AA18CR15

AS (2018) CR 15

2018 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Fifteenth sitting

Wednesday 25 April 2018 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

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

(Sir Roger Gale, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.30 p.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

      I apologise for the refrigeration in the Chamber, about which one or two people have commented. Many things are under the control of the President, but I am afraid that plumbing is not one of them.

1. Joint debate: The protection of editorial integrity and the status of journalists in Europe

(resumed debate)

      The PRESIDENT – The first item on the agenda is the continuation of the joint debate on two reports from the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. The first report is entitled “The protection of editorial integrity”, presented by Ms Gambaro, and the second is entitled “The status of journalists in Europe”, also presented by Ms Gambaro. The second report is accompanied by an opinion from Ms Ævarsdóttir, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I remind members that the speaking time in this debate will be limited to three minutes.

      I call Ms Louhelainen.

      Ms LOUHELAINEN (Finland) – A journalist is a user of power in a society: he or she not only describes the world, but is actively modifying it. A good journalist has solid professional skills, and he or she relies heavily on professional ethics and values, such as impartiality and truth. Freedom of expression and pluralism have long been the foundations of European democracies, but these values are now threatened by the dark forces of propaganda in many ways. The new cyber and disinformation forms of influence are eroding the rule of law and European democracy. In 2016 alone, manipulation and disinformation played a significant part in 18 elections around the world.

      The entire media sector is in the process of transition, with blossoming economic inequality. Some of the media are State owned and get their main income from national budgets, while others get their income from advertisements and subscriber fees and pay their taxes as they should. The third category of media operates transnationally and evades taxes, or, as they put it more beautifully, they are good at tax planning. The quality of journalistic work suffers from a shortage of money, and journalists should have enough time to do proper background work, which is the only way to find out what is true and what is a lie. The distributors of fake news and disinformation seem to have money, time and staff, and that is particularly worrying.

      Media and information experts say that we are now at a dividing line. Threats and attempts to influence decisions also affect us, the other users of societal power. We and journalists, as users of State power, can be threatened and intimidated. Our work is being distorted, and we are being targeted. Journalists are the watchdogs of power; in many cases, they seem to be on a different team from the politicians. As we say in Finland, an axe needs to be sharpened from both sides, meaning that politicians need journalists and vice versa. It is often said that the first victim of war is the truth. Fighting against the forces of darkness of propaganda and disinformation must be done together, because both we and the journalists want to defend freedom of expression, democracy and the western rule of law.

      Mr KRONBICHLER (Italy)* - I was sorry not to be able to speak before the break because the end of a debate is followed more closely than the start of one. I was going to talk about the victimisation of journalists and say that we should move beyond our own self-censorship, because we tend to self-censor more than the most cynical censors. Several of us in the Chamber have a background in journalism, and we need to show greater courage. That was what I had prepared to say.

      Over the break, however, a journalist – of German origin, working for a British newspaper as a freelancer – buttonholed me to confront me with a problem he wants addressed, and other colleagues joined us to complain about the same problem. What is the problem? In the foyer outside the Chamber, we have the so-called media box. I think all parliamentarians now understand that, on request, they can be interviewed in the media box. In fact, I have already been invited to do so. This, it would appear, is an opportunity to make better known the work of the Council of Europe, which does not get much press or media coverage. People talk about the Council of Europe only when there are cases of corruption, as I have heard a member of the Parliamentary Assembly – indeed, the President – say. However, journalists accredited to the Council of Europe told me they have recently been asked to pay certain sums if they want to use the media box with a view to doing so for their own purposes. When I looked to see what was going on this morning, the media box was empty – no members of the Parliamentary Assembly were being interviewed after being buttonholed by a journalist – but it is difficult to reconcile all this with the lofty principles that we have signed up to.

      My question is: what is the status of journalists in Europe – and what about the status of journalism in Europe – given that, here in the Council of Europe, it appears that free access to the media box is granted only to a certain number of pre-selected parliamentarians, not to free and independent journalists?

      Mr BÜCHEL (Switzerland)* - The ranking, hot off the press, of Reporters Without Borders on freedom of expression has Norway at No. 1 and North Korea at No. 180. That is all a little confusing, one would have thought, given that Norway is a kingdom, but North Korea is described as a democratic people’s republic, as has been the case for the past 70 years. Have you noticed anything? Yes, propaganda and fake news are in no way new, even though we would very much like to believe that they are.

      To move on to the subject of today’s debate, I have listened with interest to the many contributions. The report on editorial integrity is balanced and generally good. We are calling for further regulation, which is part and parcel of what we are here to do, but we need a certain sense of moderation. As comes to the fore in the report, we are calling on journalists and their associations to shoulder their own responsibilities. Our Assembly wants the European Federation of Journalists to make it clear to its members that they have to follow a code of ethics. That is correct; it is important to flag up these issues in the training that is provided to journalists.

      I am interested in paragraph 10.1 in the draft resolution, where we qualify quality journalism as being “worthy of public trust”. What is meant by that? How do we define it? Who is going to judge what is or is not worthy of public trust? I think we should delete that term, and I have tabled an amendment to that effect.

      In the debate we have talked time and again about the quality of journalism. A lot of politicians feel that quality journalism is what corresponds to their particular position. I would not exclude myself from that. The question is: are they hacks or heroes? Are journalists hacks, as Sir Edward Leigh said, or are they heroes, as many other speakers suggested? I think that there are both hacks and heroes – that is nothing new – but in a free marketplace the better ideas have to be able to come to the fore. Quality is not necessarily what long-serving journalists would define as such. It is not just a question of business as usual or of carrying on with what we know. People must decide for themselves where and how they get their information. That is the case for countries such as North Korea and others further down the ranking, but it also goes for the countries we represent at the top of the ranking. We have to push for freedom of expression and not just consider regulating it.

      Ms ŞUPAC (Republic of Moldova) – I would like to present the situation regarding the freedom of the media in the Republic of Moldova in the context of the draft resolution. While the law provides for freedom of expression, including for the press, the authorities do not respect that right. A 2017 Freedom House report on media freedom put the country in the “partially free” category. According to that report, strident politicisation and the “oligarchisation” of the media remain key problems for the Republic of Moldova.

      Political interests in parliament dictated the appointment of members of the audiovisual co-ordinating council. Even though, since 2016, the law has limited the number of media outlets that one person may own to two, the essential problem has not been resolved. Media owners with more than two outlets re-registered those outlets under the names of individuals close to them. At the moment, there are two main media holdings that control more than 95% of this sphere. One media holding consists of at least six TV channels and is controlled by Vladimir Plahotniuc, the leader of the ruling Democratic Party. The second media holding, with no fewer than three TV channels, is affiliated to Igor Dodon and the Party of Socialists.

      Those large media outlets exert pressure on smaller ones, which has brought several to the brink of closure and prompted prominent journalists to leave key outlets acquired by oligarchs. The oligarchs closely supervise content and maintain editorial control over reporting by the outlets they own. Local media also face the obstacle of unfair competition in advertising markets, which limits their access to advertising revenue, because of the cartel agreement between those two media groups.

      Local and international civil society has raised concerns about the intimidation and harassment of prominent investigative journalists in the Republic of Moldova. That is one of the conclusions in the recent 2017 human rights report published by the United States of America’s State Department. Understandably, in many cases journalists in that situation practise self-censorship to avoid conflicts with the sponsors or owners of their media outlets.

      That is why I totally agree with those members of parliament who have already raised the necessity of intervening in the problem of media ownership. Without resolving that main issue, we may risk that the good intentions in the draft resolution remain only on paper.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Loucaides is not here and neither is Ms Johnsson Fornarve, so that concludes the list of speakers and I see nobody else rising to speak.

      Ms Gambaro, if you wish to reply you have three minutes remaining.

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy)* – On behalf of the two rapporteurs, I would like to thank colleagues for their support and make some clarifications.

      Sir Edward Leigh should be reassured that nothing in the two reports and two draft resolutions requires more regulation of journalists or restrictions on their freedom of expression. It is quite the contrary: we are launching an appeal to the States to better guarantee that freedom and to avoid the need for self-censorship.

      Some of the French delegation wondered about paragraph 3 of the editorial integrity report. I know that we need to fine tune the position with regard to legislation on defamation; however, the paragraph just recalls a previous resolution of our Assembly, without adding to it.

      With regard to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, I thank Ms Ævarsdóttir for her very positive contribution. Our rapporteurs did not approach the ancillary issues that she examined, such as the protection of whistle-blowers and revising restrictive defamation legislation. That was not because of a lack of interest but was at the request of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which wanted to emphasise issues that we had not yet dealt with connected to the status of journalists. We wanted to avoid repetition of recent reports like the one we have discussed today on protecting editorial integrity.

      Our analysis concerning bloggers is a little different from Ms Ævarsdóttir’s. There is no doubt that a blogger has the right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the ability to post blogs online and to avail oneself of freedom of expression does not mean that a blogger is necessarily a professional journalist or has the status of one. That status is the recognition of being a professional worker who disseminates information. Any journalist may be a blogger, but every blogger is not necessarily a journalist. The status of journalists gives them access to specific rights that we have to better recognise and guarantee. That is why we have suggested a sub-amendment adding the term “professional” to one of the amendments submitted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      To conclude, I hope that colleagues will support the two draft resolutions that we have submitted.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Ms Gambaro. Does the second vice-chairperson wish to speak? Mr Efstathiou, you have two minutes.

      Mr EFSTATHIOU (Cyprus) – The two reports we are discussing address issues at the core of our societies: freedom of the media, the status of journalists in Europe, and professional ethics. The rapporteurs have examined, from different angles, the main challenges that we face in freedom of expression and information in general.

      The profession of “journalist” is currently undergoing major changes. These changes are mostly of a technological nature, triggered by the transition to the digital world. Technological progress has brought unquestionable benefits in the speed and volume of information; but, at the same time, those developments have endangered news media outlets. The traditional funding models have collapsed. The working conditions of media professionals have deteriorated. The number of freelancers has exploded in recent years. Instantaneous news and an increasing number of tasks jeopardise the editorial independence of many media outlets. We should think very carefully about how to revise national legislation on the status of journalists, to make the profession more secure and protected. We also have to examine possible improvements to the social protection of freelancers and explore alternative sources of funding attuned to the new media ecosystem. We should also be aware of the issue of the editorial integrity of journalists who are put under pressure.

      More and more, the media face situations of undue influence and negative intervention attempts, mainly, but not only, from State or public authorities, through direct or indirect control, ownership, partisan appointments in the public media and other means. This has a negative impact on editorial integrity and consequently on the trust of the public. Sadly, journalists suffer from increased threats from organised crime, terrorists, armed conflicts and authoritarian excesses in many States.

      In conclusion, on behalf of our committee, let me warmly thank our rapporteurs, Ms Drobinski-Weiss and Mr Ariev, for their excellent work, even though they are not here with us today. I also thank Ms Gambaro, who kindly agreed to present both reports in the absence of the rapporteurs. I sincerely ask colleagues from this Assembly to support the two reports.

      The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented a draft resolution on the protection of editorial integrity in Document 14526, to which one amendment has been tabled.

      I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 1 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the committee, be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so, Mr Efstathiou?

      Mr EFSTATHIOU (Cyprus) – Yes, sir.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? As there is no objection, I declare that the amendment to the draft resolution has been agreed.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14526.

      The draft resolution in Document 14526, as amended, is unanimously adopted, with 74 votes for, 0 votes against and 0 abstentions.

      The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented a draft resolution in regard to the status of journalists in Europe in Document 14505, to which 10 amendments have been tabled. I understand that the Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so Mr Efstathiou?

      Mr EFSTATHIOU (Cyprus) – Yes, sir.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? As there is no objection, I declare that the amendments to the draft resolution have been agreed.

      Amendments 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 are adopted.

      We now come to Amendment 6, which is, “in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 6.2 with the following paragraph:

      ‘X.X review their domestic legislation on the status of journalists with a view to: X.

      X.X.1 identifying any areas to be updated, taking recent technological and economic developments        into account;

      X.X.2 ensuring that such legislation protects journalists from arbitrary dismissal or reprisals and from        precarious working conditions that may expose them to undue pressures obliging them to depart        from accepted journalistic ethics and standards;

      X.X.3 providing a legal definition of journalists wide enough to encompass all forms of contemporary        journalistic work, including internet-based;

      X.X.4 repealing disproportionately restrictive defamation laws and ensuring adequate procedural        guarantees in libel proceedings brought against journalists’;".

      I call Ms Ævarsdóttir, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, to support Amendment 6. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – Amendment 6 aims to add additional considerations for member States when they review domestic legislation on the status of journalists. It proposes mainly to add new sub-paragraphs to stress that member States should also take into account the protection of journalists from arbitrary dismissals or reprisals and from precarious working conditions. It also proposes to add a legal definition of “journalist” and to draw a clear distinction between a professional journalist and a blogger. Finally, it proposes to repeal restrictive defamation legislation.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Ms Gambaro, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, to support the Sub-Amendment, which is, in amendment 6, paragraph x.x.3, after the word “contemporary” insert the following word: “professional”. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy)* – As I said earlier, the word “professional” has been added. We put it in because the status of journalist relates to the dissemination of information and we wanted to make it clear that there is a distinction between a journalist and a blogger.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of Ms Ævarsdóttir?

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – In favour.

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

The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

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

      The committee is clearly in favour. I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

I call Ms Rodríguez Hernández to support Amendment 1. She is not here. Does anybody else wish to support Amendment 1? No. In that case, the amendment falls.

      As Ms Rodríguez Hernández is not here, Amendment 2 will fall unless somebody is prepared to propose it. Nobody is indicating that they want to speak, so Amendment 2 falls.

      I call Ms Ævarsdóttir, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, to support Amendment 10, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8, insert the following paragraph: "The Assembly strongly condemns the assassinations of journalists Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta, Ján Kuciak in the Slovak Republic and Maxim Borodin in the Russian Federation. It calls on the Maltese and Slovak authorities to conduct effective investigations into these deaths, in line with the procedural guarantees stemming from Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

      You have 30 seconds.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – The amendment condemns the recent assassinations of Daphne Caruana Galizia, of Ján Kuciak in Slovakia and of Maxim Borodin in the Russian Federation. It calls on the competent national authorities to conduct effective investigations into their deaths.

      The PRESIDENT – I now ask you to propose the sub-amendment to your own amendment. It is, in the second sentence, replace the words “and Slovak” with the following words: ‘Slovak and Russian’.”

