AA18CR22
AS (2018) CR 22
2018 ORDINARY SESSION
________________
(Third part)
REPORT
Twenty-second sitting
Tuesday 26 June 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.
(Ms Maury Pasquier, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)
The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open
1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of San Marino
The PRESIDENT* – I remind the Assembly that the vote is again open for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of San Marino, Document 14562 and Addendum 2. The poll will close at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.
The count will take place immediately after the vote closes under the supervision of the four tellers, whom we appointed by the drawing of lots this morning. The tellers are Mr Nicoletti, Ms de Temmerman, Ms Hopkins and Mr Aleksandar Stevanović, and I remind them that they should go to the area behind the President’s chair when the vote closes. If possible, the results will be announced before we rise this afternoon.
2. Questions to Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe
(continued)
The PRESIDENT* – I now welcome Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who will answer questions from members of the Assembly. A large number of colleagues wish to ask questions, so I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds. Colleagues should ask questions, not make speeches.
Mr Jagland and I had the opportunity to meet yesterday, and I thank him for his warm congratulations. We are facing complex issues, so we need to roll up our sleeves and ensure that all Council of Europe institutions are robust and can rise to the challenges we face. The Parliamentary Assembly wishes to address such issues with you, Mr Jagland, so I invite you to take the floor.
Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – Secretary General, in April we asked why you chose to do nothing when the then ambassador of Azerbaijan came to your office and tried to alert you to ongoing corruption. You told us that the ambassador was only talking about corruption in his home country. Mr Mammadov was here yesterday and gave a detailed account of the meeting, from which it emerges that you tried to mislead the Assembly in April. Rule 13.27 on awareness and prevention of fraud and corruption, signed by yourself, says: “Secretariat members shall have a duty to report any reasonable suspicion of misconduct they deem to be fraud or corruption to the Director of Internal Oversight.” Why did you not report the content of the meeting to the director? Will Mr Berge, the then head of your private office, submit the readouts from the meeting to the director – yes or no?
Mr JAGLAND (Secretary General of the Council of Europe) – Your version of what Mr Mammadov said at the side event yesterday does not correspond with what he actually said. Other people were there to hear what he said; it was not just you. He said exactly what he said to the investigation commission, and nothing in that investigation corresponds with what you have just stated. The last time I was here, I said that, as is stated in the investigation commission’s report, he talked about corruption in Azerbaijan several times and informed me about what is going on. That is why, in 2014, I wrote an article in The Guardian on what was going on and called the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan to demand that he set up a joint working group to rectify, for example, the situation in the judiciary. The group started to work, but nothing happened, so I called the president once again and said that we had discontinued the work because it did not lead to anything.
After that, I applied Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives me the right to start my own investigation and to send a delegation to Azerbaijan, which I did. That did not help. As you know, the Committee of Ministers has been behind me in all this work and, for the first time in the history of the Council of Europe, the committee has decided to apply paragraph 4 of Article 46, which means that the European Court of Human Rights is dealing with the question of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment will be handed down quite soon.
We have done a lot during those years, but this Assembly did nothing. If Mr Mammadov had told me what you say he told me, I would have gone directly to the French police to report it. However, nothing that you said was said to me, and no evidence was given. Had he done that, I would have gone directly to the French police because bribery is unlawful under French law, as is taking bribes.
I have nothing more to add on your allegations, but I invite the Parliamentary Assembly to do its work and look into the report from the investigation commission, which I know you are doing. Secondly, we should try to invent new policies, rather than new insults and allegations. That is the best advice that I can give to the Assembly, and particularly to you, sir.
Ms De SUTTER (Belgium, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – Secretary General, the June European Union Council will start this Thursday, and it will focus on migration, security and defence. Leaders of European Union member States are expected to discuss the reform of the common European asylum system. After the informal mini-summit between Merkel and Juncker on Sunday, you met Jean-Claude Juncker yesterday, and as you know, tomorrow the Assembly will hold an important debate on refugees and migration. Did you discuss the refugee issue with Mr Juncker, and what guarantees did he give you that human rights will be taken into account at the meeting on Thursday?
Mr JAGLAND – Most of the meeting with Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, which lasted for nearly one and half hours, was about that topic. We discussed other issues as well, but he explained in detail about the discussions in the European Union, and about what was discussed at the last summit, in which some of the leaders participated, and what they will now try to achieve during the upcoming summit this weekend. I cannot say whether the summit will be successful, although I hope it will be. I reassure you that Mr Juncker and the entire Commission are looking very much to the European Convention on Human Rights, and they are, of course, aware of their obligations under that convention. In our conversation Mr Juncker said that he is now taking the initiative to – well, restart is not the right word, but to reinvigorate work on accession to the European Convention on Human Rights from the European Union side. We are, of course, following that closely, and you will also be aware of the role of the Court, which has ruled several times on this issue. For instance, some time ago it ruled that Belgium was not allowed to send refugees back to Greece. That is only one example, but the Court has a role to play when it comes to migration policy in the Schengen area. This Organisation and the Court have a role to play when it comes to how people who arrive at our borders are treated, and how they are treated once they have permission to stay in the Schengen area and the territory of the Council of Europe.
Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – Mr Secretary General, thank you for your petition to Putin about the release of the Ukrainian film director, Oleh Sentsov. Today, Putin’s press secretary said that they do not care about your letter, and that according to Russian law, Sentsov cannot be released on the basis of your petition. What next steps will you take to protect the freedoms and rights not only of Oleh Sentsov but of more than 70 Ukrainian political prisoners who are illegally detained in the territory of the Russian Federation, occupied Crimea and occupied Donbas? I have one more small question. You had a personal meeting with President Putin. Did you raise the question of Ukrainian political prisoners during that meeting?
Mr JAGLAND – I had several meetings in Moscow when I was there last week, including with Foreign Minister Lavrov and the ombudsperson in the Russian Federation. There are now exchanges and meetings between the two ombudspersons, one from your country, and one from the Russian Federation. I have been informed that the Russian ombudsperson is in Kiev today, and they are discussing the situation regarding the prisoners. That work will continue. By the way, it was my proposal that such activities should take place. Some time ago, I proposed that the two ombudspersons should be involved in discussions about the prisoners on both sides. It is true that I raised the issue of Mr Sentsov during my meetings in Moscow, and I said that, if necessary, I will use my right to ask for a pardon for him on humanitarian grounds. I sent a letter formally to Mr Putin. I am not aware of what Mr Peskov said, but I will look carefully into that because there is so much propaganda on many sides. I will not give up because it is important that both sides make an effort to downscale tensions and stop any kind of war, be that war with words or with weapons, or any kind of hybrid war. It is time for us all to give a message to both parties: stop increasing tensions, and try to de-escalate the situation. One way to de-escalate things is to free or have an exchange of prisoners. I did raise the issue of Mr Sentsov, but I also raised the issue of other prisoners on both sides, and I will continue to do that.
Mr DAEMS (Belgium, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – First, I disapprove of the statement by the spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party. He is speaking for the EPP as far as I am concerned, not for ALDE. My question is simple: you met Putin and Lavrov, and I suppose that you discussed the relationship between the Russian Federation and the Council of Europe as a whole, and more specifically with the Assembly. What progress do you think you have made by those meetings, and what are the next steps?
Mr JAGLAND – Thank you for that question. First, I wish to say to the Assembly that I thought it was an obligation for me to go and speak at the highest level in the Russian Federation about what is now at stake, and to explain to them their obligations under statute, regarding paying for their participation in the Council of Europe, as well as what the rules are and what happens if those rules are not followed. I felt I had an obligation to explain that at the highest level, namely to President Putin. I had a very constructive meeting with him, and we went through all the details – I think that means that he understands a little bit more about the processes here. I explained about the processes that you fortunately have in the Parliamentary Assembly, and that you are taking this issue very seriously. I said that you want to find a solution, but that that must be based on the values, standards and obligations that everybody has.
The way I see it, there is only one way of finding a solution to this problem – namely, that all States and all parliamentarians have the same rights, but also the same obligations. One obligation is, of course, to contribute to the financing of this Organisation. This is not just any international organisation; it is a very special Organisation that has to uphold its Secretariat and its basic functions, because it has a legal basis that leads to applications to the European Court of Human Rights. If not all member States are interested in paying for those basic functions on a collective basis, there is no basis for the whole Organisation.
I think it was very important for me to explain that to Mr Putin. We had a good exchange and we understand each other better after the meeting. Let us see what the result is. The next time limit for paying the contribution is 30 June. I cannot tell you what will happen before 30 June, but I have made my efforts. I was not in a position to negotiate anything on behalf of you; I simply explained how you view this situation in the Assembly and how I look at it as the person who is responsible for the whole Organisation and its financing.
Mr EIDE (Norway, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I, too, would like to focus on your recent meetings with the Russians, Mr Secretary General. The Group of the Unified European Left definitely appreciates your diplomatic mission to Moscow last week. It is vital to human rights in the Russian Federation that it is within the Council of Europe. To follow on from the last question, will you explain to the Assembly your understanding of the Russians’ willingness to stay within the Council of Europe and to fulfil their obligations to it?
Mr JAGLAND – Mr Putin’s welcoming remarks to me were: “You must understand that the Russian Federation did not join the Council of Europe and put itself under the European Court of Human Rights for others; we did it for ourselves.” He added: “The European Court of Human Rights in particular, and all the other mechanisms of the Council of Europe, have meant a lot to us and to Russian citizens.”
I was able to hand him this brochure, made for the 20th anniversary of the Russian Federation’s accession to the Council of Europe, which is solely about how the Court has influenced the judiciary and the laws in the Russian Federation. It is quite impressive how the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have not only led to compensation for individuals whose rights have been violated, but changed the laws that led to the violation of their rights. The European Court of Human Rights and, in particular, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment have helped thousands upon thousands of prisoners in the Russian Federation by improving the penitentiaries in the country. Before it entered the Council of Europe, the Russian Federation had Stalin-like prisoner camps. Now, it has moved towards the standards that we see in Europe.
My understanding is that the Council of Europe means a lot for Russians. We have helped them to move slowly in the right direction. It was said clearly: “If somebody wants to kick us out, let them do it, but we do not intend to leave. We want to stay because we want the assistance of the Council of Europe to improve further.” There are many other political issues involved in this situation. As I have told the Assembly many times, I look upon the mandate of the Council of Europe from the point of view of individuals: our mandate is to protect individuals. If we kick one member country out – in this case the Russian Federation – 145 million people will be deprived of the right to go to the European Court of Human Rights. That would be a dramatic step for us to take. It is probably a political consideration of the Russian leadership that if they do it, it will probably be quite unpopular and will not be easy. The Court, much more than in your country, Mr Eide, and in some other countries, has meant a lot to ordinary citizens. If you look at all this from the perspective of our mandate – namely, to protect individuals’ rights – we should do everything we can to keep everybody in.
The geopolitical point of view was also mentioned in the meeting that I had. We have achieved something very important in establishing a legal space that stretches from Vladivostok to Lisbon and from the High North to the South Caucasus, with the same legal standards and under the same European Court of Human Rights. That is unprecedented. We live in a time when there are many new dividing lines. We should try to protect those two things: the common legal space and the perspective of protecting individuals under that legal space. We are on common ground on this matter.
Mr DIVINA (Italy, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group)* – Secretary General, four of the five questions so far have referred to your meeting with the Russian leadership. My question goes along the same lines, but you have responded to it in part already. The Free Democrats Group is also concerned about the financing of the Organisation, which you have dealt with in response to four of the other questions. Perhaps there are other points of interest to the Assembly or other facets of your meeting with President Putin that you could share with us.
Mr JAGLAND – We spent much of the time on this issue, which is not so much about finance; of course, finance is important and the Russian Federation contributes 10% of our budget. However, if one is not able to solve the problem and the Russian Federation has to leave, we can deal with the finance. We have a plan for that and the Committee of Ministers, which is responsible for the budget, is dealing with this matter in a very responsible way. We have a plan for how it can be handled if it happens that the Russian Federation leaves. However, what we focused on was what I just now touched upon, namely the whole situation in Europe and how the Council of Europe can contribute to achieving greater unity in Europe – it is set out in Article 1 of the Statute – in a time when we see the opposite.
Of course, this common legal space is a very good tool for trying to keep Europe together. That was the main topic at the meeting, in addition to what I have already said, namely explaining all the details around the regulations we have and the Statute and so on, and the process that is going on in the Parliamentary Assembly and what it may lead to. So I have nothing more really to report about that.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Secretary General. We have a lot of speakers on our speakers list, but of course it will not be possible to hear all of their questions. If you agree, I would like to give the floor to the three first speakers on the list and then give you the floor to answer their questions.
Ms TRISSE (France)* – Secretary General, I will ask a very different question. In March 2017, an expert report on the World Health Organization recommendations on Lyme disease showed that some current recommendations prevent effective diagnosis and treatment of this disease, which affects tens of thousands of our citizens. In Geneva on 7 June last year, the special rapporteur of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations and scientists deduced from that the existence of violations of the rights of patients suffering from recurrent fever and Lyme disease. We would like to know whether the Council of Europe has undertaken analysis of this subject and, if so, what the results were. Failing that, are you planning to carry out some work on this issue?
Ms CSÖBÖR (Hungary)* – The Ukrainian presidential elections are around the corner and a number of laws adopted by the Ukrainian Parliament are raising serious concerns. Nationalist tendencies in Ukraine are a threat to the welfare of minorities and the stability of the country. How does the Council of Europe evaluate the reform process in Ukraine, from the point of view of minorities living in that country, and what consultations are occurring between the Council of Europe and Ukraine to make sure that the rights of national minorities, which are already guaranteed, are in fact fully guaranteed?
Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – The Russian Federation has not paid its contribution to the Council of Europe. At the same time, the fact is that the share of Russian citizens leading and working in the political directorate of the Secretariat is extremely high. Is that fair? My second question refers back to Mr Kandelaki’s question regarding your meeting with Mr Mammadov, where, in Mr Mammadov’s words, you were informed about corruption in this body. Does your private office have a record and minutes of the meeting, and would you like to clarify the situation? It looks like the investigation commission’s report gives a very different account of this story.
Mr JAGLAND – Regarding Mr Ariev’s first question, none of the staff members in the Secretariat of the Council of Europe are working for any country. Of course they hold passports from the countries they come from, but they are entitled to work for the Council of Europe; they do not work for their country of origin. By the way, if you are referring to one particular person, he holds two passports. However, we are not allowed to differentiate between a Norwegian, a Swede, a Russian or a Ukrainian in the Secretariat; if somebody did that, we would of course raise the case with the person in question. So please do not try to divide also the Secretariat of the Council of Europe. They are protected by the Statute and by our regulations.
When it comes to the records, I have nothing more to say. You appointed an investigation commission; this Assembly appointed an investigation commission. This investigation commission has handed down its report and what I said is written in that report. If this commission thought it was necessary to ask for more, or thought it was necessary to ask me anything further, they could of course have done it, but they did not do it because it was not necessary. There was nothing more to find out.
If this Assembly cannot accept its own commission – I do not know how it is in your country, but you have a very long way to go to combat corruption. In my country, however, if a Parliament or a Government appoint a commission, you trust the commission. You do not try to undermine it by making political theatre, which you are doing here. Please stop this. Respect the commission that has been appointed and that has handed down its report.
I turn now to Ms Csöbör’s question. I think you are referring to the education law, which is harming minorities, in particular the Hungarian, Romanian and Polish minorities in Transcarpathia. We have been heavily involved in this situation through the Venice Commission in particular. I discussed it several times, for instance with the Minister of Education, and the Venice Commission has urged Verkhovna Rada to change Article 7 of this law, and we are hopeful that that will happen. I can assure you that we will continue to call for that change.
With regard to Ms Trisse’s question, as far as I understood it I am not very aware of the issue she raised. However, what I did understand was that this could be an important issue for your Assembly to look into. As I indicated earlier, it is important for this Assembly to consider the new areas where you can break ground, which you did in the past many times. Many of the most important and modern conventions that we have in the Council of Europe were actually initiated by the Parliamentary Assembly. I call that the golden age of the Parliamentary Assembly, and I invite you to recreate that golden age and look into new issues, where we have to invent, draft or set up new standards and take new action. I am sorry if I have not answered your question so fully. But you asked whether we are analysing that, and I invite the Parliamentary Assembly to do that.
The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. That brings us to the end of the time available for questions.
(The speaker continued in English.)
Secretary General, I took particular note of what you said about your efforts on behalf of political prisoners and migrants, for example, as well as the diplomatic activities that you have deployed for the benefit of our common house and for the human rights of all European citizens. Thank you.
(The speaker continued in French.)
I remind colleagues that the vote is still open for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of San Marino. The vote will close at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted should do so now by going to the area behind the President’s chair.
3. Protecting human rights defenders in Council of Europe member States
The PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the report entitled “Protecting human rights defenders in Council of Europe member States”, Document 14567, produced by Mr Vareikis on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
I remind colleagues that on Monday morning it was decided to limit speaking time to three minutes. We have to finish our debate on this report, including the vote, by 6.30 p.m. I shall therefore interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.55 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.
I call the rapporteur. Mr Vareikis, you have a total speaking time of 13 minutes, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Thank you, Madam President. Dear colleagues, this is the fourth report that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has prepared on this subject. The Committee and the Assembly have been monitoring the situation of human rights defenders since 2006. The previous three reports were produced in 2009, by Mr Holger Haibach, and in 2012 and 2015, by Ms Mailis Reps. So far the Assembly has adopted three resolutions and two recommendations, in which it has paid tribute to the work of human rights defenders and made it clear that responsibility for their protection falls first and foremost to national governments. In Resolution 2095, adopted in January 2016, the Assembly expressed great concern about the growing number of cases of reprisals suffered by human rights defenders in Council of Europe member States, particularly Azerbaijan, the Russian Federation and Turkey.
