Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

THE PRESIDENT. – In accordance with Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure, I inform the Assembly that a written declaration, No. 400, on the “Illegal exploitation of Greek Cypriot property in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus”, Document 11332, has been printed, signed by 43 members of the Assembly.

Representatives or Substitutes who wish to add their signatures to this declaration can do so in the Table Office. If any names are added, the declaration will be distributed again two weeks after the end of the part-session with all the accumulated signatures.

3. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT. – This morning we have two debates, the first on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the second on cybercrime, for which there are in total 26 speakers on the list, and 19 amendments have been tabled.

There are also a large number of people wishing to speak this afternoon. I therefore propose that speaking time in all debates today should be limited to four minutes.

Are these arrangements agreed to?

The arrangements are agreed to.

On that basis, we can expect the first debate to conclude at around 11.50 a.m.

4. Prosecution of offences falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

THE PRESIDENT. – We start with the debate on the prosecution of offences falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, presented by Mr Tony Lloyd on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 11281. After the rapporteur has introduced the debate, we will hear a statement from Mrs Carla del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY.

The list of speakers, which has been distributed, closed at 6.30 p.m. yesterday. Seventeen speakers are on the list, and seven amendments have been tabled.

I call Mr Lloyd, rapporteur. You have eight minutes.

Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom). – I welcome Carla del Ponte, who is with us this morning. It is now some 10 years since the conflict that raged around the former Yugoslavia came to an end. However, as the document says, in those 10 years, only a tiny proportion of those responsible for war crimes have been brought to justice. I emphasise that point because, as we know, however hard the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague worked, it could only ever deal with the most important, most senior people involved in war crimes. The scale of war crimes that took place during the conflict was so enormous that we cannot expect The Hague tribunal to do more than pick up a small minority of those involved. It is important that those who will be responsible for prosecuting war crimes as the tribunal comes towards its end realise that there is still a heavy responsibility to ensure that those involved in criminality of that kind are brought to justice.

In that period, places almost unknown to the rest of the world became household names: Brcko, Vukovar and Zvornik. Dubrovnik was already well known, but sadly it was shelled and bombed. The most well known perhaps is Srebrenica, which is a symbol throughout the world of the inhumanity of one group of people to another. Brutal murder became an everyday occurrence, and the mass rape of women became normal. The phrase “ethnic cleansing” entered the international language, perhaps for the first time. It is now used in other situations.

The world had to decide whether that scale of atrocity should be met with impunity, or whether it should act. It did act. It set up the International Criminal Tribunal. It was designed at that point to look at the leading figures, the leading lights, and the guiding minds. The aim was to set a precedent for the internationalisation of justice. It was an important step which I hope even now gives pause for thought to those guiding minds in conflict situations in other parts of the world.

Even though the work of the tribunal is important and generally very good, there are those in this Chamber who will cast doubt on the work. Nevertheless, the tribunal must end its work by 2010. I agree with the tribunal president, Judge Fausto Pocar, who said that it would be inconceivable for the tribunal to wind up if either Mr Mladić or Mr Karadžić were to be delivered up to justice at a late stage in the tribunal’s operations. The tribunal would have to have that residual function to deal with those two wanted people.

As we know, the emphasis is moving already from the work of the tribunal to the work of national legal institutions. The question that we must look at is whether there is the determination to make the national judicial systems in the countries of the former Yugoslavia work properly to bring to justice those who still need to be brought to justice. My own observation was that the judicial authorities, those involved in the courts and in prosecution are determined to do that work. The level of co-operation with The Hague has become increasingly satisfactory over the years – indeed, that has been the case in the past few months.

I want to put that on the record and I also want to put on record the fact that I still doubt whether the political will exists among the political class, as there still seems to be a reluctance to accept that these terrible crimes took place. The warning that we must give from this Assembly is one that the world must make consistently: if we do not prosecute the individuals guilty of war crimes, we allow, by default, whole nations and whole peoples to be accused. It is important that we do not allow the political authorities in individual countries to gloss over the scale of what took place in the former Yugoslavia.

The guilty must be brought to justice. The real question for those who take decisions about national justice is whether they properly resource and adequately support the prosecuting authorities in their task. Otherwise, the message is simple, and it says that we do not care. It says that we want to allow the guilty to go free and that we do not want to provide some sense of justice for the victims or the families of the victims where those victims died.

The real problem is that we allow the fostering of those inter-ethnic enmities between people who believe that there can be no justice for Serbs accused in Serbia, no justice for Croatians accused in Croatia, no justice for Bosniacs or Bosnian Serbs accused in different parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We must have national justice to ensure that the belief or suspicion that there cannot be national justice is brought to an end. We are praying for a very big prize and it is important that the message goes out that we do right as the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly to demand that the national politicians now pick up their task and play their own role.

I would like to make three small technical points, which are nevertheless important. I do not want to summarise the whole document, as people can read it, but there will be a need for a residual mechanism, if only in areas such as witness protection schemes where it is important that we have some continuity with The Hague process.

It is also important that national authorities in the countries of the former Yugoslavia recognise that there are still some blockages to national trials. Trials in absentia are not satisfactory. We need to take one of two ways forward, and I realise that one of them is controversial. One way forward is to remove the blockage on passing information from prosecutors into other countries. That is prevented by the rule that stipulates that, where imprisonment is for longer than 10 years, prosecution files will not be passed across. Frankly, that is a ridiculous rule. It is precisely those who might be sentenced to more than 10 years who should have their files transferred in order to achieve national justice.

The other alternative is for people to lift the bar on extradition. It would be accepted in many European countries that there should be no principle of blocking extradition, but I understand that this is difficult. However, unless extradition is lifted, the message goes out that we are saying, “I will protect my nationals, even when my nationals are accused of the most heinous crimes.” That is not a message that should go out from any member state of the Council of Europe.

I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that what is important is not so much the documents as the process in which we are involved. We must conclude what has been started in The Hague by ensuring that national courts throughout the former Yugoslavia now complete the task of bringing those who are guilty of atrocious crimes to that process of justice.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

I am very pleased to welcome among us Mrs Carla del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Mrs del Ponte has committed herself in a truly remarkable way to the prosecution of persons indicted for serious crimes under international criminal law. Her dedication to justice for the people of the former Yugoslavia will be crucial to the process of reconciliation and to the region’s long-term prospects for continuing peace. We join her in this struggle, and repeat her demands for all remaining fugitives, in particular Mladić and Karadžić, to be brought to justice without delay. I would also like to take this opportunity to call on the Serbian authorities to honour their renewed commitment, made on taking up the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers.

The development of international criminal tribunals in the past 15 years has marked an enormous step forwards in the fight against impunity for the most serious of crimes. Mrs del Ponte’s tremendous achievements at the ICTY have been instrumental in the progress that has been made. By constantly promoting and defending the tribunal and encouraging states to co-operate with it, her efforts have made a historic contribution to the cause of international justice. Her participation in today’s debate will provide the Assembly with an insider's view of the challenges that she has faced and her hopes for the future. Mrs del Ponte, I give you the floor.

Mrs Carla del PONTE (Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia). – I am greatly honoured to be here today and I am most grateful to President van der Linden for inviting me. I would also like to express my appreciation of the work conducted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and its rapporteur, Mr Tony Lloyd, who prepared this comprehensive report on the “Prosecution of offences falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia”. That is the subject of today’s discussion. The report has cogently identified the principle issues facing our work in the office of the prosecutor.

The Council of Europe – Europe’s oldest political institution – plays a central role in fostering close ties between European states and promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law throughout the continent. The Council is actively engaged in promoting those values in the states of the former Yugoslavia and in strengthening co-operation among those states.

The international tribunal, which is in its final phase of completing trials and appeals will, during the coming years, continue to need the support of the Council of Europe in combating impunity as well as upholding human rights generally in the former Yugoslavia. The Council of Europe and the international tribunal both aspire to the same goal: combating impunity and promoting reconciliation. Thus, we can and should work closely together to achieve those goals.

I will now address a few important points, already covered in the report, that may be relevant to your discussions on this topic. I will focus first on co-operation with the tribunal’s office of the prosecutor and in particular with Serbia. I will then address the transfer of cases and investigation files to the domestic authorities of the former Yugoslavia. Finally, I will cover regional co-operation questions.

Over the past years, my office has worked hard to secure the arrest and transfer of fugitives. Since the tribunal was established, we have indicted 161 people. Exactly six years ago today, former President Slobodan Milošević was transferred to The Hague. Today, four people, including the most notorious persons, Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić, remain at large.

The tribunal’s completion strategy, endorsed by the Security Council, proposes completing trials by 2008 and appeals in 2010. It is therefore crucial that the remaining fugitives be brought to justice, in The Hague, as soon as possible. The failure to apprehend the fugitives in a timely manner would seriously undermine the ability of the tribunal to fulfil its mandate and would have a lasting negative impact on victims, as well as creating a terrible legacy for the region as a whole.

As I reported to the Security Council last week, the co-operation of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina with my office has generally improved.

I turn first to Serbia’s co-operation with my office. Until recently, Serbia’s level of co-operation was problematic. Over the past weeks, since the establishment of a new government, we have observed positive developments in Serbia. Members of the government have confirmed their strong commitment to providing all necessary assistance to locate and arrest fugitives. For example, just the other day, at the Forum for the Future of Democracy in Stockholm, Mr Jeremić, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia and Chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, reiterated his country’s strong commitment “to full and immediate co-operation with the ICTY. All indictees must be located, arrested, and extradited.”

The authorities have also taken a number of concrete steps in this direction. A national security council has been established. It is chaired by President Tadić and it will be the central organ in dealing with the fugitive issue. The national security council has convened several times and has already taken initiatives. Moreover, on 31 May, thanks to co-operation between Serbia and Republika Srpska, Zdravko Tolimir – the seventh person accused in the Srebrenica trial – was arrested. On 17 June, Serbian authorities co-operated with Montenegro and my office, enabling the arrest of another general – Vlastimir Djordjević, who will be tried in the so-called Kosovo trial. Serbia has also responded to most of the pending requests for assistance, and we are studying the documents received.

I of course welcome these developments. I now expect Serbia fully to co-operate with my office by delivering the remaining fugitives, who are all believed to be in its territory or within its reach. Full co-operation with the tribunal should be understood as implying the arrest and transfer of fugitives – in particular Mladić – to The Hague and full access to documents. During the coming weeks, we will closely monitor Serbia’s level of co-operation, and I hope that cautious optimism will be justified.

The Security Council, the European Union and other organisations and their member states can provide strong incentives for states of the former Yugoslavia finally and fully to co-operate with the tribunal. I trust that these organisations and states, in particular the European Union, will continue to take a principled and consistent position on this matter. I also trust that my office will be consulted and that its assessment will be taken into account, as I believe that it is well placed to evaluate whether full co-operation was achieved.

