1. Introduction
1. On 17 April 2008, the Assembly
adopted
Resolution 1609
(2008) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia.
This resolution was adopted following a debate under urgent procedure
in the wake of the political crisis that broke out after the presidential
election in Armenia on 19 February 2008.
2. In
Resolution 1609, the Assembly set out four concrete requirements to
put an end to the crisis:
2.1. to
revoke, in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission
of the Council of Europe, the amendments made, on 17 March 2008,
to the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations;
2.2. to initiate immediately an independent, transparent and
credible inquiry into the events of 1 March 2008 and the circumstances
that led to them;
2.3. to release all persons detained on seemingly artificial
and politically motivated charges who did not personally commit
any violent acts or serious offences;
2.4. to start an open and serious dialogue between all political
forces in Armenia on the reforms demanded by the Assembly in paragraph
8 of the resolution with regard to the political system, electoral process,
freedom and pluralism of the media, freedom of Assembly, independence
of the judiciary and police behaviour.
3. The Assembly considered that Armenia’s credibility as a member
of the Council of Europe was put into doubt as long as these conditions
were not met and therefore resolved to consider the possibility
of suspending the voting rights of the Armenian delegation to the
Parliamentary Assembly at the opening of the June 2008 part-session,
in the absence of considerable progress in meeting the Assembly’s
demands by then.
4. In the wake of the adoption of
Resolution 1609, the authorities took several initiatives that clearly
showed that the demands of the Assembly were being taken seriously
by them. In addition, high level representatives of the authorities,
including the President of the Republic and the Speaker of the National
Assembly, publicly expressed their political will and intention
to comply with the requirements of the Assembly.
5. For its part, the opposition in Armenia generally welcomed
Resolution 1609 as a clear and concrete roadmap to resolve the political
crisis that had ensued after the presidential elections. The main
protagonist of the opposition, Mr Levon Ter-Petrossian, indicated
that he would be willing to enter into a dialogue with the authorities
on the requirements set by the Assembly, on the condition, however,
that all persons detained in relation to the events of 1 March be
first released.
6. By decree of the President of Armenia, a working group was
set up to co-ordinate the implementation of Assembly
Resolution 1609. This working group is composed of the Chief of Staff
of the President, the Deputy Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Justice,
the Deputy General Prosecutor and the members of the Armenian delegation
to the Parliamentary Assembly. There was some controversy with regard
to the conditions under which the single opposition member in the
Armenian delegation to the Assembly, Mr Raffi Hovannisian, Chairman
of the Heritage Party – who had indicated his limited availability
as a result of previous engagements – could be replaced in the working
group. Regrettably, as a result of this, the involvement of the
opposition in the deliberations of this working group has been minimal.
7. Despite the different initiatives taken by the authorities,
very few tangible results have been achieved in the first one-and-a-half
months since the adoption of
Resolution
1609. The Monitoring Committee, meeting in Kyiv on 27 May,
expressed its concern that time was running out for the Armenian
authorities to comply with the demands made by the Assembly. As
a result, the committee instructed its chair to ask, on its behalf,
for a debate under urgent procedure during the June 2008 part-session
of the Assembly if the co-rapporteurs, following their planned visit
to Armenia, concluded that insufficient progress had been achieved
by then.
8. We visited Armenia on 16 and 17 June 2008. During our visit,
we met with,
inter alia: the
President of Armenia and other high-level government officials;
the President of the National Assembly and the leadership of the
parliamentary committees involved in the implementation of
Resolution 1609; the Presidential Working Group for the Co-ordination
of the Implementation of Assembly
Resolution 1609; representatives of both the ruling and opposition factions
in the parliament; representatives of the extra-parliamentary opposition;
detained opposition leaders and their lawyers, as well as representatives
of civil society and the diplomatic community based in Yerevan.
We would like to thank the National Assembly of Armenia and the
Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General of
the Council of Europe for the excellent programme and logistical support
provided during our visit. In addition, we would like to express
our gratitude to all persons and entities – both governmental and
non-governmental – that provided us promptly and extensively with
all information needed for our enquiries.
2. Fulfilment of the Assembly’s
requirements
9. In the following sections we
will give our assessment of the state of implementation of the four
conditions laid down by the Assembly. This assessment is based on
our own findings, as well as information received before, during
and after our visit.
2.1. to revoke, in line with
the recommendations of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe,
the amendments made, on 17 March 2008, to the Law on Conducting
Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations
10. On 15 April 2008, the authorities
and experts of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and the
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) reached an
agreement on the changes needed to bring the Law on Conducting Meetings,
Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations in line with Council of Europe
standards.
11. In line with this agreement, on 25 April 2008, the “Draft
Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on Conducting Meetings,
Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations”
was
sent by the Speaker of the National Assembly to the Venice Commission
for opinion. The Venice Commission issued a generally favourable
draft opinion
on
16 May 2008. The draft law was passed in a first reading by the
National Assembly of Armenia on 20 May 2008, following which further
amendments were introduced to address the concerns and comments
of the Venice Commission. These amendments were sent for opinion
to the Venice Commission by the Speaker of the National Assembly
on 9 June 2008.
An
additional draft opinion
on
these amendments was issued by the Venice Commission on the same
day. The draft law was subsequently adopted in a second reading
on 11 June 2008. This law was promulgated by the President of Armenia
on 16 June and entered into force the following day.
12. In the opinion of the Venice Commission, the amendments adopted
on 11 June bring the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies
and Demonstrations into line with Council of Europe standards and, in
some aspects, constitute an improvement over the original law.
13. The requirement that the amendments of 17 March to the Law
on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations be
revoked in line with Venice Commission recommendations has therefore
been met by the authorities. However, in Article 8.4 of
Resolution 1609, the Assembly demanded that freedom of assembly be guaranteed
in both law and practice. The implementation of the law and the
willingness of the authorities to allow opposition rallies without
undue restrictions placed on them are therefore crucial to assessing
Armenia’s compliance with this requirement of the Assembly.
14. Representatives of Mr Ter-Petrossian’s Popular Movement of
Armenia informed us that, between 21 March and 14 June 2008, a total
of 42 requests for authorisation to hold rallies by his supporters
were refused by the authorities. A request by Mr Ter-Petrossian
for authorisation to hold a protest rally on 20 June 2008 on Liberty
Square – clearly intended to coincide with the start of the June
part-session of the Assembly and the possible debate on Armenia’s
compliance with
Resolution
1609 (2008) – was rejected by the authorities. An alternative venue
proposed by the authorities, the parking lot of a stadium on the
edge of the city centre, was not accepted by Mr Ter-Petrossian.
During our fact-finding mission, we visited the venue proposed by
the authorities and came to the conclusion that this could not be
considered as a reasonable alternative.
15. We therefore called upon the authorities to propose other,
reasonable, alternative venues and stressed the importance of allowing
this rally without any undue restrictions as a signal that the authorities
are serious about respecting the principle of freedom of assembly
in practice. Equally, we called upon Mr Ter-Petrossian’s camp to
ensure that the demonstration would be conducted in a calm and peaceful
manner and to refrain from provocation.
16. We welcome the last-minute agreement between the authorities
and the opposition to hold the rally near the Matenadaran, one of
the venues requested by the opposition. We equally welcome the restraint
shown by both police and protesters to avoid clashes and confrontations.
However, we regret that this agreement was a last-minute one between
the organisers and the police and not an explicit authorisation
from the Yerevan city administration to hold this rally.
2.2. to initiate an independent,
transparent and credible inquiry into the events of 1 March 2008 and
the circumstances that led to them
17. While the authorities expressed
their willingness to initiate an independent inquiry as demanded
by the Assembly, the exact format for such an enquiry proved to
be controversial and difficult to agree upon. As a result, the decision
on the format of an inquiry commission was only taken very late,
on 16 June, during our visit to Yerevan. Opposition representatives,
both inside and outside the parliament, complained that little,
if any, consultation between the authorities and the opposition
had taken place on this issue.
18. The suggestion made in our previous report that this inquiry
could be conducted under the aegis of the Human Rights Defender
was, regrettably, not acceptable to the authorities. In our opinion,
this is related to the ad hoc report on the presidential elections
and post-electoral developments, which was published by the Human
Rights Defender on 25 April 2008. In this report, he raises questions
about the official version of the events of 1 March 2008 and he
is highly critical of the response of the authorities towards the
protests that ensued after the presidential election.
19. Finally, the format chosen for the conduct of this inquiry
is that of an Ad hoc Inquiry Committee of the National Assembly
of Armenia. This committee has been constituted and its terms of
reference were adopted on 16 June 2008.
20. The inquiry committee is composed of two members from each
of the five factions in the current parliament, as well as one member
on behalf of the independent members of parliament. Furthermore,
the resolution establishing the inquiry committee stipulates that
a representative of Mr Ter-Petrossian, as well as representatives
of other extra-parliamentary forces – chosen on the basis of a list
to be decided upon at the first meeting of the committee – shall
be invited to participate in the work of the committee. However,
these members will only have a consultative vote. At its first meeting,
the committee decided that besides Mr Ter-Petrossian, representatives
of all extra-parliamentary forces that had received at least 3%
of the vote in the last parliamentary elections should be invited
to participate in its work, together with representatives of all presidential
candidates in the last presidential election. In addition, the committee
has the right to invite, without the right to vote, national and
international experts to participate in its work.
21. The fact that four out of the five factions represented in
parliament belong to the ruling coalition raises questions with
regard to the committee’s ability to conduct its inquiry independently
and impartially. Opposition representatives raised concerns that,
in practice, votes in the committee would be dominated by the ruling factions.
Proposals by the opposition that the committee should be composed
of equal numbers of opposition and pro-government forces or, failing
that, that the decisions in the committee should be taken on the
basis of consensus, were rejected.
22. Invitations to provide experts to participate in the work
of the inquiry committee were sent, inter
alia, to the Council of Europe, the OSCE/ODIHR and the
European Commission. We consider the participation of international
experts to be essential in order to ensure the credibility of the
inquiry. However, it is equally clear that international experts
will only be willing to participate if the independence and impartiality
of the inquiry committee is guaranteed.
23. Members of the committee, including those with a consultative
vote, have the right to present a dissenting opinion with regard
to the conclusions of the committee. This dissenting opinion will
be published as an integral part of the committee’s final report.
In order to guarantee the transparency of the inquiry, all meetings
of the committee will take place in public and be open to the press.
24. At its first session, the committee elected a representative
of President Sargsyan’s Republican Party as its chairman. The post
of vice-chairman was offered to the opposition Heritage Party. Opposition
members questioned the impartiality of the elected chairman, as
he had in the past publicly expressed outspoken opinions on who
was to blame for the events of 1 March 2008. As its representatives
on the committee, the Heritage Party nominated two MPs who are currently
being detained after their immunity was lifted by parliament. This
cannot be considered as a constructive approach to the important
work of this committee.
25. The terms of reference of the committee
state that it
should submit “recommendations for political and legal solutions
with a view of excluding the recurrence of such events [of 1 March
2008]”. However, the terms of reference do not explicitly give the
committee the right to investigate the circumstances that led to
the events of 1 March 2008, as demanded by the Assembly. This should
be clarified. Equally, it should be clarified that an investigation
into the events of 1 and 2 March will include directly-related events
that took place in its aftermath, such as the detention of opposition
activists and the charges that were brought against them for their
role in the protests.
26. We welcome that an official enquiry has now been initiated,
as was demanded by the Assembly. However, the Assembly required
that this inquiry should be independent, transparent and credible.
At this stage, it is not possible for us to assess if these key
requirements are being met, taking into account that, as a result
of its late establishment, the committee has not yet started its
investigations and that its format and composition do not
per se guarantee its independence
and impartiality and therefore its credibility in the eyes of the
Armenian public. In order to ensure the credibility of the inquiry,
we consider that the following conditions, as a minimum, should
be met:
- as a rule, the committee
should work on the basis of consensus and voting should be avoided.
This is especially so in relation to the subjects the committee
wishes to investigate and the persons it wishes to hear. The working
method of the National Assembly Working Group on the Reform of the
Election Code, which as a rule takes its decisions on the basis
of a consultative vote, should
be seen as an example for the functioning of the inquiry committee;
- the terms of reference of the committee should be clarified
in line with paragraph 25 of this report;
- the Human Rights Defender should be invited, ex officio, to participate in the
work of the committee with the right to a consultative vote;
- the possibility of extending the right of a consultative
vote to national and international experts who participate in the
work of the committee on a permanent basis, should be considered.
27. We call upon all political forces to participate constructively
in the work of this committee and, where appropriate, to consider
replacing their existing committee representatives, in order to
ensure the credibility of the inquiry.
2.3. to release all persons detained
on seemingly artificial and politically motivated charges who did
not personally commit any violent acts or serious offences
28. The detention of persons on
seemingly artificial and politically motivated charges in relation
to the events of 1 March 2008 was one of the main concerns of the
Assembly when adopting
Resolution
1609 (2008) and their release one of the most pressing demands by
the Assembly.
29. Initially, very few tangible results were achieved in relation
to this requirement and arrests reportedly continued until early
June. However, during the weeks prior to visit, the situation seemed
to evolve rapidly. As a result of the intense activity by the authorities,
the information we received regarding the persons being detained
or released changed repeatedly during our stay and was at times
confusing and seemingly contradictory.
30. Based on the information received by the authorities, 116
people were detained in relation to the events on 1 March 2008.
Of these 116 cases, 28 are still under investigation and 88 cases
have been brought before the courts. Of the 28 individuals still
under investigation, 17 remain in detention on remand and 11 have
been conditionally released subject to the obligation not to leave
the country. Of the cases referred to the courts, three people were
acquitted, 22 received suspended sentences and 14 were sentenced
to prison terms. In 49 cases a verdict is still pending. Of these,
38 individuals remain in detention and 11 have been released subject
to the obligation not to leave the country pending trial. However,
information received from different sources within the authorities
indicate that 17 individuals remain in custody pending investigation,
13 have been released from detention pending investigation, 17 cases
have been suspended and the individuals released, while 68 cases
have been transmitted to the courts.
31. During a meeting with Mr Ter-Petrossian, we were provided
with a list of 63 people who, according to him, remain in detention.
Of these, 24 have already been sentenced to prison terms.
We have made this list available
to the authorities with the request to provide us with information
on each of the cases mentioned on this list. However, the authorities
were not able to provide us with this information due to shortage
of time, nor was it possible for us to cross-check each of the cases
with other information provided to us. It seems that a number of
persons on this list have since been released.
32. The authorities informed us that, in total, 65 individuals
pleaded guilty to the charges brought against them, either during
the investigation or trial. A number of persons who confessed were
given suspended sentences under a plea-bargaining agreement, while
persons who did not admit their guilt on similar charges were convicted
to several years in prison. A significant number of persons who
confessed may therefore have done so to avoid lengthy prison sentences,
especially in an atmosphere of low public confidence in the independence
of the courts.
33. It was reported to us that a number of persons were charged
and their cases transmitted to the courts on the basis of police
testimony alone, with no corroborating evidence or testimony from
independent witnesses. While it was not possible to verify these
allegations during our short stay, we are nevertheless concerned,
as they raise questions about the possibility for those arrested
in relation to the events of 1 March 2008 to have a fair trial.
34. A significant number of persons have been charged under Article
300 (usurpation of power) and Article 225 (mass disorder and incitement
to mass disorder) of the Criminal Code. As mentioned in our previous report,
these articles are problematic as they allow for broad interpretation,
leave excessive discretion to the prosecutor and “fail to give clear
guidance on the dividing line between legitimate expressions of
opinion and incitement to violence”. In general, prosecutors have
applied standardised language in the charges that were brought under
these articles and judges would appear not to have subjected them
to a serious examination.
35. We were informed that a significant number of persons who
were arrested under these provisions had had additional criminal
charges brought against them at a later stage. This could indicate
an attempt to circumvent the Assembly’s demand that individuals
charged with seemingly artificial and politically motivated charges
should be released, by accusing them of having “personally committed
violent acts or serious offences”.
36. We are especially concerned regarding the three detained members
of parliament whom we visited in prison. All three were arrested
and had their parliamentary immunity lifted for alleged violations
of Articles 300 and 225. However, up to now, their cases have not
been transmitted to court. In addition, under Article 17 of the
Constitution of Armenia, members of parliament can only be arrested
in flagrant delict. However,
all three were arrested after the events of 1 March 2008, which
would indicate that their constitutional rights were violated during
their arrest. Their treatment raises questions about the fairness
of the treatment of those who do not benefit from the visibility
and immunity linked to parliamentary status.
37. While we welcome the recent progress in meeting this requirement
of the Assembly, we cannot consider that it has so far been satisfactorily
met. The cases still under investigation should be either closed
or transmitted to the courts with immediate effect. The cases against
those principally accused of crimes under Articles 300 and 225 should
be dropped unless there is strong evidence that these persons have
personally committed acts of violence. In addition, it should be
clear that a verdict based solely on police testimony, without corroborating
evidence or the testimonies of independent witnesses, cannot be
acceptable.
38. Taking into account the number of questions raised in this
respect, an investigation into the role of the prosecution in the
detention of opposition activists, as well as the charges brought
against them, should be an integral part of the mandate of the independent
inquiry committee.
39. It is clear to us that the detention and conviction of persons
in relation to the events of 1 March 2008 will continue to strain
the relations between the opposition and the authorities and hinder
the chances for constructive dialogue between them. We would therefore
strongly recommend that the National Assembly considers adopting
a general amnesty law or that the President of Armenia issues a
pardon decree for all persons detained in relation to the events
of 1 March 2008, except for those who have been personally involved in
the tragic deaths that occurred on that day.
40. The authorities have proposed amendments to Articles 225 and
300,
which
would make them considerably wider in scope. In the opinion of the
Venice Commission,
the
proposed amendments are too broad and therefore would be open to
abuse. They could, in effect, limit freedom of expression and assembly. We
therefore welcome the fact that the Legal Affairs Committee of the
National Assembly of Armenia has given a negative opinion on these
amendments and decided not to propose them for adoption.
2.4. to initiate an open and
serious dialogue between all political forces in Armenia on the reforms
demanded by the Assembly in paragraph 8 of the resolution with regard
to the political system, electoral process, freedom and pluralism
of the media, freedom of assembly, independence of the judiciary
and police
41. We welcome the series of initiatives
taken by the authorities to initiate a dialogue on the reforms demanded
by the Assembly.
42. A key requirement of the Assembly was that such a dialogue
should be open and serious and include all political forces in Armenia.
However, a number of opposition representatives felt that their
involvement in the formulation of these initiatives had been limited.
We realise that this is also the result of the decision by Mr Ter-Petrossian,
as well as of most of the political forces that support him, to
boycott a dialogue with the authorities until all political activists
detained in the context of the events of 1 March 2008 have been
released. We understand that, besides its obvious political motivation,
this position also results from the fact that a large part of the
leadership of his movement, who would normally represent it in the
negotiations with the authorities, are still in detention. Nevertheless,
we urge all political forces to seize the opening given by the authorities
and to enter into an open, constructive and serious dialogue on
the reforms demanded by the Assembly.
43. In this respect, we wish to highlight the positive manner
in which the dialogue on the reform of the electoral process is
being conducted. The working group of the National Assembly, especially
set up for this purpose, has extended a consultative vote to all
representatives of extra-parliamentary political forces and civil society
organisations that participate in its work, and in principle takes
its decisions on the basis of a consultative vote. In our opinion,
this modus operandi should be an example for the dialogue on the
other reforms demanded by the Assembly, as well as for the inquiry
committee set up to investigate the events of 1 March 2008 and the
circumstances that led to them.
44. An in-depth analysis of the proposed reforms is outside the
scope of this report. Their assessment will take place in the framework
of the normal monitoring procedure of the Assembly. However, we
would like to summarise the different initiatives taken, in addition
to those we have already mentioned in previous paragraphs.
45. With regard to the reform of the political system with a view
to giving a proper place and rights to the opposition,
amendments were passed
on the rules of procedure of the National Assembly. These amendments
provide for,
inter alia, the
distribution of all leadership positions for the Standing Committees
of the assembly on the basis of the d’Hondt system, which will ensure
opposition representation in these leadership functions; the right
of the opposition to table an issue for debate during one of the
sittings of each regular four-day session; the introduction of the
presentation of a minority position in the reports of the Standing Committees
that are sent for debate in plenary session; and priority for opposition
representatives in tabling questions to the government. We welcome
these initiatives, which will strengthen the role of the opposition
in the work of the parliament, but note that some of the provisions
will only come into force after the next convocation of the National
Assembly. We would suggest that the National Assembly consider implementing them
at a much earlier stage. In addition, in order to strengthen the
role of the opposition, reforms are also needed outside the framework
of the rules of procedure of the National Assembly, most notably
in the electoral system and the media.
46. With regard to the reform of the electoral process,
the setting up of
a special working group of the National Assembly for the reform
of the Election Code has already been mentioned. Extra-parliamentary political
forces and NGOs are participating in the work of this committee,
which is formulating a series of amendments to the code. These amendments
will be sent to the Venice Commission for opinion. We understand
that the opinion of the Venice Commission will be the basis for
possible further reforms. In relation to this issue, we would like
to reiterate the position of the Assembly that the effect of any
amendments to the Election Code on the conduct of democratic elections
will depend solely on their full implementation in good faith.
47. With regard to reform of the media,
a public hearing
was organised by the relevant committee of the National Assembly
in which representatives of the governmental authorities, civil
society and extra-parliamentary opposition were invited to participate.
On the basis of this hearing, a legislative package has been prepared
and sent to the competent sectors of the Council of Europe for opinion.
The hearing concluded that further dialogue between the authorities
and the opposition is needed in order to overcome a lack of public trust
in the current media environment.
48. In this context, we take note of the recent judgment of the
European Court of Human Rights, which found a violation of the European
Convention on Human Rights in relation to the refusal of the Armenian
authorities to grant a broadcasting licence to A1+. The granting
of a licence to this independent and popular television channel
has been a long-standing demand of the Assembly. We urge the authorities
to grant the broadcasting licence to this channel without further
delay.
49. Further to the Assembly’s demand to strengthen the independence
of the judiciary,
the President of the
Republic has signed an order under which a committee will be set
up under the auspices of the Minister of Justice, and which will
be entrusted with the development of a comprehensive plan for reform
of the judiciary. It should be noted that judicial reform is also
part of the coalition programme on which the current government is
formed. We would like to stress the importance of opposition participation
in these reforms.
50. As regards arbitrary arrests and the need to reform the police
force,
the President of
the Republic has made significant changes in the police leadership
and has dismissed several high-ranking police officers, including
the national chief and deputy-chief of police. In addition, the
president has instructed that a programme for strategic reform of
the law enforcement bodies should be drawn up. In this respect,
we would like to stress the need to provide for an effective public
control mechanism over the police, as demanded by the Assembly.
This important issue was not addressed in the information we received
from the authorities during our visit.
3. Conclusions
51. We welcome the progress achieved
by the Armenian authorities in addressing the requirements of the Assembly
set out in
Resolution
1609 (2008). However, despite the political will shown by the authorities
to comply with the Assembly’s demands, the progress has not so far
been sufficient to effectively meet the requirements set out in
this resolution.
52. We regret the delay in implementing the concrete measures
demanded by the Assembly, but we also acknowledge that the time
given to the Armenian authorities was short.
53. As a result, it is not possible for us to assess whether the
initiatives taken by the authorities fully comply with the Assembly’s
requirements, as far as the independent, transparent and credible
inquiry into the events of 1 March 2008 is concerned. With respect
to other requirements, further and continued progress is required to
ensure full compliance.
54. In this respect, we note that the continued detention of individuals
arrested in relation to the events of 1 March is a point of contention
that will continue to strain the relations between the authorities
and the opposition, with the potential to undermine the possibilities
for dialogue and reform. Further action from the authorities in
this area is clearly needed. At the same time, we call upon the
political forces that are currently boycotting the dialogue with
the authorities to reconsider their position and seize the opportunity
offered by the authorities.
55. In view of the above, we propose that the Assembly should
review, at its January 2009 part-session, the extent of the Armenian
authorities’ compliance with the requirements set out by the Assembly
in
Resolution 1609 (2008). In addition, we recommend that a number of additional
issues be addressed to ensure that the demands of the Assembly are
met, both in spirit and in practice. If these requirements are not
met by the opening of the January 2009 part-session, we will have
no other option than to propose applying the sanctions mentioned
in
Resolution 1609 (2008).
Reporting committee: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations
and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring
Committee).
Reference to committee: Resolution
1115 (1997).
Draft resolution unanimously adopted by the committee on 23
June 2008.
Members of the committee: Mr Serhiy Holovaty (Chairperson),
Mr György Frunda (1st Vice-Chairperson), Mr Konstantin
Kosachev (2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Leonid Slutsky (3rd
Vice-Chairperson), Mr Aydin Abbasov, Mr Avet Adonts,
Mr Pedro Agramunt, Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mrs Meritxell Batet
Lamaña, Mr Ryszard Bender,
Mr József Berényi, Mr Aleksandër
Biberaj, Mr Luc Van den Brande,
Mr Jean-Guy Branger, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Sergej Chelemendik,
Ms Lise Christoffersen, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Georges Colombier, Mr Telmo Correia, Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mrs Herta Däubler-Gmelin,
Mr Joseph Debono Grech, Mr Juris Dobelis,
Mrs Josette Durrieu, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mrs Mirjana Ferić-Vac, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr József Gedei, Mr Marcel
Glesener, Mr Charles Goerens, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Michael Hagberg, Mr Holger
Haibach, Ms Gultakin Hajiyeva,
Mr Michael Hancock, Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Raffi Hovannisian, Mr Kastriot Islami, Mr Miloš Jevtić, Mrs Evguenia Jivkova, Mr Hakki Keskin, Mr Ali Rashid
Khalil, Mr Andros Kyprianou,
Mr Jaakko Laakso, Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Mr Göran
Lindblad, Mr René van der Linden, Mr Eduard Lintner,
Mr Younal Loutfi, Mr Pietro Marcenaro, Mr Mikhail Margelov,
Mr Bernard Marquet, Mr Dick Marty, Mr Miloš Melčák, Mrs Assunta Meloni, Mrs Nursuna Memecan, Mr João Bosco Mota Amaral, Mr Theodoros Pangalos,
Ms Maria Postoico, Mr Christos Pourgourides,
Mr John Prescott, Mr Andrea
Rigoni, Mr Dario Rivolta, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Indrek
Saar, Mr Oliver Sambevski,
Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mr Andreas
Schieder, Mr Samad Seyidov, Mrs Aldona
Staponkienė, Mr Christoph Strässer, Mrs Elene Tevdoradze, Mr Mihai Tudose, Mr Egidijus Vareikis,
Mr Miltiadis Varvitsiotis, Mr José Vera Jardim, Mrs Birutė Vėsaitė,
Mr Piotr Wach, Mr Robert Walter, Mr David Wilshire, Mrs Renate Wohlwend,
Mrs Karin Woldseth, Mr Boris
Zala, Mr Andrej Zernovski.
NB: The names of the members who took part in the meeting
are printed in bold.
See 24th Sitting, 25 June 2008 (adoption of the draft resolution,
as amended); and Resolution
1620.