      You have 30 seconds.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – The sub-amendment simply aims to clarify that we call on all the competent authorities in the nations of the assassinated journalists to conduct effective investigations. That was not entirely clear in the original amendment, so we have added the sub-amendment for clarification.

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

      What is the view of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media?

      Mr EFSTATHIOU (Cyprus) – Unanimously in favour.

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

The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

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

      What is the view of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media?

      Mr EFSTATHIOU (Cyprus) – Unanimously in favour.

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

The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14505, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

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

2. Humanitarian needs and rights of internally displaced persons in Europe

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled “Humanitarian needs and rights of internally displaced persons in Europe” in Document 14527, presented by the Rapporteur Mr Killion Munyama on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons.

      We will also hear a statement from Ms Cecilia Jimenez-Damary, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons.

      I call Mr Killion Munyama, Rapporteur, to present the report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – I have the pleasure to present this report on the humanitarian needs and the rights of internally displaced persons in Europe. The humanitarian situation of 4 million internally displaced persons in Europe requires greater attention. As the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe stated in 2012, we cannot look away from the tragic fate of another lost generation of IDPs. They deserve our full support now.

      The Council of Europe is not a humanitarian aid organisation. Our budget is small and does not oversee humanitarian aid. However, we have the European Convention on Human Rights and other legal treaties, which must be used as a yardstick or legal indicator of whether the humanitarian rights of IDPs are being respected. My report, therefore, does not contain a list of the individual needs of those 4 million IDPs, but recalls the most urgent and pressing action needed under international humanitarian law and human rights law. In this respect, I follow the original motion for a resolution, which expressly referred to the United Nations guiding principles. Individual humanitarian needs change quickly over time, but the human rights of IDPs remain and must be respected.

      I regret that the new budget situation of the Council of Europe has not enabled me to make a fact-finding visit to Cyprus. However, I received information during our meetings and in writing, which has enabled me to include the situation in Cyprus in my report. The main countries concentrated on in the report are Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Cyprus.

      I understand that the issue of IDPs is particularly sensitive and emotionally difficult, especially where IDPs have been distressed by a conflict that is either frozen or even ongoing, but I appeal to members not to use the framework of my report to fight those conflicts all over again. All relevant conflicts have already been addressed by the European Court of Human Rights. Following the decisions of the Court, I refer to respective States in the report. Obviously, this report cannot address the facts of authorities that are not recognised by the Council of Europe. Likewise, the report does not make any proposals regarding the future settlement of those conflicts. That is not a part of my mandate and I refer only to applicable rights standards.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Munyama. You now have eight minutes and 43 seconds left for your reply at the end of the debate.

      I now call special rapporteur Ms Cecilia Jimenez-Damary. It is a true pleasure for me to welcome you to our Assembly, especially at this moment when we are preparing to commemorate the 20^th anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations of the guiding principles on internal displacement. Ms Jimenez-Damary is a highly respected human rights lawyer specialising in international migration law. She has more than two decades of experience in non-governmental organisation human rights advocacy, and has been a senior legal adviser and trainer with the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre in Geneva. Since her appointment as United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons in 2016, Ms Jimenez-Damary has taken a proactive stand in encouraging States affected by internal displacement to further incorporate the United Nations guiding principles on internal displacement, as well as international law, and to promote national-level activities in that respect.

      Dear special rapporteur, thank you for being with us today. We look forward to your speech. Without further delay, I give you the Floor.

      Ms JIMENEZ-DAMARY (United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons) – Thank you very much, Mr President of the Parliamentary Assembly. I thank the rapporteur, Mr Munyama.

      Members of the Parliamentary Assembly, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to be here. It is an honour to address you in my capacity as a United Nations special rapporteur in this crucial year, particularly as the 20^th anniversary of the guiding principles of internal displacement is this year being commemorated worldwide. The guiding principles remain the most appropriate and internationally recognised framework to address and solve internal displacement. There is an emphasis in the guiding principles on sovereignty as responsibility, in which the participation of IDPs in the decisions that affect them, and their applicability in all displacement situations, is key. The causes of displacement situations are not just due to conflict; they can be due to disasters, human rights violations and man-made disasters. Moreover, they cover all phases of displacement, from prevention of arbitrary displacement to protection, and, very importantly, the resolution of the internal displacement situation through the achievement of durable solutions for the IDPs.

      The guiding principles, and international human rights law and international humanitarian law where it is applicable, emphasise that the protection of the human rights of IDPs rests on the primary responsibility of the State, and those governing its territories, to exercise such protection and to put in place legal policy and institutional frameworks and assistance, as well as protection measures addressed directly to IDPs. In this particular case, it is very important to emphasise the human rights standards that currently and pertinently apply to all the citizens of a country, because IDPs are, most of the time, actually citizens of the countries involved. Underlying that is the very basic human rights principle of non-discrimination and the equal participation of the IDPs in the exercise of all the rights provided by national legislation, European law and international law.

      I welcome very much the attention of the Parliamentary Assembly on the report drafted by Mr Munyama, with whom I have had the pleasure of engaging with regard to it. This is a very welcome move on the part of the Assembly, because it will provide the much needed attention for this issue – interest that is mainly diminishing among the international community. There are more IDPs all over the world than refugees. That is a very important point to make without going into the numbers. Worldwide, most of the IDPs are actually caught in what we would call protracted displacement or frozen situations, where there is hardly any future left for them except for the dire situations in which they find themselves.

      You, as members of the Parliamentary Assembly, know this well. I believe that Mr Munyama has captured the situation of the humanitarian needs and rights of the IDPs in his report, so I will not go into the issues that apply to Europe, because those are also explained in the report. I would just like to emphasise that the application of law which is the focus of the guiding principles in human rights is very much enhanced in Europe. In Europe you have very good existing legal frameworks – not only the European Convention on Human Rights but the revised European charter and the application of other relevant legal frameworks. Moreover, you have the European Court of Human Rights, which, as you know, has already rendered some decisions in favour of IDPs.

      I would like to bring to your kind attention the guiding principles 20-year commemoration action plan for advancing the prevention, protection and solutions for IDPs worldwide. This is a whole advocacy campaign with States that host internally displaced situations, as well as international and non-governmental organisations which I, in my convening authority, have facilitated from last year until this year. The plan of action is for 2018 to 2020 and was launched only last week, on 17 April, which is the anniversary date of the guiding principles.

      I would also like to bring to your attention the four priority areas that I would emphasise on the way forward, and they are all areas with which the Parliamentary Assembly is very much concerned. The first is national implementation, which of course concerns the implementation of human rights, particularly the European legal standards in relation to IDPs, at the national and local levels of the particular countries. Under national implementation we also have the execution of relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The second is law and policy, an issue with which you in the Parliamentary Assembly are very much concerned, because you make the laws. In particular, I encourage the relevant States to enact, where they have not yet done so, protection laws for IDPs at both the national and the local level. The third issue concerns solutions. I would like to encourage governments to have strategies to resolve the internal displacement situations, particularly when they are protracted. Lastly, underlining all of this, and including the work of the Parliamentary Assembly, is the consultation and, where possible, participation of the IDPs themselves in the decisions affecting them.

      Mr President, Mr Munyama and members of the Parliamentary Assembly, I hope that I have been able to elicit from you the interest that promotes the role of Europe in furthering the international agenda on the protection of IDPs. It is very important that Europe is seen to be addressing a dire situation and very big issues when it comes to the vulnerability of a big swathe of the world’s population, including in Europe. Thank you very much, Mr President.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Jimenez-Damary, for your most interesting address, and thank you for your strong commitment to protecting the human rights of internally displaced persons. We hope to have the opportunity to continue the co-operation between our two organisations and especially with you. Thank you again for coming to address our Assembly.

I remind members that there is a three-minute speech limit in this debate and we will begin with speakers on behalf of political groups.

I call Ms Dalloz.

Ms DALLOZ (France, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – This year, we are commemorating the 20 years of the guiding principles on internal displacement. Displacements have various causes, such as conflicts and deprivation of human rights but also natural disasters. Today there is an entire lost generation trying to survive the consequences of past conflicts. These are the persons displaced within their own countries. Some have experienced great distress for decades now. The victims of former or current conflicts are in need of assistance from the European and international communities. Some 15% of all IDPs – roughly 390 000 people – are housed in collective facilities, makeshift shelters or camps. Admittedly, they have survived these conflicts, but can we really speak in terms of really living, given their desperate plight? Housing and access to health and education should be priorities. IDPs often have very little hope of going back to their native region and finding their own homes, so States need to shoulder their full responsibilities and not exploit the frozen conflict phenomenon, using IDPs as a pawn to assert territorial claims. This cruel game has gone on for too long. We need to find lasting solutions so that these people can make a fresh start.

Children are a source of particular concern. Sometimes for decades, since the military or political conflict which led their parents and sometimes their grandparents to flee their region, children live in unacceptable conditions, deprived of elementary rights as foreseen by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Education is one example, and it is fundamental. How can children have a future without proper education, without being integrated in the national community? How can we register them or identify their numbers? Are they entitled to welfare benefits? What pensions might they be entitled to? The right to education and rights in general have been recalled by resolutions of the United Nations and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights but we need to look for lasting solutions. Countries need to establish the proper legislative framework to protect IDPs.

We set up the Council of Europe Development Bank for that purpose, to assist refugees in the aftermath of the war, and the Bank is still with us. We need to harness its skills even more now to build, along with the member States of our Organisation, a real future for these people. The prime responsibility rests on the shoulders of States.

Among the various zones of conflict there is a glimmer of hope emerging, apparently, in Cyprus. The resolution of the Cypriot problem has often been stalemated but people are now talking again to one another. IDPs should not be left out of these negotiations because they will be contributing to a new future and to their future.

Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group)* – Mr President and colleagues, in his report our colleague Mr Munyama depicts the overall situation of IDPs throughout the continent of Europe. The situation differs from country to country but there are always tragedies – people living in very difficult conditions – and there is always a feeling of profound injustice which is felt by the millions of men and women who have had to leave their homes to seek refuge somewhere else within their own country. They are victims of the inexorable onward march of History with a capital H.

Apart from the problems of Cyprus and Turkey and also the problems of IDPs in Italy as a result of natural disasters, most of the IDPs in Europe are collateral victims of conflicts over the past 30 years in Europe. These conflicts came about following the fall of the Berlin Wall and then the break-up of the Soviet empire in the early 1990s. As we know, what happened was that the political landscape shifted, new borders came into being, and some people found themselves on the wrong side of those Soviet-era borders. Through no fault of their own, people found themselves where they did not want to be. That resulted in a number of conflicts, most of which are now frozen, though we sometimes talk about them in our debates.

These conflicts broke lives. People lost everything – their homes, their past, their jobs. Sometimes they lost a member of their family – a husband, child or brother. We need to show solidarity with these persons, as do their countries and the international community, and we commend all efforts to ease their distress. In the report, our rapporteur gives us an exhaustive list of the groups of persons we are talking about.

      My colleagues and I want more, not because we in any way call into question the quality of this report, which is excellent, but because we love to dream. The Council of Europe came into being in the aftermath of the Second World War to build peace in Europe. People kept saying, “We must never again live through such murderous folly.” There are now millions of internally displaced people in Europe, and that has to be a wake-up call to all of us. We must recognise that it shows that in some way, we have failed. We know what the solutions are: dialogue; peaceful co-existence; co-operation; respect for human rights; and peace. We know how to resolve these interminable conflicts: we have to accept the good offices of the international community. That would be a good solution; it has already been proven to work in the former republics of Yugoslavia.

      We cannot condemn IDPs to what I call the Palestinian syndrome, whereby they remain displaced persons endlessly. Generation after generation, lives are broken and suspended for decades. People wait for a return to their home that never comes. Our Assembly is a place where dialogue could begin – where we could begin to build peace and re-establish relationships. We must never give up. Yes, there is a long way to go, but if you never try, you will never have any chance of succeeding. Thank you.

      Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives) – The United Nations estimates that the number of people forcibly displaced worldwide is over 65 million, so the 4 million internally displaced persons in Europe is but a sideshow of a major world problem that includes all refugees. Given the situations that have caused the displacement of people, it is unlikely that the protagonists in this will simply roll over and accept what the report asks for. There will be violations of human rights. We need to recognise the confused state of the area we are talking about, and the absence of any effective monitoring.

      A balance needs to be struck in the report between setting a framework and its effective implementation. It is legitimate to try to set a framework and to draw a line in the sand, but the expectation of no contraventions should not be high. With regard to the situation in Ukraine, for example, the report makes two recommendations to the Russian Federation: first, that it refrain from supplying weapons that are likely to exacerbate the problems for those who are displaced; secondly, that it allow in humanitarian observers. Personally – I would like to be proved wrong – I do not think that the Russians are going to play ball. I had hoped that the report would concentrate more on the practical steps we will take to try to implement its lofty and well-meaning recommendations. I do not think that relying on the European Court of Human Rights and its outcomes is enough; in many cases, those outcomes will simply be ignored.

      I mention Ukraine because the problem there is the most serious in Europe, with the highest number of displaced persons. If we can get that situation right, we will be on course to get this right across the whole of Europe. The solution lies in placing much more emphasis on ending conflicts, rather than in being seen to continue the occupation involved in the conflicts, and in being seen to reinforce the reasons for people being displaced. We need to do a lot more to show that we are really concerned about implementation, and the practical steps that can be taken. The report does mention practical steps, such as using satellite imagery to help with this. I would like to see more of that sort of thing in the report.

      Mr POLIAČIK (Slovak Republic, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I would like to say that I appreciate the effort that the rapporteur invested in the report. It is informational and explanatory, and makes relevant points and recommendations.       Being forced to leave your home is often not far from a personal tragedy. Whether the reason is war, persecution, climate change or the building of a dam, it can have a devastating effect on people’s lives. According to the report, we are looking at 60 million or maybe 65 million such personal tragedies around the globe – 4 million of them in the member States of the Council of Europe.

      I fully support the recommendations formulated alongside this report relating to countries such as Turkey, Ukraine and Georgia. An organised, well-funded joint effort from the international community is the best ground for concrete, efficient and precisely targeted humanitarian aid, where that is needed. However, there is one thing I find missing from the report. While looking at war zones and refugee camps, we should not forget to do our homework in our own countries. Not all tragedies are counted in the thousands of people; sometimes it can be a village, a community or one single family who are affected, having been forced to move to make way for a highway, dam or power plant. We should examine carefully whether the legal framework in these cases allows people fair compensation and support in starting a new life somewhere else.

      We had a detailed and thorough discussion about migration only a few months ago in this very Chamber. Aid to internally displaced persons, and support provided by member States and international bodies, provides us with a lot of preventive measures that can help us to avoid the mass movement of people out of harm’s way. Joint efforts, solidarity with people in need and effective co-operation are the way to solve the problems stated in this report. That is why ALDE supports the report and the recommendations.

      Ms CHRISTODOULOPOULOU (Greece, Spokesperson for the Unified European Left)* – Throughout the world, 40 million people are displaced within the borders of their own country, and 4 million of them are in Europe. The appalling reality is that many millions of people do not have the legal instruments required to force states to comply with decisions of the European Court. We do not even have a European convention dealing with internally displaced persons. We need to come up with answers, and to understand that for the most part, people are internally displaced as the result of war or armed conflict. For the same reason, we have refugees. The only difference between internally displaced persons and refugees is that refugees cross a border. They therefore benefit from international protection. They are the subject of many conferences and are taken seriously by the international community. Unlike refugees, IDPs do not benefit from any rights or form of protection, even under the European Convention on Human Rights. Internally displaced persons are prisoners within the borders of their own countries. That represents a challenge for us all, but particularly for the Council of Europe.

      The countries that are most affected by internal displacement are those where the rule of law and human rights do not hold sway. The case of Cyprus is important. As of 1974, more than 250 000 people have been displaced and live elsewhere within their own country on a semi-permanent basis. What can be done? We need to bring pressure to bear on those countries so that some kind of mechanism is put in place whereby they are bound by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

      Of course, we need to prevent wars and armed conflict. Recently, two Council of Europe member States have been involved in a war – that in the martyred State of Syria. Syria is in dire straits, with more people being internally displaced and more refugees fleeing as a result of the war. They require international protection. We need to react; they cannot be left alone.

      Ms FILIPOVSKI (Serbia, Spokesperson on behalf of the Free Democrats Group) – Some 220 000 people from Kosovo have had the status of internally displaced persons for 19 years. They are faced with the inability to return to their homes.

      To date, a total of 5% of internally displaced persons have returned to their homes in Kosovo and Metohija. The main reasons for that are disregard of United Nations Resolution 1244, a bad security situation and no economic opportunities. Attacks by Albanians against the few Serb returnees to Kosovo and Metohija are common and the culprits are usually not prosecuted.

      According to the Commissariat for Refugees and Migration in Serbia, there are 18 centres with currently 1 116 persons. Given those data, how is it possible that the report does not include internally displaced persons from Kosovo and Metohija?

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – Following Russian aggression in Donbass and Crimea, more than 1 700 000 Ukrainian citizens have become internally displaced persons. Some have lost their homes and jobs and they have had to flee daily bombing. They have become victims because they are pro-Ukrainian.

      The Ukrainian authorities have done their utmost to assist those internally displaced persons and help them resettle in other parts of Ukraine. Even at the height of the war, when the security situation in Donbass was at its worst and scores of people – military personnel and civilians – were being killed, Ukraine did its utmost to help those people and prevent any risk of their migrating to the European Union.

      The Ukrainian Parliament has adopted a series of laws that define the status of displaced persons and their rights to education and medical care. However, the major challenges that internally displaced persons face relate to housing and employment. Because of a poorly performing economy at present, Ukraine has been unable to implement its housing programmes to provide social housing and housing loans to internally displaced persons.

      Ukraine is grateful to its partners – the European Union, the United Nations and other international institutions – for the resettlement projects that they have undertaken and their assistance in re-skilling IDPs.

      As part of implementing the political conditions in the Minsk Agreements, Ukraine must adopt legislation on regional elections in temporarily occupied territories. Those elections can take place only following the withdrawal of troops and military hardware from Donbass, the demilitarisation of the region, and disarming separatists. At meetings of the Minsk Group, there has been a lot of discussion of the problems of IDPs. It is acknowledged that we need to establish peace in Donbass and to demilitarise the region. That is the only possible solution. It involves the withdrawal of Russian military forces and weaponry and a policy that allows IDPs to return home and have their rights protected.

      Mr WHITFIELD (United Kingdom) – This is an excellent report and I thank the rapporteur and the staff for the work contained therein. I would also like to thank the United Nations special rapporteur for her contribution today, for which I am very grateful.

      The suffering of IDPs is a stain on the conscience of this continent. Twenty years ago, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted the principles on internal displacement. They gave us a definition of IDPs, including those who have to leave their place of habitual residence, especially those fleeing conflict or disaster.

      I want to consider one aspect of the report: the role of International law as the yardstick for assessing the humanitarian situation, including the right to the life, liberty and security, family life and the right to the protection of possessions and property under Article 1 of the protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights; the right to education under Article 2, an aspect the Assembly will look at later; and the right to the preservation of cultural identity and other cultural rights under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

      I would like to examine in more detail the subject of possessions and cultural identity of groups that are displaced within their country and also within the area of Europe. A project, commissioned by the Foundation for Jewish Heritage, has identified synagogues built before the Second World War, from Cork in Ireland in the west, to Vladivostok in the Russian Federation in the east. Each has been catalogued with details of construction dates and materials, the community it served, its present use and condition, and a significance rating. Before 1939, there were an estimated 17 000 synagogues across Europe, but the majority have been lost. Of the 3 318 surviving buildings, only 718 still function as Jewish places of worship. As a founding member of the Foundation for Jewish Heritage, Michael Mail said that there are “special challenges around Jewish heritage”, especially in eastern Europe. He also said: “The Holocaust was followed by communism. Many buildings were abandoned and essentially lost their communities of users. In preserving these buildings, we also preserve the stories of the communities that for hundreds of years were the heartlands of the Jewish people. These places can serve as profound portals into the worlds that were once there.”

      Forced internal displacement constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law, and we should look to tackling it seriously. I support the report.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – I thank Mr Munyama for the outstanding report that builds on the extensive work that the Assembly has carried out over the years on the issue of internally displaced persons in various Council of Europe member States. In fact, the report takes that work forward.

      After 1945, with the establishment of the Council of Europe, member States agreed firmly that, at least on the European continent, two things were never to be allowed again: the forceful changing of borders and ethnic cleansing, which has the purpose of forcefully changing borders. Since 1991, we have seen some cracks in that firm decision; hopefully, that change will be reversed sooner rather than later. It is true that the Russian Federation in particular will not be forced into complying with some of our resolutions, including in the context of allowing the IDPs whom it expelled from their homes in Georgia or Ukraine to return. However, as they say, manuscripts do not burn. It is the obligation of this Assembly and the international community to provide a firm and solid international legal basis upon which the reversal of some of those criminal acts can take place, whenever the window of opportunity opens. I am firmly convinced that that window will open sooner rather than later.

      It is with that in mind that the draft resolution, and some of the amendments supported by the Committee and the rapporteur, refers to some of the earlier documents that address issues such as IDPs in Georgia. For example, there are references to the Declaration of the OSCE Heads of State Summits in 1994, ‘96 and ‘98. It is important to note that those declarations describe what happened in Georgia as ethnic cleansing. Critically, at that time the Russian Federation was part of those declarations, because OSCE decisions are consensus-based. Of course, there are also references to earlier Council of Europe resolutions on the consequences of the war between Georgia and the Russian Federation, particularly Resolution 1683, and specific demands such as allowing the European Union monitoring mission into the occupied territories and the reversal of ethnic cleansing.

      It is important to remember that these IDPs did not emerge out of the blue. They did not voluntarily decide to leave their homes in Georgia, and other places such as Ukraine. In those particular cases, the Russian Federation forcefully expelled them to achieve a veto over the development of Georgia and Ukraine. One thing makes the Georgian case stand out: in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia – or the Tskhinvali Region – the majority of those regions’ pre-war populations were expelled. Perhaps that aspect merits remembering.

      Mr VOVK (Ukraine) – I thank the rapporteur for his work on the report on the humanitarian needs and rights of internally displaced persons in Europe. However, simply recalling the Assembly’s Resolution 2198 on the humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine and making a few minor recommendations to the Russian and Ukrainian authorities does not fully reflect the severity of the humanitarian disaster that is a consequence of the Russian Federation’s military aggression in eastern Ukraine and the illegal annexation of Crimea.

      Let me remind the Assembly that, with almost 1.8 million internally displaced persons, Ukraine has the largest number of IDPs in Europe. Altogether, 4.4 million people are affected by the ongoing Russian aggression, of whom 3.4 million require humanitarian assistance and protection. On top of that, Ukraine has become a world leader in anti-vehicle mine casualties and the war has resulted in escalating cases of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis and HIV, particularly among IDPs.

      There are continued constraints on humanitarian organisations in the temporarily occupied territories. Even the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission’s freedom of movement and monitoring are restricted by various security hazards and threats, as well as by Russian-backed militants. The international community should work to ensure full, safe and unhindered access to areas under effective Russian control for all humanitarian actors and international missions.

      We welcome the recent European Union joint humanitarian-development framework for Ukraine, but believe that a humanitarian disaster of this magnitude on European soil deserves a much higher level of political attention and financial commitment. Our Assembly and the Council of Europe in general should contribute to the international efforts to alleviate the suffering of the affected population in Ukraine, and to meet the humanitarian needs of the IDPs. This respected organisation must under no circumstances forget the actual cause of the biggest humanitarian crisis in Europe: the Russian Federation’s military aggression against Ukraine. The forgiveness of Russian sins in exchange for Russian money will put an end to the Council of Europe as a values-based organisation.

      Ms KELLEHER (Ireland) – I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on the important issue of the rights and humanitarian needs of the more than 4 million internally displaced persons in Europe. I choose to use the term internally displaced persons rather than IDPs because I find the latter a bit of a dehumanising term. I commend the rapporteur and his report, as well as the contribution of Ms Jimenez-Damary from the United Nations.

      First, let us pause to consider the numbers of people internally displaced in Europe, the very scale of it, and the absolute urgency of the need to act. Within Europe, 4 million people and more are displaced inside their own countries because of armed conflicts and violence. These are people like you and me – our families and friends, but for the accident of birth and geography. Six years ago, the outgoing Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, spoke about a lost generation of people struggling to cope in many European countries, sometimes for decades. There are recent displacements of people and more long-standing ones, too, including the situation in Cyprus, where an estimated 270 000 people are displaced as a result of a conflict that goes back to 1974 – 44 long years ago. People are in limbo. Generations are living partial and often impoverished lives.

      Let us recall the places where the internal displacement of people is happening and the numbers of people affected. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, there are 1.7 million displaced people in Ukraine alone, and thousands and thousands of others in Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Cyprus – as already mentioned – as well as in Georgia and Turkey. The total is 4 234 million.

      As well as the scale, suffering and urgent need for action, it is worth remembering that when we speak about people being displaced, according to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, when people are forcibly displaced by expulsion or other coercive acts from the areas in which they are lawfully present, we are speaking about crimes against humanity. The suffering of people in such situations is profound and long-standing. We must get behind the numbers and the statistics. We must connect with people who are internally displaced at an emotional level, as well as on an intellectual, legal and political level. We must connect with real lives, real people, real suffering and real injustice.

      I fully support the recommendation made in the report that member States, the United Nations, the European Union and the International Committee of the Red Cross should regularly assess the humanitarian needs of internally displaced people and publish the assessments. I also support the use of truth commissions, which can record and display publicly the stories and suffering of internally displaced people. I welcome other measures in the report, including those to compensate for the return of people’s possessions and property, to address the situation of missing persons, and to restore family links, as well as the measures on de-mining and on the provision of adequate funding at European Union and other levels to respond to humanitarian needs.

      On monitoring and observation missions, I especially welcome the recommendation to use satellite images – for example, images of the destruction of homes, medical buildings and schools. Satellite images are an increasingly important tool for assessing the humanitarian situation and establishing and ensuring the rights of internally displaced people. I welcome the report’s reference to the Kampala Convention, which is useful and relevant in the European context. That convention requires individual responsibility for acts committed outside States and for non-States. That is really important.

      Resolutions are only as good as the action taken on them, so I urge the rapporteur to tell us how he will use the report to make sure that action is taken and what improvement he expects to see as a result of the report for those 4 million displaced people.

      Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – As eternal as the right to life, a human being’s other need and right is the right to spend their lifetime in their permanent home, native town, village or block. For about 30 years, nearly a million people in my country have been deprived of that opportunity, which we all consider to be natural.

      As I just said – it is also written in official reports – as a result of ethnic cleansing and deportation of Azerbaijanis in Armenia, and following the occupation of 20% of Azerbaijan’s land by Armenians and their external forces, about a million people have become refugees and IDPs. However, that figure is actually out of date. Of course, some of those refugees and IDPs have been taken from life in the years that have gone. Nevertheless, those refugees and IDPs were people who lived in rural areas, and such Azerbaijani families usually have many children. Children born in the late 1980s and early 1990s are now around the age of 30 and now find themselves married. Older generations have also brought new babies into the world in these years. The number of people who have experienced these disasters within this 30-year period is therefore no longer 1 million but 1.5 million.

      It is doubly a tragedy that in those years about half a million Azerbaijani kids were born with the sorrowful status of being refugees or IDPs. The 600 000 IDPs from Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent Azerbaijani districts were once the people engaged in farming and cultivating. For about 30 years, the soil belonging to them has not been cultivated, and their houses were destroyed and usurped and their cemeteries were annihilated. As well as having their resources taken, these people have had their memories taken, which is the worst after-effect of the occupation.

      Today, we explore the needs and rights of IDPs in Europe and seek ways to help them. Azerbaijan, as a country sadly with experience in this field, is well aware that all kinds of support and assistance to those who underwent such misfortune are indispensable. However, they are like giving first aid; the main task is to solve the issue in a fundamental way and to save these people from the undesirable status of refugees and IDPs, which is humiliating to the name of humanity.

      Unfortunately, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the European Parliament and other prestigious institutions with the ability to influence consider their mission completed merely by expressing compassion and being engaged in discussions that do not involve real action. Therefore, the number of people who suffer from such tragedies grows steadily; it does not decrease. Unless we unite forces and show determination, and move from speaking to action, there will be no change. Let us switch to action. It is only a matter of time: sooner or later the wave will reach you as well!

      Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – I wholeheartedly express my sincere appreciation to Mr Munyama, the rapporteur, for the preparation of this significant report. The humanitarian needs of approximately 4 million displaced persons in Europe is an extremely pertinent human tragedy that needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Of course, our thoughts these days are with war-torn Syria and the continuous violent displacement of thousands of people, including women and children.

      Without getting into the details of the conflicts and violence that caused the forced displacement of people in the first place, the fact remains that addressing the humanitarian needs of these people and their indisputable right to housing, education, health care and employment must go hand in hand with continued international efforts to mediate and to assist parties in conflict situations to find durable and peaceful solutions.

      Most rights of IDPs in Europe continue to be violated, and these people often become victims of multiple types of discrimination, rendering them even more vulnerable. Some countries have been reluctant to engage in dialogue about displaced persons and have even ignored their existence. Moreover, meaningful and effective therapies for IDPs require permanent, open dialogue and collaboration with all parties concerned. Similarly, it is important to underline the progress achieved and highlight good examples pursued in many affected countries. That is precisely the scope of the report: to identify positive examples and assist member States in addressing shortcomings.

      The flagrant violations committed in Cyprus, my own country, following the Turkish invasion of 1974 have, as we have heard from other colleagues, resulted in 282 000 displaced persons, each with their own experience of displacement within a small country. I do not want to dwell on that traumatic event, but I express our full support for the prospect that President Anastasiades and the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr Akıncı, return to the negotiating table to try to reach a just and viable final solution to the Cyprus problem that will fully address the rights of all IDPs in Cyprus, including their legitimate property claims. Anything else will not provide justice to the thousands of Cypriot IDPs.

      Let me briefly refer to the Immovable Property Commission mentioned in the draft resolution. The commission does not offer an effective, just or sufficient remedy, as it is doing nothing to protect the properties of Greek Cypriots in the occupied areas. On the contrary, Turkey is further removing such properties from their lawful owners by using the commission as a vehicle to promote the separation of Greek Cypriots from their properties. It cannot be regarded as a remedy. In conclusion, I welcome and encourage all the financial commitment of the European Union and other donors who have contributed significantly to financing initiatives and schemes that alleviate the massive pain felt by IDPs in Europe.

      Ms BLONDIN (France)* – The theme at hand may seem surprising, for the news concentrates mainly on the tragic humanitarian catastrophes affecting migrants who are fleeing war zones and misery in the hope of finding a better future in other countries or continents. The last three years have demonstrated that clearly. It has also radically changed the scene in many European Union countries, leaving a space for populist responses that provide no answer at all.

      Mr Munyama’s report has the advantage of drawing our Assembly’s attention to IDPs: domestic refugees who are exiles in their own country. The report clearly describes with relevance how States and non-State actors and armed groups are causing forced internal displacement in their countries and are guilty of grave violations of international humanitarian law. What about the obligation to protect? Member States have asserted this principle, and they are primarily responsible for the protection of their own populations. They also have a collective responsibility. That compelling criterion must be borne in mind by those in authority in those States as well as their partners within the Council of Europe.

      We must remember that the issue of IDPs is not only a humanitarian problem but a crucial question in human rights, peace and national stability. The protection provided by national legislation for such situations is not sufficient. Putting specific legislation on internal displacement in place could be an effective remedy. Thus, our national parliaments have a crucial role to play to ensure the protection of IDPs in their own country. I extend my support to the resolution, which provides a road map for the States concerned. The whole Council of Europe community and its parliamentary representatives must act resolutely on this issue.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – In this Assembly, we have discussed the issue of migrants, refugees and unaccompanied children many times in the past few years, and today we are discussing a report on the issue of the humanitarian needs and rights of internally displaced persons. This issue is very important because, in Europe, more than 4 million persons are displaced inside their own country due to armed conflicts and violence. As the rapporteur mentioned in the report, it is well known that the deportation or forcible transfer of a civilian population is a crime against humanity. Therefore, the humanitarian needs and rights of the 4 million internally displaced persons in Europe should be given greater attention. It should be mentioned that the Parliamentary Assembly has previously addressed the humanitarian situation of internally displaced persons in Europe in reports focused on a country, a conflict or a region, but this report is the first to seek a comprehensive approach.

      In discussing this issue, I will speak about my country, which became affected by armed conflict in 1992. Armenia’s aggression against Azerbaijan has resulted in the occupation of 20% of the territory of Azerbaijan, and in the full-scale war and mass displacement during which thousands of people, including women and children, were killed or forced to flee their native lands and homes. Azerbaijan has been solving the problems of refugees and internally displaced people, whose number has grown to more than 1.2 million from natural growth, and relevant measures have been taken to improve the living conditions of this group of people. More than 90 residential complexes have been built to modern standards, and 50 000 families totalling more than 250 000 refugees and internally displaced persons have been provided with new apartments.

      After the occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territory, all the original geographical names of Azerbaijani towns and villagers were changed by the occupants. For example, the Azerbaijani village of Khojaly now has the new name of Ivanyan. If you ask me why, I can explain that Kristapor Ivanyan was a general in the Armenian army who occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and actively created the Khojaly massacre when, in one night, more than 600 people, including women and children, were killed and others were forced from the homelands. Unfortunately, the rapporteur has used some of these names in his report. It should be mentioned that no resolution adopted by any international organisation has called places in this territory by their new names, and it is not acceptable to do so under international law and the principles of the Council of Europe. I believe that today, and perhaps tomorrow, many countries will be facing similar problems.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Gafarova. Mr Blaha is not here, so I call Mr Bildarratz.

      Mr BILDARRATZ (Spain)* - I thank Mr Munyama for and congratulate him on his tremendous report about the needs of internally displaced persons in Europe. There is one piece of good news, which is that the very fact we are listening to each other and debating these matters, including with Ms Jimenez-Damary from the United Nations, has prompted some thinking about four basic concerns. First, we need to find lasting – I stress, lasting – solutions for the displaced persons. Secondly, we need to focus on the thousands and thousands of individuals concerned. Thirdly, we need to look at laws and solutions to protect these people in each and every one of our States; we all have a shared responsibility in our States to do so. Fourthly, we need to be aware of the vulnerability of large parts of these populations.

      It is easy to have a very remote perspective on internally displaced persons, but they are real people. We need to ask ourselves why they have been forcibly displaced. It is very often assumed that these people have enough money and can afford to avoid such situations, and that, for example, people with property or endless resources, or people who have received a great deal of assistance, are not affected by being displaced. That is not so, because we are talking about people who are unemployed, are without property, are living in temporary accommodation and have probably received no assistance.

      We need to make two types of basic commitments: we need to look at the origins of these problems – we are of course dealing with a variety of types of conflict – and we need to provide the necessary resources to find solutions for each and every one of the individuals involved. Ms Kelleher called for concrete solutions to give actual effect to the various recommendations, and that is the key to all this. We are dealing with people who should not be deprived of their cultural and economic rights. After all, these are ordinary human beings like each and every one of us, and we are dealing with a host of individual tragedies in all our States, as Ms Jimenez-Damary stated. We still have a great deal to do, and we can contribute a great deal to finding such solutions.

      Mr GAVAN (Ireland) – I agree with my colleague Ms Kelleher that we really should use the phrase internally displaced people, because it is entirely dehumanising to call them IDPs.

      The numbers are unclear – the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre has suggested that there are 40.3 million displaced people, while the United Nations talks about 65 million – but, either way, this is an absolute indictment of humanity. As we have said, there is an ever-growing number of internally displaced persons living in Europe, with over 4 million people displaced within their own country due to armed conflicts and violence. Some of these civilians have become internally displaced persons because of recent conflicts, such as those in Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey, but others were made internally displaced persons decades ago. Cyprus has been mentioned – by the way, I find it absolutely shocking that, 44 years later, there are still minefields that need to be cleared – as has Armenia, Azerbaijan and countries in the Balkans. The people behind the numbers have been thrown out of their homes, and they remain in a state of limbo: unable to return and utterly powerless, they are surviving, but not really existing.

      In Ireland, we empathise with the internally displaced persons and to some extent understand what they are going through. In our own country, due to centuries of British colonisation, we suffered pogroms and sectarian violence carried out by British forces or their proxy groups. We have always had to respond to the humanitarian needs of internally displaced persons – most recently, in the 1960s and 1970s, when many Irish citizens were forced to flee pogroms in the north of Ireland, and that does not include the millions who have been forced to leave our country.

      The internally displaced persons across Europe today have to live in substandard housing or centres. In addition, they usually live in poverty, with limited access to health services, education or employment, while many are traumatised and remain vulnerable to violence and abuse. We must do more to help these vulnerable citizens, and I was very struck by the four key points made by Ms Jimenez-Damary, particularly about the need to enact a legal framework of protections for these people and of course to allow them to have a say in their future.

      We must aid their humanitarian needs and work collectively to find resolutions to the conflicts that have forced them to become internally displaced persons and to end the threat of persecution that many of them face if they return to their homes. If this Council is to be more effective in that regard, and God knows we have to be, we need everybody in the room and in the Chamber: all parties to the conflict.

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey) – I thank Mr Munyama, the rapporteur, for drawing attention to the situation of internally displaced people in Europe with a view to addressing their needs and ensuring that their fundamental rights are respected. However, the report contains some inaccurate statements regarding Turkey and Cyprus.

      First, the claim that an international humanitarian assessment mission is necessary to assess the situation in Turkey lacks basis, since Turkey is taking every necessary step to ensure that its citizens are protected from PKK terrorism. To address the humanitarian needs of persons who have left their homes because of PKK terrorism, the Turkish Government has launched several initiatives. For example, Turkish authorities are constructing 24 650 houses to meet the needs of internally displaced persons. Therefore, Turkish authorities are taking every measure to address the humanitarian needs of persons who have left their homes because of PKK terrorism.

      Furthermore, the report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights that is referred to is unfortunately biased. The United Nations report is unprofessional and based on incorrect data, predominantly regarding counter-terrorism operations in south-east Turkey. That so-called report has been published by solely relying on allegations made by those in ill-intentioned circles. Groundless allegations in that report, which are fully in line with the propaganda of terrorist organisations, are unacceptable. Therefore, it should not be referred to as a reliable source.

      It is important to emphasise that Cyprus has had internally displaced persons since 1963: displacements did not start in 1974. That fact should have been reflected in the report. Concerning the relatives of missing Turkish-Cypriots, the causes of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the United Nations Committee against Torture should have been mentioned.

      To conclude, I believe that the report could have been more accurate if it had approached the issue of displaced persons in a more holistic manner.

      Mr TILSON (Observer from Canada) – As a member of my parliament’s citizenship and immigration committee, I would like to speak about how Canada addresses the humanitarian needs of internally displaced persons.

      Over the past three years, the unprecedented mass movement of asylum seekers and migrants to Europe has emerged as a new challenge for us all. Even though we have different geographical realities, Canada shares Europe’s concerns, but also its hopes.

      Canada is concerned by the plight of the more than 65 million people who were displaced at the end of 2016, including almost 40 million internally displaced persons. While refugee law does not provide a framework for protecting and assisting individuals who are displaced inside their country of nationality, it is important for countries such as Canada and the European nations to facilitate other avenues for protection, such as humanitarian assistance, as well as multilateral and diplomatic support. For example, Canada has been an important contributor to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for more than 50 years, and has partnered with it in the search for solutions for refugees and internally displaced persons.

      The international community’s access to internally displaced persons can be limited by national governments. However, with the funds received from donor countries, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees can provide assistance and protection to individuals who are displaced inside their country of nationality by providing relief items and legal assistance. Canada has also provided direct humanitarian assistance to address the needs of internally displaced persons in Afghanistan, Burma, Burundi, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Lebanon, South Sudan and Syria.

      Finally, the Government of Canada has certain legal mechanisms to extend protection to particularly vulnerable groups or individuals through public policies. For example, in 2017, Canada welcomed more than 1 200 survivors of Daesh, including Yazidi women and children who were mostly internally displaced in Iraq. That commitment was renewed in 2018, and Canada will welcome an additional 1 000 refugee women and girls from various conflict zones around the world. This approach ensures that Canada continues to address the needs of the most vulnerable, no matter their status.

      To conclude, it is important for nations to co-ordinate their actions with key international partners to ensure that we contribute to the protection efforts for internally displaced persons.

      Mr HASANOV (Azerbaijan) – I am from Azerbaijan, which fully experienced a humanitarian disaster in the early 1990s.

      Nearly 1 million citizens of Azerbaijan – children, elderly people and women – were forced to leave their native lands. They became internally displaced persons in their homeland; they were not refugees or migrants. Under fire, they had to leave their homes in Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent areas, which were captured by the Armenian armed forces. A flow of internally displaced persons rushed to the capital and other major towns of Azerbaijan. Just imagine: the population of Azerbaijan was about 7 million people back then, and 1 million of them became displaced persons. In social, economic, demographic and, simply, human terms, such displacement became humanitarian chaos for the whole country.

      Today, the internally displaced persons live mainly in Baku and its suburbs. When talking about their humanitarian needs, we need to focus on the top issues: housing, education, health care and employment. The main problem for elderly people is social protection and access to medical care. The top priority for teenagers is education, and for the youth it is employment. Of course, housing is a priority for all internally displaced persons.

      Since the mid-1990s, the Azerbaijani authorities have begun to address the needs and problems of internally displaced persons step by step. A huge amount of funding, enormous efforts and technical assistance were required. It is also necessary to note the assistance of international organisations, including European ones, in the 1990s especially. Azerbaijan coped with the huge problems of having internally displaced persons. The housing problem was solved and the issues of education and social protection were settled. In that regard, we are ready to share our real experience in dealing with displaced persons and resolving the humanitarian crisis.

      Currently, so-called protracted conflicts are the most serious challenge to the European continent. In that respect, the unresolved conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan poses a danger to regional security. Armenia continues the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent districts, which are recognised by the international community as an integral part of Azerbaijan. My colleagues have talked about some mistakes in the report concerning the names of villages that are under occupation. We insist that they should be mentioned by their original Azeri names.

      In conclusion, this debate is devoted to the humanitarian needs of internally displaced persons. I have tried to identify many of those, but their most important human need is to return to their native lands as soon as possible to live there again. That is the most desperate need and desire of the 1 million internally displaced persons from Nagorno-Karabakh who have not been able to return to the occupied lands for 25 years.

      Mr CANDAN (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community) – As one who comes from a displaced Turkish Cypriot family, I thank Mr Munyama for addressing this important humanitarian issue. As regards the IDPs on the island of Cyprus, I draw your attention to the following. Within this context it is important to note that the two sides to the conflict in Cyprus are Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots – and ordinary Turkish and Greek Cypriots are, equally, victims of the problem.

      The issue of displacement did not start in 1974 but in 1963, when Turkish Cypriots had to leave their villages for security reasons and live in enclaves until 1974. Furthermore, the forceful expulsion of the Turkish Cypriots from the state organs of the 1960 Republic eventually led to the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus in 1964.

      As regards the issue of missing persons, it should be noted that the matter affects both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. Hundreds of Turkish Cypriots went missing between 1963 and 1974. That is the reason for the establishment of the bi-communal Committee of Missing Persons under the auspices of the United Nations. Furthermore, several United Nations reports call on the Greek Cypriot side to take immediate steps to investigate all outstanding cases and to offer relatives of missing Turkish Cypriots appropriate redress, including compensation.

      With respect to the property issue, it shall be noted that, in its various judgements, the European Court of Human Rights came to the conclusion that the Immovable Property Commission, established by the Turkish Cypriot side, constitutes an effective domestic remedy. The resolution should reflect the judgements of the Court and honour the work of the Immovable Property Commission, as proposed by the rapporteur and adopted by the committee. I emphasise once again that there is no decision concluding that the Immovable Property Commission is ineffective. Recently, in December 2017, the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed the effectiveness of the Immovable Property Commission. None the less, as Turkish Cypriots, we are committed to the negotiation process between the two sides – namely, Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. We hope that the two sides will revitalise the talks under the auspices of the United Nations in a more structured and conclusive manner as soon as possible.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers. I thank Ms Cecilia Jimenez-Damary for her visit to our Assembly and her commitment.

3. Change in agenda

      The PRESIDENT – Before giving the floor to Mr Munyama, rapporteur, for his reply, I wish to consult the Assembly about a change in the agenda for Thursday 26 April. Due to the very high number of speakers and amendments for tomorrow morning’s urgent procedure debate on the “Follow-up to the report of the Independent Investigation Body on the allegations of corruption within the Parliamentary Assembly”, I would like to propose moving the current affairs debate on “Europe’s role in peacemaking in Syria” to tomorrow afternoon as the first item of business. This will allow all those registered to speak in the morning’s urgent debate to take the floor. I therefore make that proposal to the Assembly.

      Does anyone object to this proposal?

      As there is no objection, I declare that the change to the agenda has been agreed.

(Mr Jonas Gunnarsson, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Nicoletti.)

4. Humanitarian needs and rights of internally displaced persons in Europe (resumed debate)

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Munyama. You have eight minutes and 43 seconds.

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – I thank Ms Jimenez-Damary, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, for addressing the Assembly. I also thank the Secretariat – especially Mr Rudiger Dossow, for his support in preparing this report. I am grateful to all colleagues for their contributions and the support expressed in this Assembly now. I thank you for your presence here. I should make it clear to those who might not be happy with the report that they should understand that a report can never be perfect. It might have some weaknesses. I tried my level best to ensure that it was balanced.

      As some have mentioned, it is not enough only to recall international legal standards, but they are the starting point. Our governments must be aware and willing to take resolute and comprehensive action in favour of helping IDPs to effectively enjoy their rights, including social rights. IDPs are often left alone when they search for missing family members, when they seek financial damages for having been prevented from using their homes and land, and when they struggle to survive financially in very difficult circumstances, hoping to return one day in their lives.

      The Council of Europe needs to address humanitarian needs and the rights of these individuals. The Council of Europe is a key institution for addressing these needs and rights. We have set standards, and countries with IDPs are members of our Organisation. I therefore look to you, dear colleagues, to help humanitarian needs and rights to be taken seriously, through your national parliaments. Through the adoption of this resolution and recommendation, we will show that we have not forgotten the often appalling plight of the 4 million IDPs in Europe. I appeal to you all to vote in favour of this important report.

      I remind you all about the rights of IDPs. They have the right to the protection of life, liberty and security under Articles 2 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They also have the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention, which includes the right to receive information about the whereabouts of missing family members and the right to family reunification. It is also important to understand that the IDPs have the right to the protection of their possessions and property under Article 1 of the protocol to the convention. They also have the right to housing, health care and other social rights under the European Social Charter, which many speakers mentioned. They have the right, too, to education under Article 2 of the protocol to the Convention, and the right to the preservation of their cultural identity and other cultural rights under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

      IDPs need their cultural property to be protected under the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, as well as the Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property. They also have the right to maintain their nationality in accordance with the European Convention on Nationality, which also applies to IDPs’ families and descendants who are in conflict areas. They also have the right to free elections without discrimination based on displacement under Article 3 of the protocol to the Convention and Article 14 of the Convention, which also requires local and regional political bodies elected by the population before its internal displacement be maintained in their internal exile. They also have the right to return voluntarily in safety and with dignity to their homes or places of habitual residence, or to resettle voluntarily in another part of their country, as well as the right not to be expelled from the territory of their country under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

      The Council of Europe and our Assembly are well-placed to monitor this catalogue of fundamental rights of IDPs, because most conventions are Council of Europe treaties, and all States involved in conflicts that have led to internal displacement are members of the Council of Europe.

      We appreciate the willingness of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Mrs Jimenez-Damary, to look at IDPs in Europe and to be of assistance. I acknowledge that this is a highly politically sensitive issue; however, given the human suffering of IDPs, we all must look beyond the underlying conflicts and work together to help those who are the true victims of those conflicts. I therefore count on the support of Assembly members, and thank all of you for your help.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you.

      Does the vice-chairperson, Mr Fridez, wish to say something?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – I spoke earlier on behalf of my group, so I am not going to speak about the substance of this issue again now, but I want to thank Mr Munyama for his commitment and the high quality of the report, which I commend, and I also thank the secretariat; as usual, it has done an impeccable job.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution to which 23 amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which one amendment has been tabled.

      We consider first the amendments to the draft resolution.

      I understand that the Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 7 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Amendments 1, 5, 12, 13, 14, and 15 were adopted unanimously by the Committee but because of their impact on other amendments we must deal with them individually.

      Is that so Mr Fridez?

       Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – As there is no objection, I declare that amendment 7 to the draft resolution has been agreed.

      Amendment 7 is agreed to.

      I call Mr Aktay to support Amendment 16. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey) – Given the situation on the island of Cyprus, the rapporteur’s call to the “authorities of Cyprus and Turkey” in paragraph 5 is misplaced. Such a call to Cyprus and Turkey contradicts the sub-paragraphs to paragraph 5, so we want to change it.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Kyriakides.

      Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – We are opposed to this amendment. The text needs to remain as currently drafted. Turkey is the party responsible for the invasion in 1974, as has been stated in numerous United Nations resolutions, so we cannot call on the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot authorities in this regard. The wording needs to refer, as in the current text, to Cyprus and Turkey, as Turkey is the party responsible for the IDPs.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 16 is rejected.

      I call Mr Aktay to support Amendment 17. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey) – We want to replace a phrase because all relevant parties should be called to support the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus, including not only Greek Cypriots and Turkey, but Greece and all the parties that have been on the island providing support to the United Nations force in Cyprus since 1964. Therefore, the wording should be changed to reflect the contribution of Turkish Cypriots.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Kyriakides.

      Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – I do not understand the amendment. It should not talk about welcoming the financial support to one community or another; this is about providing information on all missing persons in Cyprus or those transferred elsewhere whose fate is still unknown. We are against the amendment, as was most of the committee.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 17 is rejected.

      I call Mr Aktay to support Amendment 21. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey) – We propose to insert a reference to continuing to support the work of the Immovable Property Commission at the end of paragraph 5.2 as it is important to record that. The Immovable Property Commission has been found to be an effective domestic remedy by the European Court of Human Rights and it should continue.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Kyriakides.

      Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – We do not consider the Immovable Property Commission to be a remedy; rather, we see it as a vehicle used by Turkey to further promote the alienation of Greek Cypriots from their properties. Dear colleagues, we strongly advocate that only an overall solution to the Cyprus problem will lead to addressing all the human rights violations on the island, so we do not think this reference to the Immovable Property Commission should be inserted.

       The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 21 is rejected.

      I call Mr Aktay to support Amendment 18. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey) – It is important to record the support for the Immovable Property Commission, which has been found to be an effective domestic remedy by the European Court of Human Rights and should continue.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Kyriakides to speak against the amendment.

      Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – I will not repeat my arguments. We do not think that this should be included. It would be paradoxical, when we have just voted for it not to be included in the previous amendment, to insert it here as being a successful remedy. It was accepted by the committee by only a very narrow majority. Dear colleagues, I plead with you all to vote against this divisive amendment. It will not lead to what we want, which is to stress the solution of the Cyprus problem as a way of dealing with all human rights issues.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is in favour by seven votes to six.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 18 is rejected.

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

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey) – We propose to remove paragraph 5.3, because it gives the impression that IDPs live in refugee camps and, as such, should be protected against mines. That does not reflect the reality on the island, where both Turkish and Greek Cypriot IDPs have long been integrated into society and live in towns just like all the other people on the island. The call for de-mining the island, supported by the Turkish side, may be better placed in other reports.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Kyriakides.

      Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – Dear colleagues, it has been a long day so I do not remember which colleague it was who actually expressed surprise that minefields are still present in Cyprus. We fully support the fact that our rapporteur has included this paragraph. We need to deal with this, so please let us not omit it.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is against by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 22 is rejected.

      We now come to Amendment 6. If it is agreed to, Amendments 1 and 5 will fall.

      I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 6. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This amendment, and all the others we propose, is proposed at the request of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, Ms Jimenez-Damary, who has just addressed the Assembly. Along with UNHCR, she asked for certain amendments to the report. Amendment 6 aims to insert references to United Nations Security Council resolutions on IDPs. I think it would be very good if the Council of Europe aligned with recommendations of the United Nations.

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

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – Amendment 1 says the same thing, but is clearer and follows the style of the other paragraphs. I would therefore rather support Amendment 1 and not support Amendment 6.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is against by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

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

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – As the rapporteur said, this resolution has been adopted by the United Nations. It reflects the essence of the conflict. I think it is very important to insert these phrases and these kinds of formulations, because they reflect the reality as well as the United Nations resolution. That is why we are in favour of the amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is unanimously in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

       I call Ms Gafarova to support Amendment 5. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Four resolutions of the United Nations Security Council concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict refer to the issue of IDPs. The word “in Azerbaijan” should be inserted into other paragraphs concerning other countries.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is unanimously in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Seyidov to support Amendment 2. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – Dear friends and colleagues, Nagorno-Karabakh – Mountainous Karabakh – is a name that belongs to Azerbaijan’s territories. It is absolutely incomprehensible that some names are presented in a way that do not exist in any paper, either in this Organisation or in United Nations resolutions – or even in the United Nations resolution that we have already adopted. If we do it this way we will be violating the Council of Europe, the European Union and the United Nations resolution we have already adopted.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is against by 10 votes to eight.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      I call Mr Seyidov to support Amendment 3. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – In the territories under occupation, any activity is absolutely illegal. We are therefore asking the Assembly to include this amendment in the text. It is in line with the documents adopted by all international organisations, including our own international Organisation, the Council of Europe.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is in favour by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Seyidov to support Amendment 4. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – We are again returning to resolutions that the Assembly has already adopted. Nagorno-Karabakh and all the names within this territory under occupation are recognised by the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the European Union. It is therefore logical that we should accept this amendment to the text, to reflect the realities. We cannot name these territories with other, unacceptable names.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee was unable to decide on this, with 10 in favour, 10 against.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee cannot give us any advice.

The vote is open.

      I call Ms Chugoshvili to support Amendment 12. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms CHUGOSHVILI (Georgia) – I express my appreciation to the rapporteur, who did excellent work. This amendment does not in principle change the proposition of the rapporteur. We simply propose inserting the additional references to declarations and the OSCE Heads of State Summit decisions, as well as to the resolution adopted by this Assembly, Resolution 1683. We also add Georgia to the names of the occupied territories of Georgia. This was supported by a large majority of the committee.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is unanimously in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Chugoshvili to support Amendment 13. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms CHUGOSHVILI (Georgia) – This paragraph rightfully points out the problem of the artificial barriers. The crossing points are already mentioned. We are simply adding another artificial barrier, namely barbed wire fixed on Georgian territory.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is unanimously in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Chugoshvili to support Amendment 14. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms CHUGOSHVILI (Georgia) – This amendment points out that the European Union monitoring mission, which has access to only part of Georgian territory, should have access to Georgia’s full territory for monitoring purposes. This was also supported by the committee.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is unanimously in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Chugoshvili to support Amendment 15. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms CHUGOSHVILI (Georgia) – This amendment repeats the minimal conditions raised in the previous resolution of this Assembly and calls on the Russian Federation to initiate credible investigation into the ethnic cleansing of Georgians.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is unanimously in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Goncharenko to support Amendment 11. He is not here, so I call Mr Vlasenko.

      Mr VLASENKO (Ukraine) – I will support the amendment, Mr President. This is just a technical amendment to unify the terminology that we have already used in our resolution. Resolution 2198 states: “The Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed by the humanitarian situation resulting from the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine”. We want to use the same terminology. That resolution was passed in January this year.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is in favour by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Aktay to support Amendment 20. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey) – We propose to delete paragraph 10 because Turkey is taking all necessary action to ensure that its citizens are protected from PKK terrorism. An international humanitarian assessment mission in not necessary as Turkey is addressing the damage caused by PKK terrorism in the region. Furthermore, the report in question by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is biased, as I have mentioned, unprofessional and based on incorrect data predominantly regarding counter-terrorism operations in south-east Turkey. This so-called report was published by relying solely on groundless allegations from ill-intentioned sources which are fully in line with the propaganda of terrorist organisations. As that is not acceptable, reference to this should be removed.

      The PRESIDENT – Before I ask whether anyone wants to speak against the amendment, I should say that if the amendment is adopted, Amendment 19 will fall.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – Amendment 20 would have a very important impact on the IDPs. We need this paragraph in the resolution, so I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The committee is against the amendment by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 20 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 19. I call Mr Aktay to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey) – We propose removing the word “humanitarian” from paragraph 10, because international humanitarian law applies only to situations of armed conflict; it cannot be applied to terrorist acts, so a general assessment mission is suitable in this situation.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Munyama. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – This report is about humanitarian needs. A humanitarian assessment mission might be interesting, but not for this report, so I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT - The vote is open.

      Amendment 19 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 23. I call Mr Aktay to support it.

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey) – We propose removing from paragraph 11 the phrase, “and to act appropriately in cases where a respondent State refuses to execute a judgment and pay financial compensation to IDPs or their surviving family members”. This proposal has no place whatsoever under the European Convention on Human Rights, which expressly provides for ways and means of ensuring that respondent States execute the judgments of the Court. It should therefore be removed.

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

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – This paragraph is very important for IDPs; it calls for judgments of the European Court to be implemented. I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT - The vote is open.

      Amendment 23 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14527, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      We must now consider the draft recommendation, to which one amendment has been tabled, Amendment 24. I call Mr Aktay to support it. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey) – We propose removing paragraph 3 from the draft recommendation, because it has no place whatsoever under the European Convention on Human Rights, which expressly provides for ways and means of ensuring that respondent States execute the judgments of the Court. Therefore, it should be removed.

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

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – We need paragraph 3 of the draft recommendation, as it asks the Committee of Ministers to do relevant work, so I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT - The vote is open.

      Amendment 24 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 14527.

      The vote is open.

      Congratulations.

5. Debate on the situation in Libya: prospects and role of the Council of Europe

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the debate on the report titled “The situation in Libya: prospects and role of the Council of Europe” in Document 14519, presented by Mr Korodi on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. This will be followed by the presentation of an opinion, in Document 14534, by Ms Strik on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons.

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

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – Esteemed colleagues, in preparing my report on Libya, I tried to get all the information necessary, so as to present the best possible report to the Assembly. Throughout the two-year preparation period, I have followed events in that country. I visited Tunis in early November 2017, where I met Tunisian Ministers, Libyan politicians, representatives of the United Nations and the European Union, members of civil society, journalists and experts. More than a year ago, we organised a first hearing in Paris, followed by a second hearing on 14 December 2017, with the President of the European Commission for Democracy through Law – the Venice Commission – representatives of the European Union and of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya, and an expert on Libya. We have reached the point when, as it states in the report, we need to take part in the reconstruction of Libya. I believe that, to make the best possible decision, members of the Assembly must get to know the country’s situation properly.

      The report focuses on a few major aspects of the current situation in Libya, such as migration, the country’s instability, its effect on neighbouring countries, but also on the wider region and Europe, its economic collapse and the way in which the Council of Europe, and representatives of the United Nations, the European Union and the Venice Commission can assist to rebuild Libya.

      As we all know, in 2011 the Arab Spring blew across Libya and carried everything in its path: the Gaddafi dictatorship and, with it, the State. Today, Libya is a failed State, where everything must be rebuilt, every day there are immense human rights violations, and instability poses a threat to its neighbours.

      As long as the situation in Libya remains unresolved, the country represents a sore spot for Europe in terms of continuous migration, and ongoing terrorism and fundamentalism. Libyan instability also means instability for the Mediterranean region and North Africa.

      Moreover, as a failed State, Libya is not just a problem for Europeans, whether in terms of terrorism or migration, but a moral dilemma, because, first, Europeans are not strangers to the chaos that reigns there and secondly, we have to make choices, carefully weighing up ethics and political realism, for example, with regard to the treatment of migrants. Lastly, the reconstruction of a minimum level of State infrastructure means having to accept a series of unpleasant but essential compromises, such as negotiating with players who have little interest in peace, establishing democracy or respecting human rights.

      The situation in Libya has contributed and continues to contribute to the instability of the Mediterranean region and North Africa. At the beginning, that instability was economic, affecting countries such as Tunisia and Egypt, which lost a major trading partner and were deprived of the funds transferred by nationals employed in Libya. However, it soon became a security problem because of the plunder of Libyan arsenals, the spread of terrorist groups in the Sahel-Saharan region, and the return to their countries of origin of the mercenaries employed by the Gaddafi regime.

      Another consequence of Libya’s instability is migration. There is migration out of Libya, but there is also migration into the country at the southern border in Fezzan. In 2015, the International Organization for Migration estimated that there were between 700 000 and 1 million migrants in Libya, and that estimate appears to remain valid. In June 2017, it had identified 350 000 of those migrants. Of those, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recorded 43 000 refugees or asylum seekers in November 2017, half of whom are Syrians. As a transit country, Libya is the main country of departure on the central Mediterranean route to Italy. Between 2014 and 2016, Italy has each year recorded 140 000 to 170 000 arrivals from Libya.

      I believe that the Council of Europe should contribute to the efforts of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya, bearing in mind its expertise in institutional matters and the objectives set by the United Nations Secretary-General’s special representative in Libya in his action plan on 20 September 2017. The contribution could particularly focus, through the Venice Commission, on the drafting of the Libyan constitution, establishing support for electoral procedures in preparation for a constitutional referendum and then for parliamentary and presidential elections. The Assembly for its part could prepare to serve as an election observer and work on the creation of a media environment capable of reporting on those elections.

      The action plan must be supported. The Libyan political agreement that was signed in Skhirat on 17 December 2015 is still the only the framework whereby an end can be brought to the Libyan crisis. Also, the most inclusive dialogue possible between Libyans without outside interference must be promoted. The national conference for which the action plan provides should enable Libyan players who have been ostracised or have purposely distanced themselves from the Libyan political agreement to be involved in the current political negotiations. It must be ensured that the national conference can be attended by not only the relevant political and military forces, but representatives of social movements, tribes and local stakeholders. A clear line must be drawn between the inclusive nature of the national conference, which might enable non-jihadist militias to take part, and accepting some of the practices of those militias, particularly those who claim to be Madkhalists, whose aim is to impose restrictions on public freedom in the name of a radical view of Islam.

      The adoption of a Libyan constitutional framework is a requirement for holding parliamentary and presidential elections.

      Elections should be held only if their results cannot be contested by any of the various Libyan players. That concern should take precedence over any desire to hold elections as quickly as possible. If that is so, I repeat that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should be prepared to provide assistance to the Libyan authorities with election observation when it considers that appropriate.

      At the request of the European Union delegation to Libya, based in Tunis, the Venice Commission took part in several workshops dedicated to electoral processes in Libya from the end of January to March 2018. This participation is likely to have followed my fact-finding mission in Tunis last year.

      All those to whom I spoke in Tunis and Paris, whether official representatives, journalists or experts, believe that in the last few months, there has been a window of opportunity to relaunch the peace process. That was also the impression gained by the new special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr Ghassan Salamé, who was appointed in July 2017. He quickly set to work and is already seeing results.

      The majority of players, national and international, have realised that there can be no military solution in Libya.

      As I said at the beginning of my speech, in my opinion, the assistance of the Council of Europe in the reconstruction of Libya is of the utmost importance. However, we need to think through our role in the process and take into consideration the saying that doctors use, “Do no harm.” While giving assistance, we should respect the sovereignty of the country and work together with the Venice Commission and the representatives of the United Nations and the European Union.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Korodi. You have four and a half minutes remaining. I call Ms Strik to present an opinion on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displace Persons. You have three minutes.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I would like to express my gratitude to the rapporteur for having drafted a report on the dramatic situation in Libya, where citizens are living in very insecure and precarious circumstances. With very good reason, the rapporteur also draws our attention to the situation of migrants and refugees, which is even more disastrous. As a representative of Amnesty International said yesterday during a hearing, “For migrants, Libya is hell”.

      The report has a clear link with my report on the external dimension of European Union asylum policies. My assessment is almost finished and we will present the report in the June session.

      We know from United Nations reports that Libya has turned into a slavery market for migrants, and that migrants are automatically detained, are victims of torture and rape, are kept hungry and thirsty and lack any access to health care, information and legal aid.

      After the alarming news about their situation, a large number of them have been evacuated to Niger, from where some of them travelled back home, and the refugees among them had to wait until they were resettled by other countries. Unfortunately the number of pledges that countries offer is much too small. This not only leads to a long waiting time in the camps and insecurity for refugees, but it has slowed down the evacuations and even stopped them. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons therefore proposes that we resettle more of those refugees to our countries so that the evacuations from Libya can continue.

      There are still thousands of migrants and refugees in appalling circumstances in Libyan detention centres. Here the role of Europe comes in. Why are they still there? Because European countries prevent them from leaving Libya on their way to Europe. Europe pays the Libyan coastguard to intercept the migrants in Libyan waters, but after their interception, they are automatically brought to the notorious detention centres, and humanitarian organisations are prevented from rescuing them and taking them to a safe place.

      We have a responsibility for the fate of refugees and migrants in Libya. The witnesses’ horrific stories should alarm us and give us a sense of urgency. Grave human rights violations are taking place, right at our borders and as a result of our co-operation with Libya. We should not accept such violations and should make sure that they come to an end. The Council of Europe should guarantee that any co-operation with Libya depends on the respect of the fundamental rights of migrants and refugees. In order to guarantee that, the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons proposes to take certain measures: there should be a robust monitoring mechanism to follow accurately what is happening to migrants and refugees in Libyan waters and on the land, so that we can intervene if their rights are violated, and there should be more comprehensive and human rights-based training for the Libyan coastguard, to prevent incidents that lead to the loss of lives. We need to support Libyan State-building efforts and we need effective migration management, but it is necessary and possible to do that with respect for the fundamental rights to which we all adhere.

      Mr COAKER (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) –I commend both rapporteurs for the report.

      Is it not the case that it is often in the most difficult of situations, with the most difficult of circumstances, as we see in Libya, that the principles on which the Council of Europe was founded are challenged the most? In Libya, we see detention centres and flows of migrants into and out of the country, with massive problems arising. Is it not something of an honour for us all to be part of an Organisation that, even in those terrible circumstances and when voices all around us demand that somehow we should turn our backs on that terrible situation, demands in the resolution that we stand up for the principles of human rights and gender equality? The Council of Europe demands that we do not turn our backs on those in need but look at the situation in Syria as a practical problem that we all have a responsibility to try to address and overcome. That is what makes me pleased and proud to be here.

      Some people criticise the Council of Europe and this Assembly as a talking shop. Others say that we pass meaningless resolutions. I do not believe that the words we have heard from both rapporteurs are meaningless words or empty phrases. They are not. They are challenges and demands that the system must do better. Along with everybody in this Assembly, I am not going to watch pictures of drowning children, people in detention and people pushed into slavery, and say that there is nothing more that we can do, because that is not the case. We have a collective responsibility, and not just in respect of Libya or the countries on the border with North Africa. Italy and Greece have done phenomenal jobs trying to help the situation. It is incumbent on countries such as my own that are many miles away from that area to take our responsibility seriously.

      I say to the rapporteurs and to the Assembly that we can be justly proud of what we are asking not only of the Council of Europe, but of the peoples and governments of Europe. We will not turn our backs on some of the people most in need on our continent.

      Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – The report sets out an order of priority for those affected by our failure to see Libya transformed as a result of the Arab Spring. I shall concentrate on one particular group: migrants.

      It will be of interest to many that there is already a trickle of migrants from African countries, making their way to the Libyan coast, where they are submitting themselves to the evil people-traffickers so that they can cross the Mediterranean in the direction of Italy. That trickle is nothing compared with the potential flood of migrants who are going to follow that route if we do not take action to improve the economies of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. The crisis in northern Nigeria involving Boko Haram is already affecting Libya. There needs to be a concentration of effort, not only to encourage the sharing of the proceeds of growth in those countries, but to tackle firmly the people-traffickers who make their money from the misery of individuals. That means that we need to intensify the work with coastguard authorities along the coast, to ensure that they act effectively and protect human rights. More importantly, we need to prevent refugees from reaching the coast, by both helping to make their own countries attractive and ensuring that Libya’s borders truly reflect the territorial integrity of the country.

      Of course, all that still leaves a big issue to be decided: human rights in Libya. Much needs to be done and can be done to improve human rights in Libya, but I draw attention to the need for open and fair media in the country. It is impossible for that to occur overnight, but we should concentrate on that, because it holds the key to so many areas of development in Libya and is certainly something with which we should help.

      Libya is not a good example of how the Arab Spring should have turned out and it is not a good example of the way in which the West’s activity should occur. For that reason alone, we need to do all that we can to help Libya to return to being a proper nation State.

      Mr BILDARRATZ (Spain, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – On behalf of ALDE, I congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Korodi and Ms Strik, for their opportune and interesting contributions.

      In roughly the same vein as the previous speaker, Mr Howell, I believe that the Arab Spring has had different consequences – it depends on which country we look at. One consequence was the toppling of Colonel Gaddafi, but I can remember all the photos of him with so many European leaders – including the leaders of France and Spain – and the number of European countries that co-operated with him as part of a determined policy of realpolitik. That means that we bear several responsibilities. After the toppling of Colonel Gaddafi, we witnessed the break-up of all the institutions in Libya. Since then, we have witnessed war in that country and the various vicissitudes there. We have seen how the country has fragmented and how impossible it is for any institutions to be set up there or to take proper forms.

All of that constitutes a failure for the Libyans and a failure for the surrounding countries. It also amounts to a failure in terms of migratory flows. I think about Ms Strik’s words, and this brings us back to the agreement between Turkey and the European Union of March 2016 and its consequences: let us not forget the thousands of fatalities there have been each year in the Mediterranean, whether in the centre or the east. The precise areas in which people die may change, but the fate of those concerned is the same.

      Let us not forget that the European Union is not responding as it should do, either. It has entered into a number of commitments to try to refocus and reorient the flows of migrants, but, with the exception of Germany and one or two others, we bear responsibility in numerous areas.

      Ms Strik drew our attention to, among other things, the key slave markets and torture. I agree with both rapporteurs that we need to follow that line to take a number of measures – we need to see these things and tackle them head on. We must be aware of the vile human rights violations being perpetrated. We must not close our eyes but provide training and – above all – major support to Libya, given all of the responsibility that we bear for what has happened in previous years.

      Mr HUNKO (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the United European Left)* – It is very important that we are talking about Libya here today; we have not talked about it enough. To pick up on what Mr Howell was saying, Libya is not a good example of what should have happened following the Arab String. It is also not a good example with regard to the reaction of the international community and western countries. One thing that has not been mentioned at all and is not in the resolution is that the West’s response was a military campaign, with a bombing of Libya on the basis of United Nations Resolution 973 that lasted for almost six months. There were thousands of fatalities as a result, and at the end there was the overthrowing of Gaddafi, which we all welcomed. The basis of that was that resolution, which was exclusively about humanitarian protection. There was a ban on flights over Libya, but the aim was not to provide for regime change.

      When we look at the lessons of history, we can conclude that you cannot bring about democracy through bombing. It was not possible in Libya, it was not possible in Afghanistan or Iraq and it is not possible in Syria, either. If we look at the situation now, we see that it is hell, really, as the United Nations rapporteur stated. The German Minister for Foreign Affairs has compared the detention centres in Libya with concentration camps, and the United Nations Commissioner has talked of an appalling situation.

      It is important for us to look at what the political processes are in Libya and to provide support on, for instance, the creation of a constitution and an assembly, and democratisation. We need to promote all development processes in the country, but we really need to focus on how Libya is continuing to develop and its role as the country from which refugees and migrants will move towards Europe.

      Efforts are being made to support the Libyan coastguard – we know what the situation is with regard to them and the efforts being made. What has happened up to now is not the best way of going about the situation; I am against the current co-operation. We need a coastguard operation fully in respect of human rights, so I certainly support the amendments tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which would take us very much in the right direction. We must discuss further how we can continue to support democratic processes in Libya, because at the moment things are not going well at all.

      Mr AKTAY (Turkey, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group) – I thank our rapporteurs for their efforts and the comprehensive work they have accomplished. The Council of Europe has an important role to play in Libya in assisting Libyans to prepare properly for the upcoming elections. There is a real chance for Libya to establish a truly national government.

      Before elections take place, some progress should be made in reconciliation as well. The existing divide should be narrowed. That is the path that Libyans should take to stop their country being a place that harbours terrorist organisations. That is the way to prevent Daesh from regrouping on Libyan territory. To defeat Daesh and other terrorists, Libya needs a unified government and unified national security forces under the control of its central government. Daesh has suffered significant setbacks in the region. However, without a clear political strategy to guide post-Daesh efforts, such military gains could quickly be lost and the country could again become a breeding ground for conflicts and extremism, exacerbating the security and migration challenges.

      The Council of Europe should focus on broadening the local and international coalition supporting the United Nations-backed political agreement. We should help Libyans to build a unified State, encouraging co-ordination and providing advice and recommendations on best practice. The Council of Europe and its member States must also give concrete support to measures that would save the country from economic collapse.

      Human rights violations and abuses across the country continue to be a major issue of concern. The climate of impunity must stop, and Libyan and international efforts to bring to account those responsible for such crimes must be supported. Mine clearance, humanitarian relief and building conditions for the safe return of internally displaced persons are also priorities not only for Sirte but for the entire country. The Libyan people deserve a stable and secure future.

      Mr STIER (Croatia, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – Let me express my appreciation for the work done by the rapporteur, Mr Korodi, and the opinion from Ms Strik on the situation in Libya and the role that the Council of Europe should play in assisting Libya. The rapporteur correctly considered all key political, security and geostrategic elements, and then he focused on the possible ways in which the Council of Europe could provide added value to the domestic, regional and international efforts to bring lasting peace and stability to Libya without disregarding the promotion of the principles of universal human rights.

      Based on extensive preparatory and ground work, including talks with key political actors in Libya and the region, representatives of the United Nations and the European Union, civil society actors, journalists and experts, as well as the President of the Venice Commission, the rapporteur concluded that the Council of Europe can have a role to play not immediately but in the medium term. Such a role relates to a possible contribution to the efforts of the United Nations Support Mission in drafting the Libyan constitution; establishing electoral procedures for a constitutional referendum and then for parliamentary and presidential elections; and supporting the creation of a pluralist media environment. Each of those three lines of action relies on the understanding that the establishment of functioning State structures is an essential precondition for ending widespread violations of human rights, securing lasting peace, stability and sustainable development for the people of Libya, defeating terrorist threats and dealing with migration flows.

      In following such an approach, the Council of Europe will not hinder the efforts of the United Nations, but rather complement them. It will act in full co-ordination with the United Nations and at the request of the Libyan authorities, in accordance with the principles that govern the Council of Europe’s policies towards neighbouring regions. While I understand all the conditions and preconditions for its possible engagement, the Council of Europe can express at this juncture its readiness to assist the Libyan authorities, in particular the Libyan High National Elections Commission, which has already asked the United Nations Support Mission to resume an integrated electoral assistance process. However, before any possible parliamentary and presidential elections, at least a minimum constitutional framework should be agreed and adopted. In putting the adoption of its system of government to a referendum, the Libyan authorities can also rely on the assistance of the Council of Europe and this Parliamentary Assembly. In this sense, the Group of the European People’s Party supports the report and the recommendations presented today.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Stier.

      The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does Mr Korodi wish to respond at this stage? That is not the case.

      In the debate, Mr Vareikis is not here, so I call Lord Anderson.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Both our rapporteurs have shown clearly the terrible conditions and the infractions of human rights in Libya. However, the question facing us is not about that – we all agree about those conditions – but about what role, if any, there is for us in the Council of Europe. Is it possible to talk about the Council of Europe adding value, or is that premature at this stage?

      I will make but three brief observations. First, I say to my colleague John Howell, who talked about the return to a proper national State, that there has never been a proper national State in Libya. It went from the Ottoman Empire, through the Italian colonial period and the reign of King Idris – that was when I first visited Libya – to the capricious, idiosyncratic Gaddafi, so when we intervened and he was killed, there was chaos and lawlessness, and arms were widely distributed throughout the country. There was no foundation on which we could build any reasonable democratic conditions.

      Secondly, what happens in Libya obviously has most of an effect on the benighted people of that country, but it also affects us in Europe. As has rightly been said, the first effect is on migration, which requires a humanitarian response, but also a realistic response. We should recognise that we in Europe cannot accept all those in the burgeoning population of Africa, particularly south of the Sahara, who wish to come here, but as far as we can we must protect their human rights. There is also an effect in relation to counter-terrorism.

      Finally, we in the Council of Europe have a certain expertise, such as electoral observation, and certain institutions, such as the Venice Commission, but can we use such tools at this stage? There is an old adage that says you do not build houses in the hurricane season. We now have the hurricane season in Libya. There will be a time when our tools can be used, but I am not convinced Libya has yet achieved sufficient stability for those tools to be used. We will be able to use them only when more progress has been made.

      What struck me in the report is that, although the question posed is about what we in the Council of Europe can do in Libya, only in the very last paragraph of the draft resolution – paragraph 18 – are certain suggestions made, as though we were having to cast around for a role. Yes, the Venice Commission and our election monitoring will have a role to play in the medium term, but at the moment I am not convinced we can do much more than the United Nations and its special representative, as well as the European Union. If called on, we can of course help those two institutions, which have the primary role, but we should not over-extend ourselves by pretending that we can do more than it is realistic for us to do at this stage.

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* - What is the future for Libya? After the bloody, despotic and monomaniacal dictatorship of Gaddafi and several years of chaos, Libya is back in the international limelight following revelations about the fate of African migrants. Following the closure of the Balkans route, we have compelled those migrants to stay on Libyan soil because Europe, in co-operation with the Libyan authorities and coastguard, has taken measures to bar this route to Europe.

      Libya is a hell for migrants. Those are the words of Ms van Gulik, Amnesty International’s Europe director, who was invited to speak to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons earlier this week. She spoke in hard and unflinching terms about the systematic use of torture, the firing of live ammunition by coastguards and the drowning of migrants. She even said that there is collusion between the smugglers and coastguards, while the Interior Ministry looks on complacently. We must do everything we can to restore the true rule of law in Libya, and above all to ensure that migrants are treated with dignity, and it is crucial that their fundamental rights are respected. Such migrants have in effect been taken hostage and have fallen into a viper’s nest of horror and slavery.

      I want to make three observations. First, the fall of Gaddafi was the result of a military intervention by the West, especially in the form of aerial bombing. Western countries brought down a dictator, but they did not guarantee any after-sale service, so to speak, which has led to chaos and destruction, as well as to the destabilisation of neighbouring countries in the Sahel, with the exporting of a lot of violence and weapons. Thereafter, backed up by their experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, western countries have not wanted to get involved in the Libyan quagmire, but destabilisation without reconstruction is an act of moral and political wrongdoing.

      Secondly, Europe has delegated to Turkey and what is left of the State of Libya the responsibility for blocking migrants outside Europe. The European Union has entrenched itself inside a fortress, as Ms van Gulik from Amnesty International has said. We cannot do everything, as Lord Anderson has rightly pointed out, but we can do more.

      Thirdly, paragraph 10.2 of the draft resolution states that the Assembly supports recent moves to “prevent migrants from entering Libya by closing the southern border in Fezzan”. Again, the demographic explosion in Africa will have to be dealt with one day, but that is another debate.

      (Mr O’Reilly, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in the place of Mr Jonas Gunnarsson.)

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Fridez. In the absence of Mr Blaha, it is my absolute pleasure to call my fellow countryman, Senator Paul Gavan.

      Mr GAVAN (Ireland) – I am appalled at the current situation in Libya, which has been completely destroyed and destabilised by European countries through NATO. Their illegal military interventions have unleashed a wave of militarisation, and warlords now compete for control, with civilians and refugees bearing the brunt of their brutality and greed. The European Union seems to care only about the possibility of refugees reaching Europe via Libya, and it has created an incredibly inhuman policy to contain refugees in Libya. I do welcome the comments by the rapporteur and the report for their positive contribution to human rights, but I want in particular paragraph 11 of the draft resolution to be strengthened. The European Union is even forcing refugees who have escaped Libya back to that war-torn country, where they will continue to be exploited and violated.

      Médecins sans Frontières has been providing medical care to people detained in a number of migrant detention centres in Tripoli. It has stated that people in these official Libyan centres are simply treated as a commodity to be exploited. They are packed into dark, filthy rooms with no ventilation, living on top of one another. Testimonies from refugees who have escaped reveal that in these centres men are frequently beaten and tortured. Women are raped and sexually assaulted. There is video evidence of men and women being openly sold as slaves in marketplaces. Despite the reality facing refugees in Libya being widely known, European Union member States are actively seeking to enforce policies of containment and are thus feeding this business of suffering. That is completely unacceptable.

      By supporting the capability of the Libyan coastguard, European Union member States are building their capacity to return migrants intercepted in the Mediterranean back to Libya and not to a port of safety. Many of those intercepted by the Libyan coastguard will ultimately wind up back in the very system of detention they were fleeing in the first instance. That is a complete violation of international law. Non-governmental organisations’ boats in the Mediterranean have reported it is a regular occurrence.

      The European Union’s current policies and funding in Libya mean it is legitimising a containment policy that has no positive impact for people in Libyan detention centres, while down-playing the scale of atrocities in those detention centres. European leaders continue to say that conditions will be improved for those returned to Libya, but they know that is not true. A reduction in the number of people leaving Libya’s shores does not mean a reduction of suffering; the suffering is just out of sight.

      While I welcome many aspects of the report, we need to do more. The Council of Europe should immediately highlight conditions in the detention centres and what funding they receive from European countries, and report on the violations of international and human rights law by Council of Europe member States in respect of containing and returning refugees to Libya.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gavan. In the absence of Mr Sabella from Palestine and Mr Villumsen from Denmark, I call Ms Alheisah.

      Ms ALHEISAH (Jordan, Partner for Democracy) – I thank the rapporteur for preparing a comprehensive, realistic report.

      We are all aware of the situation in Libya since the Arab Spring. All political and military leaders and experts believe that the current situation is a big threat not only to the Libyans but to international security as a whole. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that Libya has become an international centre for training and arming terrorist groups, and a springboard for the rest of the world.

      All that urges us to ask: what has resulted from all the military operations and external interventions in Libya by the great powers claiming to be the saviours and protectors of humanity? We have seen nothing but disaster and the spread of terrorism everywhere in the region.

      There are two models of democratic transformation to be adopted when helping any State to achieve political reform. The first is when the majority of all political bodies in a society take part and start building based on convictions and principles that suit all segments of society. That guarantees logical, gradual improvement leading to democratic and harmonious political reform. The second model that is followed nowadays is the one imposed on countries by external powers. It is about forcing every State to adopt sudden jumps under the umbrella of reform or democracy. That policy led to what we are now witnessing and suffering from.

      My country, Jordan, is an example of the first model. This small country, located in an unstable region and facing a terrorist threat, is moving forward towards political reform despite all the obstacles and a lack of economic resources. Jordan has adopted the policy of having step-by-step, internal reform. Many amendments are being made to legislation. The openness to the world is gradual and logical. Women are empowered to reach decision-making positions. Many other steps towards being a democratic country are being taken based on convictions. Libya, on the other hand, is an example of the second model. Irresponsible interventions led the country to more violence and internal divisions.

      I hope that the international community reconsiders the strategy of the war against terrorism. Starting with Libya, let us help countries to build their own model of reform. Let us create a political dialogue that gives all countries the chance to share experience and benefit from each other.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Alheisah. That concludes the list of speakers. Does anyone else wish to speak? We have time, if anyone else would like to speak.

      In the absence of anyone wishing to speak, I call our rapporteur. Mr Korodi, I remind you that you have four and a half minutes left.

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – Colleagues, thank you for your remarks and your points of view.

      Libya is one of the most complex international issues to be dealt with. Libya is a failed State. Yes, Libya was never a democracy. In the Gaddafi period, it was a very weak State. It had some State structures, but there was no comparison with what we think of as a State. For that reason, when we talk about the next steps, we need to keep in mind that it is not possible to build the idea of democracy in Libya. However, it is possible to build State structures and institutions that can bring together different local communities – tribes, cities, civil society and other components of Libya’s very diverse society.

      When we discuss this with the team in the United Nations special mission for Libya, or with the European Union representative for Libya, we see that this period offers us – Europeans and international institutions – the possibility to do something good there and to create a new State structure. It is the way to achieve that goal that is very difficult.

      As the Council of Europe, we need to be honest. We do not offer to build a great democracy in Libya. The Venice Commission can offer expertise on how it is possible to have a visible constitution and a functional electoral system in such a complex situation. What we can do as an Assembly is to give the mandate to help them and to participate when there are elections.

      You mentioned some elements that need to be discussed, such as closing Libya’s southern border. Day by day, hundreds of thousands of migrants arrive from the Sahel—south of the Sahara—region of Africa to an area without State structures. They are put in serious danger and under serious threat. The United Nations, the European Union and the European capitals that are involved say that it is better to block the people who want to migrate to Libya in Niger and the southern Sahara countries. That is the best solution; Libya is not a solution now. For that reason, we need to ensure that we understand the situation clearly. We must also understand that, yes, we Europeans and international players made a lot of mistakes after 2011; the responsibility for the State’s collapse is also ours. We need to clarify those points.

      Thank you for your support. I thank those who worked with me. I hope that we explained every element of the Libyan situation in the explanatory memorandum. I thank the staff of the Political Affairs and Democracy Committee and the committee members who have been involved in the past two years in different debates at different moments.

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

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – We have an important and comprehensive report before us. Mr Korodi has reflected the complexity of the current situation in Libya and the surrounding areas. For the many of us in the Assembly who have seen the pictures emanating from the Mediterranean, the heart-breaking loss of life and suffering of the migrants is clearly brought forward in the report and how the recommendations have been put together.

      The two rapporteurs from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons and my own committee have worked well together and complemented each other. I echo Mr Korodi’s thanks to the staff and the 10 speakers from eight countries who participated in the debate. In the report we see the perspective from not only an institutional but a human rights direction. Beyond the information, it provides to all members of this Assembly, it points out the areas where the Council of Europe could do something. It has an internationally accepted and recognised expertise. Particularly important is the involvement of the Venice Commission at the request of the European delegation to Libya. That is an example of how we could take one first step towards more diverse co-operation – hence the importance of the draft recommendation that the Committee of Ministers will have to consider if this is passed.

      Last but not least, I should say that our debates in the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy were very much an indication of the view that Mr Korodi’s report and words are shared in common right across the committee.

      The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution, to which 14 amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which one amendment has been tabled.

      We consider first the amendments to the draft resolution. I understand that the Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 4, 14, 6, 7, 15, 11 and 12 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly. I understand that Amendment 1 was also adopted unanimously in the committee, but because of the oral sub-amendment that will be proposed, it must be taken separately.

      Does anyone object? That is not the case.

Amendments 4, 14, 6, 7, 15, 11 and 12 are adopted.

The remaining amendments will be taken individually in the order in which they appear in the compendium. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I have received an oral amendment from Mr Tiny Kox, which reads as follows: In paragraph 1, after “The Parliamentary Assembly regrets that the ‘Revolution of 17 February’ which occurred in Libya in 2011 in the wake of the Arab Spring was not able to result in a successful political transition”, to add “and that foreign military interventions also did not contribute to the return of domestic stability”.

      The President may accept an oral amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to its being debated. In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment’s being debated? That is not the case.

      I call Mr Kox to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – We discussed this issue at our committee meeting in Paris. We agreed that something should be added. The issue is not only the failure of those who live in Libya; it is also that the international intervention did not prove to be a success. That is why I have proposed the amendment: it makes the text a bit more balanced.

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

      What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the oral amendment?

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      I call Ms Strik, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, to support Amendment 2. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – In paragraph 7, the rapporteur reminds us of Article 3, which prohibits us from sending people back to a place where they run a real risk of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. In paragraph 8, the rapporteur recognises that that is a real risk in Libya. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons would go a step further, given that there is so much evidence that in Libya people are tortured, raped and systematically ill-treated.

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

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The Libyan situation is very complex. We cannot say that the reality is made up of one or two elements. I think that “real risk” is more proper and I hope members will support that.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the amendment?

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      I call Ms Strik, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, to support Amendment 3. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Paragraph 9 rightly says we should do more than simply manage the migration problem, and the committee completely agrees. One measure that European countries should take is to invite many more refugees stuck in the camps to resettle in their countries. Because of the shortage of resettlement, the evacuation has slowed and come to an end. If we do not resettle more people, there will be a problem. The rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy will say that Amendment 1 is better, but it does not say that there should be more resettlement, and therefore I think this amendment is complementary.

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

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – Amendment 1 is more practical and clearer. With its sub-amendment it will make clearer what needs to be done by the European countries.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the amendment?

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Gouttefarde to support Amendment 1, which is, “In the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 10.1, insert the following sentence: ‘In this context, the Assembly asks member states and the international community to propose quotas of protected persons to the High Commissioner for Refugees as a precondition for dealing with potential beneficiaries in Libya.’” You have 30 seconds.

      Mr GOUTTEFRADE (France)* – This amendment calls on member States and the international community to propose contingencies or quotas in respect of protected persons. This has been suggested in Chad and Niger and other hotspots.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Korodi wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. This amendment relates to the English version of the text only. The amendment is as follows: “In amendment 1, replace ‘quotas’ with ‘a contingent’”.

       In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

      However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I therefore call Mr Korodi to support his oral sub-amendment.

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The oral sub-amendment proposes that it is better to use the regional discourse of French, and therefore use the word “contingent”.

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

      What is the opinion of Mr Gouttefarde?

      Mr GOUTTEFRADE (France)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is clearly in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 1, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on Amendment 1, as amended?

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Strik, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, to support Amendment 5. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons wants not to completely close the southern border, but to reinforce border security at the southern border. This is a dilemma. We do not want to let people enter a place that is dangerous, but a complete closure could also lead to a dangerous and unpredictable situation. The committee thinks it will be better for security if we prevent people from entering if that will turn out to be dangerous.

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

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – We use an explanation here that is also used by the United Nations and European Union representatives. This is not about blocking 100%; it is about stopping the migration flow and keeping migrants in the south of Libya so they do not enter unstable Libya.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the amendment?

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – Against, unanimously.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Strik, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, to support Amendment 8. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Amendments 6 and 7 have been adopted, and they say any co-operation with Libya should depend on respect for fundamental rights. In order to make sure this is the case, Amendment 8, which my committee unanimously supports, says we should have a monitoring mechanism in place in order to closely follow what is happening and if human rights are respected or not, and if there are repeated human rights violations and they do not stop, that the co-operation should be suspended. This is an important amendment to make sure we can really say that respect for fundamental rights is guaranteed.

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

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – This amendment is problematic. To use the expression “immediately suspended” does not help. I agreed to Amendments 6 and 7 as they put in place criteria that must be fulfilled, but to immediately suspend co-operation with Libya would be a huge failure. It needs help and training, and to be supported to achieve its goals in a normal way.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the amendment?

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – Against, by a vast majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Strik, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, to support Amendment 9. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Libyan coastguards are undergoing training organised by the European Union, but it is quite one-dimensional. There are still a lot of reports of people drowning in Libyan waters because the Libyan coastguards operate in a non-co-operative way with humanitarian organisations. The committee therefore, with a large majority, thinks it is very important for European countries to support a comprehensive training programme for the Libyan coastguard.

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

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – Training facilities are currently in place. The Italian coastguard has trained the Libyan coastguard, so the amendment is not useful at this moment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the amendment?

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – The committee is against with a vast majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Strik, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, to support Amendment 10. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The idea is that a maritime rescue co-ordination centre will be established in Libya, where, at the moment, there is such complete chaos. Paragraph 15 proposes not to hold parliamentary and presidential elections until there is real constitutional reform. I would not go that far. Governance structures should be improved before such a responsible institute as the MRCC is established. Lives are at risk. Libya cannot currently cope in a responsible way with co-ordinating such action, so we should refrain from doing that and slow down the process of establishing the centre. We should let Italy continue with the co-ordination until the governance structures are in place.

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

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – It is said that the constitutional processes are not available, but that is not true. The special representative of the Secretary General was saying in New York that, yes, the blockage was outside and now the Libyan court has decided that the constitutional process can go forward but that all the elements cannot be resolved in half a year or one year. However, to wait for years and years without creating a centralised co-ordination institution – an oil company and a national bank are the only two institutions that function now in Libya – would be a failure.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the amendment?

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – The committee is against with a vast majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14519, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      We must now consider the draft recommendation, to which one amendment has been tabled. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I call Ms Strik, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, to support Amendment 13. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – In the draft recommendation, the rapporteur asked the Committee of Ministers to assist Libya with a range of activities to help capacity building, stability and so on. The committee found it appropriate to ask the Committee of Ministers to assist with the monitoring mechanism, which the Assembly agreed on, to help Libya to establish the criteria for what should be monitored, and which rights and factors are in place, to see if fundamental rights, especially those of the European Convention on Human Rights, are respected.

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

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – It is very difficult for the Council of Europe to enter into a process with a country with which it does not have an agreement. Libya is not a partner for democracy, like Tunisia and Morocco. It is very important to realise that there is development and action from the United Nations and the European Union. To create monitoring procedures is not helpful in this case. We would be doing something that is not a part of our role.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the amendment?

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – The committee is against by a vast majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation, as amended, contained in Document 14519.

      The vote is open.

6. Next Public Business

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday morning and amended earlier this evening.

      The sitting is closed.

      (This sitting was closed at 7.40 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.        Joint debate: The protection of editorial integrity and the status of journalists in Europe – resumed debate

Documents 14256, 14505 and 14535

Speakers: Ms Louhelainen, Mr Kronbichler, Mr Büchel and Ms Şupac

Replies: Ms Gambaro and Mr Efstathiou

Amendment 1 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14526, as amended, adopted

Amendments 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, and 6 and 10 as amended, are adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14505, as amended, adopted

2.        Humanitarian needs and rights of internally displaced people

Presentation by Mr Munyama of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons in Document 14527

Address by Ms Jimenez-Damary, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons

Speakers: Ms Dalloz, Mr Fridez, Mr Howell, Mr Polačik, Ms Christodoulopoulou, Ms Filipovski, Ms Gerashchenko, Mr Whitfield, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Vovk, Ms Kelleher, Mr R Huseynov, Ms Kyriakides, Ms Blondin, Ms Gafarova, Mr Bildarratz, Mr Gavan, Mr Aktay, Mr Tilson, Mr Hasanov and Mr Candan

3.        Change in agenda

4.        Humanitarian needs and rights of internally displaced people – resumed debate

Replies: Mr Munyama and Mr Fridez

Amendments 7,1, 5, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 11

Draft resolution in Document 14527, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14527 adopted

5.        The situation in Libya: prospects and role of the Council of Europe

Presentation by Mr Korodi of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy in Document 14519

Presentation of opinion by Ms Strik on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced

Persons in Document 14534

Speakers: Mr Coaker, Mr Howell, Mr Bildarratz, Mr Hunko, Mr Aktay, Mr Stier, Lord Anderson, Mr Fridez, Mr Gavan and Ms Alheisah

Replies: Mr Korodi and Dame Cheryl Gillan

Amendments 4, 14, 6, 7, 15, 11, 12, oral amendment, 1 as amended, and 5, 8, 9 and 10 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14519, as amended, adopted

Amended 13 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14534, as amended, adopted

6.        Next public business

Appendix / Annexe

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

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

ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]

ADAM, Claude [M.] (BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme])

AGHAYEVA, Ulviyye [Ms]

AKTAY, Yasin [Mr]

AMON, Werner [Mr]

AMORUSO, Francesco Maria [Mr] (BERNINI, Anna Maria [Ms])

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord] (PRESCOTT, John [Mr])

ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

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

BAKUN, Wojciech [Mr] (JAKUBIAK, Marek [Mr])

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

BAYR, Petra [Ms] (ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr])

BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]

BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr]

BLAHA, Ľuboš [Mr]

BLAZINA, Tamara [Ms] (QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO, Lia [Ms])

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]

BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr] (MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr])

BUSHKA, Klotilda [Ms]

BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr]

CHITI, Vannino [Mr]

CHRISTENSEN, Jette [Ms] (MEHL, Emilie Enger [Ms])

CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Anastasia [Ms]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CHUGOSHVILI, Tamar [Ms]

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

COAKER, Vernon [Mr] (ECCLES, Diana [Lady])

CORREIA, Telmo [M.] (MARQUES, Duarte [Mr])

COURSON, Yolaine de [Mme] (MAIRE, Jacques [M.])

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme]

D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms]

DANESI, René [M.] (GROSDIDIER, François [M.])

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

DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr]

ESTRELA, Edite [Mme]

EVANS, Nigel [Mr]

FATALIYEVA, Sevinj [Ms] (PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms])

FILIPOVSKI, Dubravka [Ms] (PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms])

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

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GATTI, Marco [M.]

GATTOLIN, André [M.] (LOUIS, Alexandra [Mme])

GAVAN, Paul [Mr]

GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]

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

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr])

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GRAF, Martin [Mr]

GROZDANOVA, Dzhema [Ms]

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

HAIDER, Roman [Mr]

HAMOUSOVÁ, Zdeňka [Ms] (JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr])

HASANOV, Elshad [Mr] (HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr])

HEINRICH, Frank [Mr] (MARSCHALL, Matern von [Mr])

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme]

HONKONEN, Petri [Mr] (KALMARI, Anne [Ms])

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms] (KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr])

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

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KELLEHER, Colette [Ms] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])

KIRAL, Serhii [Mr] (SOTNYK, Olena [Ms])

KITEV, Betian [Mr]

KOPŘIVA, František [Mr]

KORODI, Attila [Mr]

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KRONBICHLER, Florian [Mr]

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

LACROIX, Christophe [M.]

LEIGH, Edward [Sir]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.] (POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms])

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

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

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

LOUHELAINEN, Anne [Ms] (PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms])

LUPU, Marian [Mr]

MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr] (ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr])

MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness]

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICK, Andreas [Mr]

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]

OBRADOVIĆ, Žarko [Mr]

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

ÓLASON, Bergþór [Mr]

OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]

OSUCH, Jacek [Mr] (MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr])

PISCO, Paulo [M.]

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

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

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

PUPPATO, Laura [Ms] (BERTUZZI, Maria Teresa [Ms])

RAUCH, Isabelle [Mme] (SORRE, Bertrand [M.])

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]

RIGONI, Andrea [Mr]

RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]

SCHÄFER, Axel [Mr]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHMIDT, Frithjof [Mr]

ŠEPIĆ, Senad [Mr]

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr]

SILVA, Adão [M.]

SMITH, Angela [Ms]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOLEIM, Vetle Wang [Mr] (SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms])

STIER, Davor Ivo [Mr]

STRIK, Tineke [Ms]

ŞUPAC, Inna [Ms]

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TOMIĆ, Aleksandra [Ms]

TORNARE, Manuel [M.] (FIALA, Doris [Mme])

TOUHIG, Don [Lord] (BYRNE, Liam [Mr])

TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr]

VALENTA, Jiři [Mr] (NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms])

VALLINI, André [M.] (CAZEAU, Bernard [M.])

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VLASENKO, Sergiy [Mr] (BILOVOL, Oleksandr [Mr])

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

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WHITFIELD, Martin [Mr] (GALE, Roger [Sir])

WILSON, Phil [Mr]

XHEMBULLA, Almira [Ms] (SHALSI, Eduard [Mr])

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

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

EFSTATHIOU, Constantinos [Mr]

EROTOKRITOU, Christiana [Ms]

NICOLINI, Marco [Mr]

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SHEPPARD, Tommy [Mr]

Observers / Observateurs

O’CONNELL, Jennifer [Ms]

RAMÍREZ NÚÑEZ, Ulises [Mr]

TILSON, David [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ALAZZAM, Riad [Mr]

ALHEISAH, Marram [Ms]

ALQAISI, Nassar [Mr]

AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]

CHAGAF, Aziza [Mme]

MUFLIH, Haya [Ms]

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

the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque

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

CANDAN Armağan

SANER Hamza Ersan