My report takes stock of new developments in the situation faced by human rights defenders in Council of Europe member States. I have done my best to co-ordinate my activities with those of Mr Cruchten, who has prepared a report on new restrictions on the activities of non-governmental organisations – it will be presented to the Assembly tomorrow and focuses on changes to legislation restricting NGO activities in some member States. For the purpose of this report, I have spoken with representatives of several NGOs, and I have also organised an exchange of views before the committee with Mr Michel Forst, the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
Following the conclusions of my predecessor, my report focuses mainly on the situation in the countries that I mentioned previously, but it also considers the situation in the so-called stable democracies. Many examples show that human rights defenders are still suffering reprisals and intimidation, and that their situation has not improved – it has even worsened in certain Council of Europe member States. According to the United Nations special rapporteur, defenders defending the rights of “people on the move” are nowadays particularly at risk.
This year we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 20th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the 10th anniversary of the Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on Human Rights Defenders – we have many reasons to celebrate. The occasion must be used to support Council of Europe initiatives to assist human rights defenders. The Steering Committee for Human Rights – CDDH – is currently working on a draft declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the need to strengthen the protection and promotion of the civil society space in Europe. The declaration is to be adopted by the Committee of Ministers in November this year.
The draft resolution therefore proposes that the Assembly should once again recall member States’ obligations to protect defenders and respect their human rights. The Assembly should also call on States to stop reprisals, to protect defenders against attacks by non-State actors and to conduct effective investigations into such abuses. States should review their legislation in line with international human rights standards. They must ensure an environment conducive to the activities of human rights defenders and their participation in public life. The Assembly should also continue its work in this respect. It could foster international co-operation between national parliaments in exchanging information on good practices concerning the promotion of the activities of human rights defenders and tackling abuses against them. It could also establish a network of parliamentarians who could support the work of human rights defenders and condemn any reprisals against them.
The draft recommendation proposes a number of actions that the Committee of Ministers could take. For example, the Council of Europe could organise a high-level seminar to mark the anniversary of the 2008 declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Council of Europe action to improve the protection of human rights defenders and promote their activities, and it could revisit the efforts made by member States, the European Union, the OSCE and the United Nations to better protect defenders. Like my predecessor, Ms Reps, I support the idea of establishing a platform for the protection of human rights defenders, which could consider new cases of reprisals in member States, following the example of the platform for the protection of journalists. Moreover, human rights defenders co-operating with the Council of Europe should be afforded special attention and protection in this Organisation.
Finally, like Ms Reps, I would like to support the idea of appointing a general rapporteur of our Committee on the situation of human rights defenders, following the example of other Assembly general rapporteurs, such as the rapporteur for the abolition of the death penalty. The general rapporteur could closely follow cases of reprisals against human rights defenders, quickly react to them and maintain regular working contact and co-ordinate their work with other Council of Europe bodies, especially the Commissioner for Human Rights. A discussion on this initiative is ongoing in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which I hope will be fruitful.
Human rights defenders often put their own lives at risk in trying to defend the rights of others. They need our protection and support now more than ever. I hope that the Assembly will back my proposals.
The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Vareikis. You have six and a half minutes remaining to reply to the debate. We will now move on to the list of speakers representing the political groups.
Ms GOGUADZE (Georgia, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group.) – I thank the rapporteur for his efforts in producing the report and drafting the resolution. I subscribe completely to the recommendations listed in the text. Everyone agrees that having strong human rights defenders and vocal and vibrant human rights organisations is a prerequisite for building successful democratic societies.
I strongly believe that one of the best ways to protect human rights defenders against attack or harassment, or any acts of intimidation, is to bring them into the policy-making process. We as parliamentarians have a leading role in that. The legislative institutions of member States must proactively promote collaboration between their parliament as an institution and human rights defender organisations.
The Georgian Parliament has accumulated significant experience in that regard. Under the Open Government Partnership framework, we involve human rights defender organisations in discussion and drafting of legislation. They are entitled to initiate legislative proposals and to be part of the deliberations. Every year Parliament holds mandatory annual meetings of the Speaker of Parliament with human rights NGOs to hear about the human rights situation in the country.
Furthermore, human rights organisations are actively involved in the selection of high-ranking officials, such as the chief prosecutor of the country. Another example of Parliament’s huge role in bringing human rights organisations into the decision-making process is the established practice of the selection of the public defender of Georgia. Last year, for example, the Georgian Parliament elected a new public defender nominated by prominent and leading human rights organisations. Having a strong and trusted public defender institution encourages better protection for human rights defenders in the country.
In conclusion, I emphasise how important the platform of the Parliamentary Assembly is to promote and strengthen both the protection and the engagement of human rights defenders through sharing best practice and the experience of member States.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – Thank you, Madam President, and I thank Mr Vareikis for an important report.
We can tell what the status of human rights is in our society by how we treat our human rights defenders. The 2016 recommendations of my ALDE colleague, Ms Reps, included eight suggestions to the Committee of Ministers. Most have yet to be implemented but, as stated in the report by the CDDH – the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for Human Rights – “Special attention should be paid to judicial harassment and misuse of criminal law, arbitrary detention and invasions of privacy”, particularly of human rights defenders of “vulnerable groups”.
As our rapporteur said, in December it will be 20 years since the United Nations General Assembly made a declaration to strengthen and protect human rights defenders, and it is 10 years since our Committee of Ministers adopted a declaration to improve their protection. Since then, as stated in the report we are debating today and in Ms Reps’s report, the situation in several of our member States is not improving or strengthening. On the contrary, the number of reprisals has been on the rise.
We have to look at this not case by case, but by seeing the systemic. Shrinking space for civil society and attacks on journalists, the judiciary, freedom of expression and European institutions such as the Vienna Commission follow a pattern. Human rights defenders, too, suffer attacks, harassment, detention, threats and, from time to time, even assassination, more or less with impunity, as a final message to people in society.
The report brought selected examples to our attention, such as human rights defenders Aliyev and Jafarov in Azerbaijan, bloggers and journalists. A journalist was even kidnapped from Georgia. The Russian Federation has many examples – I mention just the Memorial centre and the Crimean Tatars, among so many others – as well as Turkey and other countries.
For those of us who stand up for the liberal values of freedom, human rights, an independent judiciary, and free and fair democracies, we need to act – today to vote in favour of strengthening the voices of human rights defenders, and tomorrow to create the role of a general rapporteur on the state of human rights defenders.
Mr LOUCAIDES (Cyprus, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – On behalf of the UEL, I congratulate the rapporteur on his report and his recommendations, in particular as regards the establishment of a platform for the protection of human rights defenders, as well as a mechanism for regularly reporting on and reacting to cases of intimidation.
We debate this issue in the aftermath of the Turkish elections and, as the rapporteur rightly included Turkey among the selected examples, we must not overlook the fact that those elections were held in the context of a state of emergency, with many of Erdoğan’s opponents in prison, including human rights defenders, democratic fighters, trade unionists, communists and struggling Kurds of the country. From this Assembly, we send them a message of solidarity.
Human rights defenders are people who risk their lives and integrity, striving to promote individual and political rights, freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion, and economic, social and cultural rights. They include fighters for freedom, democracy and peace, fighters for women’s rights and gender equality, and activists for the rights of minorities, immigrants, LGBTI people, and indigenous peoples. They expose the arbitrariness, irregularities and corruption of States or powerful economic interests. Given that human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent, working people’s trade union struggles, collective political action, and struggles for socioeconomic rights cannot be excluded from needing protected from state interference or private harassment.
Despite the 1998 United Nations Declaration and the 2008 Declaration of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to improve the protection of human rights defenders, we constantly witness the inconsistency between declarations and actions, and the prevalence of selective sensitivities and double-standards approaches related to selfish State interests. In that context, there should be no hesitation about bringing to light the unacceptable situation of human rights defenders in countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, to be consistent with our values, we need to demand that asylum be granted by Council of Europe member States to Snowden as the United States of America continues to hunt him down.
Similarly, it is our duty to expose persecution happening in Council of Europe member States, such as the ongoing anti-communist persecutions in Europe. Irrespective of our ideological beliefs, we must not close our eyes to the attempted criminalisation of the Communist Party in Ukraine. Nor can we be silent in the face of events such as those that occurred in Poland last May, when the police broke into a university and interrupted an academic conference on Marxism.
Mr YENEROĞLU (Turkey, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group) – I would like to touch on some issues about Turkey that the rapporteur addressed in his report.
Turkey has a legal system that considers the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as a guide. Freedom of expression, assembly and association, and the right to a fair trial are therefore safeguarded by the constitution. The comprehensive reform process in Turkey over the past 16 years has contributed greatly to the maintenance of a vibrant and pluralistic civil society, as well as to the work of human rights defenders.
Colleagues, we must bear in mind that Turkey faces severe challenges from the terrorist organizations FETÖ, PKK, DHKP/C and Daesh. Unfortunately, they try to use journalism and the defence of human rights as shields from criminal investigation. Like any State, Turkey cannot and will not allow such abuse. In any case, effective measures are indispensable not only to address security considerations but to protect the rights of our people and our democracy.
Proceedings against members of certain human rights organisations and journalists in Turkey relate not to their activities in their organisations or to their journalistic work but to their individual criminal acts. Their legal rights are under protection. The judicial process is ongoing. As legal proceedings advance, certain detainees are released pending trial.
Paragraphs 22 to 29 of the explanatory memorandum do not reflect the truth and originate in biased judgments. Furthermore, the explanatory memorandum refers to FETÖ, the terrorist organisation behind the failed coup attempt of 15 July 2016 that murdered hundreds of innocent people and injured thousands more, as the “Fethullah Gülen group” or “Gülenists”, and to the PKK only as the “Kurdistan Workers’ Party”. Such definitions are unacceptable. This Assembly should take a clear position against the coup and its perpetrators.
Ms DALLOZ (France, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – Thank you, rapporteur, for your work on a subject that, regrettably, is becoming increasingly important in the Council of Europe given the proliferation of attacks on human rights defenders. The creation of a mechanism, on the model of the platform for the protection of journalism, to allow for the intimidation of human rights defenders who co-operate with the Council of Europe to be monitored is a good thing, as is calling for more co-ordination in the Organisation. However, you cannot fail to wonder about the absence from the draft recommendation of a structure akin to the French rights defender or to the ombudsmen of other countries in the Council of Europe.
The cases you refer to in your report are all infringements of rights and freedoms that could fall within the purview of a European ombudsperson. A system prior to the Court’s involvement could guarantee the protection of human rights defenders. Beyond that, existing national structures should also play a full role in protecting human rights defenders.
In France, any natural or legal person can go straight to the ombudsman free of charge when they are the victim of reprisals or discrimination, and there are substantial investigative powers to require the people responsible for infringing human rights to respond. That institution also deals with subsequent and previous infringements of freedom. On the question of whistleblowers, the role of the ombudsperson is to direct or steer the person concerned with respect to the approaches that can be taken, and to oversee the protection of rights and freedoms. In the light of the importance of whistleblowers in our societies, on 29 May the ombudsperson in France appointed an officer for whistleblowers in order to better protect them and to support them in their whistleblowing activities.
Solutions exist to better ensure the protection of human rights defenders, but it is clear that the key is their ability to stand up against governments, sometimes vigorously. Ombudspersons in France – Jacques Toubon now and Dominique Baudis in the past – have raised their voice when necessary, sometimes against the governments that appointed them. But when we read your report, we may legitimately wonder what real powers exist for ombudspersons in Turkey, the Russian Federation or Azerbaijan. Can we guarantee the protection of human rights defenders if those responsible for doing so are themselves victims of intimidation?
Lastly, proposals such as that in the Bundestag to sponsor a human rights defender are doubtless token gestures, but in a society in which communications and social networks sometimes have more power than law makers, they should be examined with interest.
Mr WHITFIELD (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – Human rights defenders are individuals who choose to highlight the plight of others, who advocate for some of the most vulnerable people in our societies, and who support those who have had their human rights trampled on. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees describes them as “people who, individually or with others, act to promote or protect human rights. Human rights defenders are identified above all by what they do and it is through a description of their actions…and of some of the contexts in which they work…that the term can best be explained.”
The report, which I fully support, highlights a number of examples. It is greatly saddening that they are so numerous and that they are increasing. It behoves us all in this Assembly to look critically at our own countries and strive to reduce, and eventually eradicate, this trend of poor practice.
I would like to draw attention to one case to illustrate the essential need to protect human rights. In 2017, Hungary enacted legislation on the transparency of organisations receiving support from aboard that required non-governmental organisations to re-register as “civic organisations funded from abroad”. Only six days ago, the Hungarian Parliament passed legislation that narrows the scope for action by NGOs, making their workers liable to jail terms for helping migrants seek asylum if those applications fail. That group of laws is dubbed the “Stop Soros” package in Hungary. The Hungarian Parliament also agreed on Wednesday to set up a new judicial branch for administrative cases. Critics say that may increase political influence over judges. That is another change that narrows the right to free expression and assembly.
The Hungarian Interior Minister, Sándor Pintér, wrote: “The STOP Soros package of bills serves that goal, making the organisation of illegal immigration a criminal offence. We want to use the bills to stop Hungary from becoming a country of immigrants.” That misdirects the challenges Europe faces in a scurrilous way. Human right defenders do not organise illegal immigration; they strive to support individuals – men, woman, boys and girls – who, irrespective of the reason for their presence, are entitled to their human rights. Those inalienable rights are not lost simply because of geography. The Venice Commission has asked Hungary to refrain from approving the new law until its report is published.
Human rights defenders are suffering. They are doing so in places where an environment of disrespect is allowed to develop by those in charge – an environment that allows for abuse on social media and in which fake news and propaganda are spread to support irresponsible political messages. Messages that alienate, attack and dehumanise individuals and groups are spread for short-term gain. Human rights defenders see through those lies and seek by their actions to protect the rights of others.
Member States should not allow an atmosphere to develop in which the most vulnerable individuals have their human rights attacked. In such an atmosphere of misinformation and fear, instead of the whole country defending those rights, individuals stay quiet and it falls to human rights defenders to fill the void. They deserve our respect and protection for doing so.
The PRESIDENT* – The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does Mr Vareikis wish to respond at this stage? That is not the case.
We now move on to the general list of speakers. I call first Mr Zsigmond.
Mr ZSIGMOND (Hungary) – I thank Mr Vareikis for his work as rapporteur. We consider it important to protect human rights defenders, and we strongly support their work. However, although I appreciate the rapporteur’s efforts, the report contains some improper allegations that in Hungary the so-called “Stop Soros” package has had a negative effect on NGOs’ activity.
Hungary’s constitution ensures that everyone has the right to establish or join organisations. Hungary affords those rights to everyone, without discrimination. Hungarian civil society is flourishing. There are more than 60 000 NGOs, and only a few hundred of them criticised the law. Civil society organisations can play an important role in democratic life and shape public opinion. There is a fundamental public interest in ensuring that citizens and society are aware of the interests that such organisations represent.
Furthermore, there is a legitimate expectation of transparency regarding the donors who influence civil society organisations. Taking into account international developments, the Hungarian legislature passed an Act concerning transparency for organisations that receive funding from abroad. The legislation obliges NGOs that receive more than 7.2 million Hungarian forints of funding from foreign donors to register with the court as foreign-funded organisations, and to indicate their status on public communications. The law in no way constrains people’s right freely to create new associations or join them. NGOs will not be constrained in their legal activities, including legal and humanitarian support for legal asylum seekers. There are no administrative, financial or accounting preconditions attached to donations or the acceptance of foreign funds.
We have emphasised that the so-called “Stop Soros” legislative package is directed not at NGOs, but at persons who wilfully and intentionally commit crimes. It is important to note that Hungary will continue to fulfil its international obligations, and it will provide protection for those who legally ask for it and are entitled to it under international law. The proposed provisions are aimed at those who attempt to help either persons who could claim legal protection in other countries, or persons who are clearly not entitled to international protection because they have migrated from a safe country of origin, to enter or stay in Hungary. The new provision of the criminal court introduces the offence of facilitating irregular migration. European Union directives define the penal framework for preventing the facilitation of unauthorised entry and transit. In a similar way to the Hungarian legislation, many European countries criminalise assisting irregular migrants with entry, residence or transit.
I thank Mr Vareikis again for the report. I might agree with the text of the draft recommendation, but I cannot vote for it because the arguments in it are wrong. I emphasise again that the Hungarian legislation complies fully with international standards and we are committed to defending human rights.
Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I, too, thank Mr Vareikis for presenting this report and for highlighting cases of governments and non-State stakeholders subjecting human rights defenders to abuses and persecution. I wholeheartedly believe that we should support the work of human rights defenders and ensure that they have a healthy environment in which to work – one that allows them to operate freely and openly, even when they face differing visions or policies.
The purpose and strength of a democratic system of governance is peacefully to manage competing interests in society. Democracies must encourage the increased participation of citizens in public life, improve transparency, promote and protect human rights, encourage the acceptance of criticism and foster healthy competition. Today, however, many democracies old and new are implementing policies aimed at reducing the space available for human rights defenders by imposing administrative burdens, launching criminal investigations based on dubious charges, and silencing the voices of human rights defenders by tarnishing their reputation and actions.
Given the breadth and seriousness of the Assembly’s work, it is important to point out some of the emerging double standards here. Last year, the Assembly adopted a resolution on ending discrimination and online hate by legally limiting free speech to combat discrimination. I criticised the measure then, and I will criticise it now. Is not limiting freedom of speech exactly what autocratic governments around the world like to do? Obviously, we do not like it when the Russian Federation and Turkey harass journalists or other civic activists for promoting views in opposition to those that they happen to support. At the same time, however, we in this Assembly also tend to curtail freedom of expression on viewpoints that we disagree with – especially if they are ideologically driven or we do not think they are politically correct.
Europe must serve as an example by respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. Respect for those rights is all the more imperative when the views of political elites differ from those of citizens. We should never try to silence views with which we disagree. Without resorting to force, the best answer to objectionable speech is more speech. As I have first-hand knowledge of how difficult life can be in countries that lack such basic civic freedoms, I support the report’s aim of ensuring that human rights defenders are free from acts of intimidation, reprisal, arbitrary surveillance and unfair trials. I hope that the adoption of this report will bring us one step closer to securing for human rights defenders the open space they need freely to assemble, associate and speak in order to build a stronger civil society and, ultimately, a more robust democracy.
Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – Creating a strong civil society is a question not only of providing security but of securing effective government and development. Protecting civil society is a challenge that many countries face. We must be careful to consider the real activities of human rights defenders and closely investigate the situation in a country in order to make the correct decisions.
The report that we are discussing touches on my country, Azerbaijan, and I have several comments about it. First, the report contains details of cases in which criminal proceedings were initiated at different times. It is not right to combine all the cases and consider them as one. Secondly, as we are unfamiliar with the progress of the litigation, it is impossible to draw unambiguous conclusions about the circumstances of each case, especially since we are being asked to do so solely on the basis of the statements of the accused. Thirdly, the accusations do not take into account the prosecution’s position or argument; the facts on the basis of which criminal proceedings were initiated; or the condescending attitude, in some cases, of the State towards those who are under investigation. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights is no substitute for the activities of a law firm. Last but not least, has the position of Azerbaijan’s ombudsman been considered? Has any inquiry been made, and, if so, what was the official response?
The cases were filed under different articles, including violation of tax laws and violations of various articles of existing legislation. All the people testified on specific charges, and the materials of their cases consist of more than one volume of litigation. It would be useful if the report provided some of the investigative material. If we demand perfection from member States, let us make our accusations flawless and irreproachable so that they do not raise questions.
Mr COAKER (United Kingdom) – I thank the rapporteur for this incredibly important report, which shows us that every day, people risk their lives or risk imprisonment by telling the truth to combat injustice wherever it occurs.
The United Nations declaration was some 70 years ago, but we are still debating reports about how to defend those who speak out about human rights and against injustice, how to defend freedom of association and protest, and how to defend those who simply want to speak the truth in the face of inhumanity, injustice or unlawful activity.
That speaks to us as a wake-up call, something that says to each and every one of us that battles that we thought were over and had been won are going to have to be refought on our own continent over democracy and the values that this Assembly stands for. We must stand up for human rights against those who would undermine them. It cannot be right that, on our own continent, journalists cannot speak the truth and people are sometimes locked up for speaking up and speaking out democratically and peacefully. This report to the Assembly, put together very well by the rapporteur, should speak out to every nation, not just in the Council of Europe but beyond, saying, “Let us once again stand up for the values and principles that we have”.
For the record, in the short time left to me, I shall repeat from the report: “in 2017, 738 violations against defenders across the world were reported…In Europe and Central Asia, 117 violations were reported”. The important word there is “reported”. How many other violations go unreported? How many other people are imprisoned or prevented from speaking up or speaking out because of the fear of imprisonment or of State activity? This is a crucial report, a really important one, and it should ring out from this place if it is the conscience of Europe. This should be the voice for those people. This should be the way in which those people can find that they do not stand alone but that others are standing with them in the battle for democracy.
Mr TROY (Ireland) – I compliment my colleague Mr Vareikis on the production of this report. It is timely that the Council of Europe is debating the hugely important and positive role that civil society and human rights defenders can and indeed do play in many a properly functioning democracy. That role must be protected and maintained.
This is clearly demonstrated in my own home country of Ireland, where civil society has been to the fore in advancing, campaigning and delivering social change. Three years ago, we were the first country in the world to vote for marriage equality for the LGBT community, and a number of months ago we passed a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment. On both occasions, it was civil society that mobilised the wider community, and debate and engagement flourished in a respectful manner despite deeply held opposing views.
In 2013 my country led a group where we proposed a resolution at the Human Rights Council entitled “Civil society space: creating and maintaining, in law and in practice, a safe and enabling environment”. It addressed for the first time at the Human Rights Council the issue of civil society space as a human rights concern and called on States to create and maintain this both in law and in practice. Despite this, the number of reprisals against human rights continues to rise. It is deeply worrying that in many countries, such as Turkey, Israel, Hungary and the Russian Federation, civil society is coming under extreme pressure. Freedom of speech and expression is being curtailed and blocked. Human rights defenders are subject to harassment and smear campaigns. Peaceful protests are broken down brutally and by force. We, in this body, have to send a clear message that this is unacceptable internationally. I compliment the rapporteur on this resolution and I look forward to supporting it.
Mr McGINN (United Kingdom) – The issues raised in this debate are the raison d’être of our Parliamentary Assembly; they are at the core of our work. Human rights defenders rely on us to shine a light on the threats, abuses and intimidation that they receive for standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves, and for doing what is often the hardest thing but always the right thing.
It might be surprising that I want to say something about the areas where the United Kingdom is failing in regard to human rights. In order to retain the credibility to hold others to account, we too must be held to account. Brexit cannot be an excuse to walk away from our human rights obligations and the common European and international framework of understanding on these issues. We have heard proposals urged that would see the United Kingdom withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. Others have said we should disregard rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, and some have said we should scrap the Human Rights Act. Others want to create a hostile environment for immigrants, including torture survivors and those with serious mental illness being held in detention with no fixed time limit. In Northern Ireland, LGBT people are denied equal marriage, an anomaly in the United Kingdom, and women can still be imprisoned for life for having an abortion. Some have suggested giving an effective amnesty to State actors who behaved unlawfully during the Troubles and in other conflicts, and have refused to honour a commitment to hold a public inquiry into the human rights solicitor Pat Finucane, whose family are in the Supreme Court in London today, still fighting for the truth.
So we have domestic challenges – highlighted, for example, by Amnesty International’s submission to the United Nations Universal Periodic Review – but I am proud of the freedom that it and many fantastic organisations in the United Kingdom have to work in support of human rights defenders at home and across the globe. I am the vice-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of CAFOD, the Catholic Agency For Overseas Development, an organisation living the message of the great humanitarian Blessed Oscar Romero and campaigning for the United Kingdom government to adopt mandatory human rights due diligence as a requirement for all those who receive British overseas development aid. There is Justice For Colombia, an organisation of British and Irish trade unionists who support the Colombian peace process and human rights defenders in that country, nearly 200 of whom have been killed in the last year. And there is the Centre for Turkey Studies, which highlights some of the issues that we have heard about during the debate, particularly in relation to the subjection of political activists in the HDP.
We, in this Assembly, must continue to uphold human rights, stand up for those who defend them and call to account those who abuse them. We must do this in our own countries, across the Council of Europe and throughout the world. That is our duty and our mission.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Ladies and gentlemen, I thank Mr Vareikis for this report.
My first remarks will be very general, even philosophical. What are we doing here? Why are we here? What is our mission as a Parliamentary Assembly? If you take a general look at recent years, even dozens of years, you will see that one of the basic points of our mission is to assist countries in their efforts to build a free and democratic society where human rights are protected, but that we increasingly find ourselves in a situation that is a bit different. There is the question of how to protect human rights defenders in our member States. How can we protect them from their own governments? After all, that is where many of the restrictions and abuses are coming from. Laws regarding foreign agents, restrictions on the registration of NGOs, tax harassment of human rights defenders – these are coming from governments.
This is causing our basic values really to deteriorate. The other way in which those values are deteriorating comes from us. There is only a hint in the report that was published in April of the corruption within the Parliamentary Assembly. The question of what we are doing here is of extreme importance. I fully agree with the rapporteur’s main points about what we can do: effective investigations into the abuses against human rights defenders; a similar platform for human rights defenders to that for protecting journalists; and a special rapporteur. The first report on the matter was published 10 years ago and this is a permanent issue here.
We also must name and shame in some very special cases. Khadija Ismayilova, Mehman Huseynov, Valentina Cherevatenko and Taner Kiliç are all worthy of special investigative reports.
The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Herkel. It is now nearly 5 p.m. Does any member still wish to vote in the election of the judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of San Marino? This is the last minute in which to vote, before I close the ballot.
I now give the floor to Mr Seyidov.
Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – I express my gratitude to the rapporteur because the report is essential and very important for all member States. I agree with colleagues that how to defend human rights defenders is not only an issue for member States but a universal problem. From that point of view, I agree, in philosophical terms, with Mr Herkel. We should think about how we can organise and regulate the procedures – the steps – within our States to defend human rights defenders, because it is they who are defending our rights.
However, when you are defending the rights of certain people, you should not relegate those of others. From that point of view, the main question concerns the responsibilities of both the State and the human rights defenders. To talk just about the responsibilities of human rights defenders is a one-sided approach and to talk about the responsibilities of the State is also one-sided. We should analyse the situation by looking at the two together. How can we organise the process of the defence of human rights defenders within the State, taking into account the problems that both States and human rights defenders have as defenders of human rights? I think, therefore, that the recommendations in the report are very valuable. We should, as a first step, think about how we can take into account the interests of both States and human rights defenders.
A colleague mentioned during this discussion that the number of violations is growing, which is a very serious signal. Why? Perhaps because the general situation regarding the understanding of what human rights are is a little different. Perhaps we should do more explanatory work within the States. How can we do that? The report is valuable from that perspective, but I agree with my colleague from Azerbaijan that, if you are going to print the name of the country, you should take into account the mentality, the situation and the work that is already being done in that country. We have done a lot for human rights defenders. We have done a lot together with the Council of Europe, and I think that, taking into account the recommendations, we will be able to do much more in the future than we have in the past.
The PRESIDENT* – The ballot for electing a judge to the European Court of Human Rights is now closed.
The counting of votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers, Mr Nicoletti, Ms de Temmerman, Ms Hopkins and Mr Aleksandar Stevanović. I invite them to go at once to meet behind the President’s chair.
If possible, the result will be announced before the end of the sitting or, failing that, at the start of the next sitting. We shall now resume our debate, with Mr Logvynskyi.
Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – With deep respect, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Egidijus Vareikis, who is a famous and professional member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and also of the national parliament of Lithuania, for this great, very important and timely report. Words about the rule of law and the values of the Council of Europe are often heard in this Chamber. Many of us know the text by heart and accept it as the supreme law of God. Our words become law and a call to the army of human rights defenders, who as soldiers enter into the unequal fight for justice and for the rights of our more than 800 million citizens, citizens of the Council of Europe. Especially in countries with young democracies, this fight often turns into a game with death. Human rights defenders become the subjects of assault, violence and information attacks.
The fight against defenders can hide behind different masks: political, law enforcement and business interests. The methods of hybrid war are often used, as described in detail in report 14523, by our colleague Boriss Cilevičs. There are examples of human rights defenders and lawyers being harassed because of their appeals to the judiciary, and even to the European Court of Human Rights. That is why this report establishes an effective protection mechanism. We, as members of the Assembly, will continue to monitor the involvement of the personal responsibility of individuals, regarding violations of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and other international acts.
In our difficult times, human rights defenders and lawyers take upon themselves the burden of equality on the scales of justice, rule of law and prosperity. It is very symbolic that today, on the day of the adoption of this report, we celebrate the day of the flag of the Crimean Tatar people, on the blue background of which there is the sign of a tamga, which is seemingly reminiscent of those scales. Today, this peaceful people, despite criminal persecution for demonstrating this flag – the symbol of justice – do not just fight, without fear, for their rights in the occupied territory of Ukraine but protect all of you from the cancerous swelling of the 21st century. I congratulate the rapporteur, and I thank our colleagues. Nation! Homeland! Crimea!
Ms ANTTILA (Finland) – I warmly congratulate you, Madam President, and I thank the rapporteur, Mr Vareikis, for his excellent report and his informative presentation on this vital issue. Protecting human rights defenders continues to be one of the greatest challenges of recent years.
Human rights are universal and indivisible, yet the challenges of upholding them are numerous: governments detain human rights defenders, prevent them from raising funds, restrict their movements, place them under surveillance and, in some cases, authorise their torture and even murder. The challenge of human rights protection is immediate and pressing, as the space for human rights defenders’ actions is becoming more restricted and less safe.
Minorities have long been a particularly vulnerable group, but defending human rights as a journalist or as a lawyer has also become increasingly dangerous, and the situation has not improved and has even worsened in certain Council of Europe member States. The challenge arises from the nature of the work. Human rights defenders are often involved in criticism of a government’s policies and actions, but governments should not see that as a threat. The principle of allowing room for free debate on policies and actions is a fundamental part of democracy. An open, secure civic space enables defenders to build inclusive, stable societies characterised by the rule of law.
I agree with the report that States should review their legislation in line with international human rights standards and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Having domestic laws that are consistent with the Declaration of Human Rights and other international obligations of the State is the juridical framework within which human rights and fundamental freedoms should be implemented and enjoyed. I also support the idea of establishing a platform for the protection of human rights defenders that would report new cases of reprisals in Council of Europe member States. In addition, it is highly important to foster international co-operation between national parliaments by exchanging information on good practices concerning promotion of the activities of human rights defenders and on abuses against them.
Ms GORROTXATEGUI (Spain)* – First of all, I congratulate the rapporteur on the report. I say that because, on the one hand, we have the formal issue of a right and how it is constitutionally recognised accordingly and, on the other hand, how that is implemented. There is a discrepancy between the two, and human rights defenders do a great job of bridging the gap.
The report mentions Helena Maleno, a Spanish human rights defender who defends the rights of migrants at sea – she defends their right to life. She is a point of reference for migrants, for the police and for those who carry out rescues at sea. Following a false police report, she was first taken to court in Spain, where the case was dismissed, and unless there is some intervention she will be hauled before the courts in Morocco. She says that we are drifting towards a lack of solidarity in European politics. It is becoming like a business, but only some people are making money, and conflict is being stirred up. Conflict pushes migrants away from their homes, but there is another push to try to stop migration.
Another repercussion of the current situation is that we see the criminalisation of solidarity, as we have seen in the case of Helena Maleno. It is important for the Council of Europe to remember that human rights defenders are our major allies. The right to life must always prevail over other issues, such as border controls. In a democratic State – if we want to call a State democratic – we must ensure that we are open to being self-critical and to criticisms from citizens and human rights defenders. It is important to ensure that our States are constantly trying to improve their democracies and are open to further improvement.
Mr VALLINI (France)* – Twenty years after the signing of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, it is clear that we need to protect them, as shown by the report of our colleague Mr Vareikis. The situation for human rights defenders is constantly deteriorating in member States of the Parliamentary Assembly. According to the declaration, the prime responsibility and duty to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms lies with the State, but recent news shows that that is being forgotten. It is being betrayed by the governments of member States. I am thinking of governments that imprison dissidents, discriminate against minorities, control judges, put pressure on and intimidate journalists, and monitor lawyers. I do not need to name and shame them, because everyone knows of whom I speak.
The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance encourages the creation of mechanisms that would make it possible to react independently and rapidly to permanently monitor human rights and freedoms. Human rights defenders are on the front line of that effort, and the fact that they are being attacked in many countries requires a strong reaction. That is essential for our credibility and, in that respect, Mr Vareikis’s report is to the point and goes in the right direction.
Lord BALFE (United Kingdom) – The first thing we need to remember is that human rights defenders are often very annoying. The second thing we need to remember is that they are often not right. However, the third thing we need to remember is that they are an essential and vital part of a civilised society. When you look at human rights defenders, you must not say, “Well, I don’t agree with them,” or, “They’re wrong, so they shouldn’t be there”; you must look at them and say, “Well, we may not agree with them, but they are playing an important role in our society.”
That stance can be backed up only with a strong, independent judiciary. One of the reasons why the “king tweeter” of the western world has not managed to run totally amok in the United States is that they have a certain separation of powers, and the defence of human rights defenders must be based on a strong judiciary. Politicians – with only the exception of the House of Lords, which is elected by no one and therefore can do what it likes – are not the right people to look at human rights defenders, because they are at the whim of theories about the world, the newspapers and all the rest.
One of the things that I find disappointing about the report is that, predictably, all the usual suspects are in it, such as Azerbaijan, the Russian Federation and Turkey. However, since I have to pick someone out, my greatest disappointment comes from the European Union countries that are in it, because the European Union only admits countries that are at a certain level and standard. I am particularly sorry to see the current state of human rights in Hungary. My earliest political memories are of Hungary in 1956, when our local Catholic church organised reception centres for the Hungarian refugees who managed to get out during the revolution. When I read of a government campaign against Soros and buses with his picture on the floor so that people can stamp on it, that makes me very sad – I will put it no higher than that. When I look at the current situation in Poland and the manner in which judicial reforms have been handled, I wonder what mistake the European Union might have made.
In the end, authoritarian governments lose their best brains and the support of the middle class. While it is still possible, I ask as many people as possible to come and live in England before 31 March next year and donate to us their best brains. We have had millions and we would like a few more.
Ms McCARTHY (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteur on this report. We should celebrate, as the report does, the fact that in a majority of Council of Europe member States, human rights defenders are free to work without putting their lives or security at risk, and for the most part without obstruction by the State. As we have heard, however, there are still serious concerns about some countries, and with the World Cup ongoing I wish to focus on the host nation. The Russian Federation has always been a country of interest for me – for example, I went out to observe the trial of Pussy Riot back in 2012. As the report highlights, there are numerous instances of human rights defenders in the Russian Federation being harassed and mistreated under the law, as well as a legislative environment that threatens the operation of international NGOs working in the Russian Federation.
The report notes the cases of Semyon Simonov and Igor Rudnikow, two human rights defenders who have been investigating the Russian Federation’s preparations for hosting the World Cup. Simonov, who documented the abuse of migrant workers involved in construction work for the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics, had his phone and camera searched and was accused of “trying to disrupt the World Cup” after he began to interview workers who were building a World Cup stadium. In November last year, Rudnikow, a journalist known for exposing corruption, including in relation to World Cup construction, was beaten by police in Kaliningrad, where England face Belgium – hopefully they face victory – on Thursday night. He now faces criminal charges of “extortion”.