Let me now turn to the transfer of files and cases and regional co-operation. For a number of years, my office has worked closely with authorities in the former Yugoslavia in order to transfer cases indicted at the tribunal under Rule 11bis of our rules of procedure and evidence. These cases have been monitored in conjunction with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Moreover, we have transferred other investigation materials and consistently provided training and assistance to prosecutors in the region. With this assistance, local judiciaries have made progress in investigating and trying war crimes cases based on the information and files received from the tribunal.

The monitoring of these trials is crucial and the OSCE is best suited to carry out this function and to assist these countries in bringing their judicial systems and war crimes trials up to standard. In fact, the OSCE’s presence in Croatia is currently being debated. I have written to the chairman of the OSCE and asked that the trial monitoring functions be continued in Zagreb, because I believe that it is in the Council of Europe’s interests, as well, to maintain the monitoring of trials in Croatia.

Enhanced co-operation in criminal matters between states of the former Yugoslavia is an essential step towards further reconciliation and rebuilding trust and justice in the region. My office strongly supports continued efforts, including those of this Council, to improve co-operation between national prosecutors. Despite repeated efforts over the past year, the issue of extradition of nationals and the question of transferring proceedings between the states concerned has not yet been resolved, unfortunately. The failure to address these issues has led to an “impunity gap”, which denies any hope of justice to victims. Addressing this gap requires the political will to change legislation and to comply with international standards. My office will continue to support ongoing efforts and initiatives to address this important issue.

Twelve years ago, more than 7 000 young men and boys were killed during the genocide in Srebrenica. Today, those most responsible for these crimes – Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić – still remain at large. The victims expect the perpetrators of those atrocious crimes to be brought to justice in The Hague. How can we explain today to the surviving mothers and children that those responsible are still at large in today’s Europe?

The report prepared by Mr Lloyd therefore comes at the right time – at a time when important questions need to be addressed, such as those relating to the tribunal’s legacy, the remaining fugitives and the need to continue supporting national jurisdictions in prosecuting war crimes cases. In this regard, I hope that you will send a clear message to the states of the former Yugoslavia, which will be followed by concrete actions in support of the international tribunal, the rule of law and the fight against impunity in the region.

Both our institutions stand for noble causes. The success of the international tribunal will contribute to a stable, united and reconciled Europe through a shared commitment to common values. This is the Europe that its peoples deserve. It is time for the international tribunal finally to complete its work and to let the wounds of the past, finally, heal.

THE PRESIDENT. – I thank you, Mrs del Ponte, for your important contribution to this debate. You can count on the support of this Assembly, as you were able to do before, in urging the government to bring Mladić and Karadžić to justice in The Hague.

I now give the floor to Mr Kox, who is speaking on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands).– Fourteen years ago, the United Nations Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The tribunal was, according to the UN Security Council’s decision, necessary to respond to the threat to international peace and security caused by the violations of international humanitarian law within the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Mass killings, massive detentions, large-scale rape of women, ethnic cleansing – it all happened, provoked or supported by political and military leaders. All this had to be addressed by the tribunal by prosecuting persons suspected of violating humanitarian law, including crimes against humanity and genocide, in order to bring justice to the victims and foster a process of reconciliation between the peoples of the former Yugoslavia.

The tribunal made history when, for the first time ever, it initiated the trial of a former president, Slobodan Milošević, and tens of others who were principally responsible for the terrible tragedies that occurred during and after the dissolution of Yugoslavia – a dissolution that we must remember was provoked, or at least supported, by some western European governments which, unfortunately, will probably never be tried for that adventurous and irresponsible act. Only history will judge them.

So far, 48 people have been convicted by the tribunal. They do not include Milošević himself, as he died before the tribunal could convict him, as it probably would have, for his part in what happened in the former Yugoslavia. He left behind thousands of victims, who, as the rapporteur says, felt betrayed by the injustice of an uncompleted trial. Injustice will remain for as long as the four accused remain at large – among them Karadžić and Mladić, the political and military heads of the Bosnian Serbs during the war in which so many atrocities happened, the Srebrenica massacre being the darkest event.

The rapporteur speaks of a blatant lack of political will on the part of the Serbian authorities and the authorities of the Republika Srpska, a lack of will that was often mentioned by the tribunal prosecutor. The new Serbian Government promised to perform better, and there are some signs of good will. Nevertheless, it will be unacceptable if the Serbian Government that now chairs the Council of Europe does not deliver, and bring the accused Karadžić and Mladić to The Hague. In the Standing Committee in Belgrade, Foreign Affairs Minister Jeremić referred to the problems experienced by the Americans in trying to find Osama bin Laden. What he said was true, but also far too simple. I told the Minister that six months must be enough time in which to prove that there is now a clear and concrete commitment to comply with the tribunal in The Hague. If that is not done, there could be serious consequences for the Serbian Government.

All states involved should do their utmost to prevent people who have committed crimes against international humanitarian law from getting away with it. So far, there have been too many signals that governments do not do what they should do if they are to comply with international law and human rights. That is a shame, and it is right to blame those governments.

We agree with the rapporteur that it should be impossible for the tribunal to close its doors while some fugitives are still at large. It is the United Nations that should find a solution, and the Council of Europe and the Assembly should press it to do so.

It is clear that an international tribunal cannot prosecute all those involved in the many crimes against international humanitarian law. National courts must do their share as well, and the international community should help them. That is far from guaranteed at this stage, as the rapporteur discovered. Courts and prosecution services lack resources, there are far too few comprehensive court outreach programmes, and the prisons in which convicted persons must serve their sentences lack the capacity to handle high-profile offenders.

The Group of the Unified European Left supports the draft resolution and recommendation. We should do our utmost to ensure that justice is done, for – in the words of the former president of the tribunal – justice is the indispensable ingredient of the process of national reconciliation, and essential to the restoration of peaceful and normal relations between people who have had to live under a reign of terror for far too long.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Van den Brande, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – First and foremost, I pay tribute to our colleague Tony Lloyd, whose analyses have been accurate not only in this but in so many other reports. I also say this to Mrs Carla del Ponte: we hold you in great esteem and encourage you in what you are doing. You may have your critics, but I believe that we need people like you to make things better.

It is evident that justice is indeed an indispensable ingredient in the process of reconciliation. I am not trying to make an analogy, but I recall concluding that in southern Africa, aiming for truth and reconciliation was clearly the essential approach. Truth means, among other things, that in the public juridical order we have an obligation to make clear where responsibility lies. There cannot be impunity, except in the contradictory sense that justice should have impunity.

This may sound cynical, but the pride of national states cannot provide an argument or an alibi in the face of what belongs within the national juridical order. As is said in the draft resolution and recommendation, we must urge nation states in our European space to align themselves with the commitments that have been made, but there is also an important task for the international judiciary. It is not always clear whether people can accept that international justice may be above the level of national states. We must explain the importance of the right juridical order, and of that international justice. The tribunal is a good example of that.

There is a parallel with our discussions about our own European Court of Human Rights. It has a place, but it is the task of nation states one day to take over what the international tribunal is doing, and in order to do that, they must be prepared to strengthen their juridical systems.

There should be no ban on extradition. A situation in which states do not conform with international standards cannot be accepted by our Assembly or by our democratic community. There must be respect for the victims, for human dignity and for the juridical order. That will enable us to fulfil what is in the draft resolution and recommendation, and to encourage all who are working and fighting to achieve that aim.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Lord Russell-Johnston, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON (United Kingdom). – This is a highly important, hugely dense and complex report. It is very difficult, indeed impossible, to deal with it comprehensively and effectively in the time available.

I begin by paying the warmest possible to Tony Lloyd, the rapporteur, and to the members of the Secretariat who worked with him. His explanatory memorandum bears not just reading, but re-reading and studying. Had I time, I would frame my speech not in my own words, but in interconnected quotations from that memorandum and from those to whom he referred. In fact, in a limited way, I will do that. Tony is leaving us, and we will miss him.

The second thing that I want to do is express my unreserved admiration for Carla del Ponte. I am delighted that she is with us today. Our Swiss chief prosecutor, faced with a ferociously intimidating task, has proceeded with calm persistence and determination in seeking to fulfil the mandate that the United Nations has laid on her. When I had the honour to be President of this Assembly, I went to The Hague and spent most of a day with Carla. I was totally convinced of her objectivity and fairness, at a time when the Serbs in particular were accusing her of bias. Her only bias is a bias towards justice. She deserves all the praise that we can give her for what she has done.

There is no doubt whatever that during the awful conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, each ethnic group suffered terrible things from other ethnic groups – inexcusable things for which there can be no justification. Serbs suffered, Croats suffered, Bosniacs suffered, and each was also a perpetrator. The Serbs, however, had a particular situation of dominance, which with the use of the JNA by Milošević, gave them much greater resources and fire power, which Milošević gave directly to Mladić and Karadžić.

I must take a little out of one quote that Tony used, and that was the quotation from the president of the tribunal that sentenced Radislav Krstic to 46 years’ imprisonment: “Srebrenica – the name of a town which has become synonymous with the conflict which devastated the former Yugoslavia… Srebrenica – a name which conjures up images one would prefer not to see: women, children and old people forced to climb into buses leaving for destinations unknown; men separated from their families, stripped of their belongings, men fleeing, men taken prisoner, men never to be seen again, men who would be found – but not always – dead, corpses piled up in mass graves; corpses with their hands tied or their eyes blind-folded”. I could go on, but I have no time so to do. I wish I had the time, but there it is.

Very sadly, there are still some in Serbia, notably in the Radical Party, who have continued to deny Srebrenica and close their eyes to the many unresolved crimes of rape and violence. The rapporteur puts it very bluntly in paragraph 28, where he says that Srebrenica has been “shown to be an incontrovertible fact” and that “the same applies to the crimes committed in Dubrovnik, Zvornik, Vukovar and Brcko.” So where are Mladić and Karadžić? They must be under protection.

My time runs out, but there are so many things to say. We need some extension to avoid war criminal impunity. We need the continued work of the OSCE. We need the protection of witnesses. We need to deal with the extradition of nationals and dual nationality.

I conclude by quoting Tony Lloyd once more. At the very end of his report, he says: “No matter how long and painful the reconciliation process may be, many efforts are still required. Justice is an indispensable ingredient in the process of reconciliation for the victims, communities and countries concerned and it is essential fight impunity resolutely at all levels.” And so say I, and so say the Liberal Group.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. I call Mr Reymann.

Mr REYMANN (France) said that the arrests last June of some of those accused of partaking in the Srebrenica massacre had been an encouraging sign of the willingness of states to co-operate with the International Criminal Tribunal. That was especially so bearing in mind that the tribunal was still some three years from the expiry of its mandate.

In other areas progress was mixed. For example, Karadžić and Mladić were still at large. On the other hand, Serbia had opened up its archives and had began to re-organise its police and security services. That all boded well for the future. Special tribunals were being set up in each country, which contributed more generally to the rule of law. However, there was a problem with the length of the cases that came before the tribunal, which often obscured the central issues that they raised. The people responsible for war crimes had to be brought to justice. That was the only way the truth could be established and genuine peace brought about in the region. France fully supported the search for truth and justice. He fully supported the excellent report.

(Mr Holovaty, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr van den Linden.)

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President. I join others in congratulating Tony Lloyd on the splendid work that he has done on this report and on many others to which he has contributed during the time that he has been at the Council of Europe. I am sure that I speak for a lot of people here in saying that Tony’s participation here will be sadly missed. I would also like to thank the chief prosecutor for the way in which she presented her case. The whole of Europe owes not only her but her staff a real debt of gratitude for the way in which they have meticulously tried to bring some sense to the evil and senseless activities that took place in Europe – something that we all in one way or another have been party to, because we bore witness to it in one way or another, either by actually being there or watching it on our televisions and reading about it.

All of us bear the shame that once again our continent was the home of such evil crimes, which had no rhyme or reason to them at all. It is right and proper that there should be no hiding place anywhere in the world for the perpetrators of those crimes. Justice should never be time limited. Tony is right to bring out in his report the issues that the prosecutor in particular faces. Paragraphs 82 to 87 talk about the lack of resources, in money, manpower and expertise. How can Europe expect this operation to be done on the cheap? It cannot be, can it? The very exercise of bringing justice should not be about resources. It should be about giving people the opportunity to have a fair trial, of course, but it is also about bringing those people to trial. Resources are needed to do that, and we must find a way in which we are prepared to fund it.

The report talks about the adequacy of the police in many of the countries that the rapporteur visited. Is it right that the police should react only when they are asked to by the prosecutor? What is up with police forces that have the perpetrators of serious war crimes – crimes against individuals and crimes against whole communities – living in their midst and apparently react only when they are asked to do so specifically at the request of the prosecutor? That cannot be right, can it? None of us can be proud of any of our member states that is party to that sort of activity.

Tony is also right to raise the issue of extradition. Lord Russell-Johnston spoke about the safety of witnesses. Of course, how can anyone who has been a witness to such evil and horror really say in all honesty that their lives and their families will be protected if they give evidence unless real assurances are given and proper protection is offered to them, not just when they might be bearing witness to what happened but for some considerable time afterwards? We are not dealing in the main with rational people.

Such problems relate not just to those countries. For example, we should consider the bizarre nature of the United Kingdom’s justice system. Recently in the United Kingdom, there was a court case where Mr Milan Spanovic, a Croatian Serb convicted in his absence in 1991 for war crimes in the Glina region and given a sentence of 20 years, has not been extradited from the United Kingdom. The judge refused to extradite him back to Croatia, saying: “I am satisfied that the passage of time since the offence is alleged to have been committed would now make it unjust and oppressive to extradite the defendant, and he is therefore discharged.” I am delighted to say that that decision is being appealed against, but it is beyond me when a judicial system seems to excuse someone who is an alleged war criminal in the United Kingdom but is a convicted war criminal in Croatia and does not send him back to that country or, indeed, send him to the European prosecutor. So we must have a common approach – no excuses, no hiding places, no time limit. Justice will only be served and reconciliation can only take place if people can see that justice is equal and accountable to all, not just to the ones who are unlucky enough to be caught. We need to catch all of them and bring all of them to justice.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I call Mr Strässer of the Socialist Group.

Mr STRÄSSER (Germany) thanked the rapporteur for his excellent report, which was very timely. It had a clear central message and was relevant to any moves for accession to the European Union. When Mladić and Karadžić came before the tribunal it would be a signal that human rights were taken seriously in their country. He hoped that that would happen while Mrs del Ponte was still chief prosecutor of the tribunal.

The debate was not just about the tribunal; it was also about bigger issues. What was more important – power or the law, politics or justice? Quite simply these questions should have been dealt with a long time ago. It often appeared that people with power could act with impunity and that injustice could trump justice. Various international forums and bodies were now questioning that. The central message being sent out was that crimes, no matter who had committed them, would be prosecuted. States had signed up to that idea. That meant that even heads of states could no longer act with impunity. That was a new departure in international law. Justice could not be escaped through a technicality.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Strässer. I call Mr Ivanić.

Mr IVANIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina). – I, like the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska, had an opportunity to co-operate with Carla del Ponte several years ago. There have been ups and downs in the level of co-operation between The Hague tribunal and Republika Srpska, but at this stage it is not as low – as bad – as it has been in the past. There is now only one case that is directly connected with Republika Srpska, and I hope that the final efforts on it of the government and the police will get results; there is much activity on the ground nowadays.

We have established some state institutions that have responsibility for co-operation with The Hague. We have an intelligence service at the state level, which we did not have before, and we also have police at state level with responsibility for dealing with war crimes. Therefore, I hope that the last big remaining case will soon be solved, and that then this difficult phase will be over. That would also be helpful for the situation in Bosnia; it would be possible to close a difficult chapter in Bosnian history and to start to address the future – rather than always having to deal with the past.

I wish to discuss two important matters. The first of them is the number of victims in the Bosnian war. That topic has frequently been politicised by both sides in the conflict; one side tried to under-estimate the number of victims and the other side tried to over-estimate it. The facts are very important for the long-term future of the country. It was initially claimed that there were half a million victims, then 300 000, then 200 000, and recent investigations suggest the number is less than 100 000, which is still very high. I know that The Hague tribunal had an efficient investigation team. If legally possible, it would be good if it would address this topic, so that there could be a neutral approach to what is still a very politicised and sensitive matter in Bosnia. If it were legally possible, it would be good for that team to play a role, especially in support of the independent people who are dealing with this matter in Bosnia. This subject is still being taken up as a personal activity by some enthusiastic people in Bosnia, who have taken a huge risk because they will never satisfy all sides in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the number of victims.

The second matter that I wish to address is the local judiciary. There was a kind of competition among the different ethnic groups to accuse as many people as possible from the other sides. At present, about 25 000 people have been named, who will be faced with trials. It is simply impossible to complete that number of trials; it would take decades. Initiatives involving a figure such as a reconciliation commissioner or a body such as a fact-finding commission should be undertaken in order to close this chapter, because if the current situation continues much longer Bosnia will constantly be involved in a political war, which will not be good. Such an initiative could provide an additional positive impetus to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Ivanić. I call Mr Karski.

Mr KARSKI (Poland). – The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was created by the United Nations Security Council to bring to justice only natural – not legal – persons responsible for the commission of serious breaches of international humanitarian law and human rights law in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. The main reason why it was established is the unwillingness of successor states to initiate trials of high military commanders and functionaries in the former Yugoslavia who are responsible for ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during non-international armed conflict there in the 1990s.

If the ICTY had not been created, those perpetrators would never have been brought to justice – their impunity would have continued. I wish to focus on international co-operation and support for the ICTY jurisdiction. The European Union and its member states support that jurisdiction through all possible legal instruments including community and national legislation. There are at least two tasks for the Council of Europe in that regard. First, it is important to encourage states throughout the world to implement UN Security Council resolutions that are necessary for efficient co-operation with the tribunal at national level. The second refers to implementation of appropriate measures by the Council of Europe at international level, the purpose of which will be strongly to support ICTY jurisdiction.

The Parliamentary Assembly should examine the influence of ICTY jurisdiction on human rights protection and direct co-operation with the European Court of Human Rights in the light of grave breaches of those rights in non-international armed conflicts. The initiation of such discussion, extended to the activity of member states at national level, could be fruitful and support the better protection of human rights. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Dačić.

Mr DAČIĆ (Serbia). – I use this opportunity to state firmly that my country, Serbia, has expressed its full commitment and support to the prosecution of criminal deeds falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, no matter who committed them. That is why we consider that the bombing of Serbia, which took place in 1999 without the approval of the United Nations Security Council, should be addressed by the tribunal, even though it claims that it is not within its jurisdiction.

We believe that both the indictees and those who have already been convicted should be brought to justice, brought to trial and prosecuted by national courts, and that the sentences should be served in Serbia. I am certain that that would facilitate the voluntary surrender of the remaining indictees.

Even though the tribunal was established in accordance with the decision of the United Nations Security Council, for numerous reasons, it became one of the least popular institutions in my country. The largest number of indicted and convicted persons are Serbs. Charges referring to the responsibility of those who gave the command have been raised only against Serbs. That means that the indictees include the most senior government, military and police officials.

Many Serbs have died or committed suicide in Scheveningen and in the case of Slobodan Milošević proper medical treatment was not provided. Many Serbs have waited in confinement for several years for their trial to start, including Vojislav Šešelj. All those things have led to the opinion that the tribunal was established for Serbia and prosecutes only Serbs.

The pressure and conditions that are constantly imposed on Serbia are particularly contradictory bearing in mind that at the moment only four indictees are at large. Why is Serbia being held more responsible for Radovan Karadžić than, for example, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the United States or NATO, which have been in the region for more than 10 years? Besides, it is a well-known fact that when the Dayton Peace Agreement was signed, American officials promised Karadžić that he would not be arrested and extradited to the tribunal. If Serbia is blamed for not knowing the whereabouts of Mladić or Karadžić, the United States is responsible and should be blamed for not knowing where Osama bin Laden is, and I suppose that the CIA has more power and means than Serbian intelligence.

It is our commitment as well as our moral duty to prosecute those who have perpetrated war crimes not only in the territory of the former Yugoslavia but in other parts of the world. There should be no excuses and no justification for any crimes – ours or theirs. That is the only way I can express our sincere dedication and commitment to the core values of the United Nations and the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Izetbegovic.

Mr IZETBEGOVIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina). – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Tony Lloyd, for this comprehensive report. It deals with important aspects of the work of The Hague tribunal and contains some important conclusions.

Particularly important is paragraph 129, which urges the United Nations to “find a solution to ensure that war criminals who are still at large do not escape international justice, irrespective of the date on which they are arrested.” Obviously, that refers to Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić. Those two war criminals, for 11 years, have defied calls from the most important world leaders and mocked the efforts of the most powerful institutions to find and to arrest them. At the same time there are trials in the tribunal of commanders of the army that has been defending Bosnia and Herzegovina. General Sefer Halilović, first commander of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, has been prosecuted and the court has cleared him of all charges.

In the next few days, the trial of General Rasim Delić will begin. General Delić made a significant contribution to saving the rest of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the same fate as Srebrenica. Obviously, no one who was involved in the war is granted an amnesty. Anyway, I am convinced that General Delić will be cleared of all charges as well.

In such a situation, it is of the utmost importance that notorious war criminals do not escape justice. Mladić and Karadžić must be brought before The Hague tribunal, be it in 10 days or 10 years. Otherwise it will be a defeat not only for the victims and for Bosnia and Herzegovina but for Europe and the rest of the world. It would be a defeat for justice itself.

I would like to confirm the logical principle that the crimes are committed by individuals and not by nations. I agree that nations cannot be responsible for the crimes committed by individuals, no matter how numerous and no matter what their position is. More than 10 000 individuals participated in the crimes and in the genocide committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Among them were presidents of states, para-states, army commanders, prime ministers and chiefs of police. The war crimes and genocide that happened in Bosnia are not a simple collection of individual crimes. They were planned and organised. Therefore, the whole nation should not be held responsible for the crime. However, some states and institutions should.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Aligrudić.

Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia). – I appreciate all the efforts made by the rapporteur, Mr Lloyd, in drafting his report, which is well balanced and comprehensive. I emphasise that co-operation with the ICTY is one of our top priorities in Serbia. Despite certain obstacles in the past, Serbia has improved and intensified its co-operation with the tribunal in the last few years.

I remind you that 15 indictees voluntarily surrendered and two people have been arrested and extradited to The Hague in the past two years; it has happened in the past few weeks as well. I am aware that co-operation has not been entirely completed. Serbia is doing its utmost to fulfil all its commitments.

Even though I have already said it, I consider this report to be well balanced. I have to say, however, that I am not happy with the part of the text that supports the policy of maintaining demands by the EU relating to Serbian co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. As I have just explained, everything that has been done in the last few years has nothing to do with such a policy. To my mind, the policy of imposing conditions can only inflict damage, both to the process of accession to the EU and to co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. That can only be counter-productive. I therefore strongly oppose what is stated in paragraph 11 of the draft resolution, bearing in mind that the negotiations between the EU and Serbia on the stabilisation and association agreement have recently been resumed. The assessment of the European Commission was that Serbia had improved its co-operation with the tribunal.

I believe that greater attention should have been drawn to the rights of indictees – namely, a number of indictees are kept in pre-trial detention and are waiting too long for their trial to begin, thus breaching their basic rights. In some cases, it has gone on for years. To provide just one example, there is the case of Mr Šešelj, who has been kept in confinement for more than four years and his trial has not yet been started. That is unacceptable.

The report mainly observes the degree of co-operation of the relevant countries, but I think that it should also have focused on the work of the tribunal itself and the way in which the proceedings have been conducted. To improve the original version, we have tabled a couple of amendments, which we hope will be adopted. Furthermore, paragraph 21 of the draft resolution states that the Assembly should call on the relevant authorities of the relevant states to lift the ban on the extradition of nationals, carefully examine applications for nationality and not grant nationality to any war crime indictee. I am not sure that I fully understand the intention behind these instructions, probably because they cannot apply to Serbia. By adopting the new constitution, Serbia has formally lifted the constitutional ban on extradition – but that was never an obstacle before and we have not experienced any problem with applications for nationality. In that case, it does not apply to Serbia. That is why I did not table amendments to the paragraph.

Finally, I would like to reiterate my gratitude to the rapporteur and to members of the committee for accepting some of our amendments. I hope that the Assembly will act in the same manner and support not just the amendments that the committee has already accepted, but the others that we have tabled.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Narochnitskaya.

Mrs NAROCHNITSKAYA (Russian Federation) said that the report was more balanced than past reports. Unfortunately, a dissonant note had to be introduced into the debate. Thorough and systematic analysis of the hearings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia had revealed that the court was not living up to its objectives: to be impartial and to operate without double standards.

Many eminent lawyers had worked with the tribunal, but some had expressed disappointment that decisions in cases appeared almost to be made before the hearings had taken place. The tribunal had sought to create a new form of case law – that was an enormous error. The tribunal, which had been tasked with enforcing human rights standards, had in itself violated human rights. The Council of Europe existed to protect human rights across Europe, but there was now a grey zone where the tribunal was operating and human rights standards were being violated. There had been strange and unexplained deaths, and prisoners with serious medical problems had not had adequate access to medical care. Slobodan Milošević was only one example – the foremost one – of such violations. The way in which indicted persons were arrested had frequently resulted in violations of the human rights of the indicted person and his or her family and friends. There had been examples of physical attacks on relatives during the arrests. The tribunal had also failed to take into account the mass killings of Serbs which had taken place. It was obvious that the tribunal was unbalanced and applying double standards. It was vital to take a closer look at the way in which it was violating human rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Nikolić.

Mr NIKOLIĆ (Serbia). – It is evident that the rapporteur has invested much effort in preparing this report. Unfortunately, however, it seems as if the report was created by the prosecuting authorities of the tribunal in The Hague and that it is motivated by the desire to justify everything that is happening in the tribunal – even occurrences that are strongly opposed to and violate the core principles of the Council of Europe.

The rapporteur is providing his own verdict when he regrets the fact that the death of Slobodan Milošević and the failure to secure a conviction deprived thousands of victims of receiving justice. The rapporteur did not investigate the question of in whose interest it was not to provide Slobodan Milošević with appropriate medical treatment, thus hindering the determination of truth by the final verdict.

In that regard, I have the right to say that hundreds of thousands more victims have also been deprived of justice. The responsibility for what happened to those victims should be placed on Milan Kučan, Franjo Tudjman and Alija Izetbegović, because they started the war, ordered the expulsions, committed murders and recruited mujahedin who left behind thousands of slaughtered and raped people. The rapporteur observed the lack of popularity and lack of trust in the tribunal, but unfortunately did not try to establish its causes.

It is clear that the tribunal, led by the prosecution and the pressure of swayed public opinion, has become the court of selective justice. It has focused on determining the guilt of Serbia and the Serbian people for everything that has happened under the protectorate of the international community since the start of the violent dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. What is the punishment policy of the tribunal? What are the verdicts passed on the Serbs, and what kind of sentences are pronounced on others? Who is murdering the witnesses provided by the prosecution to testify against the Albanians?

Doctor Vojislav Šešelj has been kept in detention in the tribunal for almost five years. The indictment has been changed several times and the prosecution is still not ready to start proceedings. One cannot even foresee when they will happen. In my capacity as the head of the team for the defence of Dr Vojislav Šešelj, I have provided the tribunal with proof that the prosecution is using his pre-trial detention in order to falsify evidence referring to his involvement in the perpetration of war crimes, by bribing and blackmailing those whom they want to use as witnesses testifying for the prosecution.

If the rapporteur of this Assembly thinks that a man who is deceased, Slobodan Milošević, was to be convicted, despite the fact that no other indictment has been raised against any other head of state and given that 12 Serbs died in the tribunal in unclear circumstances, and that the number of sentences passed on the Serbs is 10 times more than those pronounced on members of other nationalities, given that the representatives of the NATO member states have been discharged of responsibility and guilt for the crimes committed against the Serbs, just because they are the ones passing the verdicts, and given that Dr Vojislav Šešelj has spent five years in pre-trial detention, how can Serbs believe in the justice that you are proclaiming in the tribunal?

How can we accept this as being true, when you are blackmailing us and uttering open threats to us, saying that unless Serbia accepts the independence of part of its territory – namely, Kosovo and Metohia – it will never become part of the European Union?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers.

Mrs del Ponte, would you like to respond briefly to the debate?

Mrs del PONTE. – It was encouraging to listen to most of you speak about how important the tribunal’s activities are in the implementation of international justice. I thank in particular the former President, Lord Russell-Johnston, whom I remember very well. Many of you are following our activities and visiting us in The Hague.

We all expect to close this chapter, but we cannot do so if we do not have Karadžić and Mladić on trial. I think that on that issue we have unanimity, so let us close this chapter, have only four fugitives in The Hague and conduct those trials.

Let me deal briefly with the speech of the representative from Serbia. Milošević’s death was a natural death, and there was an investigation. He received the best and the most appropriate medical treatment imaginable, so please stop making such claims. The trial of Šešelj started in November or December of last year. Šešelj himself stopped this trial with a hunger strike. We are trying to restart it, but that depends on the accused, who is defending himself, along with 17 legal advisers. So the trial had started, but the accused decided to suspend it, and we must restart it.

Let me turn to the arrest modalities. The office of the prosecutor is not involved in the arrest of the fugitives. We have no responsibility regarding their arrest – it is the responsibility of the relevant national authorities and the police.

I would have liked to hear one or two words about the victims heard from the representatives of the states of the former Yugoslavia. We all agree that there must be a fair trial and that we must preserve the rights of the accused, but please do not forget the rights of the victims.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Lloyd, the rapporteur.

Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom) . – Let me begin with a few brief words of thanks. This is probably my last appearance in this Chamber, and I want to place on the record my thanks to Carla del Ponte for being with us this morning. It is symbolically important that you join us in showing that we all take this matter seriously. I also want to thank the Secretariat of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for its work. All my colleagues’ thanks should probably be directed in particular towards Mrs Islid Heurtin, whose work was exemplary.

Lord Russell-Johnston made a very important point about the issue of denial. We heard one or two speeches today that bordered on denial. It is absolutely right that we say that nobody wants unfair trials of the accused, but as the chief prosecutor said, what about the victims? What do we do about them? Not everyone who committed those atrocities will be able to be brought to trial. Mr Ivanić made the point that some 25 000 outstanding accused are in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there are more across the whole territory. I regret to say that not everyone will come to trial, because that means that some of the guilty will never be punished for the heinous crimes that they committed. However, that is not an excuse for not bringing to trial the most important figures for whom there is a body of evidence against.

Let me make it clear that, although I go along with a small amendment to paragraph 5 of the report, the truth is that nobody can seriously doubt the culpability of Slobodan Milošević regarding the awful crimes that took place in the former Yugoslavia during the years of conflict. Those who want to deny that fact fly in the face not of some notion of justice, but of our common humanity – our common demand that the law should be there to protect the weak and the innocent, not the powerful and those who can exercise power.

There obviously are questions to be asked about the length of the trial process. I want to see Mr Šešelj’s trial come to a conclusion, and I want to know whether he is found guilty or not guilty – that is what the tribunal is there to do. It is only right and proper that that trial take place, but there is a responsibility in this regard, and here I echo the words of the chief prosecutor. Although there are accusations concerning the way in which Mr Šešelj has been treated, there are also very strong accusations concerning the way in which he has chosen to defend himself, and to delay the trial process.

This has been a helpful debate, and there have been some good speeches from people speaking on behalf of the countries represented. It is important that I do not accuse everyone of the same tactic of denial. There are those who want to move the whole region forward, and I very much welcome that. They ought to have the support of the whole Council of Europe family – that is only right and proper. As always with these matters, there is a narrow relationship of trust with each other which we are trying to develop. The way to ensure that we develop that level of trust is to see the indictees demanded by The Hague brought to The Hague. The delivery of Messrs Tolimir and Đorđević was a welcome and important step towards building that trust, but we still need to see Mladić and Karadžić there. That is fundamental. It is not an option that we can avoid.

