Parliamentary Assembly

said that he was very satisfied to be addressing the Parliamentary Assembly, the most traditional one on the continent, and especially at a time when Spain presided over the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and a fellow countryman, Senator de Puig, presided over the Assembly.

Those who shared the responsibility of promoting the European project had to take into account the strong historical meaning of the Assembly and its meaning for the future. The members’ mandate endowed by their citizens, and the European vocation that had brought them to Strasbourg, symbolised in a particularly clear way the connection between Europe and democratic principles.

The important anniversary being celebrated, the 60th anniversary of the Council of Europe, made it necessary to reflect. It was a moment of paramount importance for the Council of Europe’s progress as a community of principles and political dialogue. It was a moment for balance, for a vision of future and for adapting to a new reality.

European citizens expected the members to be able to define the role of the Council of Europe in a globalised world; it was the Council’s responsibility to identify the most efficient methods and the most efficient institutional structures to defend human rights, democracy and the rule of law in a global society in which the consequences of interdependence and the complexity of relationships could be seen at all levels. He wished to tell the Assembly, in the first place, that he thought that the alternatives to global challenges had to be sought through the construction of a real, efficient multilateralism.

The Spanish Presidency of the Committee of Ministers would encourage the adoption of a declaration during the ministerial session in Madrid in May, during which they would be commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Council of Europe.

It was necessary to meet great expectations concerning the political construction of Europe. There could not be a real European citizenship if there was no progress at the different levels at which the Council of Europe had made it possible to operate in a co-ordinated way. Furthermore, it made no sense to implement a political process that was not based upon a community of principles. It was the Assembly’s turn to determine the most adequate way for the institutions of the Council of Europe to carry out their tasks efficiently and to turn those values into the essential foundations of political action.

He insisted on the need for a dynamic perspective, because the defence of human rights was facing new challenges and had to incorporate new realities. It was necessary to keep defining the main tasks of the Council of Europe in order to face the new changes.

The present context demanded constant work with a two-fold goal: on the one hand, the consolidation of the democratic processes and institutions in those places in which they were still fragile, apart from constant vigilance regarding respect of the fundamental rights in all the member states; and, on the other hand, the extension of the new human rights required by democracy.

The population in Council of Europe countries was becoming increasingly heterogeneous and multicultural. Citizens’ freedom demanded efforts to design active, innovative policies of social inclusion, policies that might transform societies and eliminate the barriers of intolerance and discrimination.

The new conception of human rights involved the determined recognition of political and social pluralism at all levels, be it at the cultural level, at the level of sexual orientation or at the level of convictions or ways of life. He stressed the fact that working for progress demanded a firm leadership, a capacity to get to the bottom of social needs, and the introduction of changes through political commitment and co-ordinated action for which international co-operation was essential. The Rome Convention was probably the best example of the transforming power of international instruments as far as human rights were concerned.

The Council of Europe was also commemorating the 50th anniversary of the creation of the European Court of Human Rights, the most developed instrument in the international community for the defence of fundamental rights.

He had previously mentioned the symbolic meaning of the Assembly and had to also say that the Court was a symbol of Europe as a continent that embodied hope for citizens; it was a guarantee, a valuable sign of identity and legitimacy that backed up citizens’ freedom and encouraged them to trust the future. One of the specific, important challenges that the members of the Council of Europe and all those countries that were involved in the Organisation had to face was providing guarantees so that the European Court of Human Rights could keep on working in the long-term with the efficiency expected from such a prestigious, respected institution.

More than 30 years previously, when Spain was opening up to democracy, it had entered the Council of Europe, which had helped it consolidate its progress as a state based upon the rule of law and freedom, and that had led Spain into the inner circle of the most important institutions of a democratic Europe.

He was certain that the road towards freedom always led to new goals; it had to extend rights and provide equal opportunities for all citizens, men or women, regardless of their race, convictions or sexual orientation. The construction of an inclusive society was what gave sense to political actions.

Ever since he had taken office, specific political measures had followed the lines set up by the Council of Europe and by other international organisations, in particular those set up by the United Nations. The approval of a plan on human rights by the Government of Spain, a plan that had been elaborated through an intense dialogue with civil society, a plan that had been put forward at the United Nations during the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would make it possible to carry out a permanent, balanced follow-up of the main threats and risks concerning the breach of the fundamental rights.

The Council of Europe had done a great job in attaining the abolition of the death penalty. He was highly satisfied to see that nearly all the Council of Europe member states had abolished it and that those which still had not done so had applied an indefinite moratorium. The year 2008 had been the second year in which the United Nations General Assembly had approved a directive whereby more than 100 countries agreed a universal deferment of the death penalty.

As far as the international community was concerned, the Spanish Government had already taken certain steps to create an international commission that would be in charge of guaranteeing the universal abolition of the death penalty through the application of two specific measures. Firstly, the application of a moratorium concerning the application of executions that would come into force by 2015; and secondly, the establishment of a firm, definitive agreement whereby no country would apply the death penalty to people under 18 or to those who committed a crime when they were under 18, or to mentally handicapped people. During the Spanish Presidency of the European Union, the Spanish Government would intensify the negotiations in order to get a wider support for a third directive on the death penalty, which would be put forward before the General Assembly of the United Nations in autumn that year.

The integral plan against the trade in human beings, which had been approved on 12 December 2008, was the other meaningful step taken by the Government of Spain in order to guarantee human rights.

The efforts to attain gender equality, fighting limiting social stereotypes, had also been one of the guidelines of Spanish legislative proposals. The law against gender violence, which provided courts with specific resources to fight the brutal expression of male domination, was another important measure that the Spanish wished to be backed up, as soon as possible, by corresponding international instruments, so that it might spread throughout the continent. This was why the Spanish Presidency was giving so much relevance to the organisation of a convention of the Council of Europe on violence against women.

He agreed with the Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, who had said not long ago, in his fortnightly communiqué, that human rights must play a relevant role in all states’ foreign politics and that, in such a context, co-operation for development – understood as the fight against poverty – was more efficient than sanctions as far as fundamental rights were concerned. Spain had firmly and generously decided to work for that: the Spanish contribution to official aid for development had increased by 20% in just one year, in spite of, or rather, due to the fact that, it was facing an international financial crisis. Spain had done that, trusting multilateral organisations in particular, as aid, as an explicit goal, should not be subject to the influence of other interests.

Spain believed that, in that way, it had also contributed to the progressive consolidation of the instruments of that multilateralism, which could serve to fight global problems. That was the main tool for opening and transforming societies, for turning them into spaces of progressively greater freedom, in which intolerance would be never feature.

Poverty was still the main reason for social backwardness and for the breach of human rights, and, more often than not, of women’s rights, all over the world. The Millennium Goals were something that had to be attained. They were the specific expression of the solidarity that democracy demanded. The only way to guarantee our welfare was to fight poverty. That was not just a moral given or a matter of image. It was a political responsibility.

Solidarity also demanded the joint fight against one of the greatest scourges against human dignity and co-existence: terrorism. That was still a real threat for peaceful coexistence all over the world. No one could avoid the duty to fight it. No one could turn their eyes away from its causes, or from its victims.

The fight against terrorism and the strengthening of the contribution to the efforts of the international community were a priority for the Spanish Government. He recognised the important leading role played by the Council of Europe so far, for it had stressed the transcendental meaning of the respect of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms, of the mechanisms of the rule of law, in order to fight terrorism. That was an essential aspect for Spain.

The Council of Europe had made it possible to make important progress, namely, the achievement of a strong framework for the protection of human rights, raising awareness of it, and for the protection of the rights of both victims and their families. A very important agreement against terrorism had been adopted. The first conference of the states that had signed or ratified this agreement, which would be held in Madrid, after the ministerial session, next 12 May, would surely improve its implementation.

But the Council of Europe had also played an important role at another level: the organisation and development of the local and regional authorities. Finding the way towards their full autonomy would be another way to encourage pluralism and the benefits that would bring about for the parties involved. The technical difficulties in that regard would be overcome by the international instruments, which transmitted the experience acquired.

The kind of financial and economic development from the point of view of democratic control, which spread beyond state borders without an adequate control of its social consequences lead, irrevocably, to the results now being faced. This was one of the new limits of democracy, and it was necessary to adapt institutions and international instruments to that change.

This crisis was a period of difficulty for many people, whose needs should be attended to. He wanted to undertake a compromise, and wanted the Assembly to do the same, a compromise with the weakest, with those who were suffering the most adverse consequences of the crisis and, in particular with those who had lost their jobs. The impact of the crisis on the fundamental rights at all levels should be analysed so as to find out to what extent the efforts carried out to fight it had proved efficient. We should not let the causes of the problem make us avert our eyes from its consequences.

But the crisis was also a chance: a chance to prove to what extent our decision to take up the social model was ready to find creative solutions to keep up cohesion. A change in energy model might complement and even favour economic recovery. The new energies of industries could also be important for the economic recovery and for the construction of a sustainable development, characterised by solidarity with the generations to come.

In 2007, Spain had presided over the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and during the first half of the next year would also preside over the European Union. Spain had followed certain common principles which would guide the actions of the Spanish Government during this period. These had been the same principles that had characterised the Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, since 27 November 2008. One of those principles was the desire to promote full harmony as far as the operation of the different European institutions was concerned. The most important element in order to structure their respective functions was closely linked to the tasks of the Council of Europe. He was sure that it was part of the common belief that the security and the political and economic development of Europe, as well as the transformation of our societies, must always be inspired on a progressive vision of human rights.

But the process currently being experienced at the Council of Europe, the process we were living in our continent, in general, could not remain enclosed in its own limits. There was an ethical responsibility towards the international community and, in particular, to co-operate, collaborate and set up a dialogue with neighbours, be they those countries around the borders of our Organisation, be it the southern Mediterranean neighbours or those on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. It was necessary to bring together the different cultures, the different views, the different policies and experiences.

Such a vision used to form part of the global initiative called the Alliance of Civilizations – and it still did – an initiative with which the Council of Europe had closely co-operated, and which was a privileged forum to avoid the construction of new walls, to avoid identity construction through confrontation, for identities should be mutually enriching. The intercultural dialogue, which was also important for the alliance and which was something Spain was leading, was related to human rights and, thus, it was a very important task of the Council of Europe.

The Council of Europe had a long way to go. There had been an unmatched history and unmatched achievements. He encouraged political leaders to look to that future from a perspective of transformation. The development of human rights in favour of progress and of the plurality of our nations was the road which should be followed, according to democracy, right now.