Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

THE PRESIDENT. – The minutes of proceedings of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Sittings have been distributed. If there are no objections, the minutes are agreed to.

The minutes are agreed to.

2. Examination of credentials

THE PRESIDENT. – The next order of the day is the examination of credentials of a new member submitted in accordance with Rule 6 and contained in Document 11566, Addendum 2.

If the credentials are not contested, they will be ratified.

Are the credentials contested?

The credentials are ratified.

I welcome our new colleague.

3. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT. – This morning’s business is very full. We have a debate under urgent procedure on the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia as the first business, with 38 amendments and five sub-amendments tabled.

We will need to interrupt the list of speakers on the debate at 11.20 a.m. to consider amendments. At noon, Mr Bernard Kouchner, Minister for Foreign and European Affairs of France, will address the Assembly and then take questions.

Are these arrangements agreed?

The arrangements are agreed.

4. Debate under urgent procedure: The functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia

THE PRESIDENT. – Our first item of business is the debate under urgent procedure on the report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia, Document 11579, presented by Mr Colombier and Mr Prescott on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitment by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee).

The co-rapporteurs, Mr Colombier and Mr Prescott, have 13 minutes in total to share between them, which they may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

The speaking time in debates this morning is five minutes.

I call Mr Prescott, co-rapporteur.

Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – Today’s urgent debate on the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia concentrates on the consequences flowing from the presidential election in the country on 19 February. You will recall that on Monday the Assembly accepted a report by Mr Colombier and by me, which is referred to in the first paragraph of the report with which we are dealing today. Our observer role is based on the responsibilities agreed between Armenia and the Council of Europe and spelt out in various resolutions that have been agreed since Armenia joined the Council of Europe in 2001.

The Assembly has, for example, called for a constitutional referendum on the constitutional changes that are necessary to bring about a more pluralistic democracy. Resolution 1532 was debated here, and passed by the Assembly in January 2007. It called for the honouring of obligations and commitments to Armenia in the securing of what the Assembly made clear was a pluralistic democracy, something that both the Assembly and Armenia are determined to achieve. It welcomed some of the moves implemented following the constitutional referendum and its successful completion. However, in the case of both debates and resolutions, we welcome the moves that have been made but conclude that they are not sufficient, and I think that that is part of the problem.

I remind the Assembly that Resolution 1532, on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia, stated, “the Assembly deplored the irregularities which tainted the conduct of the referendum and the failure to sanction the cases of fraud noted which marred the credibility of the official results.” The observation in Armenia is the only experience of this kind that I have – Mr Colombier has been going there for a number of years, and has a great deal of experience – but, in my experience, every report presented to the Assembly states that full implementation has not taken place. That is an important reason for our wish for an urgent debate today. The resolution used the phrase “marred the credibility of the official results”. As I said on Monday, that is exactly how we felt when observing the election. While we welcomed some developments, we found others regrettable.

Unfortunately, that seems to have been the general conclusion of observers from the Assembly. They have seen both advances and failures in the attempts to implement that pluralistic democracy on which both the Armenia and the Assembly agreed. The same criticisms have been made of the conduct of the recent parliamentary elections.

In Armenia today there is a continuing suspicion, a lack of trust in the electoral process and the democratic institutions, and we have spelt that out in our reports. Those who read the reports will see many of the accusations and criticisms that we have made, as well as the congratulations that we had delivered. That suspicion and concern contributed to the mass rally organised before the election. A curious development in a number of countries is that the opposition tends to organise a protest about an election that it does not consider fair before the result has been announced. That is always a difficulty, but in this instance it was known that a protest was to take place. It took place immediately after the election, and continued for several days, in a peaceful manner, before the more violent and tragic events of 1 March. On 1 March it became violent, causing 10 deaths, hundreds of injuries and hundreds of arrests, including those of three members of parliament, and the virtual house arrest of the main opposition candidate, Mr Ter-Petrossian. The declaration of a state of emergency followed that day. As all members know, restrictions on people, meetings and media are always involved in such action, and clear breaches of human rights obligations, into which Armenia entered in the Council of Europe, were committed.

I am pleased that the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights is with us today, and I must say that the report on your visit to Armenia, sir, is a credit to you – perhaps because we have arrived at the same conclusions – and all members should read it. Your visit on 12 to 15 March is detailed in the report of 20 March, and the report by Mr Colombier and myself has analysis and recommendations in common. First, there are conflicting versions of what happened, which is one of the difficulties in making announcements. I am sure that we will hear about some of those issues today. There is an overwhelming need for clarification by a comprehensive, independent and impartial inquiry. That is always important in such cases. In Northern Ireland, many years after a tragic incident in which our soldiers killed people, we had to establish an inquiry to remove the bitterness from the situation and to return trust to the system and regime involved.

The Council of Europe and the international community could monitor, assist and develop that inquiry. The distrust and bitterness need to be settled by such an inquiry, which will investigate all the serious issues and allegations made about this tragic incident and provide positive evidence on which we can all agree. Only then will trust begin to return. We are agreed that the charges against those arrested who did not commit violent acts should be dropped, and they should be freed at once. The justification of detention and charges has led to considerable concern and allegations that they are political prisoners.

As the Commissioner says in his report, in some cases powers have been used to bring charges of usurpation of the state. General charges have been made that are not necessarily proven, but are used as a means to make arrests. As the Commissioner says, “Some of the criminal provisions are not sufficiently clear nor do they specify which acts are criminalised. The current wording leaves a great degree of discretion to the prosecutor. The legal definition in the Criminal Code of the crime of usurpation of state power allows for a very broad interpretation and fails to give clear guidance on the dividing line between legitimate expressions of opinion and incitement to violence.” We need to reassess what has happened and the justification for those arrests, as an essential step towards a return to normal discussion in Armenia.

The replacement of the state of emergency by law passed by the Armenian Assembly dealing with demonstrations and meetings should be revoked with immediate effect, because, as some have complained, it is another infringement of human rights. An investigation is necessary. We point out the necessity to establish independent media, which play an essential part in encouraging debate in any democratic process.

In conclusion, our view is that unless changes are made through open dialogue on reforms, all of Armenia’s civic society and its credibility as a member of the Council of Europe will be put in doubt. As our report outlines, a step change is needed in the democratic process and institutions in Armenia. We recommend that failure to respond in a positive way to the proposals is considered at the next meeting of our Assembly in June. Consensus is needed, and we will have to consider the suspension of Armenia’s voting and participation in this Chamber.

One welcome factor is the statement made by the newly elected president, which we are to put in our report through an amendment today. In his inaugural speech, he said that he wished to bring “the Law on conducting meetings, assemblies, rallies and demonstrations in full compliance with the European standards and to encourage further co-operation with the Venice Commission on this matter”. Both the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission call for that essential action. Delegates, we must show our resolve and determination to help to bring about that democratisation in Armenia.

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

Mr COLOMBIER (France) said that the Assembly could act as a mediator to try to bring together the two sides. The Assembly and the Venice Commission could play a useful role, if certain preconditions were met. There had to be an independent, credible and transparent inquiry into the events of 1 March 2008. It was necessary to look into the circumstances leading to the excessive use of force by the police. The international community remained ready to institute an inquiry. People detained on trumped-up charges must be released and restrictions on demonstrations revoked. Until then, Armenia would have no credibility as a member of the Council of Europe, and that was why he recommended the potential suspension of its delegation’s voting rights for the June part-session.

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

Mr CHERNYSHENKO (Russian Federation) said that he had been an election observer in Armenia in 2003 and again during May. He was grateful to Mr Prescott for his excellent organisation of the latter mission. The Assembly should focus on both sides of what had happened – the election itself and subsequent events. The observers had assessed the election as being conducted impartially and in line with European standards. There had been suitable voting booths and envelopes for ballots, and the counting of votes had appeared to be satisfactory. Tragic events had followed, however. The opposition had talked immediately of rejecting the results. It had had every right to do so, but questions arose over the means by which it had been done.

It was easy to remember the elections in the old Soviet states – which had not been real elections – and how violence and detention seemed to follow inexorably when young democracies, such as Armenia, began to develop and grow. He had been in Yerevan on the day of the tragedy. Subsequent measures had established some stability, but amendment was necessary to the Armenian law governing meetings, assemblies and rallies. Such problems were, of course, not unique to Armenia; France had recently, for example, seen its police break up a student demonstration. In personal discussions, members of the Armenian delegation had assured him that what was said in the Assembly would be heard in Armenia.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Eörsi, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – Mr President and colleagues, at this juncture nothing is easier than to be critical of Armenia and the functioning of democratic institutions there, but with your permission, I would like to start with us. We all know that free and fair elections do not make a country democratic. Free and fair elections are only the preconditions for a country becoming democratic. I recall that foggy day when a standing committee met – I do not remember which one it was – and when Armenia became a member of this Organisation. I remember vividly that there was almost full consensus about its membership; there were only two votes against. One of those votes was cast by David Atkinson, leader of the European Democrat Group, and the other by me.

Of course we were pretty sad that it seemed as though we did not like Armenia enough, but it was the other way round: we voted against because we loved Armenia and we believed that we could maintain the leverage needed if Armenia was to improve its elections only if membership was postponed. We said, “For God’s sake! A country should have at least one free and fair election before it joins the Council of Europe.” We are talking about a country where, after the elections, eight people were shot dead and several people were injured. There are political prisoners kept in house custody. The report, which is very balanced, says that the charges are largely artificial and politically motivated. Of course we all know that they are political prisoners.

One problem is that we often tolerate rigged elections. If you visit the Assembly’s website, you will often see headlines in the “news” section that say, “One step towards democracy”; we all know that we are not telling the truth. There can be some improvements in the election environment, but very often the elections in question are rigged. If we want to be helpful to those countries, the least we can do is speak up and tell the truth. Very often, when we discuss our relationship with member countries where there are democratic or election deficits, we reiterate the point that we have to reinforce our consultation with the governments of those countries so that elections can be conducted better, but if there are shortcomings in an election or administrative problems, we can do a lot to improve those elections.

In a country where an election is rigged, or has involved fraud or cheating, what the hell can we discuss with those governments? Can we say, “Please do not do this?” Of course they are fully aware of what they are doing. I do not think it is a matter of consultation. One of the major problems in Armenia, aside from what happened on that tragic day, is the general distrust of the democratic processes among the population because of the rigged elections. At the end of the day, those who lose the election cannot disprove the legitimacy of the election because of the procedures, which they have become used to. Of course it matters who wins an election, but it matters much more that wider society should be able to trust and have confidence in the constitution and the electoral processes.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe fully supports the recommendations of the rapporteurs that call for dialogue. We agree that the preconditions for that dialogue are an independent, transparent and credible inquiry into the events of 1 March; that is badly needed. The recommendations also call for the release of political prisoners, but they put the point somewhat more nicely, and they call for the removal of the amendments on the election law that resulted in the rigged elections. We support that, but if we are honest to ourselves, we all know that the preconditions will never be met. I do not think that the political environment is such that the government could make such a compromise.

Colleagues, there is a huge challenge ahead of the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly. What should our relationship be towards such countries and what influence can we put on them, if any, to follow our democratic standards? If my contribution to this debate sounded pessimistic, I apologise, but please do not blame me for that.

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

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – Thank you, Mr President. I was a member of the pre-election commission, and I also observed the elections in Armenia. By visiting polling stations in the Ararat region on election day with our British colleague, Nigel Evans, I saw with my own eyes that there was a lot of enthusiasm and willingness for the elections on the part of the Armenians. We did not find any irregularities worth mentioning; the failures we saw were not intentional cheating. As you know, I am neither blind nor deaf, so I know about all the irregularities reported by other observers, both during the election and in the post-election period.

Despite that, I believe that, seen technically, the result of the elections reflects the political preference of the majority. If we could return to the pre-election period, we would find that the election was free but not fair. First, there is a lack of journalism in Armenia. Journalism is a profession with standards, but journalists in the media in Armenia find it difficult to meet those standards. There is one exception in the printed media in Yerevan, but it has only 70 000 subscribers. As I saw it, all the other media – both public and private – were run without editorial principles. There were no debates between the candidates on the issues that were important to Armenians even though they could have watched them on television.

Being a member of a pre-election commission gives you the opportunity to ask hard questions of everyone involved in the electoral process, and we did that. In meetings with the opposition and non-governmental organisations, lots of accusations were made, but little evidence of failure came forward. We used that information in our report and in our talks with the authorities. Sometimes, I had the feeling that the NGOs, for example, thought that we, as observers, would be able to do more than we actually could. I had to tell them that it takes courage to change a country and that that has to be done by its own citizens. We can observe and see that standards are followed, but we cannot interfere politically.

As I see it, Armenia has to stick to electoral standards, but the greatest challenge being faced is the fact that politics has become a struggle between political élites and not one between concepts and ideas that try to solve the everyday problems of the enthusiasts I saw both voting in and arranging the elections in the Ararat region on election day.

If my party in Norway sends someone to represent us in a national body, that representative has to be loyal to that democratic institution and not just to his party. I saw a lack of that in Armenia. People were more likely to represent themselves than the independence and integrity of democratic institutions. Are those democratic institutions democratic and do they have integrity? I doubt it. It seems to me that the institutions have been destroyed because those sitting in them do not act independently and with integrity but tend to stick up for those they represent. I wish to cite the German philosopher, Hannah Arendt, who said that being a human being means being able to debate in a public space. I saw a lack of such space for real debates in Armenia and that is something that Armenians will have to create in the future.

Furthermore, politically motivated arrests and forms of repression should stop and those detained should be released. Those who commit crimes should be prosecuted whether they are civilians or the police. There is a need for a credible, transparent investigation into the events of 1 March.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Herkel, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my group, although I initially wanted to express my own critical opinion not so much of the report as of how we deal with problems, including the case of Armenia.

We have held hearings about China and we have all witnessed the strange journey of the Olympic torch, which was escorted like a dangerous criminal. Only after huge protests against Chinese policy in Tibet did the President of the International Olympic Committee start to speak about human rights. Our Organisation is sometimes in a similar situation. I speak about our inability to react at the right time. We respond only when the crowds are on the streets and inadequate steps have been taken by a government. That is exactly the case with Armenia.

We have produced several reports and we observed the elections and our remarks were rather critical but not so strong. Armenia was not so much in focus. It is a sad story that it was not the irregularities in the elections or the basic lack of freedoms but the fact that people were killed that attracted our attention. In fact, the problems existed long before that happened.

Our Azeri colleagues usually say that the Assembly has double standards. I think that there are simply two illusions regarding some countries. First, a government has the illusion that the imitation of democratic institutions is enough for rapporteurs and observers, and the Assembly has the illusion that mild and diplomatic words in reports really reflect democratic developments. In fact, there is one double standard that I saw when I opened the files on the procedures of the Monitoring Committee. Since 2001, there have been six reports on Armenia and seven reports on Azerbaijan, but we have had only three reports on the Russian Federation since 1996. I agree with the opinion expressed by Mr Pourgourides in our political group when he said that what happened in Armenia after the presidential elections was not only about Armenia. It is even more about Russia, which is the big power in our family, and without democratic intentions.

My remarks are not so critical of the report. It is on the right track, but a lot of work needs to be done. There is another country with political prisoners and there are many questions about the constitution and the media. The Heritage Party, which is in the opposition, is in the Group of the European People's Party. On behalf of the group, I say that, although I recognise that it is a difficult task, the duty of the opposition is not just to protest but to show a democratic alternative for society.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Rouquet, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr ROUQUET (France) said that the Socialist Group welcomed the urgent debate on the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia, primarily because the bloody aftermath of the presidential elections on 19 February had scarred the Armenian people. The rapporteurs, Mr Colombier and Mr Prescott, had given an accurate description of the situation in Armenia, and it was the role of the Council of Europe to assist the country in overcoming the current crisis and moving towards democracy. In the last few years, the Council of Europe had granted its support to Armenia to aid the promotion of democracy and to assist in the democratic functioning of its institutions: it would be a shame if, after only 17 years of independence, such work had produced nothing.

The international community and the Council of Europe should be involved in the process of helping Armenia to move towards democracy. It would be the president’s role to strengthen the role of parliament, to restore political dialogue with all stakeholders and thereby conform to European standards and endorse the result of universal suffrage. There was now a great need for reforming the political institutions and moving towards democracy: progress and success would attest to the political maturity of Armenia.

He regretted the events on 1 March and stressed the importance of avoiding a repeat of such events during other elections in the region, such as those to be held in Azerbaijan in the autumn. The Council of Europe needed to give the government coalition a chance to respect political pluralism and to create the preconditions for making progress in Armenia. While it was for the Assembly to assist, it was also necessary to trust Armenia to learn from the current situation.

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

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) welcomed the initiative by the heads of all political groups to hold the debate on the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia. Armenia was a fully fledged member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and needed this resolution for its future political development. Holding free democratic elections was a serious test for any country, as problems with its political system and institutions tended to resurface during elections. He recognised the lack of democratic mechanisms in place and the need for legislation to be appropriately enforced. Armenia required more instruments to implement legislation, a full independent electoral system free from outside intervention, as well as freedom of speech. Those conditions would help the situation, and he confirmed that the coalition’s aims were in line with the draft resolution presented today.

It was widely acknowledged within the Council of Europe that the situation in Armenia was of grave concern and it was the role of the Assembly to express its dissatisfaction with the democratic process that was in place there. However, he questioned how Azerbaijan could preach to other countries in the region and seek to lead others by example when Azerbaijan itself had not yet held free elections and was abusing the current crisis in Armenia by encouraging military insurgence in Armenian territory.

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

Mrs HAJIYEVA (Azerbaijan). – What happened in Armenia? Election results were falsified. That meant not only that percentages were manipulated, but that victory was stolen from one candidate and gifted to another. What happened in Armenia? According to officials, 10 – but, in truth, 29 – people were killed only because they protested against the mass falsification of election results. What happened in Armenia? Approximately 100 people were arrested only because they protested against the falsified results. Four members of parliament were arrested simply because they joined a rally to protest against the falsification of election results. What happened in Armenia? Polling stations were set up in not only Armenia’s territory, but the territories of mountainous Karabakh, Lachin and Kelbejer in the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are occupied by Armenian military forces. Imagine France conducting its elections in Germany or Sweden setting up polling stations in Norway. Of course, that is unbelievable.

What was the reaction of our rapporteurs on the election observation mission to events in Armenia? The observation mission revealed that the elections in Armenia were administered mostly - I emphasise the word “mostly” – in line with Council of Europe standards. I want to ask our distinguished observers what the fabrication of results, the stealing of victory, the killing of people, mass arrests, the taking of hundreds of political prisoners and the violation of international law through the intervention in the jurisdiction of a neighbouring country by setting up a polling station there have to do with Council of Europe standards.

My next question is about the first paragraph of the draft resolution, which states that the elections were “administered mostly in line with Council of Europe standards”. When did a “lack of transparency” become part of the Council of Europe’s standards? Why do we not challenge the credentials of the Armenian delegation, when we have done so in much less dramatic situations? Why do we call an Iranian spy recruited by the intelligence services of this country a political prisoner – such a person has nothing to do with politics or any social activity – when we do not give the title of political prisoner to the leaders of political parties or former members of parliament who have been arrested for protesting against the fabrication of the results of the last election?

Why do we initiate the appointment of a special rapporteur and the opening of a wide debate into the case of eight or 10 people in one country when we launch no such initiative into the case of more than 100 arrests? Why should we support the Armenian terrorist regime? Have we ever seen an election in a Council of Europe member state that was accompanied by tens of murders and hundreds of arrests? This happened because we closed our eyes when the former speaker of the Armenian Parliament, Demirchian, and members of the government were assassinated.

I want to express my particular concern about our standards. If we lower our standards in such a radical way in regard to one country, it will create a chain reaction and damage the monitoring process of our Organisation. It will damage the image of our Organisation as a whole. Recently, I read a book by an American author, published in the United States, in which Serzh Sargsyan said of the massacre in Khojali that it had been done to create psychological intimidation in order to achieve victory in those territories. I feel ashamed that we helped to legalise this regime, which was responsible for the killing of at least 630 people in Khojali.

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

Mr ADONTS (Armenia). – I welcome these discussions, because there is no alternative to having them. I should like to start by breaking up the recent events in Armenia into two parts. The first was the pre-election period, which passed in a competitive and rigorous atmosphere, and the voting day, about which the observers from the European institutions have presented their evaluation, which we discussed in Monday. The second part was the post-election period, in which seven out of the eight candidates congratulated the newly elected president. Because one of the candidates disagreed with the outcome of the election, however, there were 10 days of non-stop rallies in Yerevan, which entered into the criminal realm. The events of 1 March resulted in eight deaths and many injuries.

I am sure that you will agree that any political process and any ambition, including the one to become a president at any cost, cannot be worth the life of a single person. The infamous events of 1 March were painful for our people, for my country and for the democratic and progressive parts of the world. The most effective way to alleviate the post-electoral tensions in Armenia, as well as to re-establish harmony and tolerance within its society, is dialogue. Such a proposal has been made by the newly elected president and it is still on the table.

The present internal political reality in Armenia is worrying for all political forces. I have been asked many times what is more important – internal stability or democracy. My answer is clear. Neither of these concepts can exist without the other, and we can talk about stability in Armenia only when democracy is ensured.

I value and admire the consultations in which I have been engaged with various political groups in this house. Many opinions have been expressed. I thank all those who have reconfirmed their commitment to help, advise and guide my country. However, I have also heard the view that Armenia should not be represented in this house in the first place. I contest that view, and I disagree with it. We have indeed come out of these elections somewhat weakened. Nothing can justify the loss of 10 lives. However, I am convinced that we will not be derailed from the path that we have chosen.

The democratic institutions that we have been building for the past 17 years brought us to this house seven years ago. We have considerable mileage to cover to achieve the consolidated structure of democracy. We know our weaknesses but we do not doubt our commitment. We have come into this house not for a political decision, but for a commitment. We embraced the values of this family and we are not disenchanted. We embrace your help and, with it, we will resolve our problems. That is what families are about.

We will come back with this issue in June, and I am confident about our resolve to address our present problems. Finally, I want to remind you of the words of Adam Michnik, expressed in this Chamber during the last part-session. He said that democracy equals imperfection and only dictators can be perfect.

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

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – As a representative of Armenia, I face a dilemma today. On the one hand, any Armenian is keen on the country’s democratisation, European integration and respect for freedom of expression. Hence, I am open, critical and solution-oriented, and I shall refrain from painting a rosy picture. On the other hand, experience has proved that the more we criticise the issues in Armenia, the more some of our neighbours may abuse it in an attempt to twist the democracy debate into anti-Armenian propaganda.

Confronted with this dilemma, I ask myself the question: what goal am I pursuing? The more I ponder the choice, the more convinced I become that the dilemma has secondary importance. What matters above all for me and all our society is to have change for the better; that is our primary goal. Therefore, concealment would do us a disservice.

If we truly want change in our country, we must have the ability to speak freely of shortcomings, both domestically and abroad. Concealment or downplaying may lead us and the public to the belief that there are no or only minor issues in our country. With such beliefs, one cannot move forward. Hence, anyone, including senior state officials, oppositionists or civil society activists speaking in Armenia, Strasbourg or elsewhere, must focus all their efforts on reconciliation and the restoration of faith in the eventual triumph of democracy.

Reports are frequently praised here for being balanced, but this is not simply a balanced report; it also reflects the sincere opinion of partners who are concerned about Armenia’s future. That is the only attitude that can help democracy in Armenia. We have proposed some amendments, which are not intended either to express self-defence or to downplay the issues. They are intended to make the diagnosis of the situation more accurate, as accurate diagnosis is the key to effective treatment.

The harshest self-criticism is practised by those who are most willing to correct their mistakes. Today we do not shun self-criticism, but self-criticism is not enough: practical measures are needed. Only two months remain before our June part-session. On the one hand, that is a very short time; on the other hand, much can be achieved even in that short time, provided that there is the political will. Is there such a will or not? I am confident that there is. In any event, all will become clear in June.

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

Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) said that, as everyone in the Assembly would know, he had long followed the march of the Armenian people towards independence. Independence had been achieved in 1991 and Armenia now needed to regain the ability to build a common destiny. That meant improving democratic rights and ensuring freedom of expression and free and fair elections. He was a friend of the Armenians, so he did not wish to hide his concern about the recent events, arrests and constraints on freedom. Armenians had a belief in freedom; history had told them that it was important for the cohesion of the nation and political strength. National cohesion was vital for Armenia, which also faced an economic blockade by Turkey and regional political uncertainty.

Some external forces saw Armenia merely as a field in which to conduct their rivalries by fomenting unrest and then setting themselves up in judgment on it. That had happened again and he deeply deplored the violence which had occurred. It was vital that the conditions for a fresh political start be established, but they could not be imposed: they were the business of Armenians alone. As recognised in the report by Mr Colombier and Mr Prescott, the agreement that had been reached by the President and other parties was welcomed; it led to a coalition government which ought to encourage stabilisation. The clear will expressed by President Sargsyan gave grounds for hope, so it would be unfortunate if the Assembly threatened the suspension of voting rights, the interpretation of which might be that the die had already been cast. He urged the Assembly to be hopeful about the new leadership.

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

Mr HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – This Chamber and the institutions surrounding it exist not for the pursuit of chest-beating partisan agendas and polemical and shamefully false assertions – a few inappropriate examples of which we bear witness to today – but for self-criticism and self-cleansing, for setting high and common standards and meeting the grade, and for forging in concept and practice a pan-European universe of citizen-values from one end of the continent to the other, with liberty and justice for all.

Armenia, its democratic institutions and the body politic are today undergoing an unprecedented crisis of public trust in government, and of civic relevance to the affairs of state. We need, imperatively, to return to the true essence rather than the puff, or hype, of the rule of law.

In nearly 17 years of sovereignty, there has never been, in the history of the republic, a transfer of authority from incumbency to opposition via free and fair elections, with a shaking of hands captured by the media and appearing on the front pages of the newspapers on the following day. We have had bad elections from 1995 until the parliamentary polls last year and the presidential election earlier this year. We are long on civilisation but, because of the tragedy of our history, short on political culture.

The elections themselves, together with the pre-election inequities, prejudiced and presaged the public discord and polarisation that followed, casting system-wide aspersions on the integrity of the election process. Many feel that there should have been a second round, but what did we get instead? A crackdown on peaceful demonstrators, rather than a wait for the Constitutional Court to issue its judgment on the veracity of the elections; flowing directly from that crackdown, 10 casualties and hundreds of wounded; the imposition of a state of emergency with full vertical censorship and a one-sided public information campaign; suspension of the freedoms of speech and assembly; and, ultimately, the delivery of a Constitutional Court verdict under such conditions. More than 100 people were arrested, in most cases because of the exercise of their civil and political liberties, and several of them were beaten or roughly handled. The right to association and assembly was effectively chilled, with the complicity of parliament, even after the lifting of the state of emergency. Most recently, anti-demonstrator court verdicts have begun to be issued by an executive-dependent judiciary, and we have received word of the effective closure of what was perhaps Armenia’s last local independent television station. Obviously, there rests no public trust here.

The ethical, legal and political emergency is still very much in effect. It is essential for real and immediate steps to be taken to bridge the public-government divide. They must include meaningful dialogue and responsibility-sharing with the opposition; release from prison of the detainees who have not committed clearly criminal violent acts; absolute restoration of the constitutional rights of speech, assembly and information; a complete, independent and joint national and international investigation into the comprehensive truth on the tragic violence of 1 March and its cause-effect relationships; and unconditional prosecution of all those responsible for violent acts and fraud on election day, of those whom the inquiry finds accountable for ordering and realising the use of ammunition against civilians and for the special security measures that took the lives of eight of the 10 victims, as well as those who committed violent acts in return.

Without implementation of the requisite measures, substantively and forthwith, Armenia’s leadership will merely deepen the crisis of confidence and will postpone, if not radicalise, the resolution of this deadlock, with all the risks and dangers pertaining thereto. It is high time for progress to be made on our commitments, not only through pronouncements but in proof. For the sake of Armenia, its democracy and dignity, its liberty and sovereignty, we expect no less. The answers to these questions will also determine whether Heritage, the only remaining opposition party in the national assembly, can stay there, and therefore whether it will be represented in the Armenian delegation to this Assembly in June.

So, dear colleagues, until we meet again.

(Mr de Puig, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Kyprianou.)

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

Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – The irregularities and shortcomings in the presidential elections in Armenia call for the Council’s immediate attention. The Council’s response to debate the matter under urgent procedure is an opportunity for Armenia to set itself back on the right track. The violations before, during and after the elections, which were observed by the international community, indicate that Armenia could use the Council’s close monitoring in their democratisation process. For basic democratic values to be internalised by the Armenians, their confidence in the elections and even in the democratic system needs to be restored.

The pre-election period saw violations of Council standards: biased publicity, a fraudulent election administration which lacked transparency, and an inaccessible appeals process. Many Armenian people rightly questioned the legitimacy of the elections and took to the streets to show their discontent. The mishandling of the street demonstrations by the authorities have added immensely to the crisis and further distracted the country from European values. Conducting an assembly has been banned, protestors detained and arrested on artificial charges, the arrested mistreated and the media harassed and silenced – all violations of individual rights and freedoms. Those are unacceptable measures for a country that claims to be on the way to democratisation. The people’s trust in democracy, human rights and the rule of law has been greatly damaged.

The report prepared by Mr Prescott and Mr Colombier details the problem areas that led to the current crisis and offers solid recommendations for the Armenian leadership to end the crisis and to lead the way to a more democratic Armenia. The first and foremost recommendation is to include all parties in the open dialogue, starting with an inquiry into the 1 March events, which caused 10 deaths and hundreds of injuries. However difficult that might seem, it is possible if the leaders have the will to do it. The immediate release of non-violent detainees is crucial for a healthy dialogue to begin and for a step forward in human rights. Improved dialogue will also help Armenian leaders, in their relationships with neighbouring countries, to end occupation and find solutions to long-lasting international disputes.

Armenian leaders should waste no more time in understanding the severity of the situation. Council membership is invaluable on the way to democratisation. However, the rights of the Armenian delegation will be suspended if progress is not made in the coming weeks. The leadership should review the Council’s recommendations and start implementing the constructive measures for the sake and the future of the Armenian people.

Our colleague mentioned the blockade in his speech, but no blockade is imposed by Turkey on Armenia. There are scheduled direct flights between Armenia and Turkey.

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

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan). – Two days ago, we discussed the elections in Armenia, and I gave a lot of facts about what has happened in Armenia. Today, we are again discussing the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia, and our friends and colleagues have heard a lot about the dangerous and problematic – even for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe – situation.

The report presented by our respected co-rapporteurs is a little more balanced than the report presented on Monday. It contains suggestions for Armenia to improve the situation, especially with regard to the rule of law, democracy and freedom of expression. If Armenia can implement all the recommendations in the report, that will be important not only for Armenia but for the whole Assembly.

Dear friends, we must raise questions not only about Armenia, but about the monitoring procedure of the Council of Europe itself. There is a need for a clear and careful investigation of what happened. If we are not able to investigate all the facts of the situation under the monitoring process, how can that monitoring procedure be implemented in other countries? How can we compare countries?

I want to express my gratitude to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and especially to its President, for inviting this week Angela Merkel, who gave an excellent presentation. She said that we must speak out and not close our eyes. We should intervene in the process in Armenia, not because of Armenia – although, of course, we want Armenia to be a democratic state – but because of the whole democratic process within the countries of Europe and the Caucasus.

Some Council of Europe colleagues told us that we should not compare the situation in Armenia with that in another country, but that is impossible. The democracies of our countries could and should be compared with each other. That provides the only criterion for whether things are going well. When there are attempts, tensions and moves to close our eyes to events in one country and to open our eyes and investigate the situation in other countries in a detailed way, that creates a lot of problems for the monitoring process and the Council of Europe itself. As colleagues have said, hundreds were arrested, but the report refers to “politically motivated” arrests, whereas in my country we have political prisoners. The Council of Europe must have uniform standards. If we do not implement such standards, our work is damaged.

When discussing Armenia, we should take into account the realities in that country. I hope that Armenia will be democratic and return to European standards, and that we can help Armenia. Armenia is one of the most important countries in the South Caucasus, together with Georgia and Azerbaijan. But when Georgia and Azerbaijan do not have enough support from the Council of Europe – we know what is going on in Georgia today – and when we close our eyes to what is going on in Armenia, questions should be raised.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. We now have to close the list of speakers. I remind members on the speakers’ list who were present during the debate but who were not able to speak that they may give their speeches to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

We now come to the reply on behalf of the Monitoring Committee. I call Mr Colombier. You have three minutes.

Mr COLOMBIER (France) said that the debate had been balanced. The deaths and illegal arrests in Armenia were obviously deplorable. A solution was needed to break the impasse. He and Mr Prescott agreed with many of the criticisms made during the debate and were prepared to apply the provisions of paragraph 13 in June if there had been no improvement. It was worth reiterating paragraph 13:

“Unless these conditions are met and an open dialogue on the reforms mentioned in paragraph 8 above is seriously engaged between the political forces in Armenia, the credibility of Armenia as a member of the Council of Europe is put into doubt. The Assembly should therefore consider the possibility of suspending the voting rights of the Armenian delegation to the Assembly at the opening of its June 2008 part-session, if no considerable progress has been made on these requirements by then.”

It would be wrong to end on a negative note, however. He and Mr Prescott were optimistic about Armenia’s ability to open dialogue across a broad range of social and public opinion and hoped to be able to record in June that that had happened.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Does the Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee, Mr Holovaty, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – I am confident that we were strongly justified in holding an urgent debate. We can learn some lessons from the debate; that applies not just to Armenian delegates, but to a number of others who are present. This is a unique situation; it is the 12th or 13th period since the Council of Europe was extended by new members in central and eastern Europe, and among the post-Soviet countries. This is a unique situation in which the exercise by people of their fundamental freedoms has led to the curtailment of another set of freedoms and rights. That has led to death and unjustified violence. It is unacceptable to have “free and fair elections” alongside a state of emergency, death, and the long-term detention of those who hold an opposite view and try to express it. Those things are contrary to the values on which this Organisation is founded. I hope that we will not be back discussing this issue in a special debate in the June part-session.

All that is needed is for the report and the resolution that is to be passed to be taken seriously by the Armenian authorities, and by the authorities of other countries in the region and beyond. We must restore legal order and go back to the legal and political situation that existed previously; we must restore European standards in the country.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I understand that the Monitoring Committee is proposing the application of Rule 34.10 of the Assembly, and that amendments unanimously approved by the Monitoring Committee be declared as adopted by the Assembly.

The amendments in question are Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 38, 17, 23 and 32 to the draft resolution. Is that so, Mr Holovaty?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I must inform the Assembly that this is a new Assembly rule that makes it possible for amendments that have been unanimously approved by the Monitoring Committee to be declared as adopted by the Assembly without a vote, unless there is any objection.

Does anyone object?

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 38, 17, 23 and 32 to the draft resolution have been adopted.

The amendments are adopted.

The following amendments to the draft resolution have been adopted:

Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, after the word “among”, to insert the following words: “a part of”.

Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, after the words “the peaceful protests”, to insert the following words: “even though without prior official notification”.

Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, to replace the words “initially tolerated by the authorities” with the following words: “which had been tolerated by the authorities for 10 days”.

Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, to replace the words “eight persons being killed and hundreds” with the following words: “10 deaths and about 200 people”.

Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2, to delete the first sentence.

Amendment No. 38, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Dmitry Vyatkin, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2, second sentence, to replace the words “in this process” with the following words: “in the electoral process”.

Amendment No. 17, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, at the beginning of paragraph 6.5, to insert the following words: “even though there is a pluralistic and independent print media,”.

Amendment No. 23, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.4, after the word “revoked”, to insert the following words: “in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission”.

Amendment No. 32, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12.3, after the word “revoked” to insert the following words: “in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission”.

We now move on to the remaining amendments.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, to replace the word “legitimacy” with the following word: “credibility”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – Thank you. We are looking to include the term “credibility”. This is an issue not for the whole Armenian public, but for a part of it; that is the reason for the amendment.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

I see that Mr Harutyunyan has withdrawn Amendment No. 5.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, to replace the words “on what appear to be politically motivated charges” with the following words: “some of them on seemingly artificial charges”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – There is no confirmed evidence of politically motivated charges, and in the absence of proper investigation, we propose a better term, “seemingly artificial charges”.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We come to Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Georges Colombier, Mr John Prescott, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Roland Blum and Mr Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt, which is, in Amendment No. 7, after the word “artificial”, to insert the following words: “and politically motivated”.

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

Mr COLOMBIER (France) said that if the sub-amendment were agreed to, he would support Amendment No. 7.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? I call Mr Seyidov.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan). – Mr President, I do not understand. I want to speak against Amendment No. 7. The rapporteur, whom I respect, moved the sub-amendment; before he did so, I should have been allowed to give my opinion on Amendment No. 7.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – For the time being, we are discussing the sub-amendment. We will come back to the main amendment when we have dealt with the sub-amendment.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment on the sub-amendment?

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – I support it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 7 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 HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 7, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, to replace the words “coalition government. However, the fact that the Heritage Party, as well as the extra-parliamentary parties which supported the candidature of Mr Levon Ter-Petrosyan did not join the coalition reduces the chances that this agreement will put an end to the current crisis in Armenia” with the following words: “political coalition aimed at resolving outstanding political issues. However, there is still a necessity to establish a dialogue between the coalition and the Heritage Party, as well as the extra-parliamentary parties”.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 8.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – I tabled the amendment because the purpose of the coalition is not to form a government but to resolve outstanding political issues. The fact that the extra-parliamentary parties did not join the coalition does not mean that the coalition will fail. Even though the coalition was formed, dialogue is still necessary.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We come to Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Georges Colombier, Mr John Prescott, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Roland Blum and Mr Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt, which is, at the end of Amendment No. 8, to add the following words: “to resolve the current crisis in Armenia”.

I call Mr Colombier to support Sub-amendment No. 1.

Mr COLOMBIER (France). – The committee is in favour of the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We have heard from the mover of the amendment and the committee so I shall put the sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 8 is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 8, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr COLOMBIER (France). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 8, as amended, is adopted.

I understand that Amendment No. 9 has been withdrawn.

We now come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.1, to delete the second sentence.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 10.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – I would accept this sentence in another situation but in the tense atmosphere after the events of 1 March, it is perhaps not appropriate to use language that may be misinterpreted.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVARTY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 10 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6.1, to add the following words: “, and discourages them from participating in a parliamentary elections. As a result of this, inter alia, a part of the political spectrum in Armenia is not represented in the current National Assembly”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 11.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – We think it more appropriate to take the words in the amendment from paragraph 6.2. and to insert them at the end of paragraph 6.1.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We come to Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Georges Colombier, Mr John Prescott, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Roland Blum and Mr Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt, which is, in Amendment No. 11, to delete the words “, and discourages them from participating in parliamentary elections.”

I call Mr Colombier to support Sub-amendment No. 1.

Mr COLOMBIER (France) said that if the sub-amendment were agreed to, he would support Amendment No. 11.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against Sub-amendment No. 1? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – I am in favour of the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVARTY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 11 is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 11, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVARTY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 11, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2, to replace the word “legitimacy” with the following word: “credibility”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 13.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – We have already changed the word “legitimacy” with the word “credibility” in paragraph 2. This is the same proposal.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 13? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVARTY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 13 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2, after the words “in the eyes of”, to insert the following words: “a part of”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 14.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The credibility of the elections is an issue not for the whole Armenian public, but for part of it. That is why I have tabled the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 14? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVARTY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 14 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.3, after the word “despite”, to insert the following word: “successful”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 15.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – This amendment reflects the assessment of the legislative reforms made by the experts of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 15? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVARTY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 15 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 16, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.4, to replace the words “solely for their participation in the protest after the Presidential election – without proof that they have committed violent crimes themselves – or on seemingly artificial charges after contesting the fairness of the Presidential election, can only but point to the political motivation of such acts and thus the existence of what are alleged political prisoners in Armenia. This” with the following words: “on seemingly artificial charges after contesting the fairness of the Presidential election or their participation in the protest after the Presidential election,”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 16.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – No one was charged solely for their participation in the protest. People were accused of different crimes, so as a compromise I am prepared to accept the words “seemingly artificial charges”.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We come to Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 16, tabled by Mr Georges Colombier, Mr John Prescott, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Roland Blum and Mr Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt, which is, in Amendment No. 16, after the word “election”, to insert the following words: “can only point to the political motivation of such acts. This”.

I call Mr Colombier to support Sub-amendment No. 1.

Mr COLOMBIER (France) said that he would agree with Amendment No. 16 on condition that the sentence “can only point to political motivation of such acts” be placed after the word “election”.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? I call Mr Seyidov.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan). – I wanted to speak earlier, but unfortunately I did not get the floor. I accept the majority of the amendments, but the reality is that political prisoners exist in Armenia. To suggest that people were not arrested for politically motivated reasons is incorrect.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVARTY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 16 is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 16, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVARTY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 16, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.5, after the words “authorities of the”, to insert the following word: “electronic”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 18.

Mr HARUTYNYAN (Armenia). – The amendment would insert the word “electronic” because a truly independent, pluralist mass media includes electronic mass media.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – In favour.

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

Amendment No. 18 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 19, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, to delete the words “and without any debate”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 19.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The amendment reflects existing and undisputed facts.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – In favour.

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

Amendment No. 19 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 36, tabled by Mr John Prescott, Mr Georges Colombier, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 7, to add the following sentence:

“The Assembly welcomes the intention expressed by the newly elected President in his inaugural speech to bring the Law on conducting meetings, assemblies, rallies and demonstrations in full compliance with the European standards and to encourage further co-operation with the Venice Commission on this matter.”

I call Mr Prescott to support Amendment No. 36.

Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – The amendment, which the rapporteurs tabled, gives us an opportunity, especially in view of today’s debate, to record the welcome statement of the newly elected Armenian President in his inaugural speech to bring the law on conducting meetings, assemblies, rallies and demonstrations in full compliance with European standards. If that happens, it will be a major step towards achieving some of the goals that have been clearly expressed in our debates. I hope that the President notes that.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – In favour.

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

Amendment No. 36 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 20, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.1, to replace the words “be reformed with a view to giving” with the following word: “ensure”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 20.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The amendment aims to underline Armenia’s existing commitments, which are, inter alia, to ensure the meaningful participation of opposition parties in the decision-making process.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – In favour.

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

Amendment No. 20 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 21, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.2, to replace the words “one particular” with the following words: “any one”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 21.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The purpose of the amendment is to prevent control of electoral administration by any one political force.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – In favour.

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

Amendment No. 21 is adopted.

Amendments Nos. 22, 24 and 25 are withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 34, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, to delete the words “the authority of”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 34.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The Monitoring Committee made a statement about accepting the decision of the Constitutional Court. We therefore propose to remove the words “the authority of”.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – In favour.

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

Amendment No. 34 is adopted.

Amendment No. 26 is withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 35, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, to replace the word “accept” with the following words: “agree with”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 35.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The amendment proposes a purely editorial change.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – In favour.

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

Amendment No. 35 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 27, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, to delete the words “put an end to the current institutional crisis in Armenia and”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 27.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The crisis in Armenia is not institutional and that is why we propose to delete the corresponding words.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – In favour.

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

Amendment No. 27 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 28, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, to replace the word “all” with the following word: “the”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 28.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – It is better to talk about constructive dialogue between “the” political forces rather than “all” political forces, because the latter would be impossible.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 28 is adopted.

I understand that Amendment No. 29 has been withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 37, tabled by Mr John Prescott, Mr Georges Colombier, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mr Andreas Gross and Mr Mátyás Eörsi, which in, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, first sentence, to replace the word “considerable” with the following word: “relevant”.

I call Mr Prescott to support Amendment No. 37.

Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – The amendment is moved formally.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 37 is adopted.

We come to amendment No. 30, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12.1, after the word “police”, to insert the following words: “and violence by the protesters”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 30.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – The inquiry should cover all circumstances, including the violence by the protestors. That is why we propose to add these words after the word “police”.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 30 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 31, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Avet Adonts and Mr Mher Shahgeldyan, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 12.2 with the following words: “the persons, detained on seemingly artificial charges or who did not personally commit any violent acts or serious offences in connection with them should be urgently released;”.

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment No. 31.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia). – Even though we understand the intentions of the rapporteurs, we might not agree that the only criminal offences are the violent ones. Serious offences connected to violent acts also endanger public order. We therefore propose to rephrase the paragraph to include those crimes. As a compromise, we propose that persons detained on seemingly artificial charges should also be released.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We come to Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 31, tabled by Mr Georges Colombier, Mr John Prescott, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Roland Blum and Mr Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt, which is, in Amendment No. 31, after the word “artificial”, to insert the following words: “and politically motivated”.

I call Mr Colombier to support the sub-amendment.

Mr COLOMBIER (France) said that he would be in favour of Amendment No. 31 on condition that the sentence “and politically motivated” be inserted after the word “official”.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? I call Mr Seyidov.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan). – I have to speak against it, unfortunately. Again, the same logic applies. Trying to withdraw the words “political prisoners” will damage the report. The report is balanced in this regard, and that is why I am against this amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We have heard from the mover of the amendment.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 31 is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 31, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment No. 31, as amended, is adopted.

I understand that Amendment No. 33 has been withdrawn.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution on the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia, contained in Document 11579, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11579, as amended, is adopted, with 93 votes for, 8 votes against and 8 abstentions.

(The sitting, suspended at 11.55 a.m., was resumed at 12.05 p.m., with Mr de Puig, President of the Assembly, in the Chair.)

5. Address by Mr Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France

THE PRESIDENT welcomed Mr Kouchner, Minister for Foreign and European Affairs of France. He said that Mr Kouchner knew the Hemicycle well because he had come to the Assembly in June 2000 to discuss Kosovo as the UN’s Kosovo Special Representative and mentioned Mr Kouchner’s involvement with the Red Cross, Médecins du Monde and Médecins Sans Frontières.

The democratic health of the European continent was the Assembly’s main concern. It defended and promoted human rights in its member countries and was expanding human rights throughout the world. Its secondary priority was the avoidance of splits between its countries, including those along ethnic or nationalistic lines. It aimed at uniting all its members. It had to face important and difficult challenges, such as climate change, terrorism, technical developments with ethical dimensions, and the protection of human rights. On the international scene, French policies had been proactive and innovative and he hoped France would be able to reassert her role in the promotion of human rights and the rule of law.

Mr KOUCHNER (Minister for Foreign and European Affairs of France) thanked the President for his kind words. He agreed that he was familiar with the Hemicycle, as he had spoken there as the UN’s Kosovo Special Representative and had sat on its benches when the European Parliament met in the Hemicycle. He thanked the President and members for their invitation. He was delighted to have the opportunity to address the Assembly. It was an honour and a source of pride for France to host the Council of Europe. France appreciated and loved the Council, and needed to make its important work better known. French parliamentarians in the Assembly were committed to their role, and France was attached to the values that were borne aloft by the Assembly.

The subject on which he would address the Assembly was one that thrilled and obsessed him: peace and human rights, and peace through human rights – those were subjects that he was devoted to and intimately attached to. Human rights were peace, and this was a conviction that had been shared by the Assembly’s founders. Their recognition of the pre-eminence of the principle of human rights had, 60 years ago, been an act of faith. He wondered whether it was now a fact, and said that it had not always been the case.

The expansion of the Council and the wave of accessions in the 1990s had created a European continent united in the Council of Europe around shared values: that represented formidable progress. However, the progress made should not result in paralysis. The Assembly had to guard against prematurely adopted identities and short-cuts to peace of mind. Defending peace was not always peaceful. It was not enough simply to call for peace. Too often in European history, hope had been followed by disillusionment. Kant’s call for eternal peace had been followed by violence, and the Briand-Kellogg Pact had ushered in the worst massacres in recent history. Human rights needed an active Council. Human rights and peace should go hand in hand, but the world was complex, filled with hostile forces and crises of faith. The beauty of the ideas of Kant, Briand and Kellogg had been their optimism, but it was also necessary to fight. There were both declared and undeclared opponents of human rights, advocates of relativism: according to this position, human rights were a clumsy attempt to justify the all-conquering west. This was sometimes the case. Human rights could not be imposed and it was necessary to convince others of their importance.

Women suffered as intensely from rape in France as in Iraq and the death penalty was as barbaric in the United States as it was in China. The bandaged feet of Chinese women had led to suffering and women elsewhere would have suffered as much had that practice been applied to them. He recalled that the practice had been ended by Sun Yat-Sen, who, he noted, had been a doctor. The equality of women and men was not an imperialist argument – all humans suffered equally when faced with the same afflictions. The fight against AIDS was universal, and the Council had taken up the campaign against it in 1992, well before other organisations.

There was a need to make universal human rights possible. Watching over human rights was what made the Assembly unique: it was the only organisation in the position to undertake that role and to give hope to prisoners languishing in forgotten cells. It was the ultimate body of appeal.

He asked whether the values of the Council of Europe had been weakened through arrogant imperialist behaviour. It was necessary to guard against a Manichean vision of the world. A crisis of faith might have led us to doubt our ideals, particularly in an era of globalisation. That raised concerns about a clash of systems, but the deep and profound nature of a human rights-based system needed to be borne in mind. The 1948 declaration, the first of its kind, had been freely signed by all member states. To those who were doubtful, we needed to reaffirm the universality of human rights and stubbornly to fight to maintain them. We needed to rage against ourselves, inertia, and the status quo. Human rights were not the alpha and omega of foreign policy but should always inspire it to reach the highest heights.

He had been Foreign Minister for only a year and although he saw the strength of arguments against human rights, he remained a militant human rights activist. All the actions of a Foreign Minister were heavily scrutinised, and this, while difficult, was also enriching. There was no such thing as instant perfection, but doubts caused by the slow pace and complexity of action needed to be overcome.

On the question of intervention, the progress made in Darfur was important. The situation was complex and there had been difficulties in co-ordinating the policy of 27 states. The multilateral system was imperfect, of course, but welcome developments had been achieved. The African Union had begun to emulate Europe. For three years, he had been indignant and close to despair at the slow pace of progress in Darfur, but it was necessary to continue to work to protect citizens affected by hunger and violence. Prevention of such things was preferable, but states had to honour their commitments when they occurred.

Afghanistan, too, had raised doubts in his mind about whether the direction of policy was correct. There was a need to fight terror, but an equal need not to forget the Afghan people and their cultural difference. There had been progress: millions of girls now went to school and millions of women voted, which were developments considered inconceivable just a few years ago. Developments were also occurring in medical care and road building. This, however, like a purely military solution would not be enough, and a new design for the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan was required. The search for peace must not be confounded by short-term pacifism. Inertia had to be overcome. Peace would be durable only if human rights were enhanced. His travels in Afghanistan had taught him that improving living conditions would do more for peace than could be achieved through force.

On Tibet, it was often said that the limits of interference had been reached. He was not convinced that this was the case: short-term arguments could not alleviate suffering. The increasing openness of China should encourage more dialogue and the only path to resolving the difficulties of Tibet was a dialogue between China and the Dalai Lama, who had not called for Tibetan independence.

The European model was the envy of the world. It was not always exemplary and nor was it a uniform system. Democracy was never perfect but a fragile plant dependent on institutions and checks and balances. Those who worked within democratic institutions could sometimes lose sight of the values on which they were based. It was easy to establish principles but resources had to be devoted too, if people were to be confident in democratic and judicial systems.

He was himself a graduate of the European Court of Human Rights and noted that the current influx of applications affected all member states of the Council of Europe. The Court required a robust defence. It was not, as some had said, a victim of its own success, but a victim of the failures of individual states. Improvement in domestic redress and implementation of the Court’s judgments would help clear the backlog. It was the only court that heard individual human rights cases and was both the symbol of the Council of Europe’s success and its raison d’être.

Implementing judgments required many instruments, as the assembled parliamentarians would appreciate. The Court required the means to continue its work. While Protocol No. 14 was not yet in force, the Court could not work properly, and he called on the Russian Federation to ratify it. All faced the justice that they had imposed upon themselves for the benefit of their citizens. He did not doubt the goodwill of the Russian Government and hoped that its representatives at the Council of Europe would convince Moscow of the need to ratify the protocol.

After ratification, Europe could provide even more of an example. The Court provided the answer to the accusation that human rights were merely the rhetoric of the powerful. It placed citizens above states and thereby conveyed the legitimacy of human rights. Co-operation between the Court and other international courts was to be encouraged, and a seminar was to be held with the African and inter-American courts.

He paid tribute to the painstaking work of the Council of Europe and to its President, the Secretary General, the President of the Court and the various secretariats.

He had been pleased to hear Chancellor Merkel use the phrase “mutual right of interference” when she described the ethos of the Council of Europe on Tuesday. He believed that he had himself coined that phrase and that the Council of Europe continued to have a role in implementing the convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms. In pursuit of its goals, it had created a day to highlight the abolition of the death penalty. It would celebrate its 60th anniversary shortly and it had given a general fillip to peace, freedom and human rights.

Human rights walked hand in hand with peace, and that was the essential message to be given when seeking not to use force but to win hearts and minds. Real and lasting peace could be based only on human rights.

The Council of Europe had provided a forum in which those who had suffered human rights failures could give voice to their experience. Europe should continue to show the way in that respect. It retained an essential role in the Balkans and Kosovo, which needed the protection afforded by the conventions on human rights, ethnic minorities and torture. All parties to those conventions ought to fulfil their commitments, refrain from violence, adhere to human rights and the rule of law, and treat properly minorities, refugees, and the stateless and dispossessed.

The European Union and the Council of Europe held each other in mutual respect, a point that the French presidency of the EU would bear in mind from July 2008. He hoped that the EU would soon accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Lisbon process had made possible.

Discussions in Warsaw had reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and to the mutual right of interference and the determination of all member states to fulfil their commitments. The international community should continue to fulfil its role by strengthening the efficiency of the European Court of Human Rights, which benefited over 800 million people. Europe, human rights and peace: those three ideas encapsulated the dream of European citizens. Europe could offer the world a model based on dialogue, law and negotiation and the Council of Europe could count on the total devotion of France.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Kouchner for his interesting address. It had been a pleasure to hear him speak about his personal feelings on human rights, which also reaffirmed the Assembly’s convictions. It had been an honour to be addressed by the Minister.

(The speaker continued in French) (Translation). – Members of the Assembly have expressed a wish to put questions to you. I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues should ask questions, not make speeches.

The first question is from Mr Lecoq, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr LECOQ (France) said that the world faced the increasing challenge posed by climate change. He asked the Minister to explain why European governments had increased spending on the arms race had why climate change was considered such a threat.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Kouchner?

Mr KOUCHNER answered that climate change was indeed a big threat which was already causing misery and poverty in parts of the world. The consequences of global warming were evident in some of the world’s poorest countries. It was therefore important for all political parties, and all countries, to agree about the decisions on the way ahead. It was necessary to put aside land for the production of biofuels, but a balance needed to be struck in terms of the land required for food production.

Terrorism, another threat posed to European societies, had recently taken on more extreme forms. The international community had not exhausted all possible avenues in combating the problem. He suggested that a debate on disarmament was necessary, while also acknowledging that those issues were in conflict with each other.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Van den Brande, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium) said that the European Community was faced with the challenge of the Union for the Mediterranean and asked how the Union affected bordering countries, the 27 member states of the European Union and the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, in terms of the protection of human rights.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Kouchner?

Mr KOUCHNER said that the Union for the Mediterranean should not be seen as a competitor to the European Union. The European Union had invested many resources in institutions aimed at closer co-operation between countries on the protection of human rights. It was essential for the EU 27 and the Council of Europe 47 to act in unison with respect to human rights. He hoped that the Union for the Mediterranean and the Barcelona process would encourage countries in Europe and Africa to work together. The means to proceed would need to be discussed in future.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The next question is from Mrs Barnett, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mrs BARNETT (Germany) asked Mr Kouchner about the North-South Centre and whether France was prepared to reconsider its withdrawal.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Kouchner?

Mr KOUCHNER said that, in all honesty, the North-South Centre had not proved to be effective, and he was not afraid to recognise that fact. Although France had withdrawn from the group, that did not mean that countries could not share common ambitions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Chope, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – What is France doing about the current crisis in Zimbabwe, which is an affront to human rights, democracy and the rule of law? I am disappointed that the Minister did not mention it in his speech.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Kouchner?

Mr KOUCHNER said that, owing to the limited time, there were many subjects that he had not touched on in his address. The United Kingdom, for historical reasons, had a particular interest in and attachment to what was going on in Zimbabwe. In fact, he was in touch with Mr David Miliband on a daily basis and with foreign ministers across the world on that issue.

The recent address by the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, had reflected the shared and growing concern among the international community. The fact that Zimbabwe had not published its election results, and the assassination of a close ally to the leader of the opposition had escalated that concern. It was up to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, whose main interest was the protection of human rights, to put pressure on Zimbabwe. Mugabe had been in power for over 30 years and it was about time the baton was passed on. The opposition might finally gain power, and he hoped that progress would be made.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Eörsi, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – I think that everybody in this Chamber now understands that you became a part of Médecins sans Frontières and are now perhaps a statesman sans frontières. Perhaps fewer people know, however, that you are also a marathon runner. In this context, I would like to quote you when you said: “I ran to Biafra because I was too young for Guernica, Auschwitz, Oradour and Setif.” Where should the Council of Europe run to with you today?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question?

Mr KOUCHNER admitted that he was not sure how to answer the question. He had been in Warsaw the previous day to commemorate the 65 years of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, and had awarded the Légion d’Honneur to Mr Marek Edelman, one of the last surviving leaders of the uprising. He referred back to the question about his activities during his youth and drew a comparison with Mr Edelman, who had lived his life with dignity and without the search for honour or glory; he had remained a modest and anonymous citizen, who worked as a cardiologist in Lodz. The fight for human rights was very much a fight against man himself. Although it was easy to sit back and watch history unfold, his passion for human rights told him otherwise.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Manzella.

Mr MANZELLA (Italy) referred Mr Kouchner back to his speech, where he had mentioned the existence of a new continent called “EurAfrica” and asked what hope the Minister had for human rights in Africa.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Kouchner?

Mr KOUCHNER noted that it was difficult to respond at great length on such an important topic because of the time limits. Recent famine riots in Darfur required the international community to step up its efforts in providing emergency aid to alleviate hunger. One of the top priorities was to empower Africans in growing their own crops and minimising their exposure to price fluctuations in basic staple foods, such as wheat and rice, which deeply harmed most people of Africa, particularly the poor. He hoped that the Security Council would hold a meeting in the near future on food security and prices, and urged the use of sovereign wealth funds in the implementation of agricultural projects, allowing African countries to boost productivity and minimise hunger among the poorest groups of society.

According to population projections, Africa would be home to 2 billion people by 2050 and it was therefore essential to meet the food requirements of a growing continent before speaking about democracy. Globalisation had accentuated inequalities and hunger invariably always struck the poor. He hoped that current events in Africa would ring alarm bells and that the agencies of the United Nations and the World Bank would set up mechanisms to protect the interests of African farmers and consumers alike. Human rights would follow, but access to food was the current priority.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) asked about the recent agreements between Monaco and France as a renewal of partnership between the two countries and hoped that it would be a first step towards a relationship on an equal basis.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Kouchner?

Mr KOUCHNER admitted that he was not prepared for that question, and humorously suggested that if inequality did exist, it was certainly in favour of Monaco; many French people aspired to live in Monaco as he did. The agreements between France and Monaco were a guarantee of renewed co-operation on issues such as Africa and humanitarian activities.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Hovannisian.

Mr HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – It has been your life’s work to recognise the correlation among positive globalisation, effective multilateralism and the international right of intervention, together with a “responsibility to protect”. From the Armenian heartlands to Dachau and the Warsaw ghetto, and to Biafra, Cambodia, Rwanda and Darfur, can the precedent of inaction by one generation to prevent or intervene be bequeathed to the next?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Kouchner?

Mr KOUCHNER said that of course work had to continue – there had been difficulties, failures and, regarding Armenia, some successful talks, but after 20 years things had gone quite well. There had been a recent conference in Slovenia. There had been a whole former Yugoslav federation; things had gone badly for a while, but there was now a certain degree of stability and the situation had improved. Twenty years ago in Latin America there had been dictatorships all over the continent. There were now fewer wars in the world. Further effort was required in improving the ways in which negotiations were conducted, and he was willing to do what he could if that was useful. He referred to Nagorno-Karabakh and said that there was no reason to have conflicts in the heart of Europe – the Assembly had to have hope on this issue: he was sure that success would be achieved. There were problems, but it was necessary to keep trying.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Kouchner. On behalf of the Assembly, I thank him most warmly for his address and for the answers that he has given to questions.

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 agenda that was approved on Monday.

Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Minutes of proceedings

2. Examination of credentials

3. Organisation of debates

4. Debate under urgent procedure: The functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia

Presentation by Mr Prescott and Mr Colombier of report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), Doc. 11579

Speakers:

Mr Chernyshenko (Russian Federation)

Mr Eörsi (Hungary)

Mr Jacobsen (Norway)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mr Roquet (France)

Mr Rustamyan (Armenia)

Mrs Hajiyeva (Azerbaijan)

Mr Adonts (Armenia)

Mr Harutunyan (Armenia)

Mr Rochebloine (France)

Mr Hovannisian (Armenia)

Mrs Memecan (Turkey)

Mr Seyidov (Azeraijan)

Replies:

Mr Colombier (France)

Mr Holovaty (Ukraine)

Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 38, 17, 23 and 32 adopted

Amendments Nos. 2, 7 as amended, 8 as amended, 10, 11 as amended, 13 to 15, 16 as amended, 18, 19, 36, 20, 21, 34, 35, 27, 28, 37, 30, 31 as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Doc. 11579, as amended, adopted

5. Address by Mr Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France

Questions:

Mr Lecoq (France)

Mr Van den Brande (Belgium)

Mrs Barnett (Germany)

Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Mr Eörsi (Hungary)

Mr Manzella (Italy)

Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

Mr Hovannisian (Armenia)

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