Let me say again that nations should not stand accused of collective guilt, but only by bringing individuals to the court can we absolve nations of that responsibility.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Does the chairman of the committee wish to speak?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) believed that it was a duty to fight against impunity, which was a violation of the principles of civil society. Respect for the victims was vital. While the ad hoc tribunal had done very important work, it was necessary to move to a single new standing international court. The Statute of Rome should be adopted worldwide. Finally, it was not the countries and citizens of those countries that were being accused, but the individuals who were committing the crimes.

THE PRESIDENT. – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution to which seven amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled. We will consider first the amendments to the draft resolution. They will be taken in the following order: 2 to 6, 1 and 7.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mr Tomislav Nikolić, Mr Dragan Todorović, Mr Ivica Dačić, Ms Donka Banović, Mr Dario Rivolta, Mr Andrija Mandić, Ms Vjerica Radeta and Ms Nataša Jovanović, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, replace the first sentence with the following words:

“More than ten years have elapsed since the conflicts in the territory of the former Yugoslavia; however all those responsible for war crimes have not yet been brought to justice.”

I call Mr Nikolić to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr NIKOLIĆ (Serbia). – It is a well-known fact in the history of Europe that the Balkan wars were waged in 1908 and 1912. It is also well known that the conflicts of 1991 occurred in the territory of Yugoslavia, a sovereign country and a member state of the United Nations. A civil war took place in the territory of one state: it was not transferred to the territory of any other Balkan country. We contest and oppose the statement in the report that “only a tiny proportion of those responsible for war crimes have been brought to justice.”

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mr Ivica Dačić, Mr Tomislav Nikolić, Mr Dragan Todorović, Ms Donka Banović, Mr Dario Rivolta, Mr Andrija Mandić, Ms Vjerica Radeta and Ms Nataša Jovanović, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 5.

I call Mr Dačić to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr DAČIĆ (Serbia). – I consider paragraph 5 to be redundant. A basic principle of law is the presumption of innocence. No one is guilty until proven otherwise. Other former presidents of other republics are also dead. Unfortunately, we cannot determine the length of anyone’s life, including the lives of heads of states.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Lloyd.

Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom). – This is a fundamental issue. I must say kindly but firmly to Mr Dačić that there is no question of a legal process before a court. President Milošević will not stand further trial. We are no longer presuming innocence until guilt is proven, any more than Mr Dačić himself did when he mentioned other leaders in the region, or any more than he or any other Serb would do when considering the guilt or innocence of Adolf Hitler.

Let us be clear: we are making an historical judgment that Slobodan Milošević was responsible for some of the most atrocious crimes that have taken place on this continent. It is therefore not appropriate to delete the paragraph on that basis.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is rejected.

I have received an oral amendment from Mr Lloyd, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which reads as follows: “In the draft resolution, paragraph 5, before the word ‘conviction’, insert the word ‘possible’.”

In my opinion, the oral amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to its being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Lloyd to support the oral amendment. He has one minute.

Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom). – I am not convinced that this is my amendment, but for the sake of progress let me say that I have no problem with discussing conviction in a conjectural sense – that is, possible conviction. It may be a matter of logic. If the amendment will narrow the gap between those who feel strongly in their different ways, it may help us to make progress.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment?

I call Mrs Vermot-Mangold.

Mrs VERMOT-MANGOLD (Switzerland) said she was against the amendment as it was not a “possible” condemnation. Things had to be said the way they were.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mr Miloš Jeftić, Mr Miloljub Albijanić, Mr Ivica Dačić, Ms Donka Banović, Mr Željko Ivanji, Mr Andrija Mandić, Mr Tomislav Nikolić, Mr Dragan Todorović, Ms Vjerica Radeta and Ms Nataša Jovanović, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 10.

I call Mr Aligrudić to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia). – The person mentioned in paragraph 10 is not in the Russian Federation but in detention in The Hague tribunal.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mr Tomislav Nikolić, Ms Donka Banović, Mr Dario Rivolta, Mr Andrija Mandić and Mr Ivica Dačić, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 10 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly acknowledges that it is now more than four years since Dr Vojislav Šešelj made a voluntary appearance in front of the tribunal and that since that time he has been kept in confinement and his trial has not yet been started. Therefore, the Assembly calls on the tribunal to set a date for the commencement of his trial.”

I call Mr Nikolić to support Amendment No. 5.

Mr NIKOLIĆ (Serbia). – The indictment against Vojislav Šešelj was raised by the tribunal which he voluntarily approached on 24 February 2003. He has been kept in pre-trial detention for four and half years, because the tribunal is not yet ready to start the trial process. In his effort to fight for his basic rights, especially the right to a just and fair trial, he even used his own life as a means to protest, by going on hunger strike for 30 days. Violation of his basic human rights was also confirmed by the chairperson of the judicial council, Judge Jean-Claude Antonetti, at the status conference.

The Parliamentary Assembly should openly state its position on the imprisonment and pre-trial detention, which has lasted almost five years, of someone who is a citizen of Europe and a politician – or perhaps there are those who defend human rights selectively.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that Mr Lloyd wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which reads as follows:

“In Amendment No. 5, delete the words ‘replace paragraph 10 with the following paragraph’ and insert the words ‘insert the following paragraph after paragraph 14’.”

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

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

I call Mr Lloyd to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom). – This is very much a technical oral sub-amendment, but I want to make the point that I am very pleased that the amendment before us simply calls for a trial date to be set, without judging the merits or otherwise of where responsibility for delay in that trial occurs. The amendment from our Serbian colleagues provides a much more acceptable framework. I am sure that it is acceptable within the text of this document.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr NIKOLIĆ (Serbia). – If Mr Lloyd says that this could be a new paragraph, we agree.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 5, as amended? I call Lord Russell-Johnston.

Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON (United Kingdom). – I want to speak against the amendment, because all colleagues heard the very clear rebuttal of the allegation that the delay in Šešelj’s trial was the fault of The Hague tribunal. In fact, that was the consequence of the way he himself conducted his own defence. He is accused of horrible crimes. I do not agree that this amendment should be accepted.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mr Miloš Jeftić, Mr Miloljub Albijanić, Mr Dragoljub Mićunović, Ms Donka Banović, Mr Željko Ivanji, Mr Dario Rivolta, Mr Andrija Mandić, Mr Tomislav Nikolić, Mr Dragan Todorović, Ms Vjerica Radeta and Ms Nataša Jovanović, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 11.

I call Mr Aligrudić to support Amendment No. 6.

Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia). – Thank you. As I have already explained, I do not think that the policy of imposing conditions is a good one. The amendment suggests that the Assembly should invite the European Union to maintain its demands regarding Serbian co-operation with the ICTY. I do not think that we should call on the European Union to maintain any of its demands. That is a matter for the European Union.

THE PRESIDENT. – If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment No. 1 falls. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Lloyd.

Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President. I oppose this amendment on two grounds, one of which is substantive: it would not be helpful to delete the concept that lies in paragraph 11. In fact, because Amendment No. 1 would fall if Amendment No. 6 were adopted, I urge colleagues to vote against this amendment. Frankly, it is important that, although we recognise that there has been welcome movement from the Serbian authorities, the alternative amendment refers to the arrest and transfer of Tolimir and Đordević to The Hague. Nevertheless, it is still important that the European Union maintains some pressure. It has begun to renegotiate with the Serbian authorities – a good sign of co-operation from Brussels – but the important issue in the end is that it would be inconceivable for the European Union to sign the stabilisation agreement unless there was full and final co-operation with The Hague tribunal. So we should maintain our own demand on the European Union in that context. That is best done by opposing this amendment and supporting the next amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is against Amendment No. 6, but in favour of Amendment No. 1.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 6 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Tony Lloyd, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Andreas Gross and Mrs Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 11 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly welcomes the arrests and the transfers of Zdravko Tolimir and Vlastimir Đordević to The Hague tribunal and notes that this positive progress has enabled the European Union to resume negotiations. In this context, however, the Assembly continues to invite the European Union to maintain its demands regarding Serbian co-operation with the ICTY as a precondition for the signing of a Stabilisation and Association Agreement.”

I call Mr Lloyd to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom). – In fact, Mr President, I have already put the case for Amendment No. 1, in opposing the previous amendment, so I simply reiterate that case.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mr Miloš Jeftić, Mr Miloljub Albijanić, Mr Dragoljub Mićunović, Mr Željko Ivanji, Mr Dario Rivolta, Mr Andrija Mandić, Mr Tomislav Nikolić, Mr Dragan Todorović, Ms Vjerica Radeta, Ms Nataša Jovanović and Mr Ivica Dačić, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 14 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly takes note of the length and complexity of the proceedings before the tribunal and therefore urges the ICTY to invest additional efforts to maximise the effectiveness of the proceedings and thus prevent any possible further violation of the basic human rights of the indictees.”

I call Mr Aligrudić to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia). – The amendment is self-explanatory. However, we should pay attention not only to the victims – the whole of the draft resolution is about the victims, something which I acknowledge and support – but to the proceedings of the trial, because it has to do something about the position of the indictees and their basic rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that Mr Lloyd wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which reads as follows:

“In Amendment 7, delete the words ‘and thus prevent any possible further violation of the basic human rights of the indictees’.”

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

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

I call Mr Lloyd to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President, for calling me for what I think will be the last time. There is an obvious point to be made. It is right and proper for us to urge the tribunal to maximise the effectiveness of the proceedings, as that is our duty. However, the problem with the final few words of Amendment No. 7 is that an inference can be drawn from the reference to possible further violations that there have been well-defined and accepted violations in the first place. The proposal has come forward at a late stage; it has not been possible to debate it properly either in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights or in the Chamber. It would be unwise of us to suggest the refereeing of possible previous or further violations. Therefore, I hope that colleagues will accept the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia). – As there are references to a fair trial and the quality of defence in paragraph 71, I agree with the rapporteur.

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

The committee is in favour.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 7, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7, as amended, is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11281, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11281, as amended, is adopted, with 84 votes for, 2 against and 7 abstentions.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11281. A two-thirds majority is required.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11281 is adopted, with 85 votes for, 0 against and 6 abstentions.

(Mr Schreiner, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Holovaty.)

5. Debate under urgent procedure: how to prevent cybercrime against state institutions in member and observer states

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The second item of business this morning is the debate under urgent procedure on “How to prevent cybercrime against state institutions in member and observer states”, presented by Mr Sasi on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 11325, with an opinion presented by Mr Agramunt on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, Document 11335, and an opinion presented by Ms Lilliehöök on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, Document 11333.

The list of speakers, which has been distributed, closed at 6.30 p.m. yesterday. Nine speakers are on the list, and 12 amendments have been tabled. The speaking time is limited to four minutes.

I call Mr Sasi, rapporteur. You have eight minutes.

Mr SASI (Finland). – In late April and the beginning of May, a Council of Europe member state, Estonia, was subjected to extensive cyber-attacks. They reached a peak on 8 and 9 May, and caused disruptions in the functioning of many Estonian data transmission networks and web pages, including those of the government, ministries, parliament, police, mass media, telecommunication companies and banks. There were also disruptions in other member states.

The attack on Estonia was carefully planned. The attackers used bot-machines; they had captured other people’s data machines and used them in the attack. Unfortunately, several Internet sites also posted instructions on how to carry out a cyber-attack and how to make it more extreme. Such attacks could be directed against any of our member countries. They endanger democratic stability and national security, and they raise fundamental concerns in respect of human rights and the rule of law.

The case of Estonia shows that we must fight together against cybercrime. The 2001 Convention on Cybercrime came into effect in 2004. It contains extensive legislative provisions to counter cybercrime attacks against critical infrastructure. It is the only binding convention on this subject. So far it has been ratified by 21 countries, including a country that is not a member of the Council of Europe but is an observer, the United States.

The following Council of Europe member states have ratified the treaty and I praise them for doing so: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Slovenia, Macedonia and Ukraine. That shows that there are many large member states that have not yet ratified the treaty. Discussions with Russia are under way concerning the interpretation of an article so that Russia can sign and ratify the treaty. It is our task to urge all member states to sign and ratify the Convention on Cybercrime and its additional protocol without delay. We should ask questions in our national parliaments and put pressure on our governments so that our national parliaments sign and ratify the convention as soon as possible.

The technologies develop rapidly. The attack on Estonia was a new development. That clearly shows that the convention should be regularly examined. The Committee of Experts on Terrorism – or CODEXTER – is examining whether there are gaps in existing instruments. We eagerly await its findings and expect the convention to be amended soon if there is a need to do so.

International co-operation is key when countries fight together against cybercrime. Therefore, it is important that countries speedily and effectively exchange information when a country is under attack. Tracing the criminals is possible only if there is wide international co-operation. Effective national implementation of the rules in the fight against cybercrime is important. When the source of an attack can be traced to a country, the national authorities should act rapidly and effectively. Incitements and criminal attacks should be stopped as soon as possible. It is also important that the international community shows that those responsible for cybercrimes cannot avoid legal responsibility. Successful attacks can easily spread widely and in the worst case they could become a way to conduct private wars against states.

Having said all that, I want to emphasise that all actions against cybercrime must be based on the law and fully respect human rights and civil liberties. Action must not be arbitrary. The Assembly should make cybercrime a priority. It was also discussed at the EU summit a week ago. We should closely follow developments and return to the matter to guarantee that international rules to stop cybercrime are up to date.

I appreciate the work of the committees, including the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, which have made a valuable contribution to the discussion.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Agramunt, Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) thanked the rapporteurs of both the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development as well as the Secretariat of his own committee, the Political Affairs Committee. It was crucial to appreciate that the motives for cybercrime were increasingly political as well as economic. The cyber-attack on Estonia had been so successful because Estonia’s primary infrastructure was electronic, and it had one of the highest levels of Internet connection in Europe. A direct link between cyber-attacks and political crises was increasingly detectable. In the case of the attack on Estonia, there was some evidence of a link between the cyber-attack and the move of a bronze statue from a central square to a military cemetery. Of course, attacks could be organised within a very short time scale, and from anywhere in the world.

As had been predicted a long time ago, our societies were now faced by a new form of warfare, cyber-warfare. That posed a real threat, and it was crucial that action was taken to prevent such attacks. Indeed, some countries, such as China, were already setting up military units to combat cyber-warfare. Last but not least, the threat of cyber-terrorism should not be forgotten. Cyber-security should therefore be a top priority for every country. All countries should be strongly encouraged to sign up to the Convention on Cybercrime.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Ms Lilliehöök, Rapporteur of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.

Ms LILLIEHÖÖK (Sweden). – The committee stands behind the report, but we propose an amendment to call for an explicit partnership with the private sector to build a public-private partnership for effective and cross-sector co-operation against cybercrime.

The majority of uses and resources are found in the private sector and in private organisations. They possess vital knowledge and resources to help us to combat cybercrime. Successful preventive work demands awareness and vigilance in all corners of the Internet and between users, in order to get early warning of malevolent technical development and uses of the Internet that aim to cause harm. Good and useful software can become bad and harmful if hijacked or changed for criminal purposes. Viruses, worms, server hijacks, mail flooding, botnets or other cybercrimes do not appear in an open and transparent way within the networks of states and governments. On the contrary, any probable cybercrime will come from hidden, other parts of society. We therefore warn against leniency and lack of vigilance or action against any web crimes or cyber attacks. This responsibility must be taken up by member states. International and cross-border co-operation is essential because of the international and cross-border nature of the Internet. The most recent example is what happened in Estonia. That case certainly pinpoints the urgency with which all member states should sign and ratify the Convention against Cybercrime.

Any criminal attack on the Internet against private groups or enterprises in one country can hit hard against that state. However, retaliation and counter-attacks may hit the original offender in another country but will also probably strike against other victims, including those in other states. Hence, vigilance, action and international co-operation are in the self-interest of every member state.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, and I also thank all three rapporteurs. We now start our general debate. I remind you that each speaker will have four minutes. The first speaker on the list is Mr Kallio, who is speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr KALLIO (Finland). – First, I would like to thank the rapporteurs and committees for this highly topical and important report. Our group shares the concern about the vulnerability of modern society to cybercrime.

Dear colleagues, the age of cyber-war has arrived. The attacks on the Estonian Government and commercial websites in May made news around the world. As Mr Sasi said, the whole Estonian state was under attack, including the president’s office, parliament, ministries and banks. The attack provides one of many reasons why the member states of the Council of Europe should work more closely to fight cybercrime.

Much bigger attacks on a much wider scale could happen at any time in the future, and we must be better prepared for that. The danger is clear and present. The results of this kind of assault, if successful, are no different from those stemming from a military attack on a modern state. The country will be disabled and chaos will take over.

The Internet does not recognise borders. It is everywhere and it is something that modern governments and democracy can no longer live without. That is why I draw the Assembly’s attention to the security issues of a globalising world. We also know that the tools of attack are becoming more widely available and the technical capability and sophistication of users bent on causing havoc or destruction is improving. That is why increasing numbers of actors are capable of launching nationally significant assaults against our infrastructures and cyber-space.

The development of the Internet and other information systems has also opened many new possibilities for criminals. There are criminal groups operating in Europe, which have probably yielded profits of tens of millions from internet fraud. In addition, European Internet users are also exposed to child pornography and terrorism. Legislation and operational law enforcement have obvious difficulties in keeping pace. The cross-border character of these crimes underlines the need for international co-operation and co-ordination.

International standards for addressing the problem, such as the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, are evolving. Setting international standards to counter cybercrime, while still protecting civil liberties, will be a continuing challenge. Our group emphasises that it will be an even greater challenge to press nation states to adhere to those standards by enacting and enforcing laws against cybercrime. However, as the attacks against Estonia show, the task cannot be delayed. The increasing sophistication and accessibility of malware means that these problems will only become worse. Let us hope that the future of the internet is not at stake.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Kallio. I call Mr Herkel, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – This time, dear colleagues, I have the opportunity to speak on a topic that is so closely related to my country. The size of the cyber-attack was unprecedented and I would like to remind you that my political family, the Group of the European People’s Party political bureau, condemned the attacks on Estonia, including the cyber-attacks that had already taken place on 15 May.

Despite the fact that this report was prepared for debate under our urgent procedure, it is not the first fast reaction with the intention of condemning cyber-criminals. Honestly speaking, the international community is quite helpless vis-à-vis cyber-terrorism. This report deals with proposals and possible solutions to improve our existing instruments to fight against cybercrime.

Rapporteur Mr Sasi, as well as the other rapporteurs for opinion, had very limited time, but they worked effectively. I would like to thank you all, including committee staff, for this contribution.

I would like to make a few relevant comments. First, the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime is the most comprehensive international treaty on the subject. Unfortunately, it is not ratified by many member states, yet what happened in Estonia highlights the importance of the topic. We should also remember that this convention is open to non-member states. The United States ratified the convention; Canada, Japan and South Africa signed it; and Costa Rica and Mexico are invited to accede. It is therefore right to emphasise the pioneering role of the Council of Europe.

At the same time, however, and in the light of new challenges, there is an urgent need to develop additional instruments. The most important issue is international co-operation and the exchange of information at all levels – I emphasise all levels – of the countries concerned in order to combat-cyber attacks effectively. Without international will, we cannot succeed.

We are eager to consider the findings of the Committee of Experts on Terrorism regarding improvements to the various instruments. It would be possible to have additional protocols to the convention in two different fields. There could be a framework of co-operation between states, and a more exact definition of cybercrime and cyber-terrorism.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Ojuland, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mrs OJULAND (Estonia). – I note the low attendance today. There is an urgent need to debate this important issue, and we should bear it in mind that what happened to Estonia could happen to any country at any time.

As in many other countries, in Estonia the Internet has become vital to people’s everyday lives in many areas – from paying taxes and buying goods and services, to arranging car parking and voting in elections. In fact, 97% of all banking transactions are done on the Internet. The Estonian Government was the first in the world to introduce e-governance. It is important to understand that in the modern world, the cyber-space of an independent country has become of equal importance to the other characteristics of a sovereign state. Cyber-space has become a matter of national security. Increased dependence on online services and on the critical information infrastructure makes modern societies increasingly vulnerable. The Internet could be the battlefield of the 21st century. Countering cyber-threats requires a significant increase in assets, improvements in awareness and training, investment in technology, and the taking of conceptual and doctrinal approaches.

Politically motivated – I repeat, politically motivated – cyber-attacks pose special challenges to governments, as cyber-attacks are attempting to destabilise societies. As a result of effective political propaganda, a significant number of people could be motivated to launch a massive cyber-attack almost instantly. Even ad hoc and amateur attacks can inflict serious damage to the critical information infrastructure. When the most aggressive cyber-attack so far took place, the Russian Duma delegation, led by a colleague who is a member of this Assembly, visited Estonia on 30 May. Before the delegation left Moscow, one of its members made a statement, saying that the Prime Minister of Estonia should resign. Later that day, at a press conference in Tallinn, a member of the delegation confirmed its opinion that the Government of Estonia should resign.

As the Liberal Group points out, the ability of the existing political, diplomatic and legal framework to deal with this issue is limited. It is difficult, if not impossible, to track the origins of cyber-attacks. Dealing with them is even more complicated, as there is no common international definition of the phenomenon. The group takes the view that to deal efficiently with cyber-attacks, we need to react rapidly and to establish international arrangements between states and private entities. The group calls on member states and partners to sign and ratify the Convention on Cybercrime. However, we need to think further. In our view, it is vital to establish a commonly agreed legal definition of cyber-warfare and other related matters. That must be a common concern of all international organisations – from the United Nations to NATO.

A first step for us here in the Council of Europe should be a full report on cyber-attacks against independent government institutions and private entities. In that report, questions about the various definitions used and the measures needed can be analysed, and further steps on the part of member states can be proposed.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Greenway, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – In the modern world, information technology underpins every aspect of daily life – not just commerce but industrial processes, military defence systems, transport infrastructure, and government information about tax, welfare and health records. The list is endless. Everything that we do, and everything done by government and commerce for citizens and consumers alike, is dependent on the most advanced and sophisticated IT systems. Any attempt to destabilise, paralyse or destroy technology infrastructure must therefore be regarded, and can only be regarded, as an extremely dangerous reality deserving the most urgent attention from governments.

It is right that this Assembly should take the lead and provide a clear and unambiguous programme of action for both member and observer states of the Council of Europe. I strongly support everything that the report says about the importance of international action. We should wait for the CODEXTER report, but there can be no excuse for the governments of member states failing to ratify and implement the existing convention and its additional protocol – including, I am ashamed to say, my own government. The cybercrime terrorist threat, the political threat, the potential for political instability and the criminal threat are all compelling arguments for these steps to be taken without delay.

We also need to know more about what occurred in Estonia and in other states, and who was to blame. The report points the finger of suspicion at Russia – a member of the Council of Europe – but provides little tangible evidence beyond a reference to an article in the International Herald Tribune, and explicit incitement and instructions on the Internet regarding the carrying out of cyber-attacks. We need to know more about this issue. Are these website references still on the Internet? If so, why? The international community must also help Estonia to establish the truth about what occurred and who was responsible. Unless we have the complete facts about what happened, how it happened and who was responsible, combating and preventing similar attacks in future will be all the more difficult.

This Assembly should be concerned about the potential impact of cybercrime on individual citizens and their rights. For example, in the workplace or while travelling, every one of us is dependent on technology functioning correctly. I have personal and business interests in risk management, and I warmly welcome the amendments calling for a greater involvement of the private sector in helping to ensure not only more effective and cross-border co-operation, but the provision of advice and information to governments on how to ensure public safety. That issue must be given top priority.

I want to conclude by expressing my very real concern about data protection and credit card fraud. Colleagues will be aware that the United States is demanding the credit card details of airline passengers who wish to travel to the United States, and that this information may be stored for some time. The truth is that credit card details are increasingly stored in all manner of IT systems – in Britain, we would say that they are bandied about willy-nilly – thereby posing a real risk of personal loss to many individuals. The right to privacy is fundamental to the European Convention on Human Rights, and we should return to this subject as soon as possible. It is one aspect of Internet crime – of so-called cybercrime – but it is not just states, governments and corporations that are at risk. Many of the individual citizens whom we represent in this place are equally at risk, and we should bear that in mind.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Kox, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Let me be frank. I am not an expert on this issue, and I have replaced the person who was going to speak. I read Mr Sasi’s report as a parliamentarian, not an expert, and I have to admit that I am not too impressed by it. He has produced many other reports that were of high quality. The excuse this time could be that this is an urgent debate, and there was not much time to prepare. The same goes for those of us who prepare speeches. However, we have discussed better-based reports during this part-session.

When we strip the report of its less relevant aspects, what remains is the fact that cybercrime exists, that it is far more than a theoretical matter, and that – as was shown by the recent events in Estonia – if and when it is carried out in an organised way, it will be capable of threatening important parts of society. It is therefore important, as the rapporteur says, for our member states to sign and ratify the Convention on Cybercrime of 2001, which is the only binding and the most comprehensive international treaty on cybercrime. We in the Group of the Unified European Left support the proposal that governments that have not signed it should do so as soon as possible, and that all parliaments take the matter seriously and ratify the convention at an early stage.

Cybercrime can threaten Internet-based systems, and if systems do not function properly people can be threatened. That is, of course, what should worry us most. However, there is no reason to panic. The Estonian authorities proved capable of addressing the threat. Nothing serious happened, and no damage was caused. Small Estonia appeared to be stronger than those who had attacked it, wherever they came from, and I presume that other countries will have the same capability. What we should do is stay calm, and provide a level playing field on which all member states can address the threats that exist.

This is the advice from my group: do not panic, stay calm, ratify the convention, and do not place too much trust in the Internet. It is better to trust people than to trust electronic cyber-space.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr von Sydow.

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden). – Much has been said about the attack on Estonia, and about cyber-attacks in other areas. Sweden is going to ratify the Convention on Cybercrime. Moreover – this has not been mentioned yet – there is an adapted European Union framework law which gives the EU more capabilities related to the convention.

As a former Minister of Defence, I would draw the line rather further than it has been drawn in the debate so far. I believe that the international humanitarian laws, the so-called laws for war, probably apply to cyber-attacks at least in part. There is an element of warfare in such attacks, as the final assessments of the attacks on Estonia will probably confirm. We want the humanitarian laws to apply to cyber-attacks, but the issue is tricky. Defence Ministers worldwide are holding discussions. What if the legal framework does not apply? What if there is no international consensus on how the existing frameworks should be applied? Will counter-measures be required to deal with a cyber-attack like the one on Estonia? How can we foresee the use of cyber-attacks in a conventional war? In that event, the humanitarian laws would have to apply.

Can we foresee an unconventional war initiated and conducted by means of a very short cyber-attack, lasting only a few seconds? Would that be within the meaning of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which grants the right of self-defence? What kind of self-defence using conventional weapons would be involved? Those issues are very tricky, and I am afraid that if we cannot establish a relevant legal framework, we could face a so-called arms race, escalated preparations and preventive, pre-emptive measures.

Those issues are fundamental to peace, human rights and the well-being of humans all over the world. The attack on Estonia demands that the legal regulations operate worldwide. We should start here with our options for conventions. We feel deep solidarity with Estonia, for we are all affected by this very worrying issue.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Circene.

Mrs CIRCENE (Latvia). – I congratulate the Assembly on its decision to debate this subject during the current part-session. It is the right time for us to debate it, as it should be given urgent priority as a matter of great importance. I found it a little strange to hear Mr Kox say that the problem did not seem to be so very serious.

I thank Kimmo Sasi for his important report. The Parliamentary Assembly approved the European Convention on Cybercrime in 2001. For the first time criminal cyber-attacks have targeted a whole state, attempting to paralyse the functioning of infrastructure that was vital to the Republic of Estonia, and the development of further IT possibilities poses new challenges in the field of terrorism.

What happened in Estonia on 8 and 9 May, when the functioning of many Estonian data transmission networks was disrupted, could be compared with real terrorism, involving the explosion of bombs in banks, harbours or state offices. The result was the same. A real attack has shown how dangerous and widespread the new threat may be. We could view the events in Estonia as just an example, but we could also imagine what might happen if the technology were improved and used everywhere as a form of terrorism. It would be a cheaper and easier method than explosions.

No state is safe in the face of this danger, and it is therefore of the utmost importance for an efficient protection and reaction system to be developed at international level. We must bear it in mind that cybercrime is a real threat to democracy, human rights and state security. In this instance computers are the weapons, threatening whole populations. This month, the Cybercrime Convention Committee examined issues related to the threat of terrorism. That shows that the problem is recognised not just in Estonia and some other countries, but at a higher level.

The Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime is the only binding and is the most comprehensive international treaty on the subject to date. It contains extensive legislative provisions to counter cyber-attacks against critical infrastructure, and it has received widespread international support. The only weakness in the international system of protection against cybercrime that was established by the convention is the small number of states that have signed and ratified it. It is therefore an urgent priority that all member states of the Council of Europe, as well as observer states, sign and ratify the treaty without further delay and implement its provisions fully. In that context, the effective prosecution of cyber-criminals and the criminalisation of IT-based attacks, including attacks on critical infrastructures, is particularly important.

We European parliamentarians have to invite all our member states and observer states to sign and ratify the Convention on Cybercrime and its additional protocol without delay. If we do so, we will really support the core values of the Council of Europe – democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Another very important issue is the development of policies and strategies on the basis of relevant technical studies to protect infrastructures. Only by co-operating will we have an effective support system against cybercrimes. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Reps.

Mrs REPS (Estonia). – Thank you, Mr President. First, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Sasi, and the three committees for their excellent work.

From 27 April to 18 May 2007, Estonia fell under a cyber-attack, the size of which no country has seen before. Dear colleagues, the Internet is a good battlefield for the 21st century. Countering cyber-threats requires a much better awareness in all our countries and among all decision makers, as well as training people and investing in technology. Any country can come under attack, as we are all increasingly dependent on the Internet. We are dependent on the exchange of information, and we use various online services for banking and public services. Politically motivated cyber-attacks are an especially serious challenge to governments, as the aim is to destabilise society as a whole.

Dear colleagues, we should realise that only three things are needed for a successful cyber-attack: effective propaganda, a considerable number of motivated people and simple technology. Those three things can produce a massive attack. It is possible for any organised group, including terrorist groups, and any state to use cyber-attacks as part of their arsenal.

In Estonia, the cyber-attacks targeted key governmental and private websites, as well as the information systems of governmental institutions and banking, finance and telecommunication service providers, and so on. The amount of cyber-traffic from outside Estonia that targeted governmental institutions was 400 times higher than the normal rate. Most of the attacks involved the denial of services. However, more sophisticated, larger bot-nets were used. Later in the attacks – in late April and May – distributed denial of service attacks were used. As a result of the attacks, some sites experienced difficulties and a temporary loss of service. Dear colleagues, the main objective of the politically motivated attacks was to bring down the Internet system by overloading it.

Another serious matter for all of us to consider is the fact that the anonymity of the Internet makes it difficult to identify a specific attacker. The Estonian analysis shows that the self-proclaimed attacker is a commissar in the pro-Kremlin Russian youth group called Nashi. It is clear from the methods used that highly skilled cyber-attack specialists were involved in the cyber-attack on Estonia. Many attacks in the campaign were so well co-ordinated that they must have required significant resources. In addition, many Russian portals called on people to attack different Estonian governmental sites and gave a detailed explanation of how to do so.

Dear colleagues, it is important for all of us to take cyber-attacks extremely seriously. Any country or organisation can be faced with organised cyber-attacks that aim to bring down the Internet simply by overloading it. It is important that the members of the Council of Europe increase co-operation in fighting against cyber-criminals by exchanging information, best practice and technological developments. It is of crucial importance that the Assembly should discuss a report in the near future that analyses the different attacks carried out against our member states, detailing the measures used and problems discovered. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call the last speaker, Mr Fedorov.

Mr FEDOROV (Russian Federation) said that this was a good debate and raised important issues. New threats were cropping up all the time which affected all states. One of the most dangerous types was cyber-terrorism, especially when it helped to facilitate terrorist acts. Cyber-terrorism was a threat to the whole world and required global action by all states. Often, attacks were short-lived and occurred across borders. States had to learn how to defend their networks. For example, there had been a number of attempted attacks on the Russian presidential site, but they had failed because of the robust integrity of the defence system employed. It was a false economy not to invest in such counter-measures.

It was questionable why this matter had been raised under the urgent debate procedure. How could a state be accused of attacking Estonia? Was that an example of propaganda which raised the myth of the Kremlin hacker? That suggestion was rude, immoral and unproven. Surely, it was the work of individuals acting on their own account. What had the Estonian state done to protect Russian statues and graves? Estonia had a responsibility in this respect.

Russia was preparing to sign up to the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime and had itself proposed a relevant protocol, which as yet no one else had taken up. Russia as a country would defend itself and would not have its honour besmirched.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Sasi, rapporteur, to reply. You have four minutes, which may be shared with the rapporteurs of the committees for opinion.

Mr SASI (Finland). – Mr Kallio, speaking for the Socialist Group, rightly said that increasing numbers of people can launch these attacks against countries or institutions; when the threshold for being able to do that becomes lower, the world becomes more dangerous. That is why we must act as swiftly as possible; single individuals must not be able to get their hands on the tools to launch such attacks. Mr Kallio also rightly said that fraud and other economic criminality are major aspects of Internet misuse; as a result, there are huge economic losses. We should discuss not only cyber-attacks on countries but also Internet fraud, because all Internet criminality must be combated.

Mr Herkel, who spoke on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, rightly said that the Convention on Cybercrime is open to all countries. It is not enough for only Council of Europe countries to be signatories to it. All countries that have heavy Internet traffic – almost all countries in the world – must be involved. That is why we will actively encourage countries from all corners of the world to sign up to our convention. International co-operation is important.

Mrs Ojuland, speaking for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, mentioned the low attendance at our debate. The members who are present must encourage their delegations to urge their countries to sign and ratify the convention as soon as possible. That is how we can have influence.

Mr Greenway, speaking on behalf of the European Democrat Group, said that we need to know more. It is important that the Estonia case is thoroughly and carefully studied. That information will be delivered to the Council of Europe, CODEXTER and all other parties so that the means can be developed to enable us to fight cybercrime more effectively.

Mr Kox was not particularly worried about the possibility of services such as bank services being interrupted. If they are interrupted for a brief period, such as two days, that can be survived; but if the interruption lasts longer, it becomes more difficult to cope. We must remember that businesses and public services increasingly operate on the Internet, so future interruptions will be increasingly difficult to cope with. Therefore, we must carry the fight to the cyber-criminals.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. One minute remains. I call Mr Agramunt.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) stressed the importance of as many countries as possible signing up to the relevant Council of Europe conventions, especially regarding cybercrime.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Lilliehöök.

Ms LILLIEHÖÖK (Sweden). – It is clear from our discussion that we must have co-operation and that thorough fact-finding investigations must be carried out. That would enable there to be confidence between member states. It is important to draw that conclusion.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Marty, Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said that the issue had to be considered in its entirety. It was bigger than one country or disagreements between two countries. The whole world was a village and the problem required a global solution. It was important to note that the co-rapporteurs had barely a few hours to prepare their report. Much of the criticism had therefore been unkind. His committee had approved all the recommendations contained within it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Marty, for telling us that, but we will nevertheless need to put the amendments to the vote.

The debate is closed.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which 12 amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the notice paper.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Pedro Agramunt, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, replace the words “democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and that” with the following words:

“democratic stability and national security, and raises fundamental issues as regards the respect of human rights and the rule of law. Thus,”.

I call Mr Agramunt to support Amendment No. 5.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) said that the amendment was designed to clarify the text and to add that cybercrime was a threat to national security.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Pedro Agramunt, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, before the word “Indeed”, insert the following words:

“Politically-motivated attacks against military or government websites of a number of Council of Europe member and observer states are increasingly frequent and sophisticated.”

I call Mr Agramunt to support Amendment No. 6.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) said that the amendment reflected the increasing number of attacks on the military or government websites of several Council of Europe and observer states. He noted as an example the levels of attack on the Pentagon website.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 6 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Pedro Agramunt, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 4, add the following sentence:

“This threat can emanate from private individuals, organised groups or states.”

I call Mr Agramunt to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) said that the amendment sought to make clear that future cyber-attacks could come from states or private individuals.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Pedro Agramunt, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly also recalls that the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism offers an additional instrument in the fight against cyber-terrorism, as well as against the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes.”

I call Mr Agramunt to support Amendment No. 8.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) said that the amendment was designed to add a reference to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Pedro Agramunt, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, replace the words “states have not yet ratified this important convention” with the following words:

“and observer states have not yet ratified these important conventions.”

I call Mr Agramunt to support Amendment No. 9.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) noted that the amendment related to the previous amendment and widened the scope of paragraph 7 to include observer states.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 9 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Andres Herkel, Mrs Mailis Reps, Mrs Ingrida Circene, Mr Serhiy Holovaty, Mr Egidijus Vareikis, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mr Aleksei Lotman and Mrs Kristiina Ojuland, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 8 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly notes that fight against the cybercrime requires international co-operation between the governments, the private sector and NGOs most urgently, as cyber-criminals rely on the fact that they are able to operate across borders and to exploit differences in national law. The lack of co-operation by the member states exposes them to considerable danger.”

I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – The aim of the amendment is to add the private sector and non-governmental organisations to the paragraph about co-operation in the fight against cybercrime.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Pedro Agramunt, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 13, add the following sentence:

“In doing so, they should involve private actors, including computer, networking and software industries.”

I call Mr Agramunt to support Amendment No. 10.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) said the amendment was designed to bring private actors into the development of security systems.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 10 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Pedro Agramunt, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14.2, after the words “sign and ratify”, insert the following words:

“the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism and”.

I call Mr Agramunt to support Amendment No. 11.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) said it was important to encourage as many states as possible to sign the conventions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 11 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Andres Herkel, Mrs Mailis Reps, Mrs Ingrida Circene, Mr Serhiy Holovaty, Mr Egidijus Vareikis, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mr Aleksei Lotman and Mrs Kristiina Ojuland, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14.4, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“to develop a framework for facilitating urgent political consultations and exchange of information at all necessary levels of the countries concerned in situations of extensive cyber-attacks;”.

I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – The sub-paragraph would add a few words about developing a framework of international co-operation and exchange of information at all necessary levels.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by Ms Anna Lilliehöök, on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14.5, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“associate the private sector more closely, notably by building public-private partnerships for more effective and cross-sector international co-operation against cybercrime;”.

I call Mrs Lilliehöök to support Amendment No. 12.

Mrs LILLIEHÖÖK (Sweden). – The amendment would insert a sub-paragraph about co-operation with the private sector and public-private partnerships.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 12 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr John Greenway, Mr Alan Meale, Mr Humfrey Malins, Mr David Wilshire and Mr Rudi Vis, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14.6, add the following sub-paragraph:

“give every assistance to the Government of Estonia in ensuring that a full and exhaustive investigation of the recent cyber-attacks in that country is undertaken so as to inform future international efforts to combat cybercrime.”

I call Mr Greenway to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – During his introductory comments, the rapporteur said that wide international co-operation would be needed to have any chance of bringing prosecutions against the perpetrators of cyber-attacks in Estonia. He referred to the fact that those recent events were discussed at the EU summit. As the draft resolution is addressed to both member and observer states, if adopted, the amendment would embrace the United States in the efforts to find out who is responsible and to learn the lessons from the events in formulating future actions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Andres Herkel, Mrs Mailis Reps, Mrs Ingrida Circene, Mr Serhiy Holovaty, Mr Egidijus Vareikis, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mr Aleksei Lotman and Mrs Kristiina Ojuland, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 15 with the following paragraph:

“While considering that the convention should be regularly examined in the light of technological advances and new challenges, the Assembly awaits eagerly the findings of the Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER) which is currently examining the question of whether gaps in existing instruments (including the Convention on Cybercrime) require the development of additional instruments, before addressing its recommendations to the Committee of Ministers. The Assembly resolves to return to this matter as soon as possible.”

I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – During the discussion, many speakers said that the proposed legal instruments are probably not effective enough. We are eagerly awaiting the findings of CODEXTER. Therefore, we would like the Assembly to return to the topic as soon as possible.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11325, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11325, as amended, is adopted, with 44 votes for, 0 against and 1 abstention.

I thank everyone for their participation, the chairpersons, the rapporteurs, all the speakers and the interpreters.

6. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the orders of the day which were approved on Monday.

Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The orders of the day of the next sitting are therefore agreed.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Minutes of proceedings

2. Written declaration

3. Organisation of debates

4. Prosecution of offences falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Presentation by Mr Lloyd of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Doc. 11281

Statement by Mrs del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Speakers:

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Van den Brande (Belgium)

Lord Russell-Johnston (United Kingdom)

Mr Reymann (France)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Strässer (Germany)

Mr Ivanić (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Mr Karski (Poland)

Mr Daćić (Serbia)

Mr Izetbegovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Mr Aligrudić (Serbia)

Mrs Narochnitskaya (Russian Federation)

Mr Nikolić (Serbia)

Replies:

Mrs del Ponte (Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia)

Mr Lloyd (United Kingdom)

Mr Marty (Switzerland)

Amendment No. 2, an oral amendment, Nos. 4, 5 as amended,1 and 7 as amended adopted

Draft resolution in Document 11281, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation in Document 11281 adopted.

5. Debate under urgent procedure: how to prevent cybercrime against state institutions in member and observer states?

Presentation by Mr Sasi of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Doc. 11325

Presentation by Mr Agramunt of the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee, Doc. 11355

Presentation by Ms Lilliehöök of the opinion of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, Doc. 11333

Speakers:

Mr Kallio (Finland)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mrs Ojuland (Estonia)

Mr Greenway (United Kingdom)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr von Sydow (Sweden)

Mrs Circene (Latvia)

Mrs Reps (Finland)

Mr Federov (Russian Federation)

Replies:

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Mr Agramunt (Spain)

Ms Lilliehöök (Switzerland)

Mr Marty (Switzerland)

Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 10, 11, 2, 12, 4 and 3 adopted.

Draft resolution in Document 11325, as amended, adopted.

6. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting