.]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

ŞUPAC, Inna [Ms]

TAMAŠUNIENĖ, Rita [Ms]

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

TRISSE, Nicole [Mme]

ULLRICH, Volker [Mr]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

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

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

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

AGHAYEVA, Ulviyye [Ms]

CORREIA, Telmo [M.]

MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr]

MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

Observers / Observateurs

SANTANA GARCÍA, José de Jesús [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]