The situation in the North Caucasus and the Chechen Republic is deeply worrying, particularly for LGBTI activists. That did not stop Egypt and Liverpool football superstar, Mo Salah, posing with Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who has been accused of a string of human rights abuses, as the Egyptian team made its World Cup preparations in the region. We should not and cannot allow human rights, and the challenges faced by human rights defenders, to be swept under the carpet by questionable regimes that are hosting major international sporting events, be it the Russian Federation in 2014 and 2018, or Qatar in 2022.
I particularly welcome the recommendations in the report about conducting effective investigations into all acts of intimidation or reprisal against human rights defenders, about setting up a mechanism for reporting cases of human rights defenders who co-operate with the Council of Europe, and about encouraging parliamentary initiatives such as that operating in Germany.
I will conclude by expressing my disappointment at the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Although in need of reform, the council remains a positive force for justice and accountability for human rights around the globe. Like the Council of Europe, the UNHRC demonstrates the need for multilateralism not unilateralism when dealing with this most important issue, and President Trump’s actions are most regrettable.
Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Dear colleagues, in countries with new democracies, human rights defenders appear to be a new phenomenon. During the communist regime, the idea was instilled in society that the State was the defender of all our rights. Individuals struggling to defend the rights of humans and society as a whole were considered dissidents. During the years of regained independence, human rights defenders have fulfilled their important work in society, and they have occupied a decent place in it. Nevertheless, along with the necessity to have human rights defenders and their successes, there have also been some alarming moments in that area. Of course, those who honestly do their job and duly fulfil their noble and responsible duty to protect human rights must in turn be protected. Unfortunately, however, there exist cases when society itself needs protection from those who proclaim their names as human rights defenders. Undoubtedly, time will gradually improve such undesirable trends. Every truth will appear in its own colour, and everyone will be known by his real face, and not through a mask.
Today hundreds of human rights defenders with different political views in my country, Azerbaijan, carry out their activities normally. Nevertheless, in recent years some people have emigrated to foreign countries for various reasons – in most cases they fled the country after perpetrating certain crimes, and they now present themselves as human rights defenders. Most of them have never been previously recognised as human rights defenders, journalists or noticeable opposition representatives in Azerbaijan. There are some negative elements who are well-known in Azerbaijani society, and when in front of a crowded audience in foreign countries, or on social networks, they regularly make speeches that mislead society. Such pseudo human rights defenders who present their biased activities against the Azerbaijani State as a defence of human rights are dangerous in two aspects – first because of the disinformation that they spread about sensitive topics, and secondly because with their evil deeds they discredit and overshadow the work and names of others who have emigrated but who, unlike them, conduct real and honest activities. Therefore, when talking about the protection of human rights defenders, we must take those nuances into consideration. We must thoroughly investigate who are the genuine human rights activists who require protection, and we must identify fake human rights activists in the rapid flow of life, and duly publicise them and remove the curves from our straight path.
Ms BLONDIN (France)* – It is always worth recalling that our Organisation is predicated on three principles with which we are all familiar: the rule of law, human rights and democracy. That is our DNA, as it were, and that of the Organisation. I commend the work of our colleague, Mr Vareikis, who has highlighted the contradictions that we face between our words and deeds. The upsurge in authoritarianism and populism in some member States explains the upsurge in attacks on defenders of human rights. We see many threats ranging from administrative hassles to corruption, blackmail, people being milked financially, close surveillance, spurious accusations, arbitrary arrests, preventive imprisonment and organised killings. Anything goes for the ruling authorities who wish to hamstring and muzzle dissenting voices, and thereby keep people on the straight and narrow path that has been laid down for them, but not by them.
At a time when the Copenhagen Declaration has reaffirmed the commitment of those States party to it to the defence of human rights, it none the less struggles to be implemented. In most of our reports we refer constantly to attacks that have been carried out, and each and every one of us can unfortunately give many examples of where people’s rights have been trampled underfoot, and where the freedom to speak, think, believe, create, love and be loved has been restricted and limited. Of course the Council of Europe has a number of tools, and the report refers to them. The action of the Commissioner for Human Rights is well known, and the European Court of Human Rights is standing by our citizens. None the less, its judgments need to be respected by member States.
We also need important tools in our national parliaments. The ombudsperson was mentioned by my colleague earlier, and that institution has an essential role to play as long as it can act independently. The French High Council for Equality between men and women is also an important tool for defending human rights defenders, and our debate on this report is an opportunity to assert our position strongly. I will conclude with an apocryphal quote that is attributed to Voltaire, which states: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Mr LACROIX (Belgium)* – I, too, thank the rapporteur, Mr Vareikis, but I would like to raise one issue that unfortunately is not mentioned in the report. At a committee meeting in February, I pointed out to the rapporteur that in Belgium a draft Bill is being drawn up that talks about house searches following a mere administrative decision. In other words, human rights defenders can have their houses searched for being human rights defenders – those who protect undocumented people and people who have trouble with the law. Despite my repeated requests, the rapporteur did not take that on board. I even referred it to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who has said that the Council of Europe needs to be an early warning system for Europe as a whole. Notwithstanding that, my point was not taken on board.
I deplore that because, although Belgium is a very peaceful country, where we are supposed to have common sense, where we live well and where we coexist perfectly happily, even there a lot of terrible things have happened. A Secretary of State – a member of the government – has threatened to take measures against university chairs because they have taken up the rights of a family seeking asylum. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been called into question. Most recently, last weekend the Belgian police arrested journalists who were reporting on a police operation that had to do with migrants and refugees. That was mentioned as a No. 1 alert on the Council of Europe’s platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists. This is a threat to media freedom. I refer you to the website of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where all of the details are to be found.
In the light of all that, although I do not dispute the hard work of the rapporteur, I think that a lot still needs to be done. We need to have the courage to look for the truth. We should be crystal clear about that. Even in countries that have historically been democracies and where one would never suspect such human rights violations, we must be vigilant. I have a question for Mr Vareikis. His recommendations talk about a platform to protect human rights defenders, which is an excellent idea. He also talks about setting up a monitoring mechanism if there is any kind of harassment of human rights defenders. How does he think we can act on that quickly, because we need it today?
Ms CREASY (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Vareikis, on an incredibly powerful report. It is powerful because it makes all of us uncomfortable. It shows us not only that there are challenges in this continent, but that all of us have a duty and a responsibility to act to ensure that the principles of the Council of Europe – the rule of law, human rights and democracy – are upheld against those who would practise corruption, those who would persecute minorities, those who would dampen freedom of expression, and those who would challenge other people’s liberation. At their heart, human rights are about the freedom and equality of all of us to live our lives in freedom, security and stability as equals in our own countries.
The report challenges many of us, because it highlights problems in countries that are represented here today, whether in Turkey, the Russian Federation, Azerbaijan or Hungary, but it also challenges us to tell the common story of the value to our communities of those fights for rights, of human rights defenders, of non-governmental organisations and civil society, of a free press and of freedom of association online and offline. Indeed, as politicians, it challenges us always to remember the importance of free and fair courts in keeping governments honest. It is on that point that I will focus my remarks.
I want to put on the record my concerns about the human rights abuses of my own country, the United Kingdom, and to dedicate my comments to the women of Northern Ireland and to those who fight for the abortion rights of women there, such as the London-Irish Abortion Rights Campaign, the Alliance for Choice and Together for Yes. Our own Supreme Court in the United Kingdom has declared that my country is breaching the Article 8 rights of women by refusing them access to a safe and legal abortion. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women has also identified this challenge.
When I read this report and hear the discomfort of other members of the Council of Europe, I understand and share their concerns in respect of my own country. I myself have faced abuse and harassment for standing up and speaking up for women’s reproductive rights. I note that Mr Vareikis points out the importance of defending women defenders, who often face such challenges for challenging traditional customs. I have been told that I should have my face rubbed in the blood of aborted babies and that I will be followed around my country and challenged by people who disagree with me on these issues until I resign my position. This body means nothing if we do not stand up for the importance of tackling all forms of harassment of human rights defenders and championing all forms of human rights, including women’s reproductive rights. The women of Northern Ireland continue to need all of us in this room to speak up for their rights and to challenge the United Kingdom Government to remove the restrictions that see so many women penalised.
This is an uncomfortable but powerful report because it asks each of us a very simple question about solidarity and about deeds, not words. We must recognise that human rights defenders speak up for all of us in the work that they do, and we are all therefore accountable for what we do to defend them.
(Ms Kyriakides, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Maury Pasquier.)
Ms TRISSE (France)* – Human rights defenders, be they journalists, NGOs, civil society activists, whistleblowers or lawyers, are the most effective watchdogs we have in respect of States respecting their obligations to their citizens. They embody the conscience of our modern democratic societies and should be defended and protected accordingly.
The Parliamentary Assembly has looked into this issue on several occasions and adopted recommendations and resolutions. Even so, it is still a useful exercise, on the 10th anniversary of the Committee of Ministers’ declaration on Council of Europe action, to come back to this subject, which is of the utmost importance.
There is no getting away from the facts: in 2017, there were at least 738 violations committed against human rights defenders, 92 murders and 54 acts of violence, according to ProtectDefenders. That is probably an underestimate. Mr Vareikis’s report shows that many Council of Europe member States, including the most virtuous among them, are concerned.
Civil society activists, lawyers, journalists and NGOs are not subject to the same kinds of intimidation and reprisals everywhere. However, there can be administrative or judicial pressure, or serious attacks on their integrity. They may be at risk quite simply because they are defending a just cause. Of course, human rights defenders’ activities have to be lawful and truthful, and they must employ legitimate causes of action, otherwise their credibility loses its force and States are justified in using legal measures against them. Having said all that, since the Council of Europe has this responsibility, human rights defenders deserve our full support. That is why I support the rapporteur’s suggestion that the Organisation create a dedicated platform across the 47 member States of the Council of Europe on which reprisals can be reported. Having a general rapporteur is also an excellent idea.
Mr MARUKYAN (Armenia) – Ladies and gentlemen, before becoming a parliamentarian, I worked as a human rights advocate for about 12 years in Armenia. That is why the issue of human rights defenders is very important and close to me.
I thank the rapporteur, Mr Egidijus Vareikis, for his valuable work. I will highlight some important aspects of it. I also thank him for accepting my proposals. At a time when democratic values are greatly degraded and under threat from a large number of challenges, human rights defenders all over Europe are protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms bravely and with great courage. The Council of Europe should be strict and uncompromising in fighting for human rights, the rule of law and democracy, and its struggle should be advocated by human rights defenders, which is indeed happening. Human rights defenders are the multipliers in the fields of the rule of law, human rights and democracy – without them, this daily work does not move forward successfully.
I make this statement as a human rights defender who is currently involved in politics. I wish to restate the importance of the Council of Europe in providing protection, inspiration and promotion of human rights defenders by establishing tools and effective mechanisms, as well as the successful operation of Council of Europe bodies. I particularly support the recommendation to establish a mechanism for regularly reporting on and reacting to cases of intimidation of human rights defenders co-operating with Council of Europe bodies, and especially of lawyers representing applicants before the European Court of Human Rights.
To summarise my speech, I will use a quote. Over 2,000 years ago, a Chinese general, Sun-Tzu, said, “Kill one, terrify a thousand”, which was one of his principles of warfare. Since then, this approach has been adopted by governments across the world on all matters, but especially to silence and intimidate critics, independent voices and dissent. At the sixth Dublin platform for human rights defenders, this theme was adapted to “Protect one, empower a thousand”. Therefore, I call on everybody here to protect one human rights defender to empower a thousand, and then human rights will thrive in the world.
Mr GAVAN (Ireland) – I welcome the recommendations and resolution in this report.
I fully endorse the comments of Stella Creasy a few minutes ago in relation to the north of Ireland. I am very proud of the role that Sinn Féin has played in achieving a successful referendum result in the south of Ireland to establish abortion rights there, and I assure you all that we will play our full role to campaign for those same rights in the north of Ireland.
I want also to say that I deplore the use of the term “fake human rights”, which we heard here a few moments ago. That is a disgraceful term to use in a debate such as this.
We have seen worrying attacks on human rights defenders throughout the Council of Europe member States. In the short time I have, I will highlight just three States. Turkey had a presidential election on 24 June, but the candidate for the third largest party, the HDP, was unable to campaign because he remains in prison, having been on pre-trial detention since November 2016. He is in prison because he dared to stand up to the autocratic Erdogan regime and demand democratic and human rights for all citizens in Turkey, including the oppressed Kurdish minority. According to Amnesty International, over 50,000 people remain in pre-trial detention after the Erdogan regime’s crackdown on human rights defenders and political activists in 2016.
The report details very well the human rights abuses in Azerbaijan. There is the case of Mehman Huseynov, who was imprisoned for the ridiculous crime of defaming the police; of Mehman Galandarov, who was tragically found hanged in his cell, having been imprisoned for the crime of spray-painting a political slogan on a statue; of Afgan Mukhtarli, a journalist who was abducted from another country by the Azerbaijan State; and in particular I highlight the cases of Bayram Mammadov and Giyas Ibrahimov, who were both jailed for political graffiti. I call for a rapporteur to be appointed regarding political prisoners in Azerbaijan.
Finally, I must express disappointment with the report in one respect – how did you miss what is happening in Catalonia? In Catalonia, former Ministers, MPs and civil society activists remain in prison after the Spanish Government’s crackdown on political activists who advocated holding a democratic referendum on Catalan independence.
Currently, there are nine political prisoners who have been jailed and who are awaiting trials for “rebellion”, for organising a democratic independence referendum. Some have been held in pre-trial detention for more than seven months and each one faces up to 30 years in prison. Seven are politicians and two are civil society activists. There have been major crackdowns on free speech, with rappers, artists and social media users being jailed for “terrorism” in their song lyrics or in the tweets they have posted. The former Spanish Government even tried to ban the colour yellow from public spaces, as it symbolises solidarity with the political prisoners. We need to talk about Catalonia.
The PRESIDENT – The next speaker on the list is Mr Kürkçü, but he is not here, so I call Mr Mollazade.
Mr MOLLAZADE (Azerbaijan) – First of all, I express my gratitude to Mr Vareikis, the rapporteur, for his very important report. Defending human rights defenders is a very important issue. Mr Vareikis is also from a post-communist system and so he has experience that, in the time of the Soviet Union, human rights defenders faced a tremendous struggle, together with all the political groups that were fighting against the Soviet and communist system. That is why, in all post-Soviet systems, defending the rights of human rights defenders is a very important issue.
I will also mention a couple of things that relate to the realities of the world. There are a lot of real terrorist organisations in our very turbulent region, such as Hezbollah and the PKK, because thousands of civilians, including women and children, were victims of these organisations. However, some members of terrorist organisations have registered at the same time as human rights defenders. That is a situation that we should be very attentive to, determining who the real human rights defenders are and who are the representatives of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah, and defending the rights of arrested terrorists who committed real terror acts, including killing women and children. Should we defend them at the same time? It is a very difficult issue, but sometimes terrorists use human rights issues for political reasons and even to attack some countries.
On 24 June, we had elections in Turkey; the majority of people in Turkey elected their Government. I do not like that Government, but I am not a voter in Turkey and speaking about Turkey here and accusing it, one of the founders of the Council of Europe, is not good. In all cases, we should separate the PKK terrorist organisation. The European Parliament and the United States of America consider PKK to be a terrorist organisation, and we have to defend the statehood of Turkey and the women and children who often become victims of so-called human rights defenders who are actually terrorists.
Ms ŞUPAC (Republic of Moldova) – In September 2017, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights voiced concern about the prosecution and harassment of lawyers representing opposition figures, human rights defenders and journalists in the Republic of Moldova. According to the Commissioner, reprisals against NGOs, the removal of a judge and the arrests of public officials on allegedly fabricated charges also raised concerns.
One of the most significant examples in this regard was the removal of an uncomfortable judge. In 2017, Domnica Manole, an appeals court judge, was dismissed by a presidential decree, following a decision by the superior council of magistrates that declared her unfit to serve, based upon an advisory opinion by the security and intelligence service. On 5 December 2017, the constitutional court ruled that the dismissal of a judge based on the opinion of the secret service was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Justice has not ruled on Manole’s reinstatement.
In 2016, Domnica Manole faced criminal prosecution on charges of issuing an illegal ruling. She had overturned a central electoral commission decision to block a referendum to amend the constitution. Legal experts criticised the case against her because it was based solely on the fact that her decision was later overturned by a higher court rather than on any direct evidence of corruption. The Supreme Court of Justice denied Manole’s appeal and allowed the criminal case against her to continue, so that she could be punished by five years in prison. That was a clear signal to judges that, if they oppose the governmental party, they could be excluded from the judiciary.
On the other hand, nobody from a State institution has yet interfered in another shocking case. Serghei Cosovan, an activist and local councillor, is not able to access necessary health care for his acute cirrhosis because he is in pre-trial detention. The authorities are ignoring the medical grounds for his release to receive treatment in an external specialist hospital and have recently remanded him to 30 more days in pre-trial detention. Serghei Cosovan’s health is rapidly deteriorating and there are serious risks to his life.
In the current situation in the Republic of Moldova we should speak not only about protecting human rights defenders, but first about the necessity of protecting the law itself. Given that the Supreme Court of Justice has decided not to validate the Chisinau mayoral election results, it is already clear that in our country it is useless to hope for achievements in any sphere, including high standards in human rights protection. It is necessary first to resolve the most important problem: to get rid of those who have captured the State and are not interested in preserving democratic values and principles.
Mr CAZEAU (France)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report. In some States, human rights defenders are being subjected to more and more pressure, their activities are hampered and they are victims of reprisals, as is the case in Azerbaijan, the Russian Federation and Turkey. These attacks are often the work of the ruling government. They often resort to harassment or the opening of unwarranted judicial investigations, for example on the grounds of alleged terrorist activity or damage to national security. Unfortunately, in some cases such reprehensible practices are compounded by threats, physical attacks and arbitrary arrest, and in some cases human rights defenders have been neutralised. I resolutely condemn such practices, which make the activities of these people even more difficult as they seek to defend the freedoms of others, often including the most vulnerable.
We are duty-bound to protect human rights defenders. It is essential that members of our Assembly exert pressure on governments to ensure that cases of murder or grave violence are properly investigated, because that is not always the case. I support the proposal to establish a platform, similar to that which already exists for journalists, to monitor reprisals against human rights defenders. Given the upsurge in populism and certain xenophobic movements, the risks faced by human rights defenders are now even greater. Even in European Union member States they are not safe from reprisals. One need only look at what is happening in Hungary, for example, where a law penalising NGOs that assist migrants has just been introduced. The European Union must shoulder its responsibility and financially penalise member States that hinder the work of human rights defenders. I shall therefore vote in favour of the draft recommendation and the draft resolution, to support those people who are working to guarantee respect for the values of our Organisation throughout Europe.
The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers. I call the rapporteur to reply to the debate. Mr Vareikis, you have six and a half minutes remaining.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – We have had a fruitful discussion, and I have taken note of many of the points made. Many areas really need to improve and we must discuss those later. One general conclusion that I can draw now is that we have much more in the way of human rights than we did 70 or even 20 years ago. More human rights means more problems. Before, human rights were mostly political, but now they are social, sexual, ecological, economic – there are many of them. The list of human rights defenders is therefore growing longer.
I agree with those members who said that the report did not mention everything, because of course it could not do so. We can discuss some regional rights later. I agree with our colleague from Belgium that we probably need to think about such problems there, and we also need to consider other matters. What is really important is that we are making that list longer. My idea was that in general the resolution should not mention the countries by name, but instead list the principles, because if we mention one country, we have to mention almost all of them. Some members said that European Union member States, which we consider to be “stable democracies”, must also be considered because they, too, have problems with human rights and human rights defenders. There is no doubt about that.
We really need to look for new solutions. I am pleased that people accept that we need a platform for human rights defenders. We probably need a special rapporteur on human rights defenders. I agree that all those things have to be implemented – I have no objection to that. Of course there are problems, such as what happens to human rights in a state of emergency. I agree that a state of emergency is a special situation, but even in such situations there are human rights and responsibilities, so we cannot say that everything has to stop. Of course there are changes, limitations and special rules, but human rights also function in a state of emergency.
I thank those members, especially Ms Lundgren, who said that we need to pay special attention to vulnerable groups. Ms Creasy, our colleague from the United Kingdom, said that women, children and those with special needs have special rights, and of course there are defenders of those rights. I think that everything that was said will be taken into consideration by future rapporteurs, and perhaps by a special rapporteur, if we adopt that proposal.
I thank all members who have spoken for their critiques, and I thank all the people who have encouraged me to continue. I thank the committee’s secretariat, who collected and sorted the material on all these issues. I thank all the staff of the Council of Europe, who have taken all these human rights issues seriously.
The PRESIDENT – Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wish to speak? You have two minutes, Ms Ævarsdóttir.
Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – I want first to congratulate the rapporteur on his report and to express my support, on behalf of the committee. The committee has worked on this subject since 2006 and this is its fourth report on it. A similar subject concerning restrictions on NGO activities will be discussed tomorrow in the Assembly, on the basis of Mr Cruchten’s report. Let me stress that this is an important subject, as there are more and more cases of persecution of human rights defenders in many countries. The work of human rights defenders is crucial in protecting human rights and upholding the rule of law. I therefore welcome the work of the Commissioner for Human Rights in this respect. The Council of Europe should do more to protect human rights defenders and react more quickly to cases of reprisals, especially those against human rights defenders who are co-operating with the Council of Europe. Finally, I support the rapporteur’s suggestion that the Assembly should establish a general rapporteur on the protection of human rights defenders. I wish us a fruitful debate on the amendments.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Ævarsdóttir. The debate is now closed.
The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution to which six amendments have been tabled. The committee has also presented a draft recommendation to which four amendments have been tabled.
We shall start with consideration of the resolution. I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 6, 3, 7 and 10 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so, Ms Ævarsdóttir?
Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – Yes.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.
Amendments 6, 3, 7 and 10 are adopted.
I now call Mr Yeneroğlu to support Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.
Mr YENEROĞLU (Turkey)* – I am replacing Mr Kiliç on this. We are suggesting that paragraph 5.8 be deleted because of the risk of it being used as a way to get around a court case, which would jeopardise the independence of the judiciary.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – This is a very important paragraph and I cannot understand why someone would want to delete it. That is what human rights defenders need – to be provided with temporary refuge when they are at risk in their own country. We have some human rights defenders here in the Council of Europe who cannot go back to their home countries because they would be under pressure there. This paragraph is important, so please say no to the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – It was rejected by a large majority.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 1 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 4, which has a sub-amendment. I call Mr Cilevičs to support the amendment.
Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – We believe that the word “threatened” is not fully understandable, so we suggest replacing it with “threats, intimidation or persecution of”. I draw your attention to a print mistake in the original version of the text, which used “prosecution” instead of “persecution”.
The PRESIDENT – We now come to the sub-amendment and I call Mr Vareikis to support it on behalf of the committee.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – We agreed to correct “prosecution” to “persecution”.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?
Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – I am in favour.
The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment. I shall now put it 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 opinion of the committee?
Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – The committee was in favour by a large majority.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 4, as amended, is adopted.
We shall now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14567, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 14567, as amended, is adopted with 74 votes for, 10 against and 0 abstentions.
We now come to consideration of the draft recommendation. I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 8 to the draft recommendation, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so, Ms Ævarsdóttir?
Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – Yes.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.
Amendment 8 is adopted.
We now come to Amendment 2. If the amendment is agreed to, Amendments 9 and 5 fall. I now call Mr Yeneroğlu to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.
Mr YENEROĞLU (Turkey)* - Again, this mechanism for reporting could be an interference in judicial proceedings. The courts have to operate according to the values of the Parliamentary Assembly, so I would delete this paragraph, because it impinges on the independence of the judiciary.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I must say exactly to the contrary. This is not an intervention in the courts, but would only establish a mechanism in our building, in the Council of Europe. The Secretary General and the Council of Europe could inform us about intimidation of human rights defenders, providing a place and a special focus. This has nothing to do with the courts, whether national courts or the European Court of Human Rights. It will only let us get information about the situation of human rights defenders who are under pressure through a regular mechanism in the Council of Europe.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – It was rejected by a large majority.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 2 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 9. If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 5 will fall. I call Mr Schennach to support the amendment.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I spoke about this a little before, but the amendment clarifies that the Secretary General should implement the mechanism for regular reporting, and invites him regularly to share his information about the situation with the Assembly. We ask him to give us more information and to give human rights defenders more protection.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – The amendment was approved of by a large majority.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I shall now put the amendment to a vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment 9 is adopted.
Since Amendment 9 was adopted, Amendment 5 falls.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation in Document 14567, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft recommendation in Document 14567, as amended, is adopted, with 74 votes for, 8 against and 3 abstentions.
4. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of San Marino: Result
The PRESIDENT – Before we proceed, I would like to give you the result of the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of San Marino.
Number voting: 143
Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 4
Votes cast: 139
Absolute majority: 70
The votes cast were as follows:
Mr Gilberto Felici: 117
Mr Gian Paolo Pasquali: 4
Ms Silvia Rossi: 18
Accordingly, Mr Felici, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years, which will commence on 20 September 2018 and, in any event, no later than three months after his election.
5. Free debate
The PRESIDENT – We now come to the free debate. I remind members that this debate is for topics that are not already on the agenda that was agreed on Monday morning. Speaking time will be limited to three minutes. The free debate will finish at 8 p.m.
I call first Mr Gentvilas. You have three minutes. Please start by identifying the topic you wish to raise.
Mr GENTVILAS (Lithuania, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – For the second time this month, migrants saved on the high seas of the Mediterranean have been denied permission to land on our continent. The Lifeline, with 234 migrants on board, and the Alexander Maersk, with 110 migrants on board, were denied access to Italian and Maltese ports. After the Arab Spring, Europe is experiencing its largest refugee challenge since the Second World War, but instead of solidarity and joint effort, European countries have shown increasing disagreement.
The PRESIDENT – Mr Gentvilas, I need to interrupt you. We will be holding an urgent debate on this topic tomorrow afternoon, if I am not mistaken.
Mr GENTVILAS (Lithuania) – Yes, but the ALDE group agreed that this is an important issue.
The PRESIDENT – It will be debated tomorrow. You may join the speakers list for the urgent debate. I give the floor to Mr Kürkçü.
Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – At the spring part-session, we drew the Assembly’s attention to the 24 June snap general election in Turkey, which we said would decide whether the country fell under one-man rule or reclaimed parliamentary rule and rejected the illiberal and anti-democratic ambitions that turned Turkey away from the rule of law, democracy and human rights. We called on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to follow that snap election with a well-formed observation mission and to give it its utmost attention.
The observation mission has already produced its preliminary report. According to the official results, in the most unequal and unjust elections in modern Turkish history, incumbent President Erdogan ascended to the presidency and his “People’s Alliance” secured an absolute majority of the seats in the Turkish Parliament. This is the end of parliamentary rule in Turkey.
On 16 April 2017, in an anti-democratic referendum, Turkey voted in favour of a series of anti-democratic constitutional amendments to bring the country under the “presidential government” system – a system of one-man rule free of checks and balances that represents a blunt rejection of the Council of Europe’s values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
The 24 June snap election provided the last opportunity for the country to contest the result of the 16 April referendum. However, in the words of the Parliamentary Assembly election observation delegation, “The restrictive legal framework and powers granted under the state of emergency limited fundamental freedoms of assembly and expression, including in the media,” particularly for the democratic forces and for the opposition in general. It continued: “Most popular broadcast media are…affiliated with the government…The ruling party and the incumbent were covered more often and more favourably,” including by the public broadcaster, limiting the availability of “balanced information about the contestants” for voters.
The observers added: “At least 1,090 polling stations were moved and merged based on security considerations which was seen by the opposition as a measure aiming to lower voter turnout in specific areas. Sessions of election boards at all levels were closed and decisions were not published in a systematic and timely manner…These decisions and lack of transparency eroded confidence in the election administration at all levels.”
The very active and energetic campaigning by opposition parties, in spite of all restrictions and prosecutions, and their relentless urge to reclaim democracy were the only positive aspects of the 24 June election. Selahattin Demirtaş, the jailed former chair of the HDP, who ran for the presidency from his prison cell, and the party itself, which has thousands of activists still in prison, appear to be the real winners of the election. The party gained third place in the parliament, with 67 seats, refreshing hopes of a way out and renewing zeal for the local elections scheduled for March 2019.
We congratulate Turkey’s democratic opposition – particularly the HDP – and send our greetings and solidarity to Selahattin Demirtaş, and we call on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to do all it can to free him. Long live the democratic forces of Turkey.
(Mr Heer, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Kyriakides.)
Ms SMITH (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – I am pleased to say that compared with when we last sat in this Chamber, we live, in one regard, in a slightly safer and more humane Europe. On 25 May the Republic of Ireland took a historic vote to give women stronger rights over their own bodies by giving them the right to abortion. Their vote to repeal the eighth amendment ended years of suffering and generations of discrimination.
I welcome that decision, but it shames me that in my own country, the United Kingdom, some women are still not afforded that basic right. According to Amnesty International, Northern Ireland’s abortion laws do not meet even the “bare minimum of international standards”. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has said that the situation in Northern Ireland constitutes a “grave and systematic” violation of human rights. In a recent Supreme Court hearing in the United Kingdom, judges agreed that Northern Ireland’s abortion laws are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Assembly members, how can we not act when one of this great establishment’s founding members is contravening its greatest achievement? How can we not act when a rape victim in Northern Ireland can face a longer prison sentence than their attacker does? How can we not act when a British woman’s rights are dictated by her postcode or ability to travel? The United Kingdom Government insists that this is a matter for the devolved legislature, but Stormont has had no Executive for more than a year. I say: “No Executive, no excuse.” The United Kingdom Government can repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act, which is United Kingdom legislation and must be repealed in Westminster.
If the United Kingdom Government continues to insist that it is powerless, I call on this Assembly to take action. We rightly call out many of Europe’s worst human rights abusers. We cannot abdicate responsibility on this occasion because we are talking about the United Kingdom. To do so would compromise our integrity and, rightly, raise questions about our role as Europe’s chief defender of human rights.
Ms GOGUADZE (Georgia, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – Ten years have passed since the Georgian-Russian war of 2008, and the conflict remains unresolved. The Russian Federation still avoids complying with its international commitments under the ceasefire agreement. It continues to occupy Abkhazia and South Ossetia, violates basic human rights principles and keeps two Georgian regions isolated from the rest of the world. The Russian Federation’s actions are clearly designed to escalate tensions, increase confrontation between people, and create intimidation and separation. The whole process not only targets the people who live on either side of the artificial dividing lines, but poses a risk to the overall security and peaceful future of everyone, be they from Georgia, Abkhazia or Ossetia.
Despite the fact that the Russian Federation is completely undermining the peace approach, the Georgian Government is determined that peaceful policy is the only way to address the challenges and deal with the humanitarian crisis in occupied regions with peace, development and concrete steps for a better future. With the new peace initiative recently developed by the Georgian Government, we aim to find new ways to achieve more constructive communication, increase dialogue with the people who reside in occupied regions and address the humanitarian needs and interests of the population, even before the full resolution of the conflict.
The peace initiative has three core directions. First, it aims to ease, expand and simplify trade across the so-called conflict line by creating new opportunities for local people. Secondly, it aims to simplify internal and international educational opportunities for young people living in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and to provide access at all stages to a quality education system. Thirdly, it seeks to give the population of Abkhazia and South Ossetia easy access to all the benefits that are given to Georgian citizens in the process of European integration. We acknowledge that the Russian Federation will create lots of obstacles to the effective implementation of the process, but we are determined that the peaceful policy will be unwavering and we are certain that it is the only way to address the needs of the people affected by the conflict.
I thank the Parliamentary Assembly and its member States for their strong support for Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Russian occupation has been condemned and criticized in various documents from the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe, as well as by international organisations including the United Nations, the European Union and the OSCE. In the interests of our peaceful future, we must be vocal and united against Russian occupation and aggression.
Mr UNHURIAN (Ukraine) – My speech is about religious persecution in the occupied territories of Ukraine – Donbass and Crimea. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has once again referred to the Russian Federation as a country of particular concern, because of the persecution of believers in the occupied territories of Crimea and the east of Ukraine. The commission’s visit to Ukraine in December 2017 confirmed that the Russian authorities in occupied Crimea systematically violate the rights of all religious denominations, with the exception of the Moscow patriarchate. The most frequently used forms of discrimination are searches, fines, court sentences, media hate speech, persecution, abductions and even torture.
The Russian authorities apply specific methods of discrimination to specific religious denominations. Muslims are persecuted for the spread of so-called extremist literature and for membership of religious organisations. In relation to Protestants, the Russians apply their laws that restrict missionary activities. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev patriarchate is also hounded on the peninsula because it refused to re-register in the Crimea in accordance with Russian legislation. As a result, its priests are under systematic pressure. At the same time, Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, which is often referred to as Donbass, continue to expropriate church buildings and intimidate religious communities.
The war in the east of Ukraine has already taken more than 6 000 lives, and almost 1 million people have been forced to leave their homes. Many have fled because of their religious beliefs, as Russian militants labelled them traitorous members of sects, and spies. The commission’s report states that the occupying authorities in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions remain deeply hostile to religious groups that are not part of the Russian Orthodox Church. In February 2018, the leaders of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic announced that all religious organisations in the territory needed to re-register. According to experts, that is the next step in the harassment of religious minorities, and it is similar to Russian practice. For minorities – including Protestants, Greek Catholics and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – in the territory, occupation is associated with targeted terror, torture and robbery. In 2014, four evangelical Protestant believers were killed in occupied territories.
Thank you for your attention on this very important matter.
Lord TOUHIG (United Kingdom) – Colleagues, more than 10 years ago the British charity Mencap produced a report entitled “Death by Indifference”. It was part of a campaign made necessary by the poor treatment of people with learning difficulties within our National Health Service. People were dying unnecessarily. Most recently, in England the Learning Disability Mortality Review report highlighted the deeply concerning figures of life expectancy for people with learning difficulties, showing that women with a learning difficulty were dying 29 years before women in the general population, while for men the figure was 23 years. This is truly a shocking statistic and it demands urgent action.
Health inequalities also affect people with autism. Autism is not a mental health condition but autistic people can and do experience mental health problems, often leading to tragic consequences. In its report, “Personal Tragedies, Public Crisis”, the autism charity Autistica highlighted research from Sweden suggesting that suicide is a leading cause of premature mortality in autistic people in that country.
However, our world family is working to address these problems by ensuring that all people with learning difficulties are afforded the same human rights that the rest of us take for granted. Recently, nearly 1 000 people from 70 countries attended the World Congress on Intellectual Disability in Birmingham, and they identified five calls for action. The first call was being part of the community. They insist that people with learning difficulties should have access to affordable housing and safe housing. They should have support, should be given information and good transportation, and should be encouraged and able to use their votes actively as citizens.
The second demand was for being valued equally. That means putting an end to violence and abuse. It means rights and choices being respected, including the right to have a relationship and a family. The third demand concerned employment. Here they called for real jobs with real pay and appropriate support. We would all take that for granted.
The fourth demand was for inclusive education – that is, for all boys and girls with an intellectual disability to go to school, to be included in the same classrooms as other children and to be given the same support that they need for their education. Lastly, for decades people with learning difficulties have been locked up in asylums and centres, and the final call is for all those institutions to be closed and no more built.
Colleagues, we exist to defend human rights. Surely the rights of our disabled fellow citizens should be our number one priority.
Ms HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – Dear colleagues, I have been acting in the Assembly in my capacity as the head of the Armenian delegation for a year and not once have any of my speeches addressed Azerbaijan. However, yesterday one of our Azeri colleagues expressed an idea that should be reacted to. Ms Fataliyeva was so excited by praising the good elections in Azerbaijan and striving to please her authorities that she said the following: “We did not even discuss the elections in Armenia – they were considered transparent and democratic – but a bit later the people of Armenia rose up against those so-called legal elections and started long-lasting mass demonstrations.”
This is not new for our Azeri colleagues; it is their well-learned lesson to divert attention from problems in Azerbaijan by targeting Armenia. However, not to respond to these empty assaults would be, at the very least, not honest towards my country. The elections in Armenia were indeed transparent and democratic, assessments that were officially made by all respected international organisations. However, at the moment when the then acting government realised that it would not be able to reach the social and economic results that were anticipated by our citizens, the government and Prime Minister resigned and surrendered power.
The way that the transition of power has taken place is a vivid sign of the democratic maturity of Armenia, and it is an achievement of my country. I understand that this phenomenon is something inconceivable for Aliyev’s understanding of democracy. Your system of value does not understand what I am talking about. My question is: what does Azerbaijan have to be praised for? I guess not much. Everyone knows about the situation in your country with human rights and political freedoms. You are a unique country, not because you have a president who together with his family is involved in international money laundering and corruption schemes but because you succeeded in bringing your own values to this Assembly, dispersed a plague in this Organisation and poisoned its value system. These are not my words and assessments; they are documented facts. I honestly think that there are people in Azerbaijan who are preoccupied with its destiny. I say frankly to these people: do you really think that your democracy is safe and you do not have any problems? If so, good luck. What was and is possible in Armenia is not even thinkable in Azerbaijan.
Last but not least, regarding the everlasting speculation about Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia’s actions show that our number one priority is to settle this issue solely by peaceful means. I ask Azerbaijan to explain to this Assembly why these days it is again extensively accumulating weaponry and troops at the border. Are you preparing for war? I would like to bring this thought to the attention of our Azeri colleagues: do not rely on discrepancies in our internal policies. We are supportive of our authorities with regard to our national unity, security, identity, dignity and democracy and the rule of law.
Mr WOLD (Norway) – I would like to focus on what is really going on in Europe at this very moment. It is frightening to see how women are being oppressed and how our freedom of speech is under pressure from extremist Muslims who are not willing to integrate nor to adapt to European standards. First of all, there is no such thing as European values. There are universal values of freedom that apply to all people everywhere. These include freedom of speech, equality between man and woman, democracy, freedom of religion, sexual freedom, free will and tolerance.
How to maintain those values? I would claim that there are acceptable reasons why a majority of Europeans are sceptical to the large and fast immigration from Africa and the Middle East. The people’s worries are real and, in the majority of cases, not based on Islamophobia or xenophobia. Those worries are based on what the average European experiences in their daily affairs and in their communities. Europeans are worried that their national identity and culture is weakened or threatened. There is nothing morally wrong about that. Politicians should not present our citizens as Islamophobic or xenophobic. We should address their concerns. That is our duty and is why we were elected.
The claim that scepticism about immigration in itself is a threat to our values of freedom is a complete and sometimes deliberate misunderstanding of what that scepticism is all about. It can even be seen as a contradiction. Most people who are brave enough to express their worries about the future are worried because they see that immigrants are bringing with them intolerance and a lack of will to integrate. In many cases we see a lack of freedom of speech, less equality between men and women, no religious freedom, less tolerance of people outside their ethnicity, a lack of free will – and I could go on. And we see more acceptance for solving conflict by using violence. These are the worries that European inhabitants experience, and it is not up to us politicians to judge them. We must understand that these worries are real, maybe not so much in the communities in which most of us live but in many communities where the common European has his home.
I must also underline that rising anti-Semitism is for real. It is disgusting, but then again the rise of anti-Semitism is not the result of a sudden change of attitude by the average European. Of course history has shown us that you will also find terrible anti-Semitism among Europeans, but today’s anti-Semitism is largely being brought to us by immigrants from the Middle East. We may not like that but it is a fact. Immigrants are bringing with them their lack of tolerance for Israel and for Jews. In particular, our children experience that in their schools. These are some of the biggest challenges for Europe in future.
Mr COAKER (United Kingdom) – I want to make a suggestion, but in building up to it, let me say that, in this Council of Europe Chamber, we come from many different political backgrounds and views, as we have just heard. However, we all recognise that Europe faces very real challenges as it moves into the future – challenges, as we heard in the previous debate, around democratic values, migration, abortion rights and LGBT rights. I suggest that, as we build for that future, for that new Europe that will have to rise up out of those challenges, there is one voice that the Council of Europe should hear more of: that of young people.
I think that this Chamber would resonate and sound out if we filled it with young people from all the countries that make up the Council of Europe. Those young people could come here. I know there will be those who say, “What about the costs?” and “It will be difficult to organise: how will we choose them?”, but can you imagine young people from each and every one of our nations here, debating what the future is for this institution and, more importantly, for the future of Europe? They would challenge all of us. They are the future, the people we are all trying to build that better Europe for, but they can also be part of the solution. We should do that, and not just because it is a good thing; we should do it each and every year and in a way that resonates across the continent when the young people go back to their individual nations, when they go back to speak in their own schools and communities, to be a voice for the values we express here.
Sometimes that voice of young people can be refreshing. It can be a voice of renewal. Yes, it can of course be a voice of challenge, but do not institutions such as this, my own government in the United Kingdom and individuals like me, sometimes need to be confronted by young people turning round to them and saying, “Why can’t we sort that out? Why can’t we come together? Why can’t we find a new way forward?” That is the sort of voice we need to hear more often in this Chamber, and I hope that we can find a way of having a young people’s conference – a young people’s parliament – here at the Council of Europe as soon as possible, and that we can make it an annual event.
Mr MARUKYAN (Armenia) – During the last session, I was alarmed at the situation in Armenia and told all of you about the events taking place in my country and requested your assistance in releasing my opposition colleagues, civic activists and members of the Armenian Parliament, from detention. As you already know, everything was settled very smoothly and peacefully. A non-violent, peaceful, Velvet Revolution took place in Armenia, which concluded with the election of the revolution’s leader as Prime Minister. At this moment, the political powers are working on the new electoral code, after the adoption of which free, fair and transparent elections will be organised. It is through these extraordinary elections that the crisis that has emerged in our country will be solved and settled. These events have come to prove that Armenia is a democratic country with important civil society institutions that have the ability to take the country peacefully out of a crisis, without violence or casualties. We are sure that the Council of Europe will make a serious contribution to the large-scale reforms already being implemented in Armenia.
Now, I am alarmed by another issue, because Azerbaijan, our neighbouring country, which is miles away from Armenia in terms of its democratic record, has been creating tension on the border since 12 April, by mounting up military forces there. Since that date, the tension has continued to rise, and every other day there is an increase in all types of weapon coming from Azerbaijan, including armoured vehicles and artillery, in the immediate vicinity of the border with Artsakh. The accumulation of manpower and technology is unprecedented and has a single logic: preparation for large-scale military operations against the sovereign state of the Republic of Artsakh. The Artsakh army has already prevented several serious attempts at sabotage by Azerbaijani forces. Azerbaijan spends enormous amounts of money on pre-war training of its army and of the military overall. I hereby appeal to the Council of Europe and the international community to take effective steps to prevent military confrontation, which will turn into a humanitarian catastrophe not only for our countries, but for the entire South Caucasus region.
The Azerbaijani attack on peaceful Armenian villages two years ago had dramatic consequences for Azerbaijan, leaving also hundreds of victims on the Armenian side. However, Azerbaijan’s behaviour has not been properly punished by the international community, which has created a precedent of impunity. As we know, unpunished crime always results in new crimes, but we are here to prevent a new and bigger crime from happening.
The PRESIDENT* – Mr O’Reilly is not here, so I call Mr McGinn.
Mr McGINN (United Kingdom) – I want to say something about peace, solidarity and the concept of European co-operation, using the example of my own borough of St Helens. This year, 2018, marks the 150th anniversary of the creation of St Helens, which I represent in the British Parliament, and also, significantly, the 70th anniversary of its twinning with the German city of Stuttgart. Our anniversary celebrations are about our unique heritage, but also about looking to the future.
We have always been an outward-looking town, one that drove the industrial revolution with coal, glass, chemicals and rail. Our twinning with Stuttgart came about in the aftermath of the Second World War and was the first formal link between a British and a German town after that awful conflict. In 1948, the mayor of St Helen’s, Alderman Walter Marshall, was the first civic British leader to visit the city of Stuttgart, which lay in ruins in the post-war years. The mayor had heard a presentation in St Helens by a resident of Stuttgart about the challenges the city was facing and he wanted, as a very radical, visionary and generous act, to hold out the hand of friendship. He sought the permission of the War Office to visit Germany and, during his visit, he and Stuttgart’s then mayor, Dr Arnulf Klett, agreed to establish closer links, thus laying the foundation for a strong and lasting friendship.
We are very proud to say that the world-famous St Helens glass helped to rebuild Stuttgart. The links have grown since then and, to this day, exchanges take place, culturally and in sport, with a football match due to take place between St Helens Town and TSV Uhlbach just before one of the Word Cup quarter finals which, to add an extra dimension, could be between Germany and England. In education, our colleges and schools carry out regular reciprocal visits.
I know that we in St Helens are keen to maintain these links and strengthen the connections, especially around business because, regardless of Brexit, I and my constituents want our links with Europe to grow. These deep and historic partnerships, like the one we enjoy with Chalon-sur-Saône in France, are a first-class example of European co-operation and social and economic links, and we must redouble our efforts to support our mutual learning and understanding and respect for one another, achieving much more together than we would alone.
A year before the hugely significant and symbolic foundation of this great institution, the Council of Europe, ordinary men and women in Europe were pursuing peace, reconciliation and solidarity. We owe it to them, to ourselves and to future generations to continue that work.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – Our Assembly is at a turning point, especially after the publication of the report by an excellent investigation body, which has given us hope that the non-announcement of conflicts of interest, corruption, unethical behaviour and bribery will remain in the past. That was made possible thanks to the bold political will of this Assembly – this house of democracy. It also means that we are all full of determination to learn lessons from history and never to repeat the problematic decisions that we have made in the past. We have created a good background for the Assembly to revisit many of its decisions in order to create a fundamental forum for an inclusive political discussion on many sensitive issues.
One such problem involves the Russian Federation. It is totally unacceptable that the issue of the Russian Federation is sometimes used, or even misused, to create new dividing lines between the East and the West or the North and the South. All of us know that the Russian Federation is an important international player, with its own influence on both global and European politics, and it is good to see that the general global political climate is changing in terms of engaging the Russian Federation in dialogue. We should be clear that we need to re-establish a political culture of inclusiveness, in which we can discuss and define our positions on difficult issues in a climate of mutual respect and with a clear intention to consolidate and unify, rather than trying to out-vote one country and to patronise others. Armenia has a strategic partnership with the Russian Federation and is perhaps unique in this Chamber in that it has excellent relations with the Russian Federation and very good relations with Europe. The Armenian delegation, along with other colleagues, can play a humble role in making the Chamber a platform of inclusive political dialogue. The Russian Federation should be back in this Assembly.
Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights contains a specific prohibition on discrimination, but we all know that discrimination is not easily recognised, so I want to talk briefly about a group of people who often have a hidden disability that results in major problems when it comes to access to work. I am of course talking about people with autism, a topic on which I work in a cross-party basis in the British Parliament with Lord Touhig. I tabled a motion in the previous part-session, and I am pleased that the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development will consider it on Thursday. I hope that the committee will appoint a rapporteur from this Assembly for a report on the treatment of people with autism and their families.
Turning specifically to the problems of autism and employment, it is now accepted that the prevalence of autism in our communities is around one in 100, but in the United Kingdom, for example, only 16% of autistic adults are in full-time employment. Despite increased awareness and understanding, that figure has not improved over the past 10 years. We see a similar pattern across Europe, with a lack of employment opportunities and discrimination against the autistic community. So that our governments can better understand the problem, we need them to agree to collect employment data to record whether people are autistic. There are also two further areas where we could help. First, we should address the lack of adapted education and training for people with autism that could equip them with the necessary skills to attend interviews, communicate effectively and understand the world of work. Secondly, we must improve the information available to employers. A recent survey carried out by the National Autistic Society found that over 60% of employers were afraid of employing somebody with autism in case they got it wrong. However, those who employ autistic people find that they excel at logical and repetitive tasks, focus on detailed and complex tasks, and make loyal and reliable employees. When the NAS canvassed the opinion of people with autism, 77% wanted to work.
Autism is a spectrum condition and not all autistic people can or want to work, but the evidence shows that many more could be employed if better information and training was supplied to both employer and potential employee. We must fight discrimination wherever we see it and ensure that we include people with autism so that they too can improve their employment opportunities and, through that, their life chances.
Ms McCARTHY (United Kingdom) – I want to use this opportunity to say a few words about the violation of human rights in the agro-food sector. Large supermarkets and corporate food giants dominate global food markets. Ten supermarkets account for over half of all food sales in the European Union. Fifty food manufacturers account for half of global food sales. Too many of them are happy to ignore what is happening in their supply chains, until or unless they are publicly held to account by the likes of the Environmental Justice Foundation, which has done some excellent work exposing modern slavery in the Thai seafood industry. In that sector, workers can be enslaved at sea for several years at a time to supply household-name products that we often find on our supermarket shelves.
As a just-released Oxfam report shows, the depression of the prices paid to supermarket suppliers has increased the risk of human rights violations in supply chains. Squeezed small-scale farmers are resorting to child or unpaid female labour, and the women are often at risk of harassment or sexual violence from male supervisors. In Italy, 75% of women working in fruit and vegetable farms surveyed by Oxfam said that they or a family member had to cut back on the number of meals in the previous month because they could not afford food. It is a damning paradox that the people producing our food, even here in Europe, have to go without food themselves because they are simply not paid enough. The use of forced labour is all too prevalent in supermarket supply chains, and the International Labour Organization estimated that more than 1.1 million victims were working in the agriculture sector in 2017. Again in Italy, there have been recent exposés of the extent of forced migrant labour in the tomato-growing sector, with dreadful working and living conditions, poverty pay and workers housed in makeshift camps made from salvaged materials. Such problems are, of course, by no means confined to Italy.
To end the violation of human rights in food supply chains, we must tackle the imbalance of power between supermarkets and the people who supply food to them. Major food companies should be required to undertake human rights due diligence throughout their supply chains, and competition law must be used to maintain a check on the accumulation and potential misuse of market power. The European Commission has taken a lead from the United Kingdom Government in legislating to ban unfair trading practices for both direct and indirect suppliers – although the United Kingdom system needs strengthening, too – and non-European Union member States here should aim to follow suit. There is no easy or quick fix, but all of us have a responsibility to ensure that the food we eat is not the product of abuse, exploitation and human misery.
Mr ZSIGMOND (Hungary) – In my short remarks, I want to draw the Assembly’s attention to the situation of the Hungarian community in Romania. In general, Romania has made a backwards step in guaranteeing the rights of Romanian citizens belonging to the Hungarian minority ever since its accession to the European Union. That was most recently confirmed by the opinion of the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, published on 16 February this year, and in the report of the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, adopted on 23 June 2017, followed by the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers adopted on 4 April this year. The Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania has repeatedly asked Romania to respect current laws and international conventions that were ratified a long time ago. We welcome the intensive Romanian efforts aimed at combating corruption, but we are concerned that that fight is also being used by the Romanian authorities to undermine the work of Hungarian institutions and their leaders.
We cannot understand the delay in re-establishing the Catholic school in Marosvásárhely/Târgu-Mureş and the continuous uncertainty affecting its students and their parents. Recently the Romanian National Anticorruption Directorate has gone after several teachers and parents who are fighting for the school, calling them to testify in that case. We believe that such persecution is unacceptable in any State that claims to be a democracy under the rule of law. We expect the Romanian authorities to find a proper and legally sustainable solution for the situation of the Catholic school, in order to launch it in the school year this autumn. Hence, in the name of the Hungarian community and its historical churches, we urge the Romanian authorities to withdraw all unjust measures against all persons involved in this case, and to restore the normal and unhindered administration of the school. We also remain concerned about violations of the right to education in their mother tongue for Hungarian students, and about the hindering of the Hungarian department at the University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Marosvásárhely/Târgu-Mureş. The situation of the Hungarian department is further undermined by the planned merger between the University of Medicine and Pharmacy and the Technical University from that town.
It is crucial to address the deficiencies identified by the monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe. Regarding the fourth monitoring cycle of the framework convention, hopefully the Romanian authorities will co-operate constructively with the competent bodies of the Council of Europe, as they have done with the international community on several occasions. We also hope that the resolution containing the recommendations will be accepted, according to Article 2 of the framework convention, in good faith and in a spirit of understanding and tolerance. We hope that the Romanian authorities will seek to implement the recommendations that are aimed at addressing those deficiencies. We therefore ask European decision makers to put pressure on the Romanian Government to respect minority rights, and not only on paper. We are also asking for constant monitoring of the minority situation in Romania.
Ms JONES (United Kingdom) – I wish to say a few words about Brexit and cultural exchange. In most of our countries, we have seen national elections in which a winning party receives only 4% more of the vote than the Opposition party. That is frustrating, but that in a nutshell was what happened with the 2016 Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, and I for one think it was a sad result. However, wherever people in my country stood on that one narrow vote on that one day in 2016, I still believe that the majority of people are proud to be part of our shared continent of Europe, and nowhere is that truer than in the field of cultural exchange.
There are thousands of examples of cultural exchange across our European continent, and today I will speak about one of them. It is called the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod, and it is based in the beautiful parliamentary constituency of Clwyd South in North Wales, which I am proud to represent in the British House of Commons. Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod is a festival that was dreamt up by visionaries who came together after the Second World War and committed themselves to a world of peace and cultural exchange. Over the years, hundreds of thousands of people from across the world, and especially from across our great continent of Europe, have come together to compete as choirs, dancers or instrumentalists, and to take part in concerts. Among their number once was a young Italian chorister by the name of Luciano Pavarotti, who came as a very young man.
On 3 July this year, the 71st international festival will begin. Concert artistes will include Van Morrison, and there will be a spectacular Choir of the World competition, as well as an inspiring peace message. People from across the world will stay in the homes of people from my home locality. I would like to invite every single person here to Wales. I cannot house you all, but I invite you to Llangollen to share in that great cultural dream. Every year we have around 4 000 performers, and as many as 50 000 visitors converge on that beautiful, small Welsh town, and its international pavilion. As the motto of the international festival puts it in Welsh, “Byd gwyn fydd byd a gano. Gwaraidd fydd ei gerddi fo”, which means, "Blessed is a world that sings, gentle are its songs." At a time when too many seek to divide and separate our European continent, how much we need that message of cultural exchange, and a world and a continent that sings.
Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – Today during questions, the Secretary General got rather upset with the questions that I and Mr Ariev posed to him about a specific episode in the anti-corruption investigation, which is not over by far. This episode is crucial. The document suggests that in 2011, the then Ambassador of Azerbaijan met Mr Jagland and the head of his private office and presented a detailed account of the corrupt activities going on in the Council of Europe. Mr Jagland insists that, in that meeting, the ambassador was talking about corruption in his own country, rather than here. Yesterday, Mr Mammadov was here at a side-event, and he again gave a very detailed account of the content of conversations with the Secretary General. To me, that convincingly disproved the narrative of the Secretary General, and suggests that he lied to the Assembly.
The Secretary General insists on his version. Okay, but Rule 13.27 on the awareness and prevention of fraud and corruption was signed by Mr Jagland himself in 2011. Article 4 of that rule states that “Secretariat members shall have a duty to report any responsible suspicion of misconduct they deem to be fraud or corruption to the Directorate of Internal Oversight”. Reporting any information, which may or may not be true, is not a choice; it is an obligation. I asked the Secretary General why the information presented to him and to Mr Berge was not reported to the Directorate of Internal Oversight. Today, the very simple question concerns whether Mr Berge will submit the minutes of the meetings that he made to the Directorate of Internal Oversight – again, that is an obligation, not a choice. It is a yes or no question. If the Secretary General avoids answering that question, it means that he is refusing to submit the minutes of those meetings. This matter merits further attention, and the Secretary General has to explain himself.
Mr TROY (Ireland) – The stated aim of the Council of Europe is to uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of law. When we speak of human rights, there can be no greater human right than the right to know your true identity – to know who you are and where you come from. That right is recognised by international law through a range of declarations and conventions, yet so many people across this continent and the world do not know their own identity. A recent Spanish court case that was reported in the paper today said that Spain’s High Court calculates that about 20 000 newborn babies were taken from their mothers up until 1952. An organisation representing people who believe that they are among those affected states that the trend continued into the 1990s, and could involve anything up to 300 000 people.
Sadly, I do not need to look to Spain; I need simply to examine and review my own country’s history. For many years, institutions of the State and Church failed the people who they were entrusted to protect, and they colluded, collaborated with and enabled the illegal and immoral practice of forced and illegal adoptions. As a consequence, tens of thousands of people do not know their true identity. So many people who lived through the awful experience of mother and baby homes have shared their deeply personal stories, and they mentioned the work and advocacy of the Adoption Rights Alliance. I am sure many colleagues will be aware of the film “Philomena” in which a brave woman highlighted the practice of deliberate withholding and blocking, and the misinformation that was given out to prevent people from finding their true identity.
Recently in Ireland, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs came across proof that 126 of 13 500 adoptions that took place in St Patrick’s Guild were registered incorrectly, with the child registered as the biological child of the adoptive parents. The Adoption Rights Alliance of Ireland has raised that matter for many years, but the State, which failed those people originally, continued to fail them. Although we now have a commission of investigation, which will hopefully deliver the truth, I believe that there should be an international requirement on every country to enact the necessary legislation to force information and tracing, so that people can finally get the answer to their true identity.
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – The future role of the Council of Europe must be to maintain the same key priorities that it has successfully defended since 1949 – democracy, human rights and the rule of law – yet there are a great many ways of doing that, especially in an ever-changing Europe. Today, I will draw attention to three aspects: first, the promotion of grass-roots democracy; secondly, the formation of constructive partnerships; and thirdly, the support of cultural and economic working arrangements between Europe’s cities and regions.
At a time of alienation from mainstream politics, the Council of Europe has already done much to reinvigorate grass-roots democracy, for example by assisting the structures of local government in central and eastern Europe, including those of Ukraine. It has also done so, by implication, by offering a less remote and more appealing political opportunity. This is something for citizens to believe and for young people in particular, to whom Mr Coaker just referred, to consider: that democracy begins wherever they happen to be and that it first protects them there in the localities where they actually live and work. In recent years, such encouragement has been given through the Council of Europe’s Congress for Local and Regional Authorities, as well as through its Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform.
The second aspect is the Council of Europe’s scope and ability to form partnerships. Whether or not through business initiatives, there is a huge variety of endeavours that either directly or indirectly stand to enhance the wellbeing of citizens. In some cases, and owing to its humanitarian remit, a partnership with the Council of Europe can serve a very useful purpose that, through joint delivery, may become all the more focused and successful.
The third aspect is the support that the Council of Europe can give to both cultural and economic working arrangements between Europe’s cities and regions. Here again, the Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform continues to play a useful and leading part, though in this case not necessarily with local government, but by assisting Europe’s cities and regions to form plans together to the mutual advantage of themselves and their local populations.
There are countless additional examples of how the Council of Europe may sustain European democracy and human rights. However, the three that I have mentioned today imply a shared focus on an essential component of human concerns – the right of people to expect a proper and sustained level of wellbeing – and are consistent with the priority of the Council of Europe that people have an entitlement to be assisted with this in their own localities and communities.
Mr WHITFIELD (United Kingdom) – Plastics help make a wide range of useful, durable, versatile products and make an important contribution to sustainability. Thanks to plastics, our shampoo bottles do not break in the shower, and our cars and trucks weigh less and therefore use less fuel. However, no one here is not aware of the fact that plastics come at a huge environmental cost, with the damage to our countryside, our watercourses and our oceans.
There are attempts around the world to improve the situation, for example by Net-Works, which is increasing community-based recycling of ghost fishing nets in the Philippines; the Plastic Straws Product Stewardship Position in the United States and North America; and Upcycling the Oceans, a project in Thailand to rehabilitate coastline by removing waste from the oceans. I wish to draw attention to the United Kingdom’s contribution to Operation Clean Sweep – an agreement that has come from the plastics industry, supported by the British Plastics Federation and PlasticsEurope. The Operation Clean Sweep manual provides practical solutions to prevent nurdle loss for those who make, ship and use nurdles. The key message is that good handling will reduce pellet loss.
In my East Lothian constituency in Scotland, the charity Fidra is championing plastic waste awareness, with campaigns ranging from plastic straws to nurdles – nurdles being the small raw plastic that makes our bottles, coffee cups and other objects. The difficulty is that, much like microbeads, once nurdles get into the water and our oceans, they are impossible to get out. Fidra is working hard with companies to change the way in which nurdles are transported and to change business procedures to prevent spillages. Fidra uses beach cleans to raise awareness of the matter. Working with children at Yellowcraig, a truly beautiful beach in East Lothian, more than 400 nurdles were collected in just five minutes – a phenomenal amount to have washed up on our beaches.
However, the work by our young people, volunteer groups and charities will not be enough without political and, if necessary, legislative support. The European Union is promoting the target of 2030 as the year by which member States will have phased out single-use plastics. My government has a 25-year proposal, but I fear that the children who are doing the collections – the children who will inherit our future and take care of it – are not being well served. It is for us to do more. We owe more to the environment and we owe more to our children. We must do work now to help our environment.
Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Initially, I want to reject the usual lies, slander and hate speech of our Armenian colleagues – members of the overthrown Sarkissian regime. I believe that we can continue our dialogue with the new parliamentarians from Armenia.
I would like to speak about the energy security of Europe. A monument has been erected in the centre of Baku. Monuments are usually a matter of culture, but the monument I want to talk about has a historic, economic and political significance above its cultural one. The world’s first oil production using industrial methods was carried out in 1846. It happened in Azerbaijan – in Baku. The monument was constructed in honour of this important event. Azerbaijan is an oil and gas country, and oil and gas have always been a direct interest of politics.
The official opening ceremony of the Southern Gas Corridor, the foundation of which was laid four years ago, was held in Baku a little while ago on 29 May. This important economic project holds a serious political burden, as it is important not only to the future energy security of Europe, but to its national security. The Southern Gas Corridor, in which Azerbaijan is a key player, will provide Europe with gas and eliminate the opportunity for certain forces to use the gas factor to put political pressure on European countries. Azerbaijani gas will be transported via a 3 500 km pipeline to Georgia, Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania and Italy. From 2020, it will go to other European countries.
For many years, the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union have demonstrated their solid political support and other kinds of support for the realisation of this giant project. They understand that it enjoys the heaviest political weight. The Southern Gas Corridor significantly increases Azerbaijan’s importance as Europe’s economic and political bulwark and as a reliable partner. At the same time, the Southern Gas Corridor links economic interests with economic forces. As a key source of Europe’s liberation from political threats through gas blackmail, the Southern Gas Corridor is viewed by Azerbaijan as an additional tool in its national security. Such benefits are and should always be interconnected.
In this context, the hand of certain invisible forces, as well as artificial pressure from some European structures against Azerbaijan, give rise to anxiety and misunderstanding. Thus, the Southern Gas Corridor opens up great opportunities for Europe in terms of both energy and national security.
For these reasons, the Southern Gas Corridor, which has already started operating, requires Europe to adopt towards Azerbaijan a more correct, clear, thought-out, just and objective position, which is worthy of true partners. If I am protecting you, because you stand behind me, then you should also protect me, by standing in front of me, because we are connected to each other and we need each other.
Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – My theme is the population dynamics of sub-Saharan Africa, the effect of those dynamics on Europe and particularly the effect on the reproductive health of women in that region. This issue will be an enormous challenge for the population dynamics of Europe and we must respond in ways that are wholly consistent with our human rights obligations.
Let me give some figures from the United Nations to show the scale of the problem. The population of Africa will double from now to 2050, and it will almost double again by 2100. Forty per cent of the population of Africa is under the age of 15. The average European fertility rate is 1.62 children per family. Those in sub-Saharan Africa are three times that and, in Niger, for example, the rate is six times that, with the average number of children per woman being 7.15.
Let me also give the example of Nigeria, to show the scale of the problem. In 1950, the population of Nigeria was 40 million; now it is 200 million; by the year 2030, it will be 270 million; by the year 2050, it will be 400 million; and the United Nations projects that by the year 2100 it will be 800 million. That population growth makes it harder for governments to eradicate poverty and inequality, to combat hunger and to expand education, health provision and – obviously – basic services. This issue should concern us for humanitarian reasons and it is no wonder that young people in the region feel that there is no future for them in their own country, so that they seek to look north to Europe.
Obviously there is no quick fix, but one contributory factor must be to encourage family planning by our aid and development work in that area, and to encourage family spaces. Here I look at the Trump Administration in America, which has substantially cut the money for reproductive health in Africa. Unless we invest in that reproductive health, family space and family spacing, we face ever-greater crises in Europe. In short, if we do not go to them with advice and co-operation, they will come to us in ever-increasing numbers.
Mr MELKUMYAN (Armenia)* – My presentation will be brief but at the same time I think it will be important.
In recent times, various countries have encountered different problems: economic problems; health issues; refugees; and migration. But of course individual countries have to attempt to find their own tailor-made solution to their own problems. That is why we need to make a distinction between legislation and a country’s Administration.
As far as my own country is concerned, recently in Armenia there have been political changes – positive changes – and expectations have arisen as a result. The population is hopeful, but at the same I think we are facing external threats.
Rafael Huseynov, I do not think that you understand the seriousness of your situation, because Azerbaijani gas and oil are nothing in the absence of a democracy; if you do not have a tradition or custom of equality, zero oil and zero gas.
Also, regarding Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan has recently stationed troops there. Mr Aliyev, for the Government of Azerbaijan – if you want to trigger military operations, I think you will have a response in no uncertain terms from Nagorno-Karabakh. But, as I say, in the absence of democracy, gas and oil equate with nothing.
Ms CREASY (United Kingdom) – Martin Luther King said that the moral arc of the universe is long but it bends towards justice. What we in this Chamber understand is that that does not happen unless there are people prepared to stand up and speak for human rights and for freedom, no matter how difficult it may be.
We know these values are under threat. I have three words to prove that – President Donald Trump. This is a man who detains children and separates them from their families; who bans Muslims and refugees from his country; who refuses the service of those who would lay down their life for their country because of their gender identity; who is repressing women’s rights around the world and increasingly at home through the global gag rule; and whose values and hatred and division, I am sad to say, are due to come to my own country – the United Kingdom – in but two weeks’ time.
We in this Chamber reject these forces of hatred and division. We understand that when politicians only offer a grievance and someone to blame, we all miss out. We see that now in how people talk about immigration and immigrants. We blame them for exploitation in our labour market; we blame them for anti-Semitism. We do not tell the powerful story of the benefits of an open and positive country, of how, when we all work together as we in this Chamber know we can, change is possible for the good of all of us, whether that is to build a better economy, a better environment, a safer world for refugees or a more equal and fair future for our children.
I think first and foremost of a young man in my constituency of Walthamstow in England who I met just two weeks ago. He is a Syrian refugee who is now learning to swim, so that he can represent my community in the Olympics. I look at his contribution and his willingness to work and fight for my country, and I compare him with somebody like Steve Bannon, who comes to our continent and tells people to be proud of being called a racist.
We in this Chamber know that now is not the time to be silent. We must stand together, we must show solidarity and we must speak up for the values of humanity, freedom, fairness and prosperity for all, which brought us into politics and make us recognise that when these bullies come to our shore we must stand firm against them.
Mr YENEROĞLU (Turkey)* – I want to talk about a very regrettable development in Austria. As the Turkish delegation, we regret the decision taken by the Austrian chancellor that Muslim imams who serve the Turkish Islamic Union in Austria are not to be given residence permits. As a result, seven mosques have been closed.
The closing of mosques and the sending back of imams is a racist, discriminatory and populist manifestation in Austria and it is very regrettable that many Austrian politicians are constantly trying to provoke things and use this issue for political mileage to push xenophobia. Instead, they should be fighting the right wing.
This activity is not compatible with the rights of the minority or indeed with the European Convention on Human Rights. Permanent pressure has been exerted on the Muslim community for many years now and the loss of respect for the Muslim organisations and the inequality of treatment of Muslims compared with other religious communities, with reference to so-called alleged danger, is something that will not remain without consequences. It is a denial of the liberal make-up of society. Particularly in Austria, because of this pressure, we need to have court cases to settle this matter and stop the Austrian Government from keeping Muslims out in this way.
Another problem is the snap elections in Turkey. Over the weekend the President and a new Parliament were elected. Contrary to how they have been portrayed by extremist groups, the elections were indeed free and fair and corresponded to international standards. There is a constant attempt to smear Turkey and promote anti-Turkish sentiment. Any claim that the elections were undemocratic is simply an act of propaganda.
Every politician and political party that does not reject terrorist organisations will lose democratic legitimacy. Even in this Chamber we have heard people celebrate the PKK as a liberation organisation, rather than condemning it as a terrorist organisation that is responsible for the deaths of many people. That is why the case has been brought against it. If you love democracy, you have to be honest about what is going on.
Mr BATRINCEA (Republic of Moldova)* – Distinguished members of the Assembly, we have heard a lot today about whether human rights and the rule of law are being upheld. I would like to offer my own view, and some reasons why I think this Assembly so often passes resolutions that are never actually implemented in Council of Europe countries. I think that it is all to do with political processes and geopolitical games, along with regional interests, which mean we are unable to implement the resolutions in individual countries. This Assembly is the centre of justice and rights in Europe. It is here that we have the home of rights and of the law.
Let me give an example of how geopolitical interests are preventing the Assembly’s decisions being implemented in various countries. The Republic of Moldova has been monitored by the Council of Europe for many years now, and for the past nine years we have had in power a regime that proclaims itself to be pro-European, and that has political and financial support from the Council of Europe, the European Union and so on. The report that the Assembly will discuss tomorrow states that, despite all the reforms and the financing, corruption is growing in the Republic of Moldova and democracy is degrading.
Why does that happen? I shall give two specific examples – these will be discussed tomorrow. The first relates to freedom of the press, which everybody understands is central to progress. A new audio-visual code has now been adopted at its First Reading in the Moldovan Parliament. It increases the fines that can be imposed on television companies that the government are displeased with, and by five to 10 times, and it makes it much easier to strip a television station of its licence.
Secondly, we adopted a resolution supporting the rights of those who speak a minority language, in order to uphold everybody’s rights. The Constitutional Court has annulled that whole process by stripping that law of any force it had. The Republic of Moldova, which has not signed the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, is therefore now in a legal vacuum; there is no protection for minority languages, although the report that we will discuss tomorrow recognises the Republic of Moldova as a multi-ethnic country.
Therefore, my call is for you to show more political will, not to allow geopolitics and political interests to decide matters for us, and to insist that all resolutions be implemented in all countries throughout Europe and that all citizens of Europe should have the protection of the Council of Europe.
Mr ŠEŠELJ (Serbia) – I will speak about the Russian Federation. Russian Members of the Parliamentary Assembly have been expelled from this Organisation on charges relating to the so-called annexation of Crimea, and in recent years the Assembly has adopted several declarations and resolutions concerning democracy and human rights in the Russian Federation. The people of Crimea spoke on 16 March 2014 when they decided not to stay in a State that was going through a renaissance of fascism, with the followers of Stepan Bandera having taken power in Kiev. The people of Crimea did not want their fate to be that of their countrymen from the theatre in Odessa.
As for democracy in the Russian Federation, the recent presidential elections should be a lesson in democracy for all of Europe, because the turnout was more than 70% and Vladimir Putin won more than 75% of the vote – and more than 90% in the Republic of Crimea. The turnout for the elections to the European Parliament was less than 45%. Crimea is a part of the Russian Federation and also a political subject of the Federation. The European institutions should go back to their original foundations, instead of supporting neo-Nazi regimes all over the continent. The European institutions, which call themselves democratic, should learn from the Russian Federation.
Mr SABELLA (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) – I speak of Gaza and of the need to regenerate hope for the over 2 million people now imprisoned in the Gaza Strip. I speak of hope in Gaza after the tragedy that befell it on 14 May, when Israeli troops killed more than 61 Palestinians. I speak of hope because some members of the Council of Europe were courageous enough to make a statement about what happened – others did not. I still speak of hope because, even though the United States of America – really the Trump administration – has decided to cut $300 million of aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, we are so thankful to those European countries that have come forward to support UNRWA. I am saying to you, on behalf of my people, that when any State helps support UNRWA, as the United Kingdom did this morning, that gives us hope.
Everything in the Middle East is interdependent. If you cut aid to Palestinian refugees, you create problems. If you decide to have the deal of the century without respecting the national and political rights of Palestinians, you create problems. These problems will spill over into Europe, whether that is refugees, migrants or other forms of contract that is not desired by Europe.
I call on Europe to work towards the peace process that is internationally and legally favoured by the United Nations and other international bodies. Europe must not go the way of the Trump administration, which I am afraid is bringing not peace to our region but more dissension and instability. Europe stands to gain in a peace process. I am pleased that the Sub-Committee on the Middle East and the Arab World has presented a resolution that insists on the two-State solution. My last words here are: give hope to Palestinian youngsters, because when you do so you work towards a genuine solution that would see a Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Mr GAVAN (Ireland) – I, too, want to speak on Palestine. As colleagues know, this Assembly passed a resolution in January this year for a negotiated two-State solution to the issue of Israel’s continuing illegal occupation of Palestine based on the 1967 borders. It was a good resolution, one of a number that have been passed here over the years.
Since then, we have seen the ongoing slaughter of men, women and children in Gaza: 62 murdered, 2,700 injured. The Israelis have been using dumdum bullets against children. Such bullets enter the body, expand and burst open tissue, sinew, flesh and bones. The exit wound is three times the size of the entry wound. We know all about dumdum bullets in Ireland: the British army used them throughout the 1970s in the north of our country.
We are witnessing the slow and deliberate genocide of the Palestinian people. On average, a Palestinian child is murdered every three days by Israeli occupying forces. Gaza is now the largest open-air prison in the world, holding 1.3 million people. According to the United Nations, it will be unfit for human habitation in two years.
That same resolution in January called for renewed efforts “to relaunch the peace process. It is the responsibility of the international community, including the Council of Europe, to act decisively in order to create the proper conditions to attain this goal.” How should we act decisively in the current context? Should we pass another resolution to pass the time, as we watch the ongoing destruction of a nation and its people? Or should we recognise that Israel is in fact an apartheid State and recall how the international community previously coalesced through a series of ever more rigorous sanctions to force another apartheid State in South Africa to the negotiating table? In Ireland we are immensely proud of the role of the Dunnes Stores strikers who refused to handle produce from the apartheid State and shamed governments around the world into action at that time.
History will judge us very harshly if we fail to act. The people of Palestine need more than words; they need action. This human rights body should call for support for the international campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against the apartheid State of Israel. There should be an immediate arms embargo on Israel, and the slaughter of Palestinians should be recognised for what it is: war crimes, for which the Prime Minister of Israel should face prosecution.
The PRESIDENT – Mr Kiliç is not here, so I call Ms Pashayeva.
Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – A few days ago, TANAP was launched, a project that is as important for the energy security of Europe as it is that of Azerbaijan and Turkey. Under the leadership of Azerbaijan and Turkey, the implementation of this important project was a significant step in transporting Azerbaijani gas to Europe in the near future.
Energy security is a matter of concern to every country, including European ones. Together with its European partners, Azerbaijan carries out projects that contribute greatly not only to its own energy security but to that of Europe. Furthermore, a short time ago, an important transport project, the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway project, which links Europe and Asia, was put into operation under the leadership of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.
Unfortunately, however, 20% of the territory of Azerbaijan, the country that carries out such major projects, is still under occupation by Armenia. Furthermore, Armenia has maintained that occupation for more than 25 years, preventing 1 million Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs from returning to their homes. That increases tension in this most vulnerable region.
We call on the Parliamentary Assembly to keep that issue in focus at meetings and discussions with Armenia’s new leadership, to demand that they do not continue the crimes of the Sarkissian regime and to demand the liberation of the occupied Azerbaijani lands. We call on the Assembly, the leadership of this Organisation, to demand that the new leadership of Armenia implement the Parliamentary Assembly’s Resolution 1416 (2005) and the Sarsang Water Reservoir Resolution, and the European Court of Human Rights judgment on Ciragov and others v. Armenia.
Our Assembly should demand of Armenia’s new leadership that they allow the 1 million Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs to return to their homes. The criminal Sarkissian regime did not release Azerbaijani hostages Dilgam Askerov and Shahbaz Guliyev, who were illegally plundered and tortured by the regime, which ignored calls of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Assembly should make this a serious issue with Armenia’s new leadership, and insist on the implementation of Parliamentary Asselby resolutions. The reduction of tension and the establishment of stability and security in the South Caucasus are conditional on the liberation of the lands occupied by Armenia. The Assembly must demand that Armenia respect its resolutions and to take serious steps towards their implementation.
As for the Armenian representatives in the Assembly, it is absurd to speak of human rights, democracy and justice here on behalf of Armenia, which is an invading country that violates the human rights of 1 million Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs, not allowing them to return to their homes. I want to tell you that you have no personal moral right to talk about such issues.
Ms ALQAWASMI (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) – The Parliamentary Assembly has passed Resolution 2202 on the role of the Council of Europe in advancing the two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the 1967 borders. How is that resolution to be implemented?
UNRWA has had a humanitarian obligation towards Palestinian refugees since the beginning of the conflict, but it is suffering from a serious financial crisis due to the withdrawal of USAID funds. What steps should the member States of the Council of Europe take to help UNRWA carry out its humanitarian obligations to Palestinian refugees? The United States administration’s action, which was called the “deal of the century”, is destructive of all United Nations resolutions and international law, namely the right to self-determination and other rights.
All that creates a big challenge, so what next? After two world wars, a new way to regulate relations between individuals and nations was chosen, based on protective human rights at the individual level and international law at the nation or State level. The United Nation’s sustainable development goals, or SDGs, were agreed by the United Nations General Assembly and based on creation of a new environment for the future: human dignity, with no one left behind; respect for each other; empowerment of women; No. 16, to have stability and end all conflicts; and No. 17, to co-operate in achieving all of the goals.
This honourable Assembly represents the values of democracy and human rights. We cannot neglect what is going on in Palestine. There are victims in Palestine daily. Our kids do not have any hope for the future. Our beloved are killed daily in Palestine due to the Israeli actions towards the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Please – we are looking for more realisable actions from the Assembly towards ending the conflict, based on all your values, on the implementation of international law and on advancing the 2030 SDGs.
Ms ŞUPAC (Republic of Moldova)* – A lot of people here can give an example of a country where the constitution or the results of elections can just be changed. Unfortunately, the Republic of Moldova is one of those countries. In the Republic of Moldova, that happened not because the people wanted it but because a small group of people usurped power. They now control all the institutions of State. The next parliamentary elections are supposed to be in the autumn. All our international partners, including the Council of Europe, say that will be a test of our democracy. Do we need to prove to anyone that the Republic of Moldova is becoming more and more of an authoritarian State?
In 2016, the constitutional court introduced direct election of the president. Everyone knows that you can change the constitution only through a parliamentary majority or a referendum – you cannot do it just with a decision of the constitutional court. The court has no respect for the decisions of the Venice Commission. The European Union issued a negative opinion, but no one understands that the changes under way in the Republic of Moldova are all intended to undermine democracy. The constitutional court has now taken a decision, which no one has the right to contest, to annul the election of the mayor of Chișinău. Does that not show how undemocratic we are? What other proof do you need?
Vlad Plahotniuc and his party have managed to convince the international community that the Republic of Moldova needs it because of the so-called Russian threat, but the moment of truth has come for the international community, and for the Council of Europe in particular. Is the outside world prepared to admit that the greatest threat to the democratic development of the Republic of Moldova is not Russian tanks but comes from inside the Republic of Moldova? It comes from the people who have seized power in the country, who have managed to push up their number of deputies in parliament and their support. All they do is steal dollars.
At the Parliamentary Assembly in January, the left put forward the idea that the Republic of Moldova should be categorised as a country that has been seized, and that whatever measures are needed to put it back on the path of democratic development should be taken.
The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers. The debate is closed.
6. Next public business
The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 7.55 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of San Marino
2. Questions to Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe
Questions: Mr Kandelaki, Ms De Sutter, Mr Goncharenko, Mr Daems, Mr Eide, Mr Divina, Ms Trisse, Ms Csöbör, Mr Ariev
3. Protecting human rights defenders in Council of Europe member States
Presentation by Mr Vareikis of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 14567
Speakers: Ms Goguadze, Ms Lundgren, Mr Loucaides, Mr Yeneroğlu, Ms Dalloz, Mr Whitfield, Mr Zsigmond, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Coaker, Mr Troy, Mr McGinn, Mr Herkel, Mr Seyidov, Mr Logvynskyi, Ms Anttila, Ms Gorrotxategui, Mr Vallini, Lord Balfe, Ms Mccarthy, Mr Huseynov, Ms Blondin, Mr Lacroix, Ms Creasy, Ms Trisse, Mr Marukyan, Mr Gavan, Mr Mollazade, Ms Şupac, Mr Cazeau
Draft resolution in Document 14567, as amended, adopted
Draft recommendation in Document 14567, as amended, adopted
4. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human rights in respect of San Marino: Result
5. Free debate
Speakers: Mr Gentvilas, Mr Kürkçü, Ms Smith, Ms Goguadze, Mr Unhurian, Lord Touhig, Ms Hovhannisyan, Mr Wold, Mr Coaker, Mr Marukyan, Mr McGinn, Mr Farmanyan, Dame Cheryl Gillan, Ms McCarthy, Mr Zsigmond, Ms Jones, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Troy, the Earl Of Dundee, Mr Whitfield, Mr Huseynov, Lord Anderson, Mr Melkumyan, Ms Creasy, Mr Yeneroğlu, Mr Batrincea, Mr Šešelj, Mr Sabella, Mr Gavan, Ms Pashayeva, Ms Alqawasmi, Ms Şupac
6. Next public business
Appendix I / Annexe I
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]
AMON, Werner [Mr]
ANDERSON, Donald [Lord] (SHARMA, Virendra [Mr])
ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]
APOSTOL, Ion [Mr] (GHIMPU, Mihai [Mr])
ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]
BALFE, Richard [Lord] (GALE, Roger [Sir])
BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr]
BAYR, Petra [Ms] (HAIDER, Roman [Mr])
BECHT, Olivier [M.]
BESELIA, Eka [Ms] (KATSARAVA, Sofio [Ms])
BLANCHART, Philippe [M.]
BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]
BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr] (MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr])
BUSHKA, Klotilda [Ms]
CAZEAU, Bernard [M.]
CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]
CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.])
COAKER, Vernon [Mr] (PRESCOTT, John [Mr])
CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]
CREASY, Stella [Ms] (MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness])
CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]
CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr]
CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme]
DAEMS, Hendrik [Mr] (DESTREBECQ, Olivier [M.])
DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme]
D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms]
DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme]
DE PIETRO, Cristina [Ms] (CATALFO, Nunzia [Ms])
DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme]
DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]
DONALDSON, Jeffrey [Sir]
DONCHEV, Andon [Mr] (HRISTOV, Plamen [Mr])
DUNDEE, Alexander [The Earl of] [ ]
DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]
EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]
EIDE, Petter [Mr] (EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr])
ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr]
ESTRELA, Edite [Mme]
FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr]
FATALIYEVA, Sevinj [Ms] (GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms])
FIALA, Doris [Mme]
FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]
FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme]
FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]
GAILLOT, Albane [Mme]
GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]
GATTI, Marco [M.]
GAVAN, Paul [Mr]
GENTVILAS, Simonas [Mr] (BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr])
GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]
GILLAN, Cheryl [Dame]
GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]
GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms] (PRUIDZE, Irina [Ms])
GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr]
GORROTXATEGUI, Miren Edurne [Mme] (BUSTINDUY, Pablo [Mr])
GRAF, Martin [Mr]
GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]
GUZENINA, Maria [Ms]
HASANOV, Elshad [Mr] (AGHAYEVA, Ulviyye [Ms])
HEER, Alfred [Mr]
HERKEL, Andres [Mr] (KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr])
HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]
HOVHANNISYAN, Arpine [Ms]
HOWELL, John [Mr]
HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]
HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]
JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms] (KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr])
JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]
JONES, Susan Elan [Ms]
JØRGENSEN, Jan E. [Mr] (HENRIKSEN, Martin [Mr])
KALMARI, Anne [Ms]
KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr] (BAKRADZE, David [Mr])
KILIÇ, Akif Çağatay [Mr]
KLEINBERGA, Nellija [Ms] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])
KLEINWAECHTER, Norbert [Mr]
KOPŘIVA, František [Mr]
KOX, Tiny [Mr]
KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]
KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]
LACROIX, Christophe [M.]
LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms]
LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]
LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]
LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr] (DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr])
LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]
MAELEN, Dirk Van der [Mr] (DUMERY, Daphné [Ms])
MAROSZ, Ján [Mr]
MARUKYAN, Edmon [Mr] (RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.])
MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr] (TAMAŠUNIENĖ, Rita [Ms])
McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms]
McGINN, Conor [Mr] (EVANS, Nigel [Mr])
MEHL, Emilie Enger [Ms]
MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.] (ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme])
MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]
MOLLAZADE, Asim [Mr] (HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr])
MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])
NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr]
NICK, Andreas [Mr]
NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]
NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]
OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]
OEHME, Ulrich [Mr] (BERNHARD, Marc [Mr])
OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]
OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]
O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr]
OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr] (STIENEN, Petra [Ms])
PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]
PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms]
POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.] (KLICH, Bogdan [Mr])
POLETTI, Bérengère [Mme] (GROSDIDIER, François [M.])
POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms]
PUPPATO, Laura [Ms] (BERTUZZI, Maria Teresa [Ms])
REISS, Frédéric [M.] (GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme])
RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]
SCHÄFER, Axel [Mr]
SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]
SCHMIDT, Frithjof [Mr]
SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]
SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]
ŠEŠELJ, Aleksandar [Mr]
SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr]
SILVA, Adão [M.]
SMITH, Angela [Ms]
ŞUPAC, Inna [Ms]
TERIK, Tiit [Mr]
THIÉRY, Damien [M.]
THÓRARINSSON, Birgir [Mr] (ÓLASON, Bergþór [Mr])
TOMIĆ, Aleksandra [Ms]
TOUHIG, Don [Lord] (WILSON, Phil [Mr])
TRISSE, Nicole [Mme]
TROY, Robert [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])
UNHURIAN, Pavlo [Mr] (YEMETS, Leonid [Mr])
VALENTA, Jiři [Mr] (NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms])
VALLINI, André [M.] (LAMBERT, Jérôme [M.])
VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]
VEJKEY, Imre [Mr]
VEN, Mart van de [Mr]
VITANOV, Petar [Mr] (JABLIANOV, Valeri [Mr])
VOGT, Ute [Ms] (BARNETT, Doris [Ms])
WASERMAN, Sylvain [M.]
WHITFIELD, Martin [Mr] (MURRAY, Ian [Mr])
WOLD, Morten [Mr]
XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr] (BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr])
YENEROĞLU, Mustafa [Mr]
ZSIGMOND, Barna Pál [Mr]
Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre
Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote / Représentants ou suppléants non autorisés à voter
BARTOS, Mónika [Ms]
CANNEY, Seán [Mr]
CORREIA, Telmo [M.]
COWEN, Barry [Mr]
GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.]
LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms]
PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]
PARVIAINEN, Olli-Poika [Mr]
RUSSELL, Simon [Lord]
RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]
SUTTER, Petra De [Ms]
TILKI, Attila [Mr]
ZAVOLI, Roger [Mr]
Observers / Observateurs
LARIOS CÓRDOVA, Héctor [Mr]
Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie
ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]
AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]
BENAZZOUZ, Abdelaziz [M.]
BOUANOU, Abdellah [M.]
CHAGAF, Aziza [Mme]
HAMIDINE, Abdelali [M.]
SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]
Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of
the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque
(Conformément à la Résolution 1376 (2004) de l’Assemblée parlementaire)
CANDAN Armağan
SANER Hamza Ersan
Appendix II /Annexe II
Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of a Judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of San Marino / Représentants ou suppléants qui ont participé au vote pour l’élection d’un juge à la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme au titre de Saint-Marin
ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]
BARNETT, Doris [Ms] / VOGT, Ute [Ms]
BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr] / IONOVA, Mariia [Ms]
BERTUZZI, Maria Teresa [Ms] / PUPPATO, Laura [Ms]
CATALFO, Nunzia [Ms] / DE PIETRO, Cristina [Ms]
CHITI, Vannino [Mr] / LUCHERINI, Carlo [Mr]
DONALDSON, Jeffrey [Sir]
DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr] /LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr]
ESTRELA, Edite [Mme]
FIALA, Doris [Mme]
FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]
GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]
GROSDIDIER, François [M.] / POLETTI, Bérengère [Mme]
KATSARAVA, Sofio [Ms] / BESELIA, Eka [Ms]
KILIÇ, Akif Çağatay [Mr]
KVATCHANTIRADZE, Zviad [Mr]
KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]
NICK, Andreas [Mr]
NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]
OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]
PRUIDZE, Irina [Ms] /GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms]
SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]
SHEHU, Tritan [Mr]
VEJKEY, Imre [Mr]
YENEROĞLU, Mustafa [Mr]