Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

After the current affairs debate, which is limited to one and a half hours, we will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the debate on politically motivated abuses at about 5.50 p.m., in the debate on the right to a healthy environment at about 7.15 p.m., and in the debate on the credentials of the Moldovan delegation at about 7.50 p.m. in order to leave sufficient time for the replies on behalf of the committees and the votes.

Are these arrangements agreed?

They are agreed.

2. Current affairs debate: the situation of human rights defenders and

the increasing violence in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Our first item of business this afternoon is the current affairs debate on the situation of human rights defenders and the increasing violence in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation.

Under Rule 52.4, the debate is limited to one and a half hours, and will therefore end at 4.40 p.m.

Mr Marty, designated by the Bureau as first speaker, is allowed 10 minutes. We will then hear from a member of the Russian delegation from the region concerned. He will be allowed seven minutes.

After the first two speakers, we will hear from Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights.

In the debate I call first Mr Marty.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights had held a meeting over the summer in Paris. The committee had hoped that Mrs Estemirova would attend the meeting but unfortunately she had been assassinated very soon after accepting the invitation. Her prominent role as a defender of human rights showed that nobody was immune from the increasing violence in the North Caucasus region. Her assassination had come as a bitter shock to the committee, and it, together with that of Anna Politkovskaya, were crimes undertaken to stifle the truth. Both, alas, remained unpunished.

The aim of today’s debate was to express the Assembly’s solidarity to the people of the North Caucasus region, and its commitment to those who defended human rights there. The current difficult situation had developed in Russia, a member state of the Council of Europe. But it was not right to see Russia as being entirely at fault; Russia was a great country with a formidable cultural heritage. Many examples had been given yesterday of Europe’s common history with Russia, and it was important to remember the key role the Red Army played in freeing Europe from tyranny in the Second World War. Instead, it was necessary to be frank and open in dealing with Russia.

In 2009, the Russian Government had announced the end of its aggression towards Chechnya. However, since then the number of victims of violence in that region had increased, with men, women and children all suffering. The Russian authorities were well aware of the problems in Chechnya, but their analysis of the situation was incomplete. A climate in which criminals felt untouchable had allowed the spread of violence. The battle against organised crime could never be won unless citizens felt sufficiently protected by the state. Despite 80 human rights rulings against Russia, the abuses were still being tolerated and covered up. Russia needed to shoulder its responsibility and see the courts as allies, not enemies.

In conclusion, two quotations were apposite. As Jean Jaurès had pointed out, “Courage is looking for and telling the truth”; and as Mahatma Gandhi had said: “there is no defeat in the search for truth”.

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

Mr UMAKHANOV (Russian Federation) thanked the President and his colleagues. The rapporteur was also to be thanked for his courage, for taking up the issue and for the warm words he had addressed to inhabitants of the region. His task had been difficult, not least because he had never been to the area – it was to be hoped that he would be able to visit soon – and because there were so many different views on the problems themselves and of how to resolve them.

These problems manifested themselves differently in different regions. In the North Caucasus there had been an escalation in violence against journalists, politicians and human rights campaigners. Representatives of law and order were also at risk of violent attacks by bandits. For example, in the three republics twice as many such representatives had been killed this year as last year. Bandits chose the most vulnerable individuals, such as judges and lawyers. The President of Ingushetia had begun to try to combat corruption and was himself now under threat. Taking into consideration the low standards of living in those areas, the undermining of social and moral values, levels of unemployment, and the availability of weapons, it was hardly surprising that those regions had become a breeding ground for terrorism. Terrorist incidents had always to be thoroughly investigated.

In Dagestan more than 200 newspapers and periodicals were sold in 14 languages. Mosques, churches and groups representing civil society also flourished. The President of Ingushetia had recently met Commissioner Hammarberg and representatives of over 25 NGOs had participated in this meeting. For several years concerted efforts had been made to reduce the number of kidnappings in Dagestan. A ministerial working group had been established after the kidnapping of well-known human rights activists. Of those kidnapped in Dagestan in 2008 and 2009, most individuals had been found but while criminal proceedings had been opened there were a great many problems associated with securing convictions.

Some people were kidnapped only with a view to discrediting the forces of law and order; similarly target lists of people to be killed – including journalists, politicians and civil servants – had been drawn up, with a view to destabilising the rule of law. Cases of kidnapping and of unlawful detention continued to occur. For example, the President of Dagestan’s television company had been detained.

There were still fears for the future, but progress had been made towards bringing the situation under control. The Prosecutor General was acting under direct instructions from the Russian Federation to work on the problem, but difficulties with getting witnesses to testify created obstacles to effective criminal investigation. A superficial and overly emotional view of this complex problem should be avoided: NGOs should not be regarded as being on the same footing as the authorities in respect of the current situation. He and his colleagues stood ready to assist with efforts to tackle the violence.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Umakhanov. I now give the floor to Mr Hammarberg, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights.

Mr HAMMARBERG (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights). – In sum, the situation in parts of North Caucasus is not peaceful and there are serious human rights problems. However, there are also attempts to find solutions. I visited Ingushetia and Chechnya earlier this month and I met President Yevkurov and President Kadyrov and other representatives of the local governments there. I also met the ombudsmen and the non-governmental organisations, both in the region and in Moscow, where I also met the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

We are now working on the report and formulating recommendations, but I am prepared to give some preliminary impressions from my visit. Both republics suffer from terrorism. In Ingushetia, President Yevkurov was himself attacked in June. His bodyguard and driver were killed and he suffered injuries. Another attack killed many people outside a police station. After his medical treatment, President Yevkurov and I had a long talk during my visit. He stressed that terrorism cannot be fought only by military and police methods. As long as more than half of the work force is unemployed and poverty is chronically widespread, the extremists will be able to recruit. He also stressed that it is important that the security forces are disciplined and take no action that would harm ordinary citizens, including the families of those who have joined the subversive forces.

We discussed ways of ending impunity and the need to clarify the many previous cases in Ingushetia of killing and abduction. The president stressed the need to fight corruption and said that he was determined to continue that effort even after one of his ministers had been murdered for taking action against some corrupt people. He had initiated meetings between villages to put an end to traditions of blood revenge. Of course, non-governmental organisations there welcome that new policy. They say that at least they now have someone there who listens to their concerns about human rights. However, they realise that the challenges in Ingushetia are still enormous.

In Chechnya, I met deep frustration at the fact that virtually nothing has been done to clarify the fate of the more than 3 000 persons who disappeared during the two wars. More than 60 grave sites have been identified, but they have not been opened, mainly because there is still no system in place for handling the remains and doing the DNA testing in a professional manner. The fact that the abductors and murderers have not been held to account has, of course, increased the bitterness.

The abduction and murder of Natalya Estemirova in mid-July was a terrible shock to many in Grozny and Chechnya as a whole. The Memorial office remains closed, and the staff and its supporters do not know whether it can continue its human rights work. It is in my opinion absolutely necessary that the case of Estemirova is clarified, and that the killers and those behind her death are brought to justice, whoever they are.

I have talked with the investigation committee at both federal and local levels. The committee is a new structure, created two years ago when the prosecutorial structure was reorganised; it now has an independent investigation branch. In Grozny, a team had been set up within the investigation committee to follow up on rulings made by the Strasbourg Court. So far, however, there is still a pattern of impunity. The investigation into the Estemirova case is in the hands of a federal investigation team, which appeared to me to be competent; I met its members. Back in Moscow, I made the point that that investigation into the Estemirova case must be protected from any undue interference or pressure.

One of the problems that Estemirova herself had investigated related to the torching of houses, which Dick Marty mentioned. Estemirova had documented 17 such cases. The torching had been directed against the families of young men who had allegedly gone to the mountains. When I raised the issue in Grozny, I got assurances that that practice would not be accepted.

In discussing the issue, it is important that we continue to care for the people in the region. Every time that I have been in Chechnya – this was my fourth visit – I have been approached in the streets by women carrying photos and typed descriptions of the circumstances in which their loved ones had disappeared. This time, one of them said to me, “Thank you for coming again. It is so important for us not to feel forgotten.” Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. We now come to the general debate. I call Mr Díaz Tejera, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) thanked the President and said that the text presented by his colleague and friend had provided food for thought. He had thought of making a speech of a legal nature but having heard the speeches of Mr Marty and Commissioner Hammarberg, he did not think that there was any need for further legal or technical contributions. It was on his conscience that in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights he had been talking about a right to the environment, when, seemingly in a different world, there were people in other parts of Europe whose first and fundamental right to life was not guaranteed. The Assembly had been looking at this issue for a year and at times the tone of the debate seemed negative. Certain people appeared to think that the problems under discussion only concerned the Caucasus.

Mr Marty was to be commended, not only for what he had written and said but for his obvious commitment to the issue. The events under discussion had been dramatic and tragic. A community of people who had right on their side had been crushed by terrorists. Mr Marty had recently taken part in a debate at the University of Florence on the question of the future of the world of right and reason. In some areas it seemed that the battle for right was being lost. Some democracies were looking at curtailing or doing away with fundamental rights and liberties, over which blood had been shed in the past.

The question he wished to pose today, on behalf of the Socialist Group, which he was proud to represent, concerned what the Council of Europe could do to try to remedy the situation on the ground.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Savvidi, on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr SAVVIDI (Russian Federation) said that, despite various measures taken by the federal and regional authorities, there remained serious human rights problems in the North Caucasus. Political tensions remained as a result of extremist opposition groups and a network of clandestine bandits. Apart from human rights professionals, the main targets and the first to die had been those working for the authorities. The last five years had seen an intensification of terrorism in Chechnya, Dagestan and the North Caucasus republics. In July 2009 there had been 144 incidents of terrorist activity in the Russian Federation: all but one could be traced to the North Caucasus. Since July, the attacks had continued, targeting politicians and civil servants. The forthcoming local government elections in October 2009 would be a serious test of security in the region. Investigations were under way into the assassinations of several senior officials and the internal affairs minister.

On the other hand, there were more positive signs from Chechnya. Over the last five years, abductions had declined significantly and around 300 000 people had returned to the region. It was not possible to detach the North Caucasus from the rest of the Caucasus; nor could the problems in the region be solved from outside. Different religions and cultures co-existed there, and it was not possible to separate secular independence movements from religious extremism. No single human endeavour could hope to achieve success if religion were separated from politics.

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

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – I am sure, colleagues, that we all agree that just because there is a land where human rights commissioners and activists can function properly, that does not necessarily mean that you have democracy in that land. However, if I invert the statement and you have a land where human rights commissioners and activists cannot function properly, because their lives can be at risk, you can be sure that that land does not have democracy. I am grateful to Mr Marty, Mr Hammarberg and Mr Umakhanov for briefing us on the details. Even those who have not had the chance to visit the North Caucasus know that many people – human rights activists and even government officials – are dying or being kidnapped. As Mr Marty said, terror is overhanging that land. That is terrible.

I agree with my colleague, Mr Díaz Tejera, that our job is to try to help. How can we help if we make allowances? How can that happen in a member country where human rights and conditions are so devastatingly bad? I fully agree that, as we have heard, people in a country where the unemployment rate reaches 50% are simply looking to find anything to eat every day and so human rights are only of secondary importance.

I very much agree with my colleagues, but I want to comment on what we have heard about the possible causes. Even in a democratic society, you can still find people who express their wishes in a violent way. For example, there are Basque separatists in the homeland of our President. Spain is a democratic country, but you still find such people. In a country with no democratic structures, where people cannot express their political will, the opportunity to express their political will violently is much bigger. One goal that we have to achieve is to help Russia to introduce more democratic structures in the North Caucasus.

My second point follows up from what my colleague who spoke before me, Mr Savvidi, just said – although I might think differently. I am sorry if our Russian colleagues do not like what I am about to say, but after the Russia-Georgia war many European politicians said that the war would have a terrible impact on the situation in the North Caucasus. Why? I believe that many Ingushetian, Dagestani and Chechen people do not like being part of Russia. They have tried to separate themselves – there was a big war, Grozny was bombed to the ground and they learned their lesson. The second lesson that they learned was that if Russia wants South Ossetia and Abkhazia to become separate, they can do so. I believe that many separatist movements in the North Caucasus came to the conclusion that, “If it is possible for them, it should also be possible for us.” One of the damaging consequences of the war in the South Caucasus was the impact on the North Caucasus.

Let me finish by talking about what we can do. I am afraid that we cannot do much. I have seen in other debates that when there is good cause to introduce certain consequences if Russia is not doing something that the Assembly wants it to do, the Assembly does not do so. Therefore, I do not think that we will do anything about the North Caucasus. I agree with my colleague that we should go and see, but first let us see what we can find here in Strasbourg. Let me repeat what Dick Marty said. There is an exhibition downstairs – it is a little hidden by the stairs – about the face of Beslan. Please go and see what you can see there.

Secondly, in 2005 we had a visitor here, an old man from Ingushetia, a hero from the Second World War with so many medals. He was taken to the gulag by the Soviets. He had a tragic history. He is now living in a train wagon. From that wagon, he can see his home village but he cannot return there. He is an IDP in a democratic Russia. I worry that he has now died but if he, in a desperate wish to live the life he wants to live, were not peaceful any more, I would fully understand. We need to help such people where we can.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Kox, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – I thank Mr Dick Marty for his remarks and Mr Umakhanov and Mr Hammarberg for the information on what is happening on the ground. They confirm that there has been a widespread explosion of violence in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation. I get the same information from Russian members of my group.

The nature of the violence seems diverse. It is partly religiously inspired, and partly politically inspired. A great part of it is criminal violence. Whatever its nature, its consequences are horrible and devastating for the victims, who include many citizens, many police officers, many human rights defenders and many representatives of authorities.

According to my Russian colleagues, the violence also threatens the already fragile stability of the Caucasian region. It thereby threatens the social and economic development of the region and the living conditions of all those who have to make a living there.

It is a vicious circle. Whatever the nature of all that violence, it is certain that its main breeding ground is social injustice, poverty, mass unemployment and a total lack of hope for a better future. There is mass unemployment in the region. There is catastrophic mass youth unemployment. Whoever studies that has to come to the conclusion that that social injustice offers an enormous opportunity to everyone who wants to use victims of the social injustice for their own goals. Mass unemployment gives criminals and terrorists a chance to recruit people for their violent acts against citizens and institutions of state and society.

The Group of the Unified European Left therefore urges all relevant authorities to acknowledge the clear relationship between social injustice and poverty and the exploitation of that by those who use violence to meet their own goals. By acknowledging that relationship, relevant authorities should commit themselves far more than now to an effective policy to decrease social injustice and mass unemployment in the region. Only reacting to the force and violence of gangs, criminals and terrorists, without addressing the social issues, will be ineffective and unjust. The more the social justice increases, the more the violence will go down. That, at least, is the opinion of my Russian colleagues in my group and I think that they are right.

A horrible example of the violence in the region is the violence against the defenders of human rights. Scandalous attacks on these courageous citizens have taken place in the recent past. That should worry us all, because attacks on human rights defenders are also attacks on this body. We must guarantee the protection of human rights in all countries in the Council. Therefore, we should call on the relevant authorities to far better protect human rights defenders and to bring the people responsible for those attacks to justice. With that call, we underline that until now the relevant authorities in the Russian Federation have not done enough to avoid attacks against human rights defenders and to bring those who are responsible for those crimes to justice. They did not do enough to get rid of the climate of impunity.

Let me end by paying our highest respects to the victims of all those crimes, those who paid the highest price for their wish to defend other citizens’ human rights. It is easy here to talk about human rights. It can be so hard to give your life for those rights. Those who were killed in the North Caucasus while defending human rights should have a statue dedicated to them in this building.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Omtzigt on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – The European People’s Party and Christian Democrats are deeply worried about the present situation in the North Caucasus. The picture painted by Mr Marty in reports over the past two years is bleak. Of course, it was a good sign that 300 000 people returned to their homes, as our colleagues told us. It is good that things are going better, yet my geographical knowledge of the region gets bigger every time. A few years ago, I had to start figuring out where Chechnya was. I now know Ingushetia, Dagestan, North Ossetia and Kabardino-Balkaria. What is the next region that I will be told is in trouble?

It is worrying to see that the conflict, although dying down in Chechnya, is spreading across the whole North Caucasus region, therefore affecting more people. It is worrying to read the report of Human Rights Watch about the court cases. Many have taken place in Strasbourg. Those have led to monetary compensation, but none of the court cases has led to finding the people who are responsible for the killing, which is what the families really want.

I shall try to keep my statements short to give some space to my Russian colleagues. I hope that they are just as frank as Mr Umakhanov and Mr Savvidi have been, and that Mr Kosachev will give us some insight into what the Russian Government is actually doing to make sure that the court cases are executed and that the culprits are found and punished. President Medvedev himself said that corruption, the clan system and the inefficiency of the state authority are the three main problems. We cannot do much about the clan system, but the state is responsible for the other two. What does the Russian state do to solve them for the benefit of its citizens?

I am deeply impressed by the work of Mr Hammarberg, visiting all the dark places of Europe. It must be hard work but I know from visits to some places that it is greatly appreciated. I hope that we will continue to work with people such as the President of Ingushetia, where the authorities are in an extremely difficult position. It is extremely difficult to combat terrorism. Counter-terrorism is probably one of the most difficult problems for the authorities – how far can you go?

I make a final appeal to Russia. Let us hope that those responsible for the killing of Anna Politkovskaya and Natalya Estemirova are found quickly and brought to justice. Let us work hard for that. It will start the rebuilding of the region.

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

Mr OMELCHENKO (Ukraine) bowed his head in memory of those who had lost their lives in the violence in the North Caucasus. It was apparent that there had been more and more violations of human rights in Russia. Russia had become a neo-Stalinist authoritarian regime and Chechnya was drowned in blood simply because it had wanted to leave the Russian Federation. Similarly, the war in Georgia had been conducted in full violation of United Nations resolutions. In the North Caucasus, journalists and human rights activists had been killed, and those responsible had never been brought to justice.

President Medvedev of the Russian Federation had generated propaganda with the aim of stopping Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The Council of Europe needed to do all it could to prevent Russia from interfering with the affairs of Ukraine. History had taught us that the right of nations to self-determination had never been respected by totalitarian regimes. Military aggression by the Russian Federation needed to be condemned, or similar violence would continue.

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

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that he would not waste his time responding to the previous speech which had been based on paranoia. The Russian Federation had experienced a lot of pain on the Chechen issue, but with the help of the Council of Europe the situation was improving. The issues involved with Chechnya were complex but the Council of Europe, and especially the Parliamentary Assembly, had helped ensure progress in the region. A few years ago, the number of kidnappings in Chechnya stood in the hundreds. The present number was incomparably less, but obviously any such abduction was still painful.

He invited Mr Marty to visit the North Caucasus, and offered to accompany him. This would help to ensure that the statistics contained in any subsequent reports were accurate.

The North Caucasus region had benefited from the close co-operation between the Russian Federation and the Council of Europe, and the Council of Europe would continue to contribute.

(Mr Wille, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr de Puig.)

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – We had the last report on the human rights situation in Chechnya more than four years ago. It was presented by our former colleague, Mr Bindig. In recent years, the situation has deteriorated in neighbouring areas – Ingushetia, Dagestan and so on. Therefore, my first question is, why did we forget this topic for such a long time?

The emblematic reason for today’s discussion is the murder of Natalya Estemirova. She has been described as a personal enemy of the de facto president of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov. She was murdered just as she was finishing and starting to publish her huge work on the human rights situation and the history of recent years.

Estemirova had also co-operated closely with Anna Politkovskaya and Stanislav Markelov, who were earlier killed in Moscow. Unfortunately, several other journalists and human rights defenders have been killed in recent years in North Caucasus.

Let us move on from the situation of human rights defenders, which is very difficult, to the general human rights record. The European Court of Human Rights, which has big problems because Protocol No. 14 has not been ratified by the Russian Federation, still succeeded in making more than 100 judgments about disappearances, killings and torture that took place in Chechnya from 1999 to 2004, which means during the second war in Chechnya.

Recently, Human Rights Watch made a detailed analysis of about 33 such cases to make clear the conclusions reached in Russia following the Court’s judgments. In numerous cases, evidence obtained by Russian investigators and cited in the Court’s judgments indicates clearly the individuals directly involved in the violations, but not a single person has been held responsible for the crimes.

In the Bureau meeting, Mr Kosachev proposed the extension of the debate on today’s topic and that we ask why the general situation in North Caucasus is so difficult and complicated. My first answer is this: because there is no working court system in the area, there is an atmosphere of impunity.

My second answer – in this, I express my solidarity with Mátyás Eörsi – is the lack of democracy. The so-called controlled democracy is extremely ineffective and is not based on the people’s expression of their will.

The first elements of the people’s expression of will in Chechnya were killed several years ago during the first war and the second war. Therefore, the first key issue is justice; the second is democracy. Of course radicalism is a problem, as is religious extremism, but they are, rather, the consequences.

I thank Mr Marty, Mr Hammarberg and others for today’s discussion. I hope that it is a good step towards a fully fledged Assembly report on this item.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Kosachev is not in his place, so I call Mrs Beck.

Mrs BECK (Germany) had visited Chechnya and Beslan two years previously: it was crystal clear that there was terrorism in the region. Human rights activists were under threat in the North Caucasus and also in other parts of the Russian Federation. The authorities in the Russian Federation did not seem to have any interest in elucidating the deaths of these activists.

Mr Slutsky needed to note that a human rights group had found it necessary to withdraw its staff from the region on safety grounds. Human rights activists were afraid to move into the region, and Mrs Estemirova had been personally threatened by Mr Kadyrov, the Russian-appointed President of Chechnya, who had a responsibility for supporting human rights.

It was necessary to impress upon Russia the commitment that all member states of the Council of Europe had made to defend human rights. Russia now needed to show that it would no longer seek to cover up human rights abuses, but uphold human rights instead. Specifically, Russia should ratify Protocol No. 14. It was important that Russia took these steps and remained a member of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Targamadzé is not here, so I call Mrs Clwyd.

Mrs CLWYD (United Kingdom). – It is 30 years since I last spoke in this Hemicycle and it is a delight to witness the good nature of this debate today. I compliment everybody on that and I thank Mr Marty for his report. I hope that he will soon be able to take up the invitation to visit Chechnya. He is not the only one who has been invited: I chair the parliamentary human rights group in the UK Parliament and we were invited seven years ago. We still have not managed to take up the invitation, because every time we try to do so some difficulty arises. I hope that the many invitations that have been issued by our Russian friends today will come into effect.

I call for an independent and thorough investigation of the murder this July of the human rights defender Natalya Estemirova so that her killer or killers can be brought to justice. I met Mrs Estemirova, who was a courageous and principled woman. She knew that her life was in danger, but she did not want to talk about that. Instead, she concentrated on raising awareness of what was happening in Chechnya and on stopping ongoing and serious human rights violations and getting justice for the victims. I am glad that Thomas Hammarberg mentioned the many disappearances, which have still not been clarified.

The investigation into Mrs Estemirova’s death must consider all the possibilities – and even the involvement of state officials or agents cannot be ruled out as a line of inquiry. I am therefore dismayed to hear that Mr Orlov, the director of the Russian human rights organisation Memorial, is on trial in Moscow, accused of defamation by President Kadyrov, who is seeking damages in compensation for harm done to his reputation. Mr Orlov had accused the Chechen President of being guilty of Mrs Estemirova’s murder, explaining in his defence in court that he meant political guilt. Mr Orlov told the court that, “The current situation in the Chechen Republic, where horrendous crimes violating human rights go systematically unpunished, has given me every basis for believing in the unconditional political guilt of Ramzan Kadyrov in the death of Natalya Estemirova.”

Witnesses, mostly colleagues of Mrs Estemirova, said that President Kadyrov had personally insulted and threatened her, forcing her to leave Russia for a time. Mr Kadyrov’s lawyer is reported as having said that violent separatists, backed by western secret agents, were probably responsible for her death.

I am aware that violence is increasing in the North Caucasus area, and many analysts are highlighting the struggle between extremists and state officials, in which countless civilians – including human rights defenders – get caught up. I must stress, however, that if justice is to be done, all lines of inquiry must be pursued and any subsequent trials must meet international standards.

More generally, there are many reports about President Kadyrov undermining support for human rights defenders in Chechnya. In an interview published recently in a newspaper, he said of Mrs Estemirova “She played no role in Chechnya.” He also described Memorial as “an organisation created for the destruction of Russia.” I need not remind this Assembly that human rights defenders play a vital and entirely legitimate role in protecting and promoting human rights in their countries, for instance, by raising awareness of ongoing violations and trying to obtain redress for the victims.

I ask the Chechen and Russian Governments to help to create a more supportive environment for human rights defenders, including those working in the North Caucasus, by – in the first instance – making it clear that what they are doing is legal and for the good of their country.

The list of murdered human rights defenders working in the North Caucasus must not be allowed to grow. I ask the Chechen and Russian Governments to open Chechnya to parliamentary delegations, international governmental and non-governmental organisations, academics and journalists. I have heard many invitations here today and I hope that the Russian delegation will ensure that they become a reality.

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

Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia). – We are gathered today in part to regret and condemn the recent intensification of cold-blooded murders of civil rights activists in Russia. That number is growing at an appalling pace. Our Russian colleagues tell us that investigations have been instituted. So why has no one been punished?

I recall the words of Mr Putin when the distinguished journalist Anna Politkovskaya was killed. He said that her murder brought more harm to Russia than she brought to it alive. Yes, Chechnya is internationally recognised as a territory of Russia – as is Ingushetia and other republics in the region – and, yes, the 1990s were tumultuous years for that vast area. However, nothing can justify mass murder.

The post-war order in Europe, rightly called the miracle of democratic peace, was built on a few tenets to which democracy and the total unacceptability of any ethnic cleansing or mass killing are key. Unfortunately, the lack of democracy in Russia resulted in a true tragedy when up to a quarter of Chechnya’s entire population was murdered by the Russian state. That figure includes up to 10 000 children. No one has been punished for that. Colonel Budanov, who was jailed for raping a young Chechen girl, was released as a hero. As Russia does not care about its own citizens – it is the first state since the Second World War to build concentration camps, the so-called filtration camps – does anyone still wish to believe its claim to protect other peoples?

One reason for the events was the lack of democracy, but the lack of effective mechanisms to scrutinise the then semi-democracy in Russia – it has now become full-blown authoritarianism – is another major reason. Mr Andreas Gross was one of the authors to the challenge to Russian credentials because of its human rights abuses in Chechnya a couple of years ago. My question for him is why has he made such a U-turn on this issue while things have got worse in Russia. More than 100 000 people have been murdered and killings and kidnappings have intensified. Even in the tiny republic of Ingushetia, some 3 000 people are missing. General Shamanov, who was accused by Human Rights Watch of being a war criminal, has been promoted to commander of the Russian airborne troops.

Mr Marty supported challenging the Ukrainian credentials because that country could not elect a judge on time, but he opposes challenging the credentials of a country that has killed its own citizens en masse and has invaded its neighbour. I hope that he will explain his criteria for such a judgment. Why has no monitoring been done for five years during which time things have gone so bad inside Russia? I read a study by Human Rights Watch which states that Russia has been consistently disrespecting the decisions of the Court. It says, “Russia has been found to violate the right to life in more cases than each of the other 46 Council of Europe member states combined since the Court started functioning in 1959.” Is that acceptable?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Fadzaev, Mr Babakov and Mrs Reps are not here, so I call Mr Darchiashvili.

Mr DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia). – Colleagues, the situation in the North Caucasus remains critical, and it is especially timely that other urgent issues being considered in this Chamber have not overshadowed it. It is good that our attention was not drawn away from the needs of, and grave risks faced in, that part of the Russian Federation. In our debate, Russian delegates warned us not to be superficial in our judgments of the situation, but they themselves depicted few consequences of the root causes. Is that not superficiality, to say the least? Or perhaps I am wrong to say that it was the Russian Federation that blocked and banned an Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission in Chechnya, and is now proudly talking about international engagement in the monitoring, assessment and assistance process to improve the situation in the region.

I pay tribute to Mr Marty’s contribution to our debates. He mentioned the greatness of Russian culture; I agree – that is a no-brainer – but what about the political structures and culture in that country? I wish that Mr Marty, who opened our debate, had mentioned what Mr Eörsi said; Mr Eörsi spoke about the lack of democracy there. It is obvious that it is not so much individual terrorists or extremists, but rather the official authorities of Russia, who are responsible for the years-old, if not centuries-old, policy of brutal domination over local societal forces and will, based on divide-and-rule imperial logic. It is that which has led to the current insecurity and instability in the region.

The situation in the North Caucasus offers some of the clearest evidence that official Russian rhetoric about the protection of its citizens, even abroad, is pure hypocrisy. Thousands of innocent Russians – citizens of Chechen origin among others – have suffered for years inside Russia. That happens because Russian authorities in the Kremlin or locally do not want to tolerate any form of dissent, and encourage xenophobic feelings in the country. When we Georgian delegates, or other colleagues, condemn Russian imperial policy, and call on Russia to respect Council of Europe resolutions and values, that is not only in the national interests of Russia’s neighbours. It is in the interests of millions of Russian citizens, as has been clearly expressed by prominent Russian public figures, and as was even expressed in this building just today and yesterday.

Think of those oppressed and abused by the Russian secret services, the organised crime that cannot work without alliances within official circles, and the bureaucracy throughout the country, especially in the North Caucasus. That all leads the young generation of the oppressed and intimidated societies to think about small arms and light weapons. Eventually, that all makes the North Caucasus a powder keg, threatening to destabilise the whole region, and threatening the stability and security of Europe. North Caucasians, especially the Chechens, Ingush and Dagestanis, must not be abandoned by the international community and put at the mercy of the Kremlin.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Pochinok, who will be last speaker in this debate.

Mr POCHINOK (Russian Federation). – Dear colleagues, today we are discussing a very hard and painful question for Russia – a question with no simple answers and no simple solutions. Believe me, as someone who has been professionally involved for many years in tackling the situation in the North Caucasus republics, I can tell you that the reasons for terrorism are different in each of the republics. It is not only about counteracting human rights defenders; it is more a struggle for power and money, and a battle between religions and pseudo-religions, such as the Wahhabi movement.

For example, in Ingushetia, the new president, President Yevkurov, has begun a most severe struggle against corruption. The response was a series of very fierce terrorist attacks and the intentional extermination of members of the government, some of whom were friends of mine, which I feel terrible about. Those members of government had put an end to the long-term practice of bribes and kickbacks. That is the reason for terrorism in Ingushetia. I cannot believe my colleague, Mr Eörsi, when he speaks about the situation formerly affecting the Ingushetian people, because in 2005 and 2006, my friends and I built houses for those people. Members can see those houses. The problem was solved three years ago in 2006. Yet in 2009 we have returned to the issue and are speaking about it. Members should come and see the region.

In the Chechen Republic, President Kadyrov struck a hard blow at Wahhabi gangs. We can see the result. It is very easy to go to Grozny and see for oneself. Chechnya is a very safe place for almost all people – Chechnya, in which it was impossible to walk the streets a few years ago. Come and see; there are no problems. The Chechen Republic has become the safest place in the Caucasus and terrorists have launched a desperate attack to destabilise the situation there.

The situation was always very complex in Dagestan. There are difficult economic conditions, poverty and a lack of jobs there, but unemployment is not at a rate of 50%, believe me. I organised thousands of work places for those in Dagestan. It is a big problem, but not as big as members have suggested. Members mentioned a vacuum of authority, but of course we have democratic structures in Dagestan. I could not believe it when Mr Eörsi said that there were no democratic structures. I ask colleagues to come and see for themselves. However, those factors provided “fertile soil” in Dagestan in the 1990s. The purposeful education and training of young people from abroad was specially carried out, and a fervent terrorism has emerged on a religious basis in Dagestan. Wahhabism was intentionally spread to Dagestan.

Today, when I hear my colleagues talk of separating Dagestan from Russia, I cannot believe it. That would protect terrorists and is impossible. A whole system of measures aimed at combating terrorism is being actively set up, and will of course continue to be implemented. Those measures are part of an immediate struggle against terrorism. I cannot believe it when members say that no one has been punished. In thousands of cases, the killers have been picked up and put in jail. Of course, it is very difficult to find the killers of Politkovskaya. One can see what the courts have said about it; it is really very difficult, but give us some time to solve the problem.

The system of measures includes a liquidation of armed gang formations as well as efforts undertaken to eliminate a “nutrient medium” for terrorism. There are measures relating to economic development and other factors. We are really trying to solve the problem. Help us, but do not say that we are doing nothing.

THE PRESIDENT. – 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 remind you that at the end of the current affairs debate, the Assembly is not asked to decide upon a text, but the matter may be referred by the Bureau to the responsible committee for a report, and written declarations may be tabled.

The debate is closed.

3. Allegations of politically motivated abuses of the criminal justice system
in Council of Europe member states

THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report of allegations of politically motivated abuses of the criminal justice system in Council of Europe member states, Doc. 11993, presented by Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, with an oral opinion presented by Mr Pourgourides on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee and an opinion by Mr Sasi on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, Doc. 12038.

I remind you that we have agreed to interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.50 p.m. to allow time for the replies.

Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, you have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the report touched on the core of the Council’s remit: the rule of law and human rights. Defending these values was the essence of the purpose of the Council. The independence of the judiciary was politically highly important and was an essential component of democracy. It was also of paramount economic importance, and the contributions of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development and the Political Affairs Committee were therefore welcome. The report had tried as far as possible to be objective. It had selected four out of the 47 legal systems represented in the Council: the United Kingdom, an adversarial common law system; France, based on the inquisitorial Code Napoleon; Germany, with a system which compromised between these two approaches; and the Russian Federation, which had a sui generis system, with what were still heavy elements of the old Soviet system. All four countries had serious problems but the severity of these problems varied significantly between them.

The United Kingdom had encountered two serious scandals: the British Aerospace investigation and the investigation into “cash for honours”. These two cases placed particular emphasis on the need to look at the role of the Attorney General, and particularly her accountability to parliament. The report noted that legislation to address this issue was in progress.

The judiciaries of France and Germany were both short of resources. France was also in the early stages of a series of reforms and it was important to maintain the balance between parties. There was a good case for the public prosecutor to be given greater independence and for defence lawyers to be given earlier access to defendants and more access to material. In Germany, not all Länder had judicial councils, and in addition the right of the justice minister to take a view on public prosecution cases needed to be addressed, particularly given the possibility of suspension of investigations into political figures. A balance had to be struck between prosecution and defence; and between the right of a judiciary to administer itself and the right of other groups in society to have a say.

In the Russian Federation there had been attempts to reform but the Russian judiciary was more out of balance than the judiciaries in the other countries. The report highlighted many violations including illegal searches of lawyers’ offices and intimidation of lawyers. When a system was so unbalanced, it became very subject to political abuse, whether deliberate or not. The report listed a number of individual cases where real concerns existed. President Medvedev’s battle against “legal nihilism” had yet to begin in earnest.

Under those circumstances, it was understandable that many Council of Europe member states would have strong reservations about extradition to the Russian Federation. There was a clear need for all member states to be on the same level as far as possible, and therefore there was a need to offer the Russian Federation constructive help. The report was an attempt to offer constructive comments on the four types of legal system currently employed. She therefore commended the report to the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Pourgourides on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – On behalf of the committee, I congratulate and give my full support to our dear colleague for her report, which is excellent. It is a long report but it is well worth reading it in full. The explanatory memorandum provides solid corroboration for every point made in the resolution, with concrete examples and the thoughtful personal experiences from the rapporteur, based on her fact-finding missions in various countries.

From a political point of view, I can only stress the importance of a strong, effective and independent judiciary as a precondition for true democracy. There can be no true democracy without separation of powers and “checks and balances” between the various branches of government, assured by independent courts, which must also dispose of the necessary resources, including budgetary funds, to do their crucial job effectively. We must have the courage to say that and to act on it, even in times of economic crisis – in fact, especially then.

To conclude, I would like to stress that I have nothing to add or subtract from the draft resolution, which I recommend for adoption as presented.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Sasi, on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.

Mr SASI (Finland). – Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger has again written an excellent report, which is her habit. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights does not have anything to add to the conclusions and the proposals, because they are excellent, but the committee has studied which are the most interesting cases to raise in the plenary. In Britain, we had the British Aerospace case. There was alleged bribery, but because of the national interest the case was interrupted. Unfortunately, the most interesting cases today are in Russia. Let me mention four cases.

The first is the Yukos case, which was dealt with in the report. As we know, the company tried to follow international standards, for example those applied in the New York Stock Exchange, but it was bankrupted and broken up, and the owners were arrested. That was done for the benefit of the state-owned company, Rosneft.

The second company I would like to mention is Russneft. It is in the oil and gas sector, which has some strategic interest. The owner, Mikhail Gutseriev, had to flee from Russia. That has paved the way for a takeover by a buyer that is close to the government.

The third case involves the securities and banking industries. Hermitage Capital Management was, interestingly, owned by HSBC, a respected bank. Hermitage Capital Management was in the equity investment field, but it was considered to be some kind of threat to national security. The company’s documents were confiscated and it was broken up.

The last example was Media-Most, which was dealt with in the European Court of Human Rights. The owner, Mr Vladimir Gusinsky, was arrested for embezzlement. One month later, when he was in jail, he agreed to sell the company to Gazprom and at the same time the charges were dropped and he was a free man. The Court stated that the purpose of criminal proceedings was not to be part of commercial bargaining strategies.

If you want economic growth, you need the principle of law to be governed by the state, in all states. That would benefit entrepreneurs and everybody in society because it would increase the wealth of the state.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Beck to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mrs BECK (Germany) thanked the rapporteur for her detailed work, and said that it had been wise to concentrate on a range of countries so that the report was not open to criticism that it was blind in one eye. Democracy had a number of different facets, but these undoubtedly included the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. Problems did exist in western Europe but the problems in Russia, such as political influence on the courts, were on a completely different scale.

Mr Khodorkovsky was in the dock after he had adopted western practices and been critical of Putin’s authoritarian style. The charges Khodorkovsky was facing were unjust. He stood for democracy, but in Russia democracy was merely a simulation.

Upon his election, the west had held high expectations for President Medvedev, as he had talked about the need to combat corruption. However, it was questionable whether there were any tangible signs of change. The Assembly needed carefully to monitor Khodorkovsky’s trial. There was a real danger that Russia could do its reputation great harm on this matter.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Lecoq to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr LECOQ (France) congratulated the rapporteur on an excellent, detailed and relevant report, and said that the subject was very important, since it was clear that political abuse of the criminal justice system did exist. It would always be tempting for the executive to interfere with the judiciary. However, the judiciary needed a guarantee of independence. The quality of justice in a given country was dependent on the independence of the judiciary.

In France, reforms had been introduced to strengthen the executive and some believed that those changes were at the cost of the independence of the judiciary. If the prosecutor were in some way dependent on the government it would be open to doubt whether a fair trial would be possible. The Council of Europe needed to consider this matter and help place the citizen at the heart of the criminal justice system.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr de Vries, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr DE VRIES (Netherlands). – As has been said, the report presented by Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger is excellent. It goes straight to the core business of the Council of Europe: the functioning of our judicial systems and the independence of our judges. Moreover, it is a comparative study, which helps us to understand different legal systems and shows us their potential strengths and weaknesses. It also underlines the necessity to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, which remains one of the principal guarantees of justice and freedom for our citizens.

Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger has produced a well-documented, fair and balanced report. It is interesting to see that it was possible to make important observations and recommendations for all the countries she selected for her studies. Those recommendations should, in all countries, be considered carefully. Many other countries could also benefit from the analysis. As such an excellent report is likely to do, it implicitly asks for a follow-up. More countries should be subjected to the same careful analysis.

Moving on to a neighbouring topic, the report takes issue with abuse. However, it is evident that in many countries politicians from the executive branch or from political parties in parliament put pressure on the judiciary by commenting vehemently and aggressively on its verdicts and actions.

Such psychological warfare – intimidation – against judges comes close to abuse. I would like to hear the rapporteur’s comments on this phenomenon, which we see in many countries in western Europe. Does she think it would be worth investigating that?

I think it would be worth investigating the independence of administrative judges in a number of countries. Sometimes they are very close to the powers that be – maybe too close for comfort.

More broadly, the functioning of civil law is difficult to investigate, but it is essential to our citizens – certainly from the perspective of the normal, average citizen who does not have enough money, but sometimes waits an amazingly long time for judges to judge their case.

In summary, this is an excellent report with excellent considerations and recommendations. It should lead to more work, which is not to say that we will ask that of our colleague Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, who, after the elections in Germany, may have to cope with the potential consequences for her. I congratulate her on the report and wish her well.

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

Mr FOURNIER (France) said that the report had left him perplexed. The motive of the report was to strengthen the independence of the judiciary. However it seemed likely that the report had not been written impartially, and it was possible that the rapporteur had exceeded her role in drafting a resolution.

The Léger Commission was considering proposals for a general reform of the criminal justice system. Among the areas ripe for reform was the questionable practice of holding victims and suspects in the same place. Similarly, proposals for reforming the role of the juge d’instruction were still under consideration.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) made it clear that he was speaking not on behalf of a political group but in a personal capacity. The fact that a report on this subject had been produced by a political body was interesting in itself. While he had received representations on the subject from journalists, judges themselves, and entrepreneurs, he had never received such representations from holders of political power.

Each judge had to make sure that no outside influence impinged on the fulfilment of his duties. Comment made by politicians on judges’ rulings was just that: comment. It was important that such comment should be possible, both for effective scrutiny of the judiciary, and for shaping sentencing policy. Politicians were critical of rulings when they needed to be but this did not mean that they were challenging the impartiality of the judge. Anyone who had such a complaint had to raise it with the appropriate judicial supervisory authority.

The issue at stake here, however, was the criminal justice system. He was not in a position to comment on the situation in Russia but he had listened to the general tenor of the debate and had decided to support the rapporteur. In Spain, there was a supervisory body responsible for such matters, but an issue of greater concern was the efficiency of the justice system. It was of course vital to ensure that there were no individual violations of the justice system.

In the United States, nomination of supreme court judges was made by personal appointment: that system had not been questioned. One had to wonder what was the real relevance of this debate. There needed to be healthy scepticism towards all of those who held all kinds of power, but the important thing was that the justice system guaranteed impartiality and that judges served the law and the general good.

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

Mr BÉTEILLE (France) fully agreed with his colleague, Mr Fournier, and said that he, too, had been somewhat perplexed by the report. There was no doubt about the principles but there were questions about the methodologies used. The rapporteur had not been in a position to scrutinise all jurisdictions, but the implication of the report was that problems in every country were the same as those in the four systems that had been looked at in detail. The situation in the Caucasus showed that this was not the case.

There was no real proposal on the table to change the rule of judges in France. For years, there had been general speculation on the future of the inquisitorial system. As a lawyer with 30 years’ experience, he was able to say that the report contained some imprecisions, including the fact that 95% of cases argued before a court had not been preceded by inquisitorial proceedings. Lawyers could call witnesses in the same way as public prosecutors, and the real problems with the French system related to appointments. Sometimes very difficult investigations were entrusted to inexperienced judges.

There was no reason why a change in the French system should give rise to concern. The practice of other countries in respect of judicial systems was not being criticised here. To criticise was to jump the gun: what was important was that the prosecution and the defence should be on an equal footing. As the rapporteur had said, more resources would be required in an altered system to provide legal aid. Vigilance was needed, but a change to the inquisitorial system would not automatically introduce inequality.

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

Mr FEDOROV (Russian Federation) said that the rapporteur had taken on a difficult mission because the judiciary was a complicated instrument. While the report had, to a large extent, been successful in achieving its aims, some of the material presented, especially that on Russia, was politicised. Such material had been based on media reports and the subjective assessment of the rapporteur. Russia had recently taken steps to protect its judicial system. A board had recently been established to hear appeals from judges who had been stripped of their powers. He had been surprised by the mention in the draft resolution of the 60 judges who had been stripped of their powers. There were 28 000 judges in Russia, and attempts were naturally made to weed out those who were incompetent or unworthy.

The Khodorkovsky and Lebedev cases and the other cases mentioned concerned individuals who had been prosecuted for serious economic crimes. It was not appropriate to comment on cases which had not yet been examined by the courts. Comment should not be made until proceedings had been completed. In this respect, the report sought to influence the Russian courts, and this set a bad example to other countries.

It was no secret that it had become popular to refuse requests for the extradition of known criminals. Such criminals often asked for, and were granted, political asylum. The Russian Federation, however, would always offer assistance if a request were justified. Courts should focus on protecting individuals and their rights. The guiding principle should always be the improvement of the current situation.

He wished to congratulate the interpreters working for the Assembly on this, the international day of interpreters.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – I, too, thank the interpreters, and I would like to express my admiration for the report, which is very good. It is both theoretically strong and gives practical advice, and it is timely, too. The issue of the independence of the judiciary is always a problem, and during the economic crisis, new problems will probably arise as a result of budgeting. However, the most important problem is the systematic dysfunction of the judicial system, as described in our previous discussion about human rights defenders and the human rights situation in the North Caucasus.

The most visible criminal justice systems described – those of the United Kingdom, France and Germany – have their strong sides, but also have their problems. The rapporteur has done scrupulous work. The fourth system described, which we can call post-Soviet – we are not talking only about Russia; in the case of several other countries, there are similar elements – is more complicated to handle and improve. In our monitoring reports, we often use expressions such as “judicial corruption”, “pressure on judges”, “lack of independence” and sometimes even “lack of qualified lawyers”, but when there is such systematic work to be done, we have the capacity to do it. Case studies are very important, including those that we mentioned in previous reports, such as the Gongadze and Yukos cases. However, this report makes an even more important theoretical contribution. In the memorandum, the Yukos case is once again touched on, as are several other cases. Khodorkovsky is one of the most emblematic victims of Putin’s Russia.

I should like to make a remark about one of our instruments, the European Court of Human Rights. I think that it was Mr Díaz Tejera who said, during the previous debate, that to some extent we live in very different worlds. The problems in western Europe and in the North Caucasus belong to different systems, and in some ways to different worlds. The European Court of Human Rights has, by and large, two different working regimes. One involves handling highly controversial issues, or intellectually interesting issues in the grey areas of jurisprudence, such as the issue of euthanasia. That is very important work. The other work, which concerns member states, is to improve the functioning of the judicial system in certain countries. Of course, in this context, the possibilities are limited.

I want to return to the limited possibilities available for the Assembly. This report is one of the best examples of what we can do intellectually to protect the basic principles of justice.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The last speaker is Mr Aleksandrov.

Mr ALEKSANDROV (Russian Federation) agreed that the report covered a very important topic. He himself had worked in criminal justice for some 40 years in addition to his role as a parliamentarian. There could be no doubt that criminal justice systems required improvement everywhere, not only in the Russian Federation. Criminal justice should be a shield to protect individuals and not a sword to punish them. Matters in the Russian Federation were improving: judges were less corrupt, earned higher salaries and were more independent.

There were, however, some serious mistakes in the report, particularly where it had tried to assess the work of a judge by a factual analysis of judgments. Where judicial decisions had already been made, as in the Khordokovsky case, it was time to move on. There was also a need to look thoroughly at general concepts before getting too deeply into individual cases. The priority for any criminal justice system should be that innocent people were not imprisoned. It did not matter who a criminal suspect was or where they came from even if they were a senior politician. The two crucial factors were whether the standards of justice conformed to the standards required by democracy and whether the individual had been proven to be guilty. The Russian Legal Association had made strides to improve the system. The Russian Federation would work closely with the European Union and others to improve the judicial system further.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, rapporteur, to reply. You have three minutes.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) thanked all speakers for their support and also for their criticism of the report. If adopted, the report would lead to further work which would include more distinctions being made between different legal systems and closer analysis of those systems. As for France, where reforms of various aspects of the system were under consideration, it was of course important both to preserve both the balance between prosecution and defence and the independence of the judiciary. The report was intended to contribute to debate and also to highlight possible risks of reform, not to stop reform. The report was objective so far as the Russian Federation was concerned. It fully set out the efforts which had been made but also, inescapably, looked at the facts and at the cases. The report was part of an attempt to help the Russian Federation to carry out its necessary reforms.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does the chairperson of the committee’s Sub-Committee on Crime Problems and the Fight against Terrorism, Mr Marty, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) believed that the importance of the report was in inverse proportion to the number of people in the room. It was at the core of the Council of Europe’s activity. He hoped that members of the Assembly would take the reports back to their national parliaments and use them in debate when reform of criminal justice systems was under consideration. If investigating judges were to be removed, public prosecutors must be made more independent. He thanked the rapporteur.

THE PRESIDENT. – The debate is closed.

The committee has presented a draft resolution, to which 10 amendments have been tabled.

We will now consider the amendments to the draft resolution.

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

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Valery Parfenov, Mr Sergey Markova and Mr Alexander Pochinok, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3.1.1, after the word “qualifications,” to insert the following words: “stainless reputation,”.

I call Mr Aleksandrov to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr ALEKSANDROV (Russian Federation) said that his amendment added the requirement for a judge to have a stainless reputation.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco)argued against the amendment as it did not add anything significant to the report and would only serve to unbalance it.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is rejected

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Valery Parfenov, Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Sergey Markov and Mr Alexander Pochinok, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3.3.1, to delete the words: “and prosecutors”.

I call Mr Fedorov to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr FEDOROV (Russian Federation). said that judicial council had no connection to prosecutors in the Russian Federation. Therefore the report did not apply to the current Russian legal system and could not be applied.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the amendment would weaken the report. Judicial councils were part of the judicial machinery and therefore had to be included.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Valery Parfenov, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Sergey Markov and Mr Alexander Pochinok, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 3.3.2.

I call Mr Parfenov to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr PARFENOV (Russian Federation) said that, as with amendment No. 2, the Russian Federation would not be able apply this provision as it did not reflect the positions of judicial councils in the Russian Federation.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the provision was one of the standards defined by the European Charter of Judges and must be included.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Valery Parfenov, Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Sergey Markov and Mr Alexander Pochinok, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 4.3.4 with the following paragraph :

“In Russia a number of legislative acts have recently been adopted strengthening the independence of the judicial system and protection of defense lawyers from groundless criminal prosecution : an order for the “lifelong” appointment of federal judges has been introduced, a special order for the commencement of criminal prosecutions in relation to defense lawyers has been established, and a special judicial body – the Disciplinary Bar – has been constituted to examine appeals from judges deprived of their powers.”I

I call Mr Fedorov to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr FEDOROV (Russian Federation) said that new language was needed to replace paragraph 4.3.4 to reflect what was being done in the Russian Federation and to remove the criticism implied in the paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, as follows: Leave out “replace paragraph 4.3.4 with” and insert “add before paragraph 4.3.4”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6 and can be considered unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object. Is there any opposition to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany). said that her sub-amendment would mean that the text proposed in Amendment No. 4 would be included before paragraph 4.3.4, but not replace it .

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr FEDOROV (Russian Federation) said that he would accept the compromise.

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

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

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 4, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No.4, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Valery Parfenov, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Sergey Markov and Mr Alexander Pochinok, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.3.6, to replace the words “independent lawyers are frequently” with the following words: “lawyers are”.

I call Mr Parfenov to support Amendment No. 5.

Mr PARFENOV (Russian Federation) said that the reference to an independent lawyer made no legal sense and therefore needed to be dropped. The revised text would then read “lawyers continued to be subjected”.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights as follows: At the end of Amendment No. 5, add the word “still”.

I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that she wanted to change the wording to “lawyers are still subjected”.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr PARFENOV (Russian Federation) (Translation). – In favour.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 5, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Valery Parfenov, Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Sergey Markov and Mr Alexander Pochinok, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 4.3.7.

I call Mr Fedorov to support Amendment No. 6.

Mr FEDOROV (Russian Federation) noted that repetition was the mother of learning, and that paragraph 4.3.7 needed to be deleted in order to prevent it being seen as an attempt to influence the court.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the points made in paragraph 4.3.7 were references which gave rise to legal nihilism. The amendment would change the fundamental meaning of the text.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 6 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Valery Parfenov, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Sergey Markov and Mr Alexander Pochinok, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 5.1.2.

I call Mr Aleksandrov to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr ALEKSANDROV (Russian Federation) said that the text allowed for a state to have an inappropriate political influence over another state’s policy on extradition.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that this text should be retained on human rights grounds.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Valery Parfenov, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Sergey Markov and Mr Alexander Pochinok, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 5.5.1.

I call Mr Aleksandrov to support Amendment No. 8.

Mr ALEKSANDROV (Russian Federation) said that the evaluation of the performance of a judge was at stake.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said it was crucial that the evaluation of a judge was not based on this amended text.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Valery Parfenov, Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Sergey Markov and Mr Alexander Pochinok, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.5.5, after the words “effectively protect defence lawyers from”, to insert the following words: “illegal and unfounded”.

I call Mr Fedorov to support Amendment No. 9.

Mr FEDOROV (Russian Federation) said that this was a proposal to add the words “illegal” and “unfounded”

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the amendment would result in a biased situation where the illegality of a search would be difficult to appraise.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 9 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Valery Parfenov, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov, Mr Sergey Markov and Mr Alexander Pochinok, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 5.5.6 with the following sub-paragraph:

“contribute to the development of independence of the media when investigating and publicising abuses in the criminal justice system ;”

I call Mr Parfenov to support Amendment No. 10.

Mr PARFENOV (Russian Federation) said that replacing paragraph 5.5.6 with the new wording would help to strengthen the independence of the media.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 10 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 11993, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 11993, as amended, is adopted, with 74 votes for, 4 against and 0 abstentions.

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

4. Drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights
concerning the right to a healthy environment

THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report on drafting an additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a healthy environment, presented by Mr Mendes Bota on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Doc. 12003, together with an opinion presented by Mr Chope on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Doc. 12043.

Five amendments have been tabled.

I remind you that we have already agreed that we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.15 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal). – The degradation of the environment may jeopardise some “classic” human rights such as the rights to life, to information and to access to justice, property rights and the right to respect for private and family life. Between environmental issues and human rights, interdependence and indivisibility appear clearer than ever.

This issue takes us into the background of the defence of the right to a healthy environment. At global level, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and its Stockholm Declaration of 1972 marked a date. In Principle No.1, this declaration recognises the right of human beings to live “in an environment of equality that permits a life of dignity and well-being”.

That postulation finds an echo in the preamble of the text, reinforcing the link between the quality of the environment and “conventional” human rights. That means recognition, although in an indirect way, of the right to a healthy environment. After that, many other declarations have succeeded in many international forums, reproducing the Stockholm Declaration, but this new right has never been given legal force at United Nations level.

Many countries have already established environmental protection in their constitutions as an objective and an individual right. South Africa, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, South Korea, the Philippines and European countries such as Belgium, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Turkey have established a fundamental right to environmental protection.

Countries such as Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland consider environmental protection a constitutional objective.

I would go further: this new right forms part of those rights and duties of the third generation, and if considered a right for each citizen to an environment of quality, it also represents a duty to protect and contribute to that same quality.

We must draw attention at the regional and continental level to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and special attention must be paid to Article 24. Also, we should pay special attention to Article 11 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights – the so-called San Salvador Protocol – on the right to a healthy environment.

Furthermore, we should consider Article 1 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, signed in Aarhus in 1998.

All those instruments adhere to the same sense, as well as the role of the Council of Europe in environmental protection.

We may proudly recall the Council of Europe’s contribution to the Berne Convention of 1979, the Lugano Convention of 1993 and the Strasbourg Convention of 1998. This Parliamentary Assembly has produced many reports, recommendations and opinions. The adoption of an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights establishing the right to a healthy environment would be the crowning achievement to decades of hard work and commitment to environmental issues.

Should we stop our efforts at the year 2003, when this Assembly last discussed this proposal? Should we remain attached to the conservative position of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, reproducing the same arguments that were made six years ago? Should we call time on environmental protection for citizens when the whole world is changing so rapidly and new problems and solutions are emerging on this issue?

As a matter of fact, there is a lack of formal recognition of a right to a healthy environment in the European Convention on Human Rights. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, through much case law, has upheld the right to a healthy environment in an indirect manner, interpreting provisions of the Convention, such as Article 2 on the right to life and Article 8 on respect for people’s homes. However, that is not enough. Environment is protected only if a right expressly set out in the Convention is offended. That is an example of incompleteness in the European judicial system.

In fact, including in the Convention an explicit basis for the right to a healthy environment would enable individuals to appeal on the basis of that right, irrespective of other human rights. Formal recognition of that right would surely contribute to greater commitment by member states on environmental issues, in line with international instruments. This is a part of the so-called fourth generation of fundamental rights, a generation of rights and duties for the society of the future and the practical application of the principle of solidarity between generations. The concept of human rights has to follow changes in society.

Opponents of this proposal have three arguments. First, they say that this is a collective right, not an individual or subjective right. But establishing it as an individual right seems entirely possible. The convention system stipulates that member states are the entities responsible for guaranteeing that right – a delegated power. Secondly, opponents fear there is a risk that the Court will be overloaded, but experience and common sense suggest that the institution is able to filter applications and restrict admissibility, so it deserves our total confidence. Thirdly, opponents suggest that the right to a healthy environment is vague, and that is the main obstacle to its consideration as an individual right enforceable in law. However, a more perfect and limited definition of the right to a healthy environment is precisely what makes it more possible and justifiable as an individual right.

The right to a healthy environment must be seen in two complementary dimensions – a procedural dimension and a material or substantive dimension. The first dimension is divided into three procedural rights – the right to information, the right to participate in decision-making and the right of access to justice in environmental matters. Those rights are not usually challenged. The second dimension is harder to define, partly because of the range of terms employed to describe the reasonable standard of a good environment. That includes words such as “healthy”, “viable”, “decent”, “sustainable”, “balanced”, “favourable to health and/or wellbeing” or even “respecting the health/right to wellbeing of future generations”. That leads us to a broader scope of the individual right that is not confined only to the health protection aspects. That is not an impossible obstacle because there is no need for the convention to specify all these different points in advance. By dealing with practical cases, the courts will clarify the substance of the right, drawing together the approaches of the states as parties in this matter.

What is really important is to define some key principles of law that will provide the guidelines for such jurisprudence and will gradually build the material content of the right to a healthy environment. Those principles are the precautionary principle; the principle of prevention; the principle of compensation, often in the form of the “polluter pays”; the principle of sustainability; and the principle of respect for the rights of future generations.

Finally, we firmly reaffirm that the right to a healthy environment is a fundamental right of citizens which is at the moment insufficiently assured, and that is why we ask the Committee of Ministers to draw up an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights recognising this right. With all due respect to the formal and technical arguments made by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, we are not pretending to replace the work of the experts who might deal with this matter. We are asking for a political decision and offer to take part in that work. It was not my committee that said, “The European Convention on Human Rights is an instrument alive, that must be interpreted in the light of the present situation.” The Court said that and we could not agree more. The world is full of dead papers.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Chope on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – On behalf of my committee I urge the Assembly to read our Doc. 12043, which extends to some eight pages with many footnotes. The committee, in its capacity as legal adviser to the Parliamentary Assembly, takes its responsibilities seriously, and we set out the strong legal and practical reasons not to introduce a new protocol. We say that in the knowledge that it is still the opinion of the Committee of Ministers, most recently expressed on 8 July in Doc. 11999. That suggests that many of the countries to which the rapporteur referred do not support the introduction of a new protocol, even though they may have similar rights in their own constitutions.

It was a matter of controversy at the meeting of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs this afternoon that the UK Government briefing on the issue states on page 39, “The UK Government does not support this report” and, on page 41, “The UK Government strongly opposes calling for recognition of a human right to safe environments.” So in supporting this suggestion the chairman of the committee and other members of the UK delegation are defying their own government.

We have noted that the rapporteur concedes that there is no clear definition of the right to a healthy environment, and that is the basis on which we seek to propose a constructive basis for future progress in this debate. We have tabled an amendment to recommend that the Committee of Ministers works with this Assembly and experts to produce a definition of the right to a healthy and viable environment.

One problem is that the Court is already massively overloaded. It recently asked for an increase in staff numbers of some 240, which was rejected by the Committee of Ministers because it is not affordable. Any extension by means of a new protocol would come only at the expense of existing litigants and add to the burdens on the Court. Those burdens would be considerable because of the lack of a clear definition.

To add a new protocol, especially one so vague and ill defined, would be the wrong approach, and we hope that the Assembly will accept our constructive amendments so that we no longer have a dialogue of the deaf between two important committees of this Assembly and can instead work together to achieve our long-term objective.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Marquet on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr MARQUET (Monaco) said that after listening to Mr Chope he was not quite sure whether or not this was the Council of Europe. On behalf of his group he congratulated the rapporteur and secretariat on their excellent work on the additional protocol. The introduction of such a protocol would represent a milestone for the Organisation as it celebrated its 60th anniversary.

Economic and social revolutions had changed the natural environment. Although people now lived longer and better, it could not be denied that the environmental changes brought about by these positive developments had been damaging. In the past few decades the influence of climate change had become evident in the growing threat to ready access to the fundamentals of life: water and food. Responses to this problem had been slow but those states which had included in their constitutions measures to protect the environment were to be congratulated. It was a matter of regret that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights did not agree with the additional protocol, which should be implemented in order to send out a strong message on the eve of the Copenhagen conference.

Together with Mr Meale, he had recently taken part in the World Water Forum. All interested parties had asked for access to clean water to be enshrined as a right but the response from governments had been that this was a need rather than a right. However, the world was moving on and the protocol was needed.

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

Mr LEMPENS (Netherlands). – We all agree that a healthy environment, consisting at least of clean air and potable water, are essential for human life, and everybody has the right to live. A healthy environment is therefore a human right, and the Council of Europe stands for human rights. It is good that, as a start, the right to a healthy and viable environment is to be put in an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights; we applaud that initiative.

According to research, poor people live shorter and less healthy lives. People in poor countries also live shorter lives. That is partly caused by their environment, and a great deal of the responsibility is ours, too. We know about the pollution caused by multinationals, and about pollution outside Europe, such as that in the oil depots in Nigeria and the Philippines, which threatens human life and communities.

The report is a good start, and we really hope that it will be implemented and acted on; that is every parliamentarian’s responsibility, working in our own parliaments. We cannot make this decision and then do nothing about it in our own country. Certainly, we members of the United European Left will continue to campaign in our countries for a healthy environment for all human beings. That also means preventing bad living conditions, and taking away the causes of ill health and sickness. We should regularly research people’s health, so that we can trace the causes of ill health. We should establish information systems concerning the environment, for a start. There is a lot to do.

Mr President, our group is the United European Left, so we think that it would be a great step forward to change fundamentally our economy and ensure that people come before profit. We in the UEL see that disrespect for the human right to a healthy environment is often related to the destructive elements of global capitalism. Less brutal capitalism and more socialist-inspired policy would therefore be very healthy for our environment. Even if members disagree with that, I ask them to agree on this additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Santini, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that after the resolutions on climate change which had been adopted yesterday, agreement on an additional protocol would mark a further step in the right direction. Living in a clean environment was not merely the gift of a creator or a matter of fate. It was vital that man recognised, through solidarity between generations, the need to protect the environment. So far all anyone had done was demonstrate against damage to the environment, but the additional protocol constituted action. It derived from practical considerations: under the terms of the protocol, pollution would be a crime and the Court of Human Rights would be able to issue penalties and sanctions.

The report was excellent, with a strong legal basis which included the Lugano Convention of 1993 and the Strasbourg Convention of 1998, which had introduced the “polluter pays” principle. There were beautiful paradises which remained intact, but where pollution had reared its ugly head in his home region in Italy there was unparalleled solidarity between generations in working to protect the Dolomites, which only recently had been declared a UNESCO world heritage site. A few days later, however, a black hole was found in the area. Unscrupulous entrepreneurs had dumped toxic waste in a valley. Those whose job it was to protect the area had colluded with the polluters and there had been a lack of rigour in applying the law.

He would be delighted to be able to tell the inhabitants of his home region about the additional protocol. It might be that the valley became the subject of the first prosecution under that protocol. Those who had carried out that dumping needed to be brought to book and the European Court of Human Rights should issue convincing judgments. If implemented, the protocol could show the Council of Europe to be more than just a talking shop but rather a body which could take action.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Etherington, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr ETHERINGTON (United Kingdom). – First, I congratulate my colleague on the environment committee, Mr Mendes Bota, on his very fine presentation on his report. I am not speaking on behalf of the environment committee; I have perhaps moved up a notch, and have the privilege of speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group. When this matter was discussed at the meeting of the Socialist Group this morning, I explained in simple terms what I was going to say. I stated that we should support the report because we believe in progress. We are all in this Chamber to try to make things better for the people whom we represent. We have a great political divide here. It is a simple one – it is not party political, but is based almost on moral politics. It is based on the difference between trying to do something and trying to oppose something. I have respected and trusted colleagues from all parties on the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, but I happen to think that the committee has got things wrong. We are talking about either trying to improve things or doing nothing.

I have heard Mr Chope’s arguments more than once. I respect those views, but I totally disagree with them. Let us start with his first argument, which is that the Committee of Ministers does not agree with the proposal. The Committee of Ministers disagrees with many of the things that we pass here. There is nothing unusual about that. As our new Secretary General stated yesterday, in this Chamber, the dynamism of politics is disagreement. That is how we move forward – by discussing matters, challenging each other and trying to make progress. You do not make progress if you just block everything.

Let us also talk about the British Government. I accept the comment made by our colleague who said that he wondered whether we were talking about the Council of Europe or something else. We are talking about the Council of Europe; we make the decisions here. There has never been a bill passed in the House of Commons in Britain that gives anyone the right to say that the British Government is against this measure. It has never been discussed in the democratic chambers. I do not want to be disrespectful, but if a few civil servants and a minister say that that is the British policy, you have a choice. You can accept it or you can disagree and speak like I am now. I applaud you, Mr President, as you have been very active in this process.

The issue is simple. Do the citizens whom we represent have a right to expect that their governments will protect them and provide them with a safe environment or not? That is the issue.

When we talk about a protocol, we hear about the Court’s being overcrowded. That is something that we have to deal with. Every decision that we make has both intended and unintended consequences. We do not always get everything right. When we do not get it right, we have to try to improve the situation. When we do, we are mightily relieved. It is wonderful. This is such a fundamentally simple thing. If you decide to vote against this measure because you think that the Committee of Ministers will not accept it, I do not think that you should be here. If that is your attitude and you are more concerned about what the Committee of Ministers thinks than about what you say and vote on here on behalf of the people you represent, you should not be here.

In simple terms, two committees have given us diametrically opposed views. One is right, and one is wrong. There is no compromise vote: you either want this change or you do not. You have a choice – you can either vote to improve things or do nothing. I suggest that for your own conscience and benefit you show that you are worthwhile candidates to sit here and that you vote to try to do something. In some ways, this is inspirational. It will not put things right overnight. Some companies will have tremendous problems with it, but this is how we move forward. Some companies at the moment have problems with just about everything, and that is what we deal with all the time. Please vote for this and show the world that this Organisation is a progressive outfit, not a regressive one.

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

Mr HEALD (United Kingdom). – It is right that we should have beliefs, that we should stand up for what we believe in and that we should do what is right. However, I also think that it is important that what we do should be capable of being implemented. That is the view of the EDG and I think it is the point that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights is trying to make. Compassion is all very well, but it must always be tempered by efficiency so that we do not just talk about things but actually deliver.

I applaud the bravery of the rapporteur in putting forward such a significant and courageous proposal, but we should not forget that at the heart of this institution are rights and principles that were laid down by the founding fathers. They are eternal rights – rights to life, to health, to bodily integrity and to a home – and they do not cover only a short period of time. This Organisation has always put them in the context of the environment. That was the importance of the Stockholm declaration. We have not been sleeping on the job. Our Court, the European Court of Human Rights, has made decisions where the environment has been polluted and there has been a risk that it will damage life. The Court has been prepared to make decisions in favour of the applicant. We have not just ignored the environment, but it is important that we do not forget the integrity of the human rights that we are here to protect. That is my concern.

I think that to try and define a new and difficult right without any reference to the existing rights diminishes what we have already. This right is not as strong and clear as those great rights that we defend.

Secondly, I do not think that a government should be sued when it is not its fault that pollution or a climate change problem has been created not by that country but by another. That is why the British Government has said in its advice to our members in the Assembly, “Look, do you want a country like Britain, which has a strong, good record on the environment, to be sued because of pollution that comes from another country or because climate change occurs because other countries are failing?” Why should the good countries be sued in the courts by campaign groups when other countries have created the problem?

Finally, what about the quantity of cases? There are 100 000 cases outstanding in our Court and the Court is asking for 220 extra staff so that people can get their rights. We cannot afford it, but now we are saying that we will let all these campaign groups go in front of the Court in the context of a vague right that is not properly defined and that that will somehow help human rights. We should be fighting and pressing for a strong Copenhagen Agreement that produces decent outcomes on global emissions, financing and technology transfer. We should accept the procedural steps that are in the report – I totally back those. However, we should be pressing individuals. This is not just about rights; what about the duties of individuals to reduce their energy consumption, to recycle and to do some micro-generation?

Is there not a case for treating the remarks of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights as an olive branch and a compromise? It is saying that if the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs could define this right – a difficult exercise – it would be prepared to consider moving forward towards a protocol. The work of the two committees can be squared. There can be a compromise and I suggest that we move on in that way.

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

Mrs POSTANJYAN (Armenia). – I welcome this report and the draft recommendation. In order to ensure a right to a healthy environment, the right protection and the rehabilitation of infringed rights of the residents of the Council of Europe member states, it is essential to adopt an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Within the context of the convention, that protocol will define direct and clear premises for the right to a healthy environment.

I draw your attention to the pressing need to adopt an additional protocol for the right to a healthy environment. As an example, I will mention the lack of effective legal protection in the Republic of Armenia from the exploitation of the Teghut deposit in the Lori province. In 2007, the government issued a decision for the exploitation of copper and molybdenum, which is contained in the Teghut deposit. That decision and all other related documents were adopted in breach of the Republic of Armenia’s constitution, its laws and international treaties, such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, also known as the Aarhus Convention, as well as the UNECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, also known as the Espoo Convention.

The exploitation of the Teghut deposit will generate about 540 million cubic metres of tailings, which is hazardous radioactive waste. There are 15 existing dumping tailings in Armenia and this one will exceed the size of the next biggest one by 210 million cubic metres.

Exploitation of the deposit will be destructive for the country’s biodiversity. It will destroy a unique ecosystem, and rich fauna and endanger the safety of agricultural products, thus destroying the health of residents. It will also, in contaminating the transboundary River Debed, damage the environment at a regional level.

Members of the Teghut Defense Group have several times and through various means tried to end the exploitation of the deposit but unfortunately they have still not had any positive results. When legal means have been directed against the exploitation of the Teghut deposit, they have not been successful. The courts in the Republic of Armenia refused to accept the case, without offering any substantive reasons.

Taking into account the above mentioned points, I appeal to you to support us and to contribute to the adoption of the additional protocol, which I believe is urgent and vital. Thank you for your attention.

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

Mr FRÉCON (France) congratulated the rapporteur and the chairman of the committee. The development of an additional protocol seemed only a logical step following on from the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments, which had effectively established environmental rights. It would be up to the committee to look at ways to formulate the right through a protocol. An absolute right could be invoked by individuals, whereas a relative right would need to be implemented through regulations. If agreed, a protocol would have an impact on all legislation in all member states. It would facilitate individuals or groups to take action and would lead to greater obligations of liability and greater scope for compensation. He could not agree with the views of Mr Chope. He congratulated the President for launching the initiative; it was a legal revolution which sought to deal with the scale of the environmental problems facing the world.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Ms Kovács.

Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia).– I am, of course, in favour of drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the right to a healthy environment. There is indeed a close relationship between human rights and the quality of environment.

First, we all have a fundamental right to a healthy environment and a duty to pass it on to future generations. Secondly, I would like to focus on small rural communities that are often populated by ethnic or national minorities, as I come from such a community.

It is essential to maintain and secure the existence of those communities. They preserve their environment and as such they are guarantors for the protection of nature. They safeguard their unique national and ethnic culture, including the preservation of historical monuments, and they safeguard the ancient toponomy of the region with their mother tongue.

In a nutshell, it is important to save the villages, which in most cases have an elderly population. The right approach is to build such an infrastructure to ensure a “European life” for younger generations, too. The aim is to persuade the youth to stay in their rural communities.

I am convinced that respect for human rights, social peace and stability go hand in hand and have to be in tune. Security is the best guarantee of sustainable economic growth, prosperity and, last but not least, the protection of the environment. The aim of the Council of Europe in drawing up the additional protocol and in recognising the right to a healthy and viable environment is to strengthen the European Convention on Human Rights as a legally binding mechanism to protect human rights as well as minority rights in Europe.

A variety of legal, security, economic and cultural aspects concerning the protection of the environment and historical heritage of national minorities should be in place. Nevertheless, what is really important is the basic idea behind the protocol, which is designed to ensure stability and to reconcile people with others in a democratic, tolerant manner. All in all, it is essential to provide adequate protection for life, health, physical integrity and the property of individuals, and to co-operate and share responsibility in the event of environmental disaster.

Do not forget that there are around 800 million people living in 47 states in Europe. Nearly 100 million people belong to one of the 300 different national minorities. That means that every eighth European belongs to a national minority. The fact that there is historical, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity, but no difference in their rights, is Europe’s strength. I hope that Europe will be able to continue to provide a valid example to the rest of the world.

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

Mr R HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan). – As a healthy environment is directly related to human life, naturally it can be considered by no means as a purely ecological problem. The issue has a fairly political meaning and should be investigated in connection with human rights. During the last nine years, the active participation of Azerbaijan in most debates in the Council of Europe regarding environmental issues has arisen from that factor.

Azerbaijan, as a country subjected to occupation, has repeatedly spoken about the heavy damage regularly rendered to its environment by Armenia. Military aggression and destruction occurs in a short while, but ecological war is a long-term tragedy with a deeply harmful effect. Issues regarding Armenia’s drug cultivation, the burying of nuclear waste and the floating of chemical and radioactive items into the rivers in the occupied Azerbaijani territories, as well as the lack of international control, were repeatedly raised here and serious documents were drafted about them. Recently, Armenia has systematically perpetrated fires in the occupied and adjacent Azerbaijani territories. Burning forests and cultivated soils not only substantially damages the flora and fauna, but makes the people who reside in those territories live in permanent horror and stress.

However, a more serious blow from the occupation is that nature has been left to go wild. The territories under Armenian occupation have not been cultivated for 20 years; they were once fruitful soils. The environment can be harmed not only by an aggressive attitude towards it but by a visibly passive attitude. That soil should have been used from time to time, but the balance of nature has been breached, which has brought about serious changes in the landscape. Now it will take decades to return the poisoned soils, full of innumerable mines, to their previous state.

To live a healthy life is a supreme human right. This brutal attitude to nature is probably more terrible than aggression from any weapon, because it threatens human rights not only in the present but in the future. The right of Azerbaijanis to a normal life by benefiting from a healthy environment has been purposely and regularly harassed by Armenia.

As Azerbaijan faces such vital problems, it would fully approve of an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to a healthy environment, provided that it affects everybody. It must affect undisciplined states such as Armenia, a country which permanently demonstrates a destructive attitude towards a number of urgent issues related to the protocol. But one could hardly hope for that, as Armenia is known as a state that not only harms the ecology of its neighbouring country but undermines the future of its own people by violating the ecological balance in its own country. The protest voice of the Greenpeace movement in Armenia has been crushed for years by the Armenian state. We want the protocol to be obligatory for such member states that might ignore the law. We would like to believe that the protocol, if adopted, would positively contribute to the solution of the problem, and that it is a pre-requisite to better ensure the right of Europeans to live in a healthy environment.

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

Mr SHERSHUN (Ukraine) said that he fully supported the proposals made by the rapporteur. Everybody deserved the right to a healthy lifestyle, and a healthy, clean environment was an important part of that right. It was therefore timely to add this additional protocol.

The right of every citizen to a clean environment needed to be enshrined alongside other human rights. Moreover, citizens had a right to know the state of their environment, and this initiative would help promote common environmental standards throughout Europe. It would also help to preserve environmental conditions for future generations, in particular where population density was putting pressure on the environment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Mendes Bota, rapporteur, to reply. You have four minutes.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal). – I have little to say because nine of the 10 speakers were enthusiastic supporters of the report. It is important that this new right should be inscribed in the European Convention on Human Rights, because of its position above national judicial systems. Things such as youth cautions make up part of those internal systems and have an effect, so it is important that the new right be there.

I think that we should retain our intention to go ahead. Of course, I am sensitive to the problems in Azerbaijan. I regret the problems with Armenia. I hope that a solution can be found in future, so that even on the environmental side we do not have to listen to such complaints.

I am sensitive to the problems of minorities and the rural communities that Ms Kovács spoke about. I am also sensitive to the remarks that Mr Heald made about this right; he brought a different but very important approach to the debate. These problems of the environment are transnational and they do not apply to just one country. This issue involves many countries. Sometimes, the cause of a problem lies outside a country and that matter must be discussed.

We are asking that the Committee of Ministers take the lead in that discussion and we want to be part of it. What is the main difference between our position and that of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights? We are in different places. That committee is asking that we reflect here, internally, and find a definition of the right to a healthy environment before we go to the Committee of Ministers. We say that we should not wait for that. We should take our political decision here and ask the Committee of Ministers, with the group of experts, to go ahead and try to find a better definition.

Mr Etherington’s speech was totally sensible and many other members were very enthusiastic. He is right: the alternatives are that we just sit here in our chairs waiting for something to happen or that we take part in the action and take the initiative, putting pressure on the Committee of Ministers.

We do not have to wait for everybody to be in agreement with us. If we wait for 47 governments to agree with us, we will do nothing. If we wait for the Committee of Ministers to agree with us, we will probably do nothing. We should keep pressing. That is our task. We are political members of this Assembly, not some bureaucracy that is sitting here waiting for politicians outside to decide for us. You are right, Mr Etherington. If we are not going to do that, what are we doing here?

There are many other examples. When we began, we had differences with the Committee of Ministers, but, because the pressure was kept up, we finally achieved our objectives – of course with concessions and with dialogue. Together, we tried to find a common solution. That is my position and I am very glad to have received all this support during the debate.

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

Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – First, I congratulate the rapporteur. Truly, this is a really important report and his speech was absolutely magnificent. I have been a member here for 10 and a half years and it was the finest speech I have ever heard in this Chamber. It was truly epic.

I also want to congratulate you, Mr President, because as Bernard Marquet rightly pointed out, seven years ago in my committee you came forward with this idea. You pursued it and pushed it time and again, and we are ever so grateful.

I have listened to today’s debate and to the two opponents of this. I am rather disappointed because they both come from my own country. They talked of this being purely aspirational, saying that it may fill the courts. What worries me is people having to go to court or even being unable to go to court on issues. That is the real problem with the situation today.

Yesterday, an important person spoke to us in the Chamber – Dr Pachauri, the head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He referred to difficulties such as the 2 billion people on our planet who have to live and cook with fossil fuel, and what they are suffering because of that. He referred to the 1.6 billion people on our planet who have never seen a lightbulb in their household in their life. Those are real problems. What we have here before us today is not difficult. Yes, it is aspirational, but what is wrong with that? That is what this forum is all about.

Dr Pachauri also quoted Gandhi saying that we must live simply so that others might simply live. I have described the report as truly epic. It is very, very important. I appeal to every single member of this Assembly to get behind it 100%. We need this. We need it for the Assembly to go forward.

To conclude, as well as thanking you, Mr President, I thank the people who work for our committee and all the other staff of the Council of Europe who have worked so hard on this and other important reports. I also thank the interpreters, the members of the press, the people who work in the canteen and the security people. Without their work and efforts, we could not consider reports such as this.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The committee has presented a draft recommendation to which five amendments have been tabled.

We will now consider the amendments to the draft recommendation.

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

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, to replace paragraph 6 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly notes the case law in the environmental field developed by the European Court of Human Rights, commends the Manual on human rights and the environment published by the Council of Europe in 2006 for its valuable insight and recital of the principles emerging from that case law from 1980 to November 2005, and expresses the hope that the Manual will be regularly updated.”I

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment No. 1 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – The amendment speaks for itself, noting the case law that has developed and the importance of the manual that emerged from the Assembly’s previous consideration of this subject. I understand that there is an oral sub-amendment, which concedes quite a lot of the points that have been made in relation to the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I understand that Mr Mendes Bota wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs as follows: at end of Amendment No. 1, add: “This case law has afforded protection for the right to a healthy environment through a ‘knock on effect’ by upholding the individual rights in Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR.”.

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

I call Mr Mendes Bota to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal). – The sub-amendment is a compromise because we have nothing against the reference proposed by the committee. We would like to retain the bulk of the original text so we agree to this compromise.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – As the sub-amendment would remove the last three lines from paragraph 6 referring to the assertion that this would simply set down a material right that already exists, I welcome that note of realism and accept the sub-amendment.

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

Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – In favour.

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

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 1, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – In favour.

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

Amendment No.1, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, to delete paragraph 7.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – This amendment would delete paragraph 7 because whatever else this recommendation is, it is not a logical extension. We are switching between individual rights and collective rights and, as we heard from the representative from Azerbaijan, the right could also include litigation between individual countries. That is not a logical extension of the existing convention.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that this amendment sought to reduce the legal importance which the additional protocol attached to the right to a healthy environment

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

Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – The committee is against.

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

Amendment No. 2 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, to paragraph 9, replace the word “must” with the following words: “may wish to”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – This is a textual amendment, because we think that it would be better to emphasise the importance of individual responsibility by replacing the mandatory word “must” with the permissive phrase “may wish to”.

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

Mr ETHERINGTON (United Kingdom). – This amendment is totally counterproductive. It would completely reverse what we are trying to do. We are trying to make things positive, not nebulous.

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

Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – The committee is against.

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

Amendment No. 3 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9, to replace the words “solidarity between generations” with the following words: “responsibility for future generations”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – This amendment has much support, even among members of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. It clarifies the recommendation, because most people do not understand what “solidarity between generations” means, whereas having “responsibility for future generations” is a concept that everybody understands.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that the word “solidarity” was appropriate here as it related to a right. Responsibility for future generations was not a right.

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

Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – The committee is against.

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

Amendment No. 4 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, to replace paragraph 10.1 with the following paragraph :

“work with the Assembly and experts to produce a definition of the right to a healthy and viable environment;”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment No. 5.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – This is the most important amendment and it offers the opportunity to bridge the gap between the two committees. It would enable us to work with the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers – a point that the rapporteur did not make properly in his winding-up remarks. It would mean that the Assembly would not work by itself, but with the Committee of Ministers, and we have already heard from Mr Frécon about the problems of definition – would the right be individual or collective, absolute or relative? Such matters need to be sorted out before we adopt a protocol.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that, since events in Stockholm in the 1970s, judges had tried to prove that the right to a healthy environment was not absolute. The protocol was the Assembly’s definition of that right.

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

Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – The committee is against.

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

Amendment No. 5 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12003, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12003, as amended, is adopted with 54 votes for, 3 against and 1 abstention.

I congratulate the rapporteur, the committee and the committee chairman and others who have been involved in this work. It is a great moment for our Assembly.

5. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Tomorrow, the business is very full in the morning and afternoon. In order for more colleagues to be called to speak, I propose that speaking times in both debates in the morning be limited to three minutes and in the afternoon to four minutes.

Are these arrangements agreed?

They are agreed.

(Mr Mignon, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr de Puig.)

6. Challenge, on procedural grounds, of still unratified credentials
of the parliamentary delegation of Moldova

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The final item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report on the challenge, on procedural grounds, of still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Moldova presented by Mr Greenway on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs (Doc. 12044).

No amendments have been tabled.

I remind you that we have already agreed to interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.50 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – I think that the Assembly is aware that at the opening of this part-session on Monday morning, the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Moldova were challenged on procedural grounds under Rule 7 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure by our colleague, Mr Kox, on the grounds that the delegation’s composition did not comply with the principles set out in Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The rule states that “national parliamentary delegations must be composed so as to ensure a fair representation of the political parties or groups in their parliaments”. It also states that there should be representation of both men and women.

Reference to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs is automatic in such circumstances. I can confirm to the Assembly that the committee has examined the credentials of the Moldovan delegation, and has concluded that it is in compliance with Rule 6. We therefore ask the Assembly to ratify the credentials by supporting the draft resolution before the Assembly.

In the delegation, there are five representatives plus one substitute. Two full members are communists; the Communist Party is now the opposition party. There are two women representatives. One is a main representative, and one is a substitute. In all the circumstances, clearly, the credentials are in compliance with our rules.

However, there are some points that we need to take into account. The first is that the committee noted that there are only six members in the delegation – five permanent representatives and one substitute – although there is an opportunity for 10. There could be five substitutes, and I believe that there have been in the past. The committee takes the opportunity offered by the report to express its concern that wherever possible national delegations should take up their full complement of places for both representatives and substitutes. The committee feels strongly that when a country is under the monitoring procedure, that is essential, because the consequence of monitoring is that there should be a full voice for opposition parties. The strange situation in the case of Moldova – the Assembly will vote again on the matter on Friday – is that there was a change during the election. The communists were in government but are now in opposition, so their delegation has reduced substantially. We therefore encourage Moldova to have a full delegation.

The new credentials from the Moldovan delegation will be presented to the Assembly at the beginning of the session in 2010. We are concerned to ensure that budget restraints are not a cause of delegations not being complete, and not appointing all their members. Because of that, we feel – this is clear in our resolution – that the Assembly should invite the Monitoring Committee, and particularly the co-rapporteurs from Moldova, to seek clarification from the Moldovan parliamentary authorities as a matter of urgency. Those authorities should specify their intentions with regard to the four vacant seats for substitutes on the Moldovan delegation.

I turn to why the dispute arose. I suspect that when Mr Kox catches your eye, Mr President, he may comment on the matter. There are now five parties represented in the Moldovan Parliament – the Communist Party, the Liberal Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, the Alliance “Moldova Nostra” and the Democratic Party. The latter four make up a new coalition. I understand that initially, it was thought that as there were five parties, there should be five members, but that would not have met our rules, because it would not have met the proportional representational requirement. That is hearsay, but I understand that it is the case.

The letter that the President of the Moldovan Parliament sent to the President of our Assembly makes it absolutely clear that that is not what was proposed. There are two communist representatives and, as members can see in the report, there is one from the Liberal Party, one from the Liberal Democratic Party, and one from the Alliance “Moldova Nostra”. The proportional requirement rule is met in the credentials that were presented to our President.

There was some concern that the list was only temporary, but it could only be temporary because new credentials have to be presented in January by all our delegations. We may not necessarily instantly understand that, but that is the case. I can confirm to the Assembly that Mrs Guţu, the chairman of the Moldovan delegation, came to our committee meeting. She gave us to understand that it was the delegation’s intention to have a full complement of five members and five substitutes when the new delegation list is presented to our President early in the new year. It is clear to the committee that the delegation’s credentials are completely in order. They meet the rules, and there is absolutely no reason why anyone should wish to challenge the ratification of the credentials.

I do not in any way question the motivation or integrity of Mr Kox in challenging the credentials. As the Assembly is aware, the whole question of challenging credentials has become a hot topic. We will meet tomorrow to discuss, once again, the challenge to the Russian delegation’s credentials. I will make the point again tomorrow – I will have slightly less time then, because I am only rapporteur for opinion – that we want to look again at the rules, on behalf of the Assembly, if the Assembly and the Bureau wish to refer the matter to us.

There is a point about Rule 7 that is worth considering. One person, no matter how well motivated or otherwise, can challenge the credentials on procedural grounds. That automatically means that the matter has to be investigated by the rules committee. We have to produce a report and there has to be a debate in this Assembly to ratify the credentials of the delegation. This is just a suggestion, but when it is obvious, as soon as one looks into the matter, that the credentials are in order, there ought to be a swifter mechanism. Perhaps the rules committee could confirm to the President that the delegation’s credentials are in order, and having heard from the chairman of the rules committee, he could announce at the start of the next session that the credentials should be immediately ratified.

There might also be grounds for suggesting that more than one person be required to make a challenge, and that somebody should have the opportunity to speak against a challenge when it is made. That would save the Assembly time and money. That is just a thought, but if it is the view of the Assembly that we should look at the matter, the rules committee is happy to do so with a completely open mind.

I see that three speakers want to speak on behalf of the political groups. If I sit down now, perhaps I will have a moment or two in which to sum up their comments at the end of this brief debate.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Greenway. You have three and a half minutes to reply to the speakers at the end of the debate. I call Mr Kox, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – As Mr Greenway recalled, it was I who asked on Monday to examine on procedural grounds the credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Moldova. Two days later, we can discuss the results of that examination. I compliment Mr Greenway and the rules committee on their clear and quick report on the issue, and thank them.

Rule 6.2 states that national delegations should fairly represent the political groups in their parliaments. On the basis of the information that I received, I found it necessary, though difficult, to question whether the Moldovan delegation met our criteria. Before I come to the report, I want to make a preliminary remark – John Greenway spoke about it, too. Changing Rule 7.1.b is a very good proposal. It was not my request that only one person could make this challenge, but it is in the rules so I did it. Credentials can be challenged on procedural or substantive grounds. To do so on procedural grounds means that we examine whether a national parliament has fair representation in this Chamber. As we know, to do so on substantive grounds is often inspired by the need to expel a total delegation from this Chamber. It is wise to consider both procedures and see whether they need to be modernised. I agree very much with the chair of the rules committee. I used my right because the information I received needed to be clarified. The committee has now given us clarification.

The only relevant information on the composition of a delegation comes from the Speaker of the parliament involved. If the factual decision of a parliament is not in accordance with the letter that the Speaker sends to the President of this Assembly, as was the case here, we rely only on the Speaker’s letter. The decision of the Moldovan Parliament to nominate only one member of the opposition, even though that opposition holds 48 out of 101 seats, has been overruled by the Speaker’s letter, which states that two out of the five members of the Moldovan delegation belong to the opposition. That is a fair representation.

The rules committee also clarifies if and when a parliament’s Speaker can appoint substitutes. The committee makes it clear that that does not need to come with a complete proposal for all members and substitutes, although it is the normal way of acting in most parliaments. That could and should inspire parliaments that behave in another way, but it is their right to do so and that is clarified, too.

The third and final clarification is that, although there is no obligation to nominate substitutes, if you do so you should take Rule 6.2 into full account. I am glad that the committee gave clear advice to the Moldovan Parliament to do so and to come in January 2010 with a full delegation. It is important for the Moldovan Parliament to be fully represented here, and it is also its right. I wholeheartedly support the committee’s proposal. I hope that the Moldovan Parliament will make use of its rights. That could help to improve the process of reconciliation in Moldovan society and in the Moldovan Parliament after the harsh clashes of the recent past. I hope to see all our Moldovan colleagues, who unfortunately had to leave yesterday, in January and I fully support Mr Greenway’s report.

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

Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) supported the position expressed by the committee on the Republic of Moldova. In the view of the group, the appointment of the members of the Moldovan delegation had been entirely consistent with the rules of the Council of Europe. Furthermore it was important to show support for the existing peaceful and democratic political settlement in Moldova. He wondered whether it was the case that although five parties could be elected and represented in the national parliament, only two were represented among the 10 members of the delegation

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Rowen to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr ROWEN (United Kingdom). – I congratulate the chairman of the committee on a clear outline of the situation and the grounds on which the Moldovan delegation has been correctly nominated. The ability to challenge the credentials of any national delegation is a serious but important right of members of this Assembly. It is important, therefore, that when this right is exercised it is dealt with thoroughly and that it is expedited. The ALDE Group believes that the committee has dealt with the issue and has provided the right explanation as to why the credentials are in order in terms of political balance and of gender. The delegation has been correctly nominated. However, Mr Greenway’s point that not all the places have been filled is right and the ALDE Group wants to see all 10 places – substitutes as well as permanent members – properly filled in January.

We would also like to see – I agree with Mr Greenway on this – a revision of the rules. The challenge took place on Monday and now, on Wednesday night, we are debating it. Two days have elapsed and although the committee has dealt with the challenge very speedily, perhaps certain pieces of procedure could take place prior to the meeting of the Assembly whereby anybody who has a concern about credentials could raise it and it could be considered beforehand. Perhaps the President of the Assembly could then rule at the beginning of the part-session and give the reasons. I certainly support what Mr Greenway has said about the need to revise the rules while maintaining the rights of any member of the Assembly to challenge any delegation on procedural grounds.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Greenway, rapporteur, to reply. You have three minutes and 30 seconds.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – I am grateful for the support of our three speakers. The point that Mr Rowen has just made is important. The Assembly needs to understand that, when the president of a parliament sends the list of appointees, members and substitutes to the President, it is checked thoroughly by the Secretariat. On occasions, where it feels that there is a lack of clarity and that the proposals might not meet our rules, there is a communication and sometimes there is a correction. Before any credentials are presented to the Assembly at the beginning of the session or a part-session, they are thoroughly checked by the Secretariat. That was the case on this occasion. That is why this would be helpful.

I would not go as far as Mr Rowen in saying that the President could say, “No, this is out of order”. The matter should go to the rules committee, but we should have a quicker procedure and possibly avoid having a debate such as this, which, as Mr Rowen said, comes almost three full working days after the challenge was made.

I am grateful to all three colleagues for their support. I am grateful also to the committee for its work. I am glad that they agree that we should perhaps re-examine Rule 7 and I hope that that might be something that the Bureau will ask us to do.

There is, I think, an important differentiation between a challenge under Rule 7 on procedural grounds and a challenge under Rule 8 on substantive grounds, the point Mr Kox made, but I think that the committee may want to take time to reflect on that.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Kox that if we can have a full delegation from Moldova, it will aid the situation in Moldova and perhaps speed up the reconciliation that is needed. I am sure that the Assembly will look at that again on Friday, when it considers the Monitoring Committee report.

Mr Corlăţean asked whether there could be a fair balance if one of the parties is not represented in the list of full members. Four parties are in coalition and in government in Moldova, but the representation of the Communist Party, which I think got 49 out of 103 seats, as the opposition has to be almost equal to the representation of the coalition parties. There may be four parties, but sadly one of those parties cannot be represented as a full member of the Assembly. That shows the importance of giving representation through substitutes.

A balance has to be struck. This has been a useful debate. I hope that we can return to the rules and perhaps improve our procedures. In the meantime, I invite the Assembly to support our resolution. Let us have a unanimous vote and get these credentials ratified.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

The debate is closed.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12044.

The members of the Moldovan delegation are not allowed to vote.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12044 is adopted, with 36 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

7. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m., with the agenda which was approved on Monday 28 September.

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 7.50 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Organisation of debates

2. Current affairs debate: the situation of human rights defenders and the increasing violence in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation

Speakers:

Mr Marty (Switzerland)

Mr Umakhnov (Russian Federation)

Mr Hammarberg (Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Eörsi (Hungary)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Omtzigt (Netherlands)

Mr Omelchenko (Ukraine)

Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mrs Beck (Germany)

Mrs Clwyd (United Kingdom)

Mr Kandelaki (Georgia)

Mr Darchiashvili (Georgia)

Mr Pochinok (Russian Federation)

3. Allegations of politically motivated abuses of the criminal justice system in Council of Europe member states

Presentation by Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Doc. 11993

Speakers:

Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Mrs Beck (Germany)

Mr Lecoq (France)

Mr de Vries (Netherlands)

Mr Fournier (France)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Béteille (France)

Mr Fedorov (Russian Federation)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mr Aleksandrov (Russian Federation)

Mr Marty (Switzerland)

Amendment No. 4, as amended, adopted.

Amendment No. 5, as amended, adopted.

Amendment No. 10 adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Doc. 11993, as amended, adopted.

4. Drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a healthy environment

Presentation by Mr Mendes Bota of the report of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Doc. 12003

Speakers:

Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Mr Marquet (Monaco)

Mr Lempens (Netherlands)

Mr Santini (Italy)

Mr Etherington (United Kingdom)

Mr Heald (United Kingdom)

Mrs Postanjyan (Armenia)

Mr Frécon (France)

Ms Kovács (Serbia)

Mr Rafael Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Shershun (Ukraine)

Mr Meale (United Kingdom)

Amendment No. 1, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12003, as amended, adopted.

5. Organisation of debates

6. Challenge, on procedural grounds, of still unratified credential of the parliamentary delegation of Moldova

Presentation by Mr Greenway of the report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, Doc. 12044

Speakers:

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Corlăţean (Romania)

Mr Rowen (United Kingdom)

Draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12044 adopted.

7. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting