Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Today, the business is very full, with a large number of delegates wishing to speak. This afternoon, we have a great many amendments tabled. In view of the time available and the number of speakers on the list, I propose that the speaking time in each debate today be limited to four minutes.

Are these arrangements agreed?

They are agreed.

3. The situation of human rights defenders in Council of Europe member states

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report on the situation of human rights defenders in Council of Europe member states, Doc. 11841, presented by Mr Haibach on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

This discussion must be completed by midday, including the votes, so that we can welcome the President of Finland. We are therefore going to conclude the list of speakers at 11.15 a.m. to allow time for the replies and votes.

Is this agreed to?

It is agreed to.

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

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) said that human rights defenders were not born, rather, they became activists because they realised that they had to act on behalf of those whose human rights were being violated. Many were working in very difficult situations. He had every admiration for those who worked to protect the rights of others. As a German citizen, he respected those whose efforts had built German unity and democracy. He had equal respect for all those anonymous persons who worked towards what they believed in. It was important to recognise the power of the people.

Members of the Assembly had a duty to protect human rights defenders. Those people were endangered in many different ways, as had been seen throughout history. The Assembly had to recognise that as a problem to be dealt with. The debate would be about how the Assembly might go about tackling the issue. Human rights defenders often faced persecution from individuals and from the state; the Assembly had to find a solution to the whole panoply of problems faced.

In 2008, the Assembly had recognised the vital role played by human rights defenders. However, the Assembly’s mandate was not yet clearly defined. It was necessary to address this question in order to avoid overlap with the work of the Commissioner for Human Rights. Assembly members had a responsibility to protect human rights, both as members of the Assembly and as political representatives within their own member states. Representatives could influence national level legislation as well as having the opportunity during the current debate to discuss resolutions and the like. It was vital that the Assembly recognised that societies had to be predicated on tolerance. The Assembly had to recognise that human rights defenders did not harm society but protected it. There was a need for genuinely tolerant societies.

Assembly members all had to come together in order to ensure that the report was not just a set of declarations but provided a step forward towards the protection of human rights defenders. The Assembly had to fight for human rights defenders who themselves fought for the rights of others. He asked whether he would have had the courage and commitment to do the work done by such people. Vaclev Havel had spoken of the need for conviction when protecting human rights. The Assembly had to demonstrate its own conviction.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. You have six minutes remaining for the replies to the speakers. I call Mr Hunault on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr HUNAULT (France) congratulated the rapporteur on his excellent report, and said that he was glad to have the opportunity to participate in the debate. Human rights defenders played an essential role in creating and strengthening human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The report examined the difficulties faced by human rights defenders, but also set out specific measures that could be taken. There was a particular need to address the problem of the murder of human rights defenders, especially journalists who had denounced attacks on human rights. The report referred to the need to give greater powers to the Commissioner for Human Rights. He suggested that when the Commissioner gave his annual speech to the Assembly, the Assembly should assess progress with regard to dealing with infringement of human rights. There was a need to work on the preparation of objective criteria and to put these to the Commissioner.

Connections should also be made with a debate that took place in 1998 in the United Nations General Assembly. At that time, there had also been a wish to recognise the role of human rights defenders. Unity was present in a desire for the United Nations and Council of Europe to work together. The report also called for vigilance, and there was recognition of a need to denounce infringements of human rights. It was important to improve the Council’s monitoring methods and procedures for sanctions. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights would be following up these matters.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the report had set a large number of challenges and commitments that needed to be undertaken. Human rights defenders had a difficult task, and they needed the support of the Council. The report acknowledged that it was the commitment of human rights defenders that exposed them to dangers, some of which were even state sponsored. They needed protection and support. This task would be even harder without the charters and guiding principles to which the Council subscribed. There was a need to support the Human Rights Commissioner in the new mandate that the Council had given him. It was important to provide scrutiny and support for activists.

Members needed to make proposals in their own national parliaments. One example would be the introduction of an emergency visa procedure for activists in certain countries which exposed them to particular threat. The Council of Europe was a very important forum. She had been deeply impressed by the commitment of human rights activists, and she cited the example of one such person in Moscow who had been badly beaten shortly after having had discussions with her.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Keskin to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KESKIN (Germany) said the human rights, the rule of law and democracy were the three corner stones of the Council’s work. Human rights were universal, inviolable, indivisible and unassailable. He said that he followed closely the position in Turkey, stating that Turkish was his second language. In the last 10 years, Turkey had introduced some impressive reforms. However, recently, human rights issues had become a sad source of concern. Lawyers and experts, among others, were expressing concern over the threats to political and judicial processes. He cited examples of individuals who might be detained without cause, notification or charge. It was vital to have proper constitutional processes. People who had obeyed the law banning the wearing of headscarves had been imprisoned without knowing why. He had the impression that these operations were carried out by fundamental Islamists to oppress convinced secularists and democrats. Turkey had often been the unjustified butt of criticism, but there was an acute danger to some human rights in Turkey at the moment. Every state was able to take action against criminals using legal means but the persecution and defamation of human rights activists was, to say the least, an inappropriate intrusion.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Gautier to speak on behalf of Group of the European People’s Party.

Mrs GAUTIER (France) said that the excellent report had rightly highlighted the difficulties human rights activists were being exposed to. She reminded the Assembly that these activists were promoting the work of the Council of Europe. In some countries, there was a gap between the upholding of human rights principles and their implementation in practice. Human rights activists were messengers who should not be abandoned in the light of the difficulties, abuse, abductions and even murders from which they were at risk. They were also exposed to administrative obstacles. These barriers and abuses would not be tolerated. She questioned whether diplomats of our own countries were exposed to them.

She said that the text in its current scope might not be a sufficient tool. The two texts being debated were saying the same thing. Through monitoring procedures, the Council of Europe could impose checks on the very states not observing the rule of law. Similar procedures could be used in respect of human rights. There was a need for further debate; the diplomatic approach might not always be enough. She noted competition between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the human rights sphere. The Council of Europe was a laboratory of ideas; it had a role in adjusting the parameters of human rights. The Council of Europe was an embodiment of a Europe with fundamental values, something the European Union sometimes lacked. She said that the debate provided a platform from which the Council could move on and seize further opportunities in the defence of human rights.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr de Vries to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr DE VRIES (Netherlands). – Mr Haibach started his presentation by saying that people are not born as human rights defenders but become so out of necessity. I think that he is absolutely right about that; what is even worse is that most people are not born with strong convictions in human rights and fundamental freedoms, as those are an achievement of civilisation.

It is somewhat ironic that we are discussing this report here because the entire Council of Europe is about human rights and fundamental freedoms and that is what I tell my friends and colleagues, and people in my country, about the Council of Europe. That is what we are here for, so discussing a report about defenders of human rights that need our support is remarkable. It shows once again that human rights cannot be taken for granted; they have to be earned day by day in many of our countries.

As the rapporteur pointed out, even in Council of Europe countries that subscribe to all these fundamental freedoms and the fundamental rights of people, there can be serious problems. They range from very serious to less serious, but everybody knows that, in all our countries, freedom of speech can sometimes give rise to great controversy.

This report is not only useful but necessary. It enshrines the messages that we have to carry forward and that we need to convince ourselves of every day. It is not good enough to stipulate what we are in favour of here; it has to happen every day, and we need to be very critical of ourselves in our own states because the biggest opponent of human rights and fundamental freedoms is very often the state itself, particularly when the state cannot suffer contradiction. That again is a major misunderstanding of what human rights and fundamental freedoms are about. However, as Mr Haibach said, conversely, human rights defenders are supporters of the state: they help to build the society we want; they help to create a world in which people can be themselves and can speak out, convene meetings and openly state their beliefs.

It is not so many hundreds of years ago that there was the saying: “cuius regio; eius religio” – if there were a prince, he would decide what we had to believe in. Whether or not that worked in practice, I do not know, but that conviction is still a strong one with people who have power – when others have to obey and follow the line. I think it was a wonderful achievement when, about 200 years ago, it was acknowledged that people were different in many respects, not only in their beliefs but also regarding gender and a wide range of attitudes. It was also acknowledged that people were capable of expressing themselves and fulfilling their lives as human beings.

The report is laudable and the recommendations are absolutely right and necessary. I hope that we stand up for the message in this report and fight for human rights every day. I also hope that we will spread the message to people outside European countries. There is a great need for people in countries such as China to know that we are with them and not against them; they must not think that we believe that they are a nuisance. In fact, we know that human rights and fundamental freedoms are essential for all our freedoms in the widest sense.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Renato Farina of Italy. You have the floor. Mr Farina is not here, so I call Mr Santini, also of Italy.

(Mr Prescott, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.40 a.m.)

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that, although human rights defenders played such an important role, there was a need for this report. They needed to be defended in a real and physical way. Given their role in promoting democracy and the rule of law, who could be against human rights defenders? Some people were afraid of democracy and human rights.

He was afraid that less-educated citizens would not understand their freedom, liberties and human rights. Only governments without scruples would think that this was acceptable. The disempowered were not aware of their rights and human rights defenders were being exiled and tortured and their freedom of expression and association was being restrained. He thought that the Council of Europe should intervene by putting pressure on member states and, in particular, third parties. Problems which began in third party countries entered member states via immigration.

The UN was not taking this issue as seriously as it should. Integration caused many problems, for both the rule of law and human rights. The Council should remind third parties of their role in defending human rights.

There had been some criticism of Italy, in particular of how it treated its migrants, who were living in camps on its coasts. This was also a problem experienced by Spain and Greece. Italy was doing its best to tackle the problem, but he was concerned about a lack of solidarity and help from other countries. Local people in Italy living side by side with immigrants were struggling to cope. Mediterranean countries were left to deal with immigrants alone. Immigrants had a shared dream to settle in the heart of Europe. He asked that the Assembly should not criticise, but support and aid this integration.

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

Mr VYATKIN (Russian Federation) praised the report and the resolution. He thought it very topical and important, because it was drawing attention not just to human rights defenders but to the problems that they faced. The value of human rights defenders was fundamental to states and societies. In Russia, there had been a need for more assistance in pushing the human rights agenda forward: human rights defenders had done this. The rights of citizens needed to be upheld.

However, there was a difficult question about human rights defenders and who they were. He had talked to human rights defenders, many of whom were his friends, but he did not think that all human rights defenders were what they said they were, as many did not protect specific individuals or citizens. This was a problem. Some human rights defenders were actually political activists or simply out to make money by being political opponents of the state. They were not protecting the people. Mere opposition did not make a human rights defender. In reality, many human rights defenders were politicians who claimed to defend human rights to boost their profiles. They discredited human rights defenders. It was important to make a distinction between the two.

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

Mr FRÉCON (France) congratulated Mr Haibach on his report, and said that it was a worrying situation for human rights defenders in Europe. For example, in Russia, a journalist had been killed after he took too great an interest in the municipal elections and Lev Ponomarev had been violently beaten in Moscow. There was much to do in moving from a rhetorical debate to applying human rights in member states. This was a priority in France, where ambassadors had been told to follow what was happening with human rights in the countries where they were stationed and to report back. The principle of human rights itself was in jeopardy and human rights defenders had to deal with the challenge to the universality of human rights.

For example there was a challenge from “sovereigntists” who linked human rights to national sovereignty as the foundation of international law. This was a position held by China. There was also a religious challenge best exemplified by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which interpreted human rights via religious law and ran counter to the ideals of secularism. This had been particularly apparent over the previous decade and had the potential to result in a permanent confrontation in international institutions such as the UN. These challenges made the work of human rights defenders much harder and the Assembly should look at how to tackle them.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Shershun.

Mr SHERSHUN (Ukraine) praised Mr Haibach and congratulated him on his report. He said that Ukraine needed to reform its legal system to uphold human rights. It had set up a working group to draft a law on the Bar and bring the country in line with Council of Europe’s standards. The report under discussion would be used to inform this work. Human rights defenders played a key role in the Ukraine, in terms of civil society, protecting citizens and offering them legal advice. This was key in Ukraine, where not many people were able to pay lawyers. He hoped that national governments would support human rights organisations and support the draft resolution and draft recommendation under consideration. He pointed to paragraph 11 of the report which emphasised the need to bring journalists on board when tackling human rights abuses. It was important to remember that journalists were also at risk and needed to be protected in law.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Herkel.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – I liked this report from the moment I read its title because it is about a very important aspect: not only the defence of human rights, but the necessity of protecting human rights defenders.

I remember an episode that took place in this hall several years ago. It was when we were discussing the human rights situation in Chechnya – a topic too much forgotten now, unfortunately. Our former colleague, Mr Bindig from Germany, as well as today’s rapporteur, presented the topic. Some of the speakers tried to convince the audience that human rights defenders are biased and extremist and give wrong information to the rapporteurs. I remember well, although probably not word for word, what Mr Bindig answered: that we should condemn not those who are reporting human rights abuses, but those who commit them. That sentence was very impressive for me, at the time a very new member of this Assembly.

Your report, Mr Haibach, is very much along the same lines. It gives us concrete recommendations on how to protect human rights defenders and on the responsibilities of states to help them. A problem that I would like to raise here is the question of who are the real human rights defenders. There are some cases in which they are condemned or accused of being spies and extremists, even by state officials. Another side of the coin is that in some countries there are the so-called GONGOs – that is, governmental non-governmental organisations, created by the authorities. Usually their aims are to convince the international audience or international observers that the real human rights defenders are irrelevant and illegitimate. That can happen, and I have witnessed the problem very much in some countries. Furthermore, the explanatory memorandum says that the problem is probably even more significant.

Then there are the case studies. One of the previous reports in the last session was about Grigory Pasko, who is also mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. Several cases have already been described by former speakers, but I would like to mention a few others. There is, of course, the case of Stanislav Markelov, the human rights lawyer who was killed in Moscow at the beginning of this year. There was also an attempt to poison another human rights lawyer – Karinna Moskalenko, also from the Russian Federation – and her family, here in Strasbourg, the capital of Europe. It happened in October last year. Clarifications are needed for both cases in future.

There was one positive note about my last visit to Baku. The criminal case against Leyla Yunus, the human rights defender who had been accused by the Minister of the Interior, was withdrawn.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that the need to draw up a report on the matter demonstrated that something was wrong with the protection of fundamental human rights. However, even if it was obvious, there was a need to insist on something so elemental, and to underline the obvious fact that human rights defenders had to be protected. It was clear that human rights defenders received the most protection in those countries which had the least need for them. The drafting of the report was demonstrative of the fact that human rights were not being protected in certain Council of Europe member states. If everything had been satisfactory, there would have been no need for the report.

The Assembly could agree with the content of fundamental human rights and of the existing conventions. In all democratic states there were checks and counter-balances – for example, free, independent and critical ombudsmen who could work to protect the human rights of the population. If all officials of a state, including the judiciary, did their job properly and decently, there would be no need for human rights defenders. Indeed, such people would be human rights defenders.

The Assembly had to realise that in certain countries the traditional state authorities did not operate properly. In Spain, one non-governmental organisation had found that human rights defenders did not have the same powers in every country. One key point was the need for free and independent judicial powers, and a free and critical citizenship. There was a need to educate the people to make them aware of their fundamental human rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Mignon.

Mr MIGNON (France) said that the issue of human rights defenders was at the heart of the work of the Council of Europe. The work to promote human rights had to continue, even within Council of Europe member states. Numerous conventions had contributed to expanding the legal framework. These had been set up through peaceful political desire. Nonetheless, human rights defenders in numerous countries were not always safe. They experienced numerous obstacles, and sometimes their lives were threatened. All countries had to uphold the commitments made when they had acceded to the Council of Europe. The Assembly should not underestimate the risk that personal interests would prevail and that human rights principles could become warped. Certain groups undermined the solid foundations of society by putting their own interests first. The events which took place during the Durban review conference were evidence of this. He supported the draft resolution and recommendations.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Markov.

Mr MARKOV (Russian Federation) said that the report was excellent. His delegation had some amendments, but otherwise the report should be approved. In Russia, human rights defenders played a key role. One example was the work done by Mikhail Gorbachev. There was a need to focus on human rights and compare the situation with that which had prevailed 60 years previously: tremendous progress had been made. A Russian working group had been set up to assist foreign non-governmental organisations working in Russia to adapt to local conditions.

However, human rights were being violated in other countries. For example, in Estonia two years previously, the state had caused a demonstration to occur and then clamped down on the demonstrators. This was comparable to the clampdowns by Pinochet. Estonia would not grant citizenship to Russian speakers. He called on the Assembly particularly to assist those activists who were being held in custody by the Estonian authorities. Estonia was preventing huge numbers of activists from travelling freely within the Schengen area. The Governments of Estonia and Latvia were limiting the freedom of movement of political opponents.

Human rights had to be reflected in the education systems of Council of Europe member states. Text books had been drafted in Russian in order to achieve this. He suggested that there ought to be an equivalent European system of education.

THE PRESIDENT. – I now call Mrs Keleş.

Mrs KELEŞ (Turkey). – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the rapporteur for a well-prepared and comprehensive report on the situation of human rights defenders in Council of Europe member states. Human rights defenders contribute to human rights, democracy, rule of law and the prevention of conflicts – all of which are the main principles of the Council of Europe.

The rights of human rights defenders are important because such people cannot realise their missions if there is not enough freedom of expression, of assembly, and of association. The Assembly is right to urge member states to implement fully the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the United Nations and Council of Europe declarations of human rights defenders.

Paragraph 16 of the report says that “Human rights defenders do not form a particular category of vulnerable persons who should have specific rights, but they do defend other persons’ human rights and are therefore more visible at the front line.” In general, this sentence is true. I also think that human rights defenders should be protected in every way possible, but I want to bring to your attention one point that I think is important.

There is no doubt that we should protect human rights defenders, but before doing that we should understand whether they are real human rights defenders or people who use human rights arguments to reach their own aims. These aims may have nothing to do with human rights. For example, a terrorist organisation may use human rights arguments, whether directly or through their supporters, but their aim may be to separate a certain part of the country from the rest of the territory. The terrorist organisation PKK is such an organisation, and most of its supporters in civil life and in politics use human rights arguments.

I fully support this report and the resolutions and recommendations that it puts forward but, while I realise this, both international organisations and related countries should investigate well whom they are protecting and supporting. Are these organisations and people really contributing to the rule of law, democracy and the protection of human rights as well as the prevention of conflicts?

I also fully agree that the responsibility of certain media and public authorities for engaging in, tolerating or supporting hate speech against particular human rights defenders and organisations should not be underestimated. I would like to add one sentence; in the case of so-called human rights defenders, the media and public authorities should feel equal responsibility for the hate speeches against the state, the nation and the respectable institutions of the country in question. This is because the aim should be the protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law and the prevention of conflict. It should not serve the real aim of the so-called human rights defenders.

THE PRESIDENT. – Colleagues, I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers’ list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

I call Mr Haibach, rapporteur, to reply. You have six minutes, which is the remainder of the total of 13 minutes.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) thanked everybody for their contributions to the debate and said that he would pass on the tributes made to the Secretariat who had made the report possible. In an ideal world, there would have been no need for such a report; but this would have been a utopian paradise on earth which had not yet been reached.

A human rights defender was someone who defended the human rights of others in a peaceful way; the Assembly was not being asked to condone the use of violence or the existence of totalitarian systems. The issues in the report manifested themselves in different ways in different member states. However, assistance had to be offered to human rights defenders in all countries. Germany had faced problems when it had taken in Bosnian refugees, but this had been a necessity.

An impressive panoply of instruments was available to protect human rights defenders, but they were not always used. The Council of Europe member states had commitments towards each other, but the overriding one was to act as civilised members of civilised societies. The members of the Assembly sometimes fell short of this ideal but they had to keep striving towards it.

Many human rights activists had gone on to become main stream politicians. There was a need to use the institutions of the Council of Europe to promote human rights. The Council was in a precarious situation financially and further funding was needed to take these causes forward. The Council of Europe could legitimately intervene in the internal affairs of individual countries; indeed it had a duty to do so where human rights were under threat. Angela Merkel had said there was both a right and obligation to intervene in such circumstances.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Does the chairperson of the committee, Mrs Däubler-Gmelin, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany) said she wanted to comment on the points of controversy in relation to the resolution before the Assembly, concerning human rights and civil society. It was important to be able to count on the support of civil society. The Assembly alone could not enforce such matters. There was a need for Europe-wide scrutiny. The concept of non-intervention in sovereign states was untenable.

THE PRESIDENT. – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution to which 21 amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which two amendments have been tabled.

I remind you that speeches on the amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Dmitry Vyatkin, Mr Igor Chernyshenko, Mr Oleg Lebedev, Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh and Mr Ilyas Umakhanov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, after the words “protect human rights”, to insert the following words:

“, enjoying, equally with other citizens of the Council of Europe member states, obligations to the society as well as specific rights”.

I call Mr Vyatkin to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr VYATKIN (Russian Federation) said it was important to add an obligation on society for the defence of human rights.

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

I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the report dealt with human rights and legal concepts and would be clearer without the suggested addition.

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

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany) (Translation). – It was rejected by a majority.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is rejected.

We were now supposed to move on to deal with Amendment No. 6. Mrs Curtis-Thomas was due to speak in favour of it, but as she apparently is not present and no other delegates wish to move it, I shall remove the amendment.

We now come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Dmitry Vyatkin, Mr Igor Chernyshenko, Mr Oleg Lebedev, Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh and Mr Ilyas Umakhanov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, to replace the first sentence with the following sentence:

“The Assembly recognises that domestic law, providing that it is consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and other international obligations of the states in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms, is the legal framework within which human rights and fundamental freedoms should be implemented and enjoyed and within which all activities for the promotion, protection and effective realisation of those rights and freedoms should be conducted.”

I call Mr Vyatkin to support Amendment No. 8.

Mr VYATKIN (Russian Federation) said that his amendment was a drafting proposal to provide consistency with the Council of Europe’s framework rights.

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

I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said there was no need to refer to other conventions and therefore the amendment was not needed.

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

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany) (Translation). – It was rejected by a majority.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 9. I call Mr Vyatkin to support the amendment.

Is it withdrawn?

Mr VYATKIN (Russian Federation) (Translation). – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. – It is withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 5. I call Mrs Curtis-Thomas to support the amendment. She has not made it.

It is withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 10. I call Mr Vyatkin to support the amendment.

Is it withdrawn?

Mr VYATKIN (Russian Federation) (Translation). – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. – It is withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Dmitry Vyatkin, Mr Igor Chernyshenko, Mr Oleg Lebedev, Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh and Mr Ilyas Umakhanov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, to replace the words “warmly welcomes” with the following words: “takes into account”.

I call Mr Vyatkin to support Amendment No. 11.

Mr VYATKIN (Russian Federation) said that it was a closer reflection of the relevant deliberations to use the words “takes into account”.

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

I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said she welcomed a strengthening of the mandate of the Human Rights Commissioner.

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

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany) (Translation). – Rejected by a majority.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 11 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 12. I call Mr Vyatkin to support the amendment.

Is it withdrawn?

Mr VYATKIN (Russian Federation) (Translation). – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. – It is withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh, Mr Dmitry Vyatkin, Mr Igor Chernyshenko, Mr Oleg Lebedev and Mr Ilyas Umakhanov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12.2.1, to replace the words “in all circumstances their physical and psychological integrity” with the following words: “their physical integrity”.

I call Mr Chernyshenko to support Amendment No. 13.

Mr CHERNYSHENKO (Russian Federation) said that his amendment to remove references to all circumstances would be a better reflection of the Council’s systems for defending human rights.

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

I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that any physical or psychological attack on the integrity of human rights defenders should be targeted.

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

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany) (Translation). – Rejected by a majority.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 13 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mr György Frunda and Mr Hakki Keskin, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 12.2.3, to insert the following sub-paragraph:

“immediately abolish requirements for registration of NGOs or other bureaucratic barriers that may impair the effective enjoyment of the right to form, join and participate in NGOs, associations or groups working to defend human rights or that may otherwise obstruct their work.”

I call Mr Pourgourides to support Amendment No. 1. He is not here. We are not having a good day.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) (Translation). – I move it formally.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany) (Translation). – We have adopted this unanimously.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh, Mr Dmitry Vyatkin, Mr Igor Chernyshenko, Mr Oleg Lebedev and Mr Ilyas Umakhanov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.1, to delete the following words: “at risk”.

I call Mr Chernyshenko to support the amendment.

Mr CHERNYSHENKO (Russian Federation) said he wished to delete the words “at risk”.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said it was precisely in situations where risk arose that there was a need to defend human rights activists.

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

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany) (Translation). – Rejected by a majority.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 14 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh, Mr Dmitry Vyatkin, Mr Igor Chernyshenko, Mr Oleg Lebedev and Mr Ilyas Umakhanov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13.2, to delete the following words:

“or in need of respite as a consequence of persistent persecution in third countries”.

I call Mr Chernyshenko to support the amendment.

Mr CHERNYSHENKO (Russian Federation) said this amendment would delete reference to a need of respite in relation to those subjected to persistent persecution.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said in visa questions, human rights defenders were facing constant persecution and therefore she could not support the deletion suggested in the amendment.

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

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany) (Translation). – Rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 15 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 16. I call Mr Chernyshenko to support the amendment.

Is it withdrawn?

Mr CHERNYSHENKO (Russian Federation) (Translation). – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. – It is withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mr György Frunda and Mr Hakki Keskin, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14.2, to replace the words “adopt non-legislative texts” with the following words:

“adopt and implement non-legislative texts, such as national action plans or strategies,”.

I call Mr Pourgourides to support the amendment. He is not here.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) (Translation). – I move it formally.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany) (Translation). – Adopted unanimously.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mr György Frunda and Mr Hakki Keskin, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14.2, to replace the words “relevant to human rights defenders” with the following words:

“to guarantee that the work of human rights defenders is both protected and promoted”.

I call Mr Pourgourides to support Amendment No. 2. He is not here, so I call Mr Haibach.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany). – I move it formally.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – Adopted unanimously.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 17, tabled by Mr Dmitry Vyatkin, Mr Igor Chernyshenko, Mr Oleg Lebedev, Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh and Mr Ilyas Umakhanov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14.6, to delete the words “, and in particular for the new mandate of the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner to protect human rights defenders in the Council of Europe member states”.

I call Mr Vyatkin to support Amendment No. 17. Mr Markov will support it instead.

Mr MARKOV (Russian Federation) said that the amendment was designed to omit reference to the new mandate of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, as this did not yet exist. Reference to it would weaken the document as a whole.

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

I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the Commissioner’s mandate had been agreed in the Committee of Ministers and therefore reference to it should be included in the text.

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

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – Rejected by a majority.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 17 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mr György Frunda and Mr Hakki Keskin, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 14.7 with the following sub-paragraph:

“ensure that effective action is taken at the national level to follow-up on Council of Europe work and recommendations;”.

I call Mr Pourgourides to support Amendment No. 4. He is not here, so I call Mr Haibach.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany). – I move it formally.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – We have the same procedures every year.

THE PRESIDENT. – The committee recommends acceptance.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is adopted.

I understand that Amendment No. 18 has been withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 19, tabled by Mr Dmitry Vyatkin, Mr Igor Chernyshenko, Mr Oleg Lebedev, Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh and Mr Ilyas Umakhanov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.1, to replace the words “his reinforced mandate” with the following words: “his resources”.

I call Mr Vyatkin to support Amendment No. 19. Mr Markov will support it instead. We will have a substitute debate.

Mr MARKOV (Russian Federation) said that he was moving an orally amended version of this amendment by Mrs Däubler-Gmelin which had previously been agreed to by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

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

I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) spoke to the unamended version of the amendment, stating that the amendment was a further effort to limit the Commissioner’s powers and should be opposed.

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

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – Our Russian friends presented us with an oral amendment to their proposal. They want not to replace something, but to add something. The committee accepted the orally amended proposal unanimously.

THE PRESIDENT. – According to my instructions, if Amendment No. 19 is agreed to, we can then deal with the oral amendment. Is that acceptable?

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – No.

THE PRESIDENT. – So you want it to be rejected? What are you recommending?

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – We did not vote on Amendment No. 19, because the Russian delegation, who had proposed the amendment, changed it orally. The version of Amendment No. 19 on which we must decide is the changed version, not the original version.

THE PRESIDENT. – I am a bit confused, because I do not have the explanation of each amendment. I will accept an explanation if I am given one, because there is some doubt in my mind. Mr Markov, would you like to give the Assembly an explanation of what the chair of the committee has just said?

Mr MARKOV (Russian Federation) repeated that he was moving not his original amendment, but an amended version which sought to add to the report and not replace any provisions. He said this had been agreed in committee.

THE PRESIDENT. – So this is an oral amendment. Is that what this means technically?

Mr MARKOV (Russian Federation) (Translation). – An amended sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The wonderful world of amendments! I understand from what you have said that all parties want the oral amendment to be accepted. It is a question of whether the procedure relating to Amendment No. 19, which is before the Assembly at the moment, is accepted or rejected. You have made it clear that you would like it to be agreed to, but until this point the chair of the committee was saying that it should be rejected. I am confused about what the Assembly is being told.

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – Let me clarify the position. There is only one amendment. Amendment No. 19 was amended during discussions in the committee. The wording on which we must now decide is as follows: “fully carry out his reinforced mandate and use his resources to support”, and so on. We must decide on this amendment, with the support of our Russian friends. This is what the committee supports unanimously.

THE PRESIDENT. – So I have an amendment before me which has been changed. You are suggesting that it should incorporate the sub-amendment that you have just read out.

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. – The Assembly is probably a bit confused about what that means. Could you read out the oral amendment? The Assembly may then decide that in voting for Amendment No. 19 it is voting with your amendment in mind. Most members will not have the wording before them, but if you read out the amendment, I will take that as your explanation. We will then return to what is an unusual procedure in an attempt to get through this. I shall ask whether both parties are agreed. As I understand the position, they are, and we are trying to do this properly. May I ask the committee chair to explain to the Assembly how the committee decided to amend Amendment No. 19?

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – Sure. And let me make clear again that there is only one amendment and only one recommendation from the committee – a unanimous recommendation. That is partly because of the shortage of time.

The committee decided to replace the word “replace” with “insert after”, to leave out “with” and after “words:” insert “and use”, so that the amendment as amended would now read: “insert after the words ‘his reinforced mandate’ the following words: ‘and use his resources’”.

The amendment relates to paragraph 15.1 of the draft resolution. The text could then read: “fully carry out his reinforced mandate and use his resources to support and protect human rights defenders in the Council of Europe”, and so on. That is what we recommend.

THE PRESIDENT. – Is that agreeable to you, Mr Vyatkin?

Mr VYATKIN (Russian Federation). – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. – It must be clear to the Assembly that this is the result of last-minute consultation between the two parties, and that both want to reach an agreement. It is difficult to deal with an oral amendment at this stage, but what the committee chair has read out has been agreed to by the rapporteur, so when I refer to Amendment No. 19 I am referring to that interpretation of it. Do the two parties agree to that?

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. – In asking the Assembly to vote on Amendment No. 19, therefore, I ask it to adopt the recommendation of both parties. They are asking the Assembly to support Amendment No. 19 in the form in which the committee chair has just interpreted it.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – We seem to have unanimous agreement.

The vote on Amendment No. 19, as amended, is open.

Amendment No. 19, as amended, is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 20, tabled by Mr Dmitry Vyatkin, Mr Igor Chernyshenko, Mr Oleg Lebedev, Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh and Mr Ilyas Umakhanov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.1, to delete the words “interventions in urgent cases of human rights defenders at risk, public awareness-raising and creating networks,”.

I call Mr Markov to support Amendment No. 20.

Mr MARKOV (Russian Federation) read out the amendment and indicated that this was further to his concerns about including references to the remit of the Commissioner.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the wording should be retained.

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

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – The committee rejects the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 20 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 21, tabled by Mr Dmitry Vyatkin, Mr Igor Chernyshenko, Mr Oleg Lebedev, Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh and Mr Ilyas Umakhanov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 16.1, to replace the words “to carry out his reinforced mandate” with the following words: “to support human rights defenders”.

I call Mr Markov to support Amendment No. 21.

Mr MARKOV (Russian Federation) said that the aim of the amendment was to remove reference to the Commissioner’s reinforced mandate as the mandate did not exist and this would undermine the document.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the wording should be retained.

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

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – No surprise: the committee rejects the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 21 is rejected.

We now come to the draft resolution, for which, I remind delegates, a simple majority is required. We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 11841, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 11841, as amended, is adopted, with 113 votes for, 3 against and 3 abstentions.

The Committee on Legal and Affairs and Human Rights has also presented a draft recommendation, to which two amendments have been tabled.

We come to Amendment No. 22, tabled by Mr Igor Chernyshenko, Mr Dmitry Vyatkin, Mr Oleg Lebedev, Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh and Mr Ilyas Umakhanov, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4, to replace the first sentence with the following sentence:

“The Assembly welcomes the actions of the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner to protect and support human rights defenders in Council of Europe member states and fully supports his efforts to fulfil this task when the need arises.”

I call Mr Chernyshenko to support Amendment No. 22.

Mr CHERNYSHENKO (Russian Federation) moved the amendment which would have the effect of curtailing reference in the report to the remit of the Commissioner.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the amendment should be rejected.

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

Mrs DÄUBLER-GMELIN (Germany). – The committee rejects the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 22 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 23.

Mr MARKOV (Russian Federation) (Translation). – We will withdraw the amendment, as a present to the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT. – The good lady Mrs Däubler-Gmelin has been denied the opportunity to express opposition again; the amendment is now withdrawn.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 11841.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 11841 is adopted with 120 votes for, 2 against and 1 abstention.

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

4. Address by Mrs Tarja Halonen, President of Finland

THE PRESIDENT. – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mrs Tarja Halonen, President of Finland. The President has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor after her address.

Welcome back to the Parliamentary Assembly, President Halonen: it is a great pleasure to have you among us, and I hope you that you always feel at home here in this Chamber.

You joined our Parliamentary Assembly when the east and the west of Europe were slowly coming together. We cherish your personal commitment in assisting this process. Our Assembly’s Monitoring Committee was created at your initiative as a result of Order 488 (1993), which is still referred to as the Halonen order.

You also worked very hard to help ensure real equality between women and men. As you once underlined, not only minorities but also majorities sometimes fail to obtain equal rights. That is still too often the case with women, who represent 52% of the population of Europe.

I should recall that you addressed our Parliamentary Assembly on several occasions as Minister for Foreign Affairs and as President of Finland. You have always shown high esteem for the action led by the Council of Europe, while urging this Organisation to be more ambitious. Your advice and support are most valuable. The core values that the Council of Europe stands for – democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as well as social cohesion and equal opportunities for all – have guided your work in this Assembly, and in the government and presidency of your country. We all admire your consistency and perseverance.

Thank you for coming, President Halonen; we look forward to listening to you.

Mrs HALONEN (President of Finland). – Distinguished President, honourable members of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General, Excellencies and ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for the invitation to Strasbourg and for the opportunity to address the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I feel at home again.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Council of Europe and the 20th anniversary of Finland’s membership of the Organisation. Our world has changed in many ways during the years, but as you mentioned, Mr President, the core principles – democracy, human rights and the rule of law – remain at the heart of our work. We must continue building our future on these common values. This work is essential for Europe and for Europe’s democratic development.

Finland has had a longstanding interest in the Council of Europe and its activities. The Finnish Parliament and parliamentarians have taken a particular interest in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly, and with good reason. The Parliamentary Assembly is really the heart of the Council of Europe. For me, it has always been a great pleasure to participate in the work of the Council throughout my political life, and it always will be.

Since the Second World War, Europe has lived through several changes. The Council of Europe and its work have been most valuable. It has ensured that the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law have been applied. The work continues because, today, we still face many challenges.

The international economic crisis affects all of us. In many countries, economic activity has slowed down considerably and this has led to growing unemployment. This causes human suffering and may also cause social instability. The scale and impact of the crisis are still largely unknown, but we must be prepared for difficult times ahead.

The economy must of course be revitalised in a manner that is effective but also socially just. We need a fair globalisation that promotes stable growth, provides adequate financing for enterprises and responds to the needs of workers for decent work. We have to remember that the welfare of people goes hand in hand with the welfare of nature. Markets alone cannot give the answers.

The Council of Europe can provide us with useful tools in responding to the challenges of today. We must keep human rights firmly in our minds, and work together for our shared principles and values. A human rights-based approach will lead to more equitable and sustainable solutions.

The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights are the flagships of the Council. We must ensure that the Court can effectively fulfil its tasks. I am personally convinced of the importance of Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, we must remember that the proper implementation of the human rights convention at the national and local level is best for the people. It could also lead, in a positive way, to a decrease in the number of cases put forward to the European Court of Human Rights.

In order to ensure the reinforcement of democracy and human rights, it is important to monitor the compliance of commitments undertaken by the member states. Currently, the Parliamentary Assembly conducts the state-specific public monitoring of new member states. I believe that extending monitoring by the Parliamentary Assembly to all the member states of the Council could be studied. All in all, I have started to think more and more about how human rights processes – the way of thinking – could be taken more as encouragement than as punishment, not for me but for my neighbour, because punishment is not very effective.

Finland was active in setting up the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and now we are satisfied with the results. Both Commissioner Alvaro Gil-Robles and Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg have been very successful in promoting the awareness of, and respect for, human rights.

Recently, Commissioner Hammarberg has played an active role in monitoring the human rights situation that followed the crisis in Georgia last year. I encourage all parties to implement the six principles in question.

Last month, in Monrovia, Liberia, I had the honour of co-convening with the President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the International Colloquium on Women’s Empowerment. The colloquium sent out a strong message about the need to implement fully UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. The Council of Europe has an important role in supporting the implementation of this resolution. All member countries should adopt a national action plan in support of this work.

We must strongly condemn the rape and sexual violence that occurs in conjunction with conflicts, and do all that we can to ensure the fundamental and human rights of women and girls. I repeat my proposal that the systematic rape in armed conflict should be classified as a forbidden weapon of war.

Violence against women is in all circumstances a human rights violation. At the Council of Europe summit in Warsaw in 2005, we agreed to undertake a pan-European campaign to combat violence against women, including domestic violence. I am pleased that the campaign led to a decision to draft a convention. All the best for that work.

It is also self-evident that children – both girls and boys – need special protection. We must take firm measures to eradicate all forms of violence against children. It is essential that the member states ratify and implement the relevant legal instruments to prevent the sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children, trafficking and customs and practices that are harmful to children.

All children should be ensured an adequate standard of living, social protection, health and education – in other words, a good childhood. In particular, access to education for the children belonging to minorities and migrant communities has to be secured. Children’s rights have to be mainstreamed into all areas of activity in the Council and in the member states. All children should be assured adequate standards, and that is what we can do.

Democracy is based on equality between people. Finland pays special attention to the rights of minorities. One of our main aims is to strengthen the social and minority rights of the Roma. I am happy that the European Roma and Travellers Forum has become our common project. This forum has a valuable role in ensuring that the voice of Roma is heard in decisions affecting them and in promoting mutual understanding. The Roma cannot do this work alone; they need our support and co-operation. We are altogether Europeans.

Promoting intercultural dialogue is crucial in today’s globalised world. Our societies are increasingly multicultural, and their peaceful development will depend on tolerance and respect between the various ethnic, cultural and religious communities. I am very happy about the progress that the Alliance of Civilizations initiative is making. We should all make a serious effort to implement its goals in our own countries and in our co-operation.

Over the past 60 years, the achievements of the Council of Europe have been impressive. It has contributed to making Europe a continent of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It has built an excellent network of co-operation with the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations.

Honourable members, I thank you for your work, I encourage you to further achievements and I promise you my sincere support. I am now ready for questions and comments. I am in your hands.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Madam President, for your speech and for saying that you will accept questions from parliamentarians. Many want to put questions, and I remind colleagues that they have only 30 seconds to formulate their questions.

I give the floor to Mr Vareikis of Lithuania, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania). – Thank you. Madam President, Finland has a long history of co-operation and cohabitation with the Soviet Union and Russia. When you take the Chair of the Council of Europe, you will have to deal with some very specific Russian problems. You mentioned Protocol No. 14. There is the Russia-Georgia issue over the pipeline in the North Sea and in the Baltic Sea. Do you have some special instruments for Russia?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Halonen to reply.

Mrs HALONEN. – Finland was a part of Sweden for about 700 years and a part of Russia for about 200 years. We have now been independent for more than 90 years. We have never been a part of the Soviet Union; it never succeeded in occupying our country. We were neighbours with the Russians over the years of the war and the years of the peace. It is a challenging task for anyone to be a good neighbour. It has been for us, and it has been for the Russians. The situation is the same all over Europe. There used to be problems between France and Germany, but that is no longer the case. That is why I said that we should all try to be both active and open to reform in the areas of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We should also not be too sensitive; we often say, “That’s okay for our neighbour, but not for us,” when addressing the common principles of the Council of Europe. Therefore, I say in answer to the question, that the rules should be exactly the same for everyone, and that we should respect each other and not be too sensitive. We should be patient and co-operative, and transparent and helpful to our neighbours, but we should also be ready to face such issues ourselves.

The questioner mentioned several future challenges to do with the gas pipeline. We in Finland are in the process of dealing with that issue. The decision will be taken purely on ecological grounds. Therefore, if the gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea is ecologically safe, it might be okay with us. We are serious about these issues, however.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr Bender from Poland on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr BENDER (Poland). – The new gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea between Russia and Germany is a great danger to the environment, especially because of the toxic substances that sank during and after the Second World War, and probably the First World War, too. Russia plans to ignore the warnings of environmental groups and scientists. Is Finland, a country with a long and difficult history of having suffered Russian aggression, going to support this pipeline? Both Poles and Finns know very well how dangerous and anti-environmental Russian technology can be. We must not forget that.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Halonen to reply.

Mrs HALONEN. – First, I want to say that Finland does not need this gas pipeline. We already have arrangements in place, so we are not participating in the project. However, Germany, the Netherlands and many central European countries need it. Currently, the Baltic Sea is very busy with the different kinds of ships that are needed for energy transportation, and if the gas pipeline is ecologically safe, it will be a good solution. Therefore, there is not a question of there being any pressure from the Russians, the Germans or anybody else; we say very clearly that if the pipeline is ecologically safe, we do not have any political reasons to resist it.

It was mentioned that there might be mines and mustard gas in the Baltic Sea; we have also heard that may be possible. We must know what exactly they are – and we must remember that they might be the responsibility not of the Russians, but of the other side – so that we can focus on them and discover whether they will be dangerous to us in the future. We must do what we can to guarantee as good a natural environment as possible for our children. Finland is very active in Baltic Sea protection – as I am as well. We have called on all the coastal countries to work with us, and I am happy to be able to say that their responses have been quite positive. We are waiting for the Swedish Presidency of the European Union; it will introduce its Baltic Sea strategy next autumn, and we hope that that will be beneficial both to the safety of the Baltic Sea and in other more general environmental regards.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. The next question is from Mr Kaikkonen from Finland.

Mr KAIKKONEN (Finland). – I would like to ask about Belarus. It is the only state that is missing from our European family in this plenary hall. We all know the reasons for that: problems with democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We must also admit that our policy of isolation has not made any real progress so far. How do you see the situation of, and the future in, Belarus; what kind of a policy towards Belarus do you prefer, and how do you think that the Council of Europe should organise its relations with Belarus?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Halonen to reply.

Mrs HALONEN. – Belarus belongs in Europe; it is a European country. A policy of isolation has seldom been an effective means of teaching either peoples or countries. We have our values and principles. I have already held discussions with people here at the Council of Europe, but it is, of course, your duty to decide what you will do. I would welcome any steps that would give us an opportunity to have Belarus back. I am sure that most of us would be willing to take her back if she were willing to fulfil the criteria of the Council of Europe, but Belarus must be seriously willing to do so. I therefore wish all the best to even the smallest such steps if co-operation can be established with that country.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next question is from Mrs Gautier from France.

Mrs GAUTIER (France) said that many had forgotten that, between 1991 and 1994, Finland had undergone a bad economic crisis. This had been caused by the collapse of the USSR, a general recession in Europe accompanying the fall of the Berlin Wall and the bursting of the consumer bubble. Debt had risen from 10% to 65% and growth had fallen. She asked how the Finnish recovery from this situation had been effected, and what relevance this had to present circumstances.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Halonen to reply.

Mrs HALONEN. – Thank you. We have faced these issues several times recently. Countries rightly want to learn from the past. It is true that we suffered from a bad stagnation in the early 1990s; I would even go so far as to say that we had a financial crisis, including difficulties with our banking system. One lesson that we learned is that the condition of the state, enterprises and families must be made better in the good times, and that we must put in place networks that enable us better to face any future difficulties.

The current situation is different, of course; it is a global financial crisis, so it is not only happening to us, or even only to Europe. We need suitable strategies. One of them is a strategy that we used in the 1990s: not only saving money, but investing for the future. Although we used to have a very one-sided industrial sector – we had paper, pulp and metal – we invested more in the bad times of the early 1990s in technology and IT, and that created a new start and a new boom in that sector – may I mention the famous name of Nokia? There are other similar companies that are also well known now. So we made it at that time, which meant that we were ready for the good times. It is very important that we think about not only surviving through the bad times but about finding ways nationally, internationally at the European level and even globally to prepare for the better times. My customary answer is, in short, education, education, education, but it also involves different forms of co-operation between the private and the public sectors and, increasingly, co-operation between different countries.

I would also like to say that we are no longer living in the 1990s; we need to look at the international situation. Let us hope the best for the recovery of the American economy as it is so big. Let us also hope that the Americans are able to do some good work economically by themselves, but in order to avoid the kind of difficult economic circumstances that we are experiencing today, we also need to work together with them, the Europeans and other countries on the international financial architecture. It will take more time, but I am hopeful, because our European leaders have gathered together and their co-operation with America is getting better and better. As I have said, then, we need co-operation at the national and the international level, and we also need not just to survive this period, but to be prepared for the future.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The next question is from Mr Volonte' of Italy.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said he was grateful that the President had come to the Assembly. There had been an urgent debate at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe on 4 March regarding hostility in Europe towards Christianity, and he asked Mrs Halonen for her views on anti-Christianity in Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Halonen to reply.

Mrs HALONEN. – It is a very difficult issue. I have some experience, some of it negative, some positive. We all remember the pain, fear and panic from which people suffered after 11 September. At that time, I was already President of my country. I invited representatives as the “Sons of Ibrahim”, which includes Christian, Jewish and Islamic believers, to come and discuss the issues with me. I told them that I very much respected the views of people who try to see the universe and understand the place of mankind in the universal system, which is what those religions do. We should also allow the same rights to our fellow citizens. What I learned from this and subsequent meetings was that the representatives of these religious communities had done many positive things in Finland. They all respected the right to have different religious views and the right of people to choose their religious beliefs, while also accepting the principles of human rights declarations and conventions. Let us try to work together in that way.

In recent years, we have experienced some difficulties. When we speak about the rights and fundamental freedoms of the people, it is based on everybody’s conviction that universal rights are stronger. We need somehow to keep at the forefront of our minds that freedom of expression and our rights to choose our religious, ethnic or cultural identities are all pieces of the same entity. I think that some difficulties can be caused in this area.

Another issue is that some countries, including my own, have been quite homogeneous in the past. We had only small minorities of Orthodox believers, while the majority were Lutherans, yet we had good co-operation. We also had a racial mix, which included some of the old Tartars, but they are very much integrated. Now we face the new Christians, the new Islamists and new types of religious people. There was some difficulty for them in seeing what was based in religion and what was based, more broadly, in culture. Of course, Christians, Muslims or Jews from different parts of the world have the same faith in the same God, but they have very different cultural frameworks. That is why it is so important to have these forums to discuss freely not only in the tradition of our own religion, but in that of other religions.

I often say that, in order to be tolerant and to see the value of the faith or cultural thinking of our fellow citizens, we should sometimes be less modest with our own beliefs. If we think about equality, it should be possible for one person to be proud to be a Christian and for another person to be proud to be Jewish or Islamic. We are just at the start of these discussions, but I am hopeful, which is why I mentioned in my speech an initiative about the Alliance of Civilizations, I am also happy that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, has shown a special interest in this initiative – he also joined us in the meeting that I mentioned. It is not yet done; there is a lot more work ahead.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The next question is from Mrs Durrieu of France.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that in Finland the level of incarceration of people was now among the lowest anywhere. It used to be the highest. She asked how Finnish prisons had been emptied without a concomitant increase in the crime rate.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Halonen to reply.

Mrs HALONEN. – I wanted to be precise. This is a very interesting issue and it would be better if the Minister for Justice were here. I used to be a Minister for Justice in the 1980s and 1990s. The question is how to deal with people who do not accept the laws, conventions and regulations of society. Of course, imprisonment or putting them in jail should be the last resort and prisons should be places that people never come back to. I think we can all agree on that, but we know that, in fact, about 70% or 80% of people who have been in jail might well end up there again.

In common with other Nordic countries, we have tried to find ways to avoid automatically putting people into prison. We have already achieved quite good figures, partly because we looked for various alternatives. I am afraid that I do not know the exact terms, but I will try to explain in English what we did. We had community service, which meant that, for smaller crimes, people could be punished by making them work in society under the control of the authorities instead of putting them in jail. We also sought various ways of encouraging the courts to give people shorter prison sentences. We hope that this will help with rehabilitation. It helps with some people. We are always trying to find more open systems. It is a sad and interesting fact that although some people learn to be good prisoners and behave well in jail, as soon as they come out, they do not behave well.

We must work together in the Council of Europe. We need to think about good governance, social circumstances and many other issues. I look forward to discussing what we can do together in Europe. International co-operation is particularly strong in this regard. I feel that there should be much stronger co-operation between Ministers of Justice and all the authorities to deal with professional criminals and crimes such as trafficking, which I mentioned in my speech. It is impossible to achieve a permanent solution to such problems, but I thank you for your compliments, and look forward to our discussions.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Vyatkin.

Mr VYATKIN (Russian Federation) said that one of the most important issues for the Council of Europe was the protection of minority languages. For example, in Russia that would include Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian. The matter did not seem to be a problem for the Swedish-speaking minority in Finland. He asked how Finland had managed to succeed in this area.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Halonen to reply.

Mrs HALONEN. – I described our history earlier. As I said, Finland was once part of Sweden, and we are still close neighbours. We used to have a large minority of Swedish-speaking people, but now it is only 5% or 6%. I think it is important for all countries to respect the rights of minorities, and language is important in that context, because it is the home of the mind: it is where we create our identities and communicate with others.

When we declared our independence in 1917, there were more Swedish-speaking people in our country than there are today. It is important to me that the people of Finland, both the Swedish and the Finnish speakers, were the founding fathers and mothers of our state. I have great respect for them, which is why I am doing my best – as, I hope, are others – to give the same rights and services to both groups. It is true that more money must be invested in minorities than in majorities. We have seen that in all countries. It is necessary to invest more in order to guarantee equal rights for human beings – for individuals.

You mentioned some of your neighbours. The question of neighbourhood has arisen again! We are interested in what will happen to the speaking of Finnish in Sweden, and I think that German speakers, for instance, are interested in what will happen to the speaking of German in other countries. The Council of Europe plays an important role in this respect, and we also have the minority language convention. I encourage every one of you to accept and implement the important protocol to that convention.

All the models that we have discussed should be tailor-made for individual countries. I understand that, so far, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – I am not sure about Ukraine; I know its southern neighbours better – have fulfilled all their duties to the Council of Europe and its agreements, and I am glad about that.

Let me say something about the approach that we should adopt. All of us – not just neighbouring countries, but everyone – should bear in mind the European heritage, which means that countries have more than one language and more than one culture. Let us work to preserve that European culture. You all do important work in the Council of Europe, and seem to share my view that we should think less about what is good for us than about what is good for our neighbours. I hope that you all respect the rights of minorities, but the Finnish model may not be worth exporting: your countries will have to adopt their own models.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next question comes from Mr Iwiński.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – The visit of our longstanding Strasbourg colleague confirms the wisdom of the French saying “On revient toujours a ses premiers amours”.

My question concerns relations between the Council of Europe, the European Union and the OSCE. How will it be possible to reduce competition and strengthen co-operation, particularly in relation to the division of labour?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Halonen to reply.

Mrs HALONEN. – Dziękuję – which is “thank you” in Polish. I still remember some of the words! We used to be colleagues here.

One of my advisers, Ambassador Aleksi Härkönen, was our ambassador to the OSCE when we held the presidency last year. I tried to learn what we could do to promote integration. I know that the Council of Europe co-operates well with the OSCE, but I also know that there is competition between the OSCE and not just the Council of Europe, but the EU and sometimes others. Given that resources are limited everywhere, I encourage the Secretariat and also you, the politicians, to put in more work.

Let me return to a comparison that I used to make here. I used to say that the OSCE was like a fire brigade. Once the fire was at least almost out, the countries which the brigade had helped wanted to put the brigade out as well. The Council of Europe should be more like a lifetime partner, while the OSCE can provide us with an interesting and fast-moving networking system.

Countries sometimes attempt what could be described as forum shopping. When they are asked to discuss issues with the Council of Europe, they say, “Yes, Mr President, we see the problem, but this is not the right forum in which to discuss it. It would be better discussed with the OSCE or the UN.” We should stop that forum shopping. We should co-operate. If a country needs help, encouragement or guidance, it should not be able to avoid international co-operation, and it should be made to feel that that means partnership rather than punishment.

I know that members of parliament in both the OSCE and the Council of Europe are almost the same people. At least they are colleagues from the same parliament. My advice is that we should also co-operate more strongly at a national level so that when we go back to Moscow, Stockholm, Helsinki or wherever, colleagues from different organisations such as the OSCE and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe can decide to speak in the same way and try to co-operate on a national level as well.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Çavuşoğlu.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Madam President, we appreciate the role played by Finland in promoting our common values in Europe; I am thinking especially of your country’s active contribution to the activities of the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the European Union. As you said, your country chaired the OSCE.

Given Finland’s experience in the EU and other organisations, how do you think the Council of Europe can play its role in the future of Europe, especially in respect of cultural dialogue?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Halonen to reply.

Mrs HALONEN. – First, I congratulate my Turkish friends. They held an excellent meeting a while ago in Istanbul, at which were present not only we Europeans but President Obama. It was a good start for the new President of the United States of America. He saw the broad variety of opinions in Europe and how we are trying to find a way to speak with one voice. He also saw a very warm welcome from an Islamic society.

The flagship of the Council of Europe, of course, is the European Court of Human Rights and everything in jurisprudence concerning human rights. However, as we all know, it would be artificial to be limited to just this juridical side and let the other organisations do the other work. So I hope that the main expertise will be in the hands of the Council of Europe in future, so that the European Union and the Luxembourg court, for example, could use the expertise of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

The membership of the Council of Europe is broader than that of the European Union, so in an international sense it gives rise to equal discussions with a broader European perspective. The OSCE, of course, is also involved but it does more structural work. I hope that the others will respect the work of the Council of Europe in building the architecture and structures of European democracy. It is not always in the first front on the news and on television, but it diminishes the amount of difficult news on television. I hope that this House will become stronger and stronger in that role.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – Madam President, given that you have worked so hard and long in the Parliamentary Assembly, I am sure that you are the head of state with the biggest empathy with the Assembly. As President you have seen us suffering and not getting the credit that we deserve. What ideas do you have to improve the respect for, and visibility of, our work?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Halonen to reply.

Mrs HALONEN. – I have to confess that the years I spent in the 1990s in the Council of Europe were among the happiest of my political career. I was happy then, and also afterwards, because this is a very free democratic place. I mean that we should fully use the potential to be creative. When you are back in your home countries, whichever they are, there are all these rules concerning government and opposition and this and that agreement and how to deal with things. Furthermore, of course, there is more publicity around you. Most of you will have felt the problem of your voters saying, “Yes it is fine that you are doing international work, but it would be better to be in your own constituency.”

That is the contradiction: if you are always travelling to Strasbourg, your public think, “Ah! They are there again in that beautiful city, but they are not with us and our problems.” One of the tricky issues is getting them to see the entity and the fact that you are working for them as well as for Europe. However, I give this encouragement: sometimes, the thanks do not come at the time but afterwards. It is better if you remember what you have done, and if there is a national issue you can say that you have discussed it in Strasbourg and tell of your experience, the co-operation and the questions of colleagues which you bring back. I will do that also after this visit, having had discussions with the Secretary General and other excellencies about what they expect Finland to do.

Here, you see the picture of your own country from more points of view than is possible with most organisations. The thanks do not always come at the time, as I said. But there is also a good side to the media not being just around the corner. We should always have good quality media helping us. That is important, and we have discussed it. Like all other human beings, some journalists are good and some are not quite so good. How do we carry out an information strategy with one person, our blocs, our country and the countries of Europe? That is a very important issue. As I said, the good news in development does not come often in the evening news, which offers only three minutes. The negative things and the difficulties, rather than the positive developments, can easily be pushed to the fore in those three minutes.

People have good memories as a matter of fact, much better than you might believe. That becomes evident as time passes. The situation is not hopeless. Hard work is required, but I want to encourage you. If you work well now, you will see what you have done in the future. That has also been seen during the past 60 years of this institution.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The last question is from Mr Reimann.

Mr REIMANN (Switzerland) said that Finland had an outstanding energy policy, particularly with regard to hydro and clean nuclear power. Dealing with nuclear waste required national solutions. He asked whether Finland had experienced any significant problems in this area.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I ask Mrs Halonen to reply.

Mrs HALONEN. – When you are close to the picture, you see that it is many-sided, so we see a lot of challenges. It is in the Finnish character to reply to those who visit our beautiful country and say, “Oh! What a beautiful house!”, “Yes, but you do not realise that the roof is not too good.” We are very self-critical.

We live in the north and have very energy-intensive industries, so we have to concentrate seriously on energy issues. We all know that we Europeans are dependent on gas and oil and face many other challenges, but it is very important that each country has its own national energy plan. Members of the European Union will see how the European common approach fits with those plans, and will try to find the best partners to work with them.

Yes, we make use of nuclear energy and we have not been as strict as some other EU countries close to us in that regard, but in practice we do not use more than they do. There should be a good energy mix that looks to the shorter term and to the longer term. In the short term, we have to realise that climate change will affect us negatively, which is why nuclear energy, for instance, in the modern technical form, can be part of the answer.

Secondly, we should work increasingly with renewable energy resources – and, by the way, if you will allow me an advertisement, we are not too bad in that regard. Using these new types of energy is a means of handling the issue in a more decentralised way, and they could also help developing countries to achieve a decent standard of living.

Thirdly, we need to be economic and effective with energy; European countries have a lot to do.

All in all, we should be patient, strong in our co-operation and do our own homework. However, we should also be ready for the open markets and for co-operation in energy, because that will also be best for Europeans.

Thank you for your question.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs President, for your statement and for your answers to the questions. On behalf of all of us, thank you also for encouraging the members of this Assembly to continue to follow our work for Europe and its citizens, and for your support for our institution.

5. Date, time and agenda 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 which was approved yesterday.

Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The agenda for the next sitting is therefore agreed.

The sitting is closed.

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

Contents

1. Minutes of proceedings

2. Organisation of debates

3. The situation of human rights defenders in Council of Europe member states

Presentation of report of Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights by Mr Haibach, Doc. 11841

Speakers:

Mr Hunault (France)

Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (Germany)

Mr Keskin (Germany)

Mrs Gautier (France)

Mr de Vries (Netherlands)

Mr Santini (Italy)

Mr Vyatkin (Russian Federation)

Mr Frécon (France)

Mr Shershun (Ukraine)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Mignon (France)

Mr Markov (Russian Federation)

Mrs Keleş (Turkey)

Replies:

Mr Haibach (Germany)

Mrs Däubler-Gmelin (Germany)

Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 2, 4, and 19 as amended, adopted.

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation adopted.

4. Address by Mrs Tarja Halonen, President of Finland

Questions:

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Bender (Poland)

Mr Kaikkonen (Finland)

Mrs Gautier (France)

Mr Volonte' (Italy)

Mrs Durrieu (France)

Mr Vyatkin (Russian Federation)

Mr Iwiński (Poland)

Mr Çavuşoğlu (Turkey)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mr Reimann (Switzerland)

5. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting