2006 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Seventeenth sitting

Tuesday 27 June 2006 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.

Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the chair at 10.05 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Minutes of proceedings

THE PRESIDENT. – The minutes of proceedings of the Sixteenth Sitting have been distributed. If there are no objections, the minutes are agreed to.

The minutes are agreed to.

2. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRESIDENT. – This morning, we have the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Finland, Monaco and Switzerland, Documents 10933 and 10942.

A summary of the arrangements governing the election has been printed in the notice paper. The voting will take place in the area behind the President’s chair. Around 1 p.m. I shall announce the closing of the poll. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers.

I shall now draw by lot the names of the two tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.

The names of Mrs Defraigne and Mr Dupraz have been drawn. They should go to room 1087 at 1 p.m.

3. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT. – In accordance with Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure a written declaration, No. 379, on rights and resources for Ingush families, Document 10976, which has been signed by 26 members, has been printed.

Any Representative or Substitute may add his signature to this written declaration in the Table Office, room 1083. If any names are added, the declaration will be distributed again two weeks after the end of the part-session, with all the accumulated signatures.

4. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT. – This morning’s business is the consideration of the report on alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states. We will hear statements from Mr Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for justice, freedom and security; and from Mr Cem Özdemir, Vice-President of the European Parliament’s temporary committee on this issue. Following the debate, we will also hear a statement by Mr Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The list of speakers closed at 6 p.m. yesterday and there are 46 names on the list. Eighteen amendments have been tabled.

We have agreed to finish by 1 p.m. so, in order to allow time for the intervention from Mr Davis, the replies and votes, I shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.55 a.m. I remind you that we have already agreed that speeches in this morning’s debate will be limited to four minutes.

Are these arrangements agreed to?

They are agreed to.

5. Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states

THE PRESIDENT. – We now come to the debate on the report on alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states presented by Mr Marty on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 10957 and addendum, with an opinion presented by Mr Schieder on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, Document 10977.

I call Mr Marty. You have eight minutes.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said that he had been given difficult terms of reference, and some had said, with an ironic smile, that it was an impossible mission to investigate illegal detentions. The report aimed to shine a light into the shadows. There had been very little time to complete the report, and derisory resources, but he had received valuable assistance, in particular from the two secretaries. In such a task, there was a danger of being manipulated, and it was difficult to be objective. The report, however, was intellectually honest, and its guiding thread had been the question: where is the evidence?

Mr Marty said that although he was not judge or an investigator, it was not true to say that he had been unable to establish the facts. The facts had been gathered through contact with judicial authorities, secret service agencies, investigative journalists and NGOs, to which he paid tribute. Some governments had responded. Others were yet to reply. He thanked Mr Frattini and said there had been excellent co-operation with the European Parliament.

The established facts could be expressed as questions. Had people been rendered by United States agencies? The answer was yes. Had these people been beyond judicial control? The answer was yes. Had security service agents collaborated and colluded in order to take these people outside judicial systems? Again the answer was yes. Had civilian planes been used in this process without proper scrutiny? The answer was yes.

These were the established facts, on which the resolution was based. The resolution did not condemn anyone, but it was necessary to put a stop to this. Terrorism had to be fought, but in doing so it was important not to jettison our values, as that would legitimise and encourage terrorism. There needed to be a global legal order to fight terrorism on the basis of shared values.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Marty. I call Mr Schieder to present the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria) said that the Political Affairs Committee wished to congratulate the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the great work that it had done. However, there was yet more to do.

The Political Affairs Committee worked on the assumption that the war on terror should not take place at the expense of human rights. It was the role of the Assembly to point the finger but this area was a moving target and new revelations appeared daily. In order for Article 52 to be applied effectively by the Secretary General in future it was important to examine all our bilateral arrangements. We must clarify the role of the secret services. The Political Affairs Committee wished to make a contribution to these future debates. Human rights should remain paramount.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Schieder.

I now welcome Mr Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the European Commission.

Dear Franco, you were born in the same month that the Treaty of Rome was signed. It was obviously in your stars – all 12 of them – to become a true European. Indeed, you have proved yourself to be a European in the best and widest sense. We all appreciate that, even as Vice-President of the European Commission, you have been a real friend to the Council of Europe. As Prime Minister Juncker points out, the interests of Europe as a whole are best served by a clear and complementary division of tasks between the Council of Europe and the European Union. We are glad to see that, among the leaders of the European Union, there are those – such as yourself – with the imagination and political confidence to share Prime Minister Juncker’s principled vision.

Your presence here today also reflects your strong support for our inquiry into alleged secret detentions, led by Mr Marty. The fact of being Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security has not prevented you from recognising the Council of Europe’s leading role in promoting and protecting human rights and the rule of law. Indeed, the Assembly’s credibility has been strongly reaffirmed by the objectivity, expertise and sheer professionalism of the work of Mr Marty and his small but highly dedicated and effective team – which is also, I would add, extremely cost-effective.

As a result, our investigation has led the way internationally – supported by the double mandate of our members, as both national and European parliamentarians, and by the Council of Europe’s specialised mechanisms, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Venice Commission. The fight against terrorism remains our No. 1 priority, but we must never stoop to using the weapons of tyranny against those who would destroy our freedoms. Our report is therefore forward looking: by investigating and learning from the past, we can best ensure that mistakes and violations are avoided in the future.

Vice-President Franco, I know that in the course of his work, Mr Marty has developed an excellent and friendly working relationship with you; as, indeed, have I, on this and other issues. On behalf of the Assembly, I thank you for that and warmly welcome you in our midst. I now give you the floor for what I am sure will be a most interesting and constructive contribution to our work.

Mr FRATTINI (Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security) thanked the Assembly for its warm welcome and for giving him the opportunity to speak in this debate. He expressed his gratitude for the important work carried out by Mr Marty. He had himself had the opportunity to meet Mr Marty during the preparation of the report. The report marked a milestone in the co-operation between the European Union and the Council of Europe. The European Commission had encouraged the work of the Council of Europe Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights as well as the Committee on Human Rights in the European Parliament which was also looking into this issue. Given the seriousness of the allegations, it was essential that the European Union and the Council of Europe were able to work hand in hand.

The Commission had supported this inquiry in various ways, for example, by assisting in gaining access to data from the Euro control centre and other sources and Mr Marty had acknowledged how important such data had been in the inquiry. Through contacts with the Home Affairs Council and ministers in individual member states, he had encouraged member states to co-operate fully with the investigations carried out by both the European Parliament Temporary Committee of Inquiry and the Council of Europe. This kind of inquiry transcended national boundaries and no member state would have been able to establish the facts on their own. The work that had now been carried out would enable national committees of inquiry to carry on the process, perhaps feeling less isolated than was sometimes the case.

There were two important aspects of this report. First, it rightly stressed the positive obligation on member states to conduct inquiries. He had personally called on member states to use every lever possible to establish the truth. It was imperative that member states now followed up the work carried out in the report. He welcomed the fact that some member states had already initiated such inquiries. It was only through rigorous judicial processes that the truth would be established. The Marty report did not condemn, but simply set out the facts. This reflected the fact that the burden of proof lay with the accuser. The main objective of the report was not to point the finger at individual countries but to identify lessons to be learned to prevent these kinds of things happening again.

He said that although some inquiries at European level were not yet completed, it was none the less important to ask ourselves, at this stage, what we could do to avoid this ever happening again. To achieve this goal, co-operation between European institutions would be essential and should be continued in the next phase.

The current focus on the role of intelligence services was important, but this was a sensitive sector, which came under national jurisdiction. There was not much scope for action at European level. Co-operation between secret services was vital, but with full respect for the rule of law. The European institutions and the Council of Europe were able to send important signals to member states in this area. There were certain guidelines that would improve the co-operation of the security services. There needed to be greater co-ordination between national governments to ensure shared values were upheld and common rules followed. As a counterweight, there should be greater scrutiny of the security services, and their use of resources, by national parliaments.

Member states needed to define legal limits on the activity of the security services, which would provide safeguards for the institutions, as well as individual agents, drawing a line between responsible operatives and mavericks. As the resolution suggests, member states need to reform their security services along common lines to facilitate international co-operation in this area.

Reform of the regulation and control of air space and airports was also necessary and represented the most obvious action that needed to take place at a European level. The European Commission had a potential role to play in the development of new civil aviation policies that might, for instance, provide a new definition of “state aircraft”, meaning those being used by governments, as opposed to civil and commercial aviation.

Relations between the European Union and the United States were paramount. The European Union had emerged as an entity in international relations, and a partner of the United States, in 2003 in relation to the European Union/United States agreement on extradition and legal assistance. This was a step forward and a basis for more progress. The ratification of this agreement needed to be accelerated but depended upon ratification of bilateral agreements by each member state. So far, three member states had yet to declare conformity of the over-arching agreement with national procedures; and only seven had ratified bilateral agreements with the United States. This whole process needed to be concluded by the end of the year, including time for the US Congress to undertake its procedures.

The European Union and the United States were long-time allies in defending democracy and should do the same for human rights. The war on international terrorism should not be allowed to lead to violations of the rule of law and different attitudes to the importance of human rights; especially if the European Union and the United States ended up on opposite sides of the fence. The fight against terrorism had to go hand in hand with respect for fundamental rights as that was the only effective way to combat terrorism’s propaganda war. We had to be the first to condemn violations of fundamental rights and abuses of due legal process. He promised the future co-operation of the Commission in this process.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Frattini. I call Mr Hancock on a point of order.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Given the length of the previous speech, may we please continue the debate until 1.15 p.m?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I agree to your proposal to extend the debate until 1.15 p.m. I thank Mr Frattini again, especially for his willingness to co-operate closely with the Council of Europe. I now give the floor to the Vice-Chair of the European Parliament’s Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners. Mr Özdemir has a track record on this committee of being a strong supporter of establishing the truth, and of close co-operation with the inquiry of Mr Marty on behalf of our Parliamentary Assembly. Mr Özdemir, we look forward to your intervention. You have the floor.

Mr ÖZDEMIR (Vice-Chair of the European Parliament Committee on Transportation and Illegal Detention of Prisoners). – Mr President, Mr General Secretary, Mr Rapporteur, Mr Vice-President of the EU Commission, dear colleagues, let me say first that it is a great pleasure and honour for me to speak to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Secondly, I would like to congratulate Dick Marty, Terry Davis and their team on their excellent work on the alleged secret detention and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states. In this regard, I would also like to thank them for the excellent co-operation that has been set up between the European Parliament and its Temporary Committee and the Council of Europe and its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

I would like to say a few words on the interim report that will be adopted in July in the Plenary Session of the European Parliament. That report aims to provide an initial and provisional assessment of the work conducted by our committee to date. At the same time, we are obliged to request – as our remit entitles us to do – authorisation for our work to continue up to its natural 12-month cut-off point, with the rapporteur Claudio Fava and a majority of the committee considering this to be absolutely necessary.

In this first phase of activity, in which we benefited greatly from the excellent work done by the Council of Europe, we focused primarily on the experiences of certain probable victims of extraordinary rendition. In the course of our hearings, we heard their testimonies or, for those still held in detention, those of their lawyers. These were often enhanced by the findings of inquiries that were under way in many countries. After reconstructing the events and the context in which they occurred, we came to the conclusion that there had been a marked scaling back of instruments to safeguard and guarantee human rights after 11 September. This scaling back also contravened some basic tenets of international law, not least the United Nations Convention Against Torture in regard not only to the complete ban on torture, but to the explicit ban on extraditing prisoners to countries in which there is a risk of their being subjected to torture or to degrading or inhumane treatment.

Much of our work centred on gathering information and documents, responses and other data on the practice of extraordinary rendition – an extra-judicial system used for the purposes of the war on terror – on the use of torture and on the hypothesis that the CIA had used clandestine prisons in European countries. In each instance, valid and precise information was provided by NGOs operating in the field of human rights. I would especially like to thank NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for the work that they have done so far. Their co-operation, along with other important meetings, has enabled us to establish the legitimacy of the questions on which our remit was based, and which we must continue to investigate.

Special attention has also rightly been paid to the issue of European flights by aircraft operated by companies with direct or indirect links to the CIA. By cross-referencing the data obtained by Eurocontrol with that of the Federal Aviation Administration and with other sources available to it, our committee has been able to piece together records of more than 1 000 stopovers made in Europe between late 2001 and late 2005 that it can be presumed were operated by the CIA. It is certainly possible that some of those flights were used for the rendition of prisoners. One of the initial assessments that can be made is that it seems clear that many member states interpreted the Chicago Convention in any excessively liberal manner and that no European country has made consistent efforts to ensure that civilian aircraft are used for purposes compatible with international human rights law.

As regards extraordinary renditions in particular, many of the sources that we consulted have confirmed that this practice was in all probability used to combat terrorism and that it could be presumed that this was with the tacit or explicit collaboration of some European governments. Our committee considers unacceptable the practice of certain governments of limiting their responsibilities by asking for diplomatic assurances from countries in which there is a strong reason to believe that torture is practised. That is why our report calls on the European Council to adopt a common position against the use by member states of diplomatic assurances from third countries where there is a risk that individuals would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill treatment.

In the next phase of our work, we must examine more closely – as is provided for in our mandate – the role and potential responsibilities of member states and associate and candidate countries. It is of the utmost importance that we clarify the degree of involvement of EU member states in the CIA activities that have been proved in Europe. In this context, our committee decided to ascertain whether there was any evidence to confirm that secret prisons have been operating in some European countries and, in the coming months, to focus our work on the alleged detention centres in Poland and Romania. We also propose to invite the Secretary General of NATO to a hearing to clarify the possible involvement of SFOR and KFOR forces in the illegal detention of the six Bosnians who still remain in Guantánamo Bay. In this regard, our committee also calls for the closure of Guantánamo Bay, asking the EU member states to take a proactive role in finding a solution for the detainees. Given that the El-Masri affair merits closer attention, we propose, among other things, to organise hearings with the German Foreign Minister, the head of the German national security service and the German public prosecutor.

The implicit and substantive objective of each phase of the committee’s work – both present and future – remains that of preventing the possibility of the serious violations of fundamental rights recorded after 11 September from recurring in the context of the fight against international terrorism. I repeat my thanks for the excellent work done by Dick Marty and the Council of Europe. We look forward to further collaboration in the future.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Özdemir. I call Mr Malins, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President. On behalf of the group, I congratulate Mr Marty on his outstanding report. It is well researched, a model of clarity and measured in tone. It demands a comprehensive and continuing response from all our European partners. The report asks each of us a most difficult question. In the war against terror, to what extent, if any, may we properly sacrifice our commitment to the rule of law? Are we justified in putting to one side, albeit temporarily, our obligation to uphold human rights because we believe that, by doing so, we may save innocent lives? The painful but absolute truth is that we are not. Such departures from what is right can only encourage and strengthen the terrorists who seek to destroy our way of life.

Quite rightly, Mr Marty stressed the democratic tradition and commitment to human rights of our friend and ally, the United States, but, in vivid terms, he observes that the CIA rendition programme has revealed a network that resembles a spider’s web spun across the globe. In a withering analysis, he concludes, with reason, that European partners have assisted by their intentional or grossly negligent collusion. Who has turned a blind eye to wrongdoing?

Let me look at the position of the British Government, which has co-operated with the inquiry more than many others, which maintains its claim of always acting properly and lawfully and which condemns torture. Our government has been closely questioned in the past months and been examined by parliamentary committees and the process is continuing. That is very good. However, I raise two serious concerns. The first relates to the case of Binyam Mohamed, which is referred to in the report. He is an Ethiopian who claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. Arrested by the Pakistanis in Karachi in 2002, he was interrogated by United States and Pakistani officials and – this is important – British agents. He was then handed to the United States and flown to Morocco where he alleges he was severely tortured.

When our Foreign Secretary was questioned about this case in parliament, he was asked whether the British had deliberately handed Binyam Mohamed over to the CIA. He skillfully avoided the question. When asked whether he would clarify the position by a letter to parliamentarians, he replied, “I may or may not.” That is not satisfactory. We cannot know the truth of the Binyam case but suspicions remain that the British intelligence services were aware that he would or could be tortured and they did nothing to stop it. Which governments condemn torture but are content to use intelligence that they know, or suspect, to have been obtained by torture?

Finally, I am disappointed by the British Government’s response to Mr Marty’s report and by the inadequacy of its briefing to the United Kingdom delegation. Some of Mr Marty’s excellent recommendations in relation, for example, to the review of the legal framework that regulates intelligence services are wrongly rejected by the British Government.

All our governments are democratic and open, but the real question is: do they, or to what extent do they, know about unlawful activities and to what extent do they choose to ignore them because that is convenient? Mr Marty’s excellent work must continue.

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

Mr LUND (Denmark). – In December 2003, Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen, was kidnapped in Macedonia. He was beaten and injected with drugs and transported to Afghanistan where he was jailed and held incomunicado for five months. In December 2001, Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed Alzery had a similar experience – this time in Sweden. Masked men suddenly showed up and Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed Alzery were injected with drugs and transported to Egypt where they were both jailed and tortured.

The cases of El-Masri, Ahmed Agiza and Alzery are, among other cases, now well known. The Council of Europe, as the single most important human rights body in Europe, has been crucial in raising the awareness of the horrible torture, interrogations, deaths, breaking of international law, and the violation of human rights that we have seen with the CIA flights and the secret detentions.

It has also been very helpful that other organisations and institutions have put the focus on secret detentions and the so-called “extraordinary renditions”. For example, Amnesty International has released two excellent reports: on 5 April, it produced “Below the radar: secret flights to torture and disappearance” and, on 14 June, it released “Partners in crime: Europe’s role in US renditions”.

These reports and Mr Marty’s excellent report show that, to do the dirty work and to carry out the so-called “extraordinary renditions”, the CIA has several under-cover aeroplane companies. The planes are camouflaged as civilian planes and their owners are companies with names such as Premier Executive Transport Service, Steven Express Leasing or Path Co-operation. They seem to be ordinary civilian aircraft but they are contracted by the CIA for their secret missions that break human rights and international law.

Today, there is no doubt that secret detentions and rendition flights are a reality. What should be the consequence if a Council of Europe member state is involved in “extraordinary rendition”, secret detentions and the violation of international law? The Unified European Left believes that the answer is straighforward. We must consider suspending the voting rights of that country, because taking part is such illegal activities is a direct violation of the fundamental principles of this institution. I would like to hear what Mr Marty thinks about this.

We should also discuss the consequences that these cases should have for the United States. The United States has Observer status at the Council of Europe. Is that possible when we know that the CIA is involved in unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees and secret detentions? The answer could very well be no. If the US should preserve its Observer status, it would be a good idea if its representatives showed up to discuss these matters. The next time we hold such a debate, René van der Linden should send a special invitation to the representatives of the United States so that they can take part.

Many governments have been reluctant to co-operate fully with the Council of Europe on this matter. On behalf of the Unified European Left, I congratulate Mr Marty on his report. We must continue until we know the whole truth. The Unified European Left looks forward to playing a very active role and to supporting this work 100%.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I can inform you that we send invitations to each plenary session to the Observer states and to the members of the Observer missions.

I now call Mrs Durrieu, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that the United States and the European Union had been fighting to eradicate terrorism since the events of 11 September 2001 but that there was a profound divergence of methods. The United States had chosen to dispense with the rule of law. Guantánamo Bay represented the new order of George Bush and was an enclave of non-law. She said Europe must not accept this and that it should fight against the enemy, but not on the enemy’s terms. The United States Supreme Court, to its credit, had said that detainees could contest their imprisonment. She said Europe should remain an ally of the United States but it must be a demanding ally.

The Council of Europe would do credit to itself by taking this initiative and it was up to each of the member states to involve their own national parliaments as well. Once the facts were established in respect of potential violations of human rights by security services, justice must be done and seen to be done. The fight against terror must not legitimise the new order that seemed to be emerging in the United States.

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

Mr BREEN (Ireland). – On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I welcome Mr Marty’s report on the operation of rendition flights in European territories. When such rendition flights occur in the territories of the Council of Europe member states, they call into question those states’ commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Those conventions are the very cornerstone of the Council of Europe as an institution.

Senator Marty’s draft report contends that 14 European states colluded with the CIA in different degrees, and there were also indications of secret prisons operating in Poland and Romania. Senator Marty deserves our full support after completing such a difficult exercise over the past seven months. It is perhaps true to say that his life has become more difficult since then. The response of many states to his report has been one of denial. In some instances, Senator Marty’s name has been vilified in a classic kill-the-messenger response. His conclusions are unpleasant, but it is important for member states to face up to the accusations in a rational manner and reaffirm their commitment to the Convention on Human Rights.

Everybody agrees that the evidence in support is circumstantial and that hard evidence is still not forthcoming. How could it be otherwise? It was beyond Senator Marty’s remit in his investigative powers to produce courtroom standards of proof. We must also remember that this is not evidence for a prosecution. None of the countries issuing a blank denial of wrongdoing are before a court of law, but, as my EPP friend said yesterday morning in our group meeting, “When I see an elephant, I recognise it. I do not need a DNA test to prove that it is an elephant.”

Senator Marty has examined air traffic logs, satellite photos and accounts of prisoners who say that they were abducted. He acknowledges that he is still far from establishing the full truth of what is going on, but he has graphically illustrated that there was a global spider’s web of secret detentions and unlawful interstate transfers. His report is a political document, rather than a legal one. It has produced a robust debate, and that may not be such a bad thing. It has reminded us of the standards on which we built our common European civilisation and has reaffirmed that those standards must be upheld even when dealing with terrorists who want to undermine those values.

As an Irish member of the Council of State, I must take the opportunity to say a few words about Ireland’s role in the affair, particularly as the airport involved is in my own constituency. The Irish Government was accused of negligent collusion for allowing Shannon airport to be used as a stopover point for CIA flights and for alleged rendition flights. Senator Marty has also found that we had a system where United States assurances are accepted rather than any investigation being carried out into the whole role of the aircraft using Shannon.

I have also to take on board the government’s statement to me that, as it was not approached by Senator Marty with regard to his conclusions prior to them being published, under international law, no issue of complicity arises. However, Senator Marty does not suggest that prisoners were brought to Shannon. This is one of the many instances of his conclusions being misinterpreted.

Overall, the report points the way towards continuing vigilance and a renewed proactive approach to upholding the European Convention on Human Rights by member states. This applies not just to those states directly accused of having secret detention centres or having assisted in rendition flights, but as a reminder to states on the margins of this affair that they cannot hide behind such complicity when it comes to upholding human rights. As long as there are such allegations, we in the Council of Europe must be prepared to ask questions. It is our duty to follow them up. This report, I believe, is not at an end – it is an ongoing progress report, and I hope that it will be the foundation of a new beginning for Europe and the United States to combat global terrorism. Thank you very much indeed.

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

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – Mr President, I am convinced that this Assembly is fully united on the one hand about the need for the most united and efficient fight against terrorism and on the other about the fact that such combat should be done under the rule of law, especially as no torture is permitted in any of our countries. The ALDE Group believes that Mr Marty has produced the most important report not only of this week but perhaps for several years of our activities. It is very precise, very accurate and very detailed, with the right conclusions, so the ALDE Group fully supports it and will vote in favour.

I do not want to repeat what my colleagues have said, but let me express a few of my regrets. However, I would like to underscore the fact that my regrets have nothing to do with the report itself. We know in politics that sometimes a political thinker has two lives – producing the report itself and dealing with how it is covered and perceived in the wider society. I regret that, as I read in the media, the CIA network of flights is the thing that needs to be criticised. We should remind ourselves to urge our governments to co-operate with the CIA and with all the intelligence agencies to get information to combat terrorism, as long, of course, as they do it under the rule of law. But I sometimes have the feeling that just the existence of the CIA network of flights is to be blamed. I very often feel that I have seen a 007 James Bond Hollywood movie. It is good to have a CIA network, CIA flights and logistics, but that should all be done fully under the rule of law.

The second thing that I regret is that two countries were picked up by the media – Romania and Poland – and I wonder why. It occurred to me a week ago that Amnesty International had written a letter to the Hungarian Prime Minister saying that there were also illegal CIA flights to Hungary. I wonder why Hungary is not mentioned in the report, and it occurs to me, yes, for the second half of the week, George W. Bush is visiting Hungary. Perhaps that is the reason, and it occurred to me that perhaps Romania and Poland were very pro-Atlantic countries and President Bush was coming. Let us also put Hungary into the basket. Again, I am not talking about what is in the report but the perception that countries that are friends of America should not be subject to those criticisms. So I worry – again, I refer not to the report but to the perception of it – that there is a new “ism”. As the President rightly mentioned in his opening statement, anti-Americanism should not be a topic in Europe, and I hope that it will not be.

The most important conclusion in the report concerns the relationship between governments and intelligence services. None of us can put our hands on our hearts and say that our governments are aware of a room in an airport where torture is taking place. The issue is one of transparency of the activities of the intelligence services while maintaining efficiency, because full transparency can endanger efficiency. Our immediate challenge is to strike the right balance.

Let me finish with a story that demonstrates how complex life is, how difficult politics are and how vulnerable humans are. On 11 May 1960, a guy called Ricardo Clement was captured. On 21 May, rumours started to spread about alleged unlawful interstate transfers, and two days later Ben Gurion announced that Eichmann was caught. I confess that at that time I was not perhaps a genuine liberal, and I greeted that news without a tear in my eye.

I again congratulate Dick Marty on his fabulous report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Gilmore.

Mr GILMORE (Ireland). – I rise to support the resolution before us, to congratulate Senator Marty on his report and to acknowledge the work of the Secretary General and Mr Schieder in this area.

The report was the subject of a full-length parliamentary debate in the Irish Parliament last week. There – and indeed elsewhere – it received some criticism for not having produced proof of the rendition that is alleged to have taken place. It is important that we remember that this is a political report and not a legal case. Its function is not to produce the kind of incontrovertible proof that would be required in a court of law, but to take the prima facie evidence and information available to us, to challenge governments on what they have done to inquire into that, and to make a political statement about it.

The political statement that we are making has three elements. First, rendition, the use of secret detention, the denial of access to legal process and the possible use of torture are wrong, a denial of freedom, an infringement of human rights and not acceptable to the Council of Europe.

Secondly, we are saying that it is not sufficient for European governments to say that they do not know about such matters or that they accept the diplomatic assurances that they have received from the United States. There is a positive obligation on governments to make inquires to ensure that their airports, territories and airspaces are not used for the illegal rendition of detainees.

Thirdly, and importantly, we are stating that here in Europe we share with the United States and with other democratic states a common cause in combating terrorism, but that that combat must take place within a framework of human rights. Being strong on human rights does not make us soft on terrorism; nor does it make us unsympathetic to the real pain and fears felt by our friends in the United States following 9/11. Here in Europe, we too have experienced the pain of terrorism. From Beslan to Belfast we understand what terrorist atrocities bring to people, and we have some understanding of what works and what does not work in the battle against terrorism.

We understand that security measures are necessary in combating terrorism, but we also understand that when those security measures transgress the boundaries of human rights, that is not only wrong but counter-productive. Every time that a suspect is illegally detained, tortured or denied access to legal process, there are family members, friends and colleagues who turn their backs on the way of democracy and turn towards terrorism – however misguided that may be. There are also the victims and martyrs who are produced as a weapon for terrorist organisations in the propaganda war which goes hand in hand with their terrorist activities.

That is why I am pleased that one proposal in the resolution is to call for an international initiative expressly involving the United States to develop a common, truly global strategy to address the terrorist threat within the framework of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

(Mrs Lavtižar-Bebler, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr van der Linden.)

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) congratulated Mr Marty on his work on this very complex subject, and said that individual suspects had been detained and transported outside any legal framework, in some cases with the collusion, or at least tolerance, of Council of Europe members. He did not question the need to fight terrorism but said that this had to take place with respect for human rights and the rule of law. It was wrong to allow inhumane and degrading treatment. He supported the rapporteur’s proposals. Council of Europe member states should respect human rights and the rule of law; otherwise they would be the same as the terrorists. It was vital to institute an investigative structure to monitor this area and implement the necessary safeguards to prevent this happening any more.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Manzella is not here, so I give the floor to Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – The last time that I spoke on this report was when it was being adopted, and I said at the time that unless it was resourced properly, it would not be able to deliver what we expected of it. I have listened with great interest to members who have spoken today. I share much of their concern and the support that they have given to Dick Marty, who has produced a report under extremely difficulty circumstances that is about as good as it gets. However, it is not good enough to make serious allegations about the credibility of 14 member states. We must be more precise than that. If we are to take the issue further, the resources simply must be found to make a more credible report in one way or another in this Organisation.

Why are we here today? We are here because the American President chooses to ignore his own legislation and to undermine all the obligations that that nation has on the international scene. It is the world’s only super-power and it is able to exert a disproportionate amount of pressure and power on governments throughout the world, including in Europe. Inevitably, that leads to the extraordinary renditions becoming, in the minds of the American people, commonplace and totally acceptable. That is why we are here. We have an American President who chooses not to stand on his high horse and defend human rights. He has made it clear that his first duty is to protect the American people.

Like others, I can speak here secure in the knowledge that I do not have a responsibility for the 60 million people who inhabit the United Kingdom. That is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. In all honesty standing here, I would defend the rule of law and human rights to the detriment of all else, but would I be able to do that if I were the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and I were given information that would lead me to believe that I could avoid a traumatic state of affairs such as we witnessed a year ago in London when 58 innocent people were wiped out and 300 were seriously injured? In all honesty, if I were the leader of a nation, I do not know whether I would give the rule of law and human rights the same priority. What I do know is that if you do not have sufficient evidence you should not make allegations that will, in the end, undermine us here as an Organisation.

To be credible, we must have more than what is in this report. When the President of Romania stood in the Chamber and categorically denied that there were detention centres in his country, we had to say, “You are not telling the truth, Mr President, and your country is not fit to be in this Chamber.” The report says that that is the case but there is no recommendation to remove Romania. When Mr Blair tells the United Kingdom Parliament and the world that he has only witnessed four incidents of this situation arising, two with Clinton and two with Bush – two they agreed on and two they did not – we say, “No, Mr Blair, you are a liar and I and the rest of the British delegation should not be allowed to sit in this Chamber.” But the report does not say that. It tries to be all things to all people and that cannot be right if we are going to be credible in tackling this issue. This is about the abuse of power by the United States and the way in which that has been pushed down to put different countries in a very difficult position. Deny it as much as you like, but that is what it is about.

If the report is true, this Organisation should be doing more than just endorsing and rubber-stamping the recommendations. It should be taking serious action. If you genuinely believe what is in the report to be true, the 14 nations in the report should immediately have their credentials suspended. I happen to believe that the report is wrong and that Mr Blair told the truth.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I now give the floor to Mr Frunda.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania). – First, I must congratulate Dick Marty on his tremendous work, his professionalism, his fairness and his logical analysis of the facts and suppositions. I thank him because his report confirms what the Romanian authorities said from the outset – that in Romania there were no clandestine or secret detention centres or prisons. From the first moment, we invited representatives of the media and of the European institutions and NGOs to see the two airports where the detentions were alleged to have taken place – in Constanza and Timisoara. Now it is clear that Romania does not have such detention centres. I am proud to say that from the first moment the Romanian authorities were open to dialogue and that the investigation confirmed their assertions.

Concerning the transfer of prisoners, from the first moment we said that Romania collaborated with the United States and with other members of NATO. Aircraft landed in Romania and transported persons. We did not and do not know who the persons are because, do not forget, the aircraft are under the authority of the countries where they are registered. The countries in which the airports are located do not have legal instruments to see what happens on board. That is why United States authorities have to answer not only political but juridical questions about whether persons were harassed or wrongly treated at the border or on the airplanes.

At the same time, the Senate of Romania set up a committee to investigate the alleged detention camps. Our conclusions are attached to the report. In less than one week, we answered all the questions put by the rapporteur and the team, which I congratulate also.

Most important for all the member countries is the fact that the report raised the question of the balance between the legal instruments to fight terrorism and respect for fundamental rights. We must prevent human rights being reduced in member states of the Council of Europe by measures that use the fight against terrorism as an alibi to imprison persons, to treat them wrongly and to harass them. This report could be a milestone if the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights continues that work, and we have decisive action on the matter. If members of the Council of Europe have not respected human rights, they have to respond to that and we must suspend their right to vote, or even go further, if they are not respecting the main important principles of our Council – democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Frunda. I now call Mr Karski.

Mr KARSKI (Poland). – The Polish delegation and the highest Polish authorities have raised doubts about certain statements in Mr Marty’s report as a basis for the resolution proposed to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, relating to alleged illegal activities concerning persons suspected of terrorism.

The Polish authorities and I are worried about the rapporteur’s method of work. There is evidence that Mr Marty did not use the information received from Poland honestly, simply concealing a part of some sentences. If Mr Marty honestly quoted officially received information – for example the information that since 1 September 2005 there have been no landings of these planes that Mr Marty is checking, either in Szymany or anywhere in Poland – would his thesis be much weaker? But he obviously acted in such a way in order to obtain his conclusion, putting Poland under suspicion.

However, there are no grounds for raising any doubts about the clear statement made last December by the Polish President, Mr Alexander Kwaśniewski, strongly denying the allegations, saying that there have not been secret prisons for foreign terrorists in Poland. As is well known, the Polish Government also made that statement. Taking that into account, together with the results of the parliamentary commission for special services debate about that issue on 21 December last year, I emphasise that in Poland the whole issue is closed.

In my opinion, without showing any new facts, Dick Marty pulled back his investigations, at least in relation to Poland, to the stage of the first press speculation last year, but he is now taking that speculation as proof.

As regards the publication of Mr Marty’s report and its conclusions, the memorandum contains serious accusations against Poland and many other countries. However, Mr Marty did not see fit to transmit his text in advance, as required, to allow the parties involved to provide possible clarification. Instead, he saw fit to release it immediately to the media.

With regard to the draft resolution, it worries the Polish delegation that there is only one sentence about the threat of terrorism. The resolution perceives the threats to arise mainly from the spider’s web spread by the United States, not from international terrorism. What also worries us is that in the proposed resolution, the notion of “allegation” virtually disappears and the text speaks about numerous facts, while admitting that there is a lack of evidence for them. We call for a restoration of the right proportions and emphasis in future and for more impartial conclusions.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Vera Jardim.

Mr VERA JARDIM (Portugal) said that we now knew that practices had developed in order to fight terrorism that were an affront to fundamental rights. Both the rule of law and human rights should be inviolable. However, investigatory procedures had been developed based on the notion that the end justified the means. The means adopted implied the sacrifice of freedoms and rights. He said that we could succeed in the fight against terrorism only by upholding these rights. He fully supported the contribution of Mr Marty.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Haibach.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) said that in combating terrorism, it was not possible to set aside fundamental rights. This report could be the first building block in shedding light on what was going on. This was, of course, a political report rather than a judicial review. It was vital to get this matter right because there was an issue of credibility for the Council. The Assembly did not have the same level of resources as states did for this kind of investigation and he thanked Mr Marty for indicating the importance of national parliaments in the investigatory process. He referred to Amendment No. 2 which was aimed at ensuring that the results of national investigations were fed into the work carried out by the Council of Europe. In Germany, committees of inquiry in the Bundestag had very wide-ranging powers to investigate and call witnesses but he realised that this was not the case in every country.

He said that, as an international body, the Assembly now had both a duty and an opportunity. The United Nations had tried to define the concept of terrorism for several years. The Council of Europe could make a valuable contribution to this debate enabling us to move forward.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I remind colleagues that the election of three judges to the European Court of Human Rights is taking place in the area behind me. I urge members who have not already cast their votes to do so.

I call Mr Severin.

Mr SEVERIN (Romania). – I must start by restating the basic principle that terrorism and, more generally, organised crime and corruption, with which it forms an unholy trinity, cannot be fought at the expense of human rights, the rule of law and democracy. Moreover, terrorism is fuelled, encouraged, motivated and facilitated by the limitations of civil rights and political freedoms. Mr Marty’s report and the draft resolution are not legal instruments, but political statements and guidelines. However, in order to be credible and meaningful, they are and should be based on minimal prima facie proven facts. Based on Mr Marty’s report and on the debates on it, I have concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the phenomena alleged in the report are true. However, we do not yet know beyond reasonable doubt the magnitude of the problem or the identity of the guilty persons, who would certainly deserve to be punished.

However, even if 10% of the phenomena mentioned by the report were true, that would be enough to alarm us. At the same time, it is not for us to prosecute or to put anyone on trial. That is obvious. It is regrettable if some paragraphs have been interpreted as producing too rapid an indictment that is not supported by the evidence. We should now ask the national authorities concerned to investigate, prosecute and bring to justice the guilty ones. We should also monitor the enhancement of our own resolutions and standards concerning the democratic control of our intelligence services. We should ask for the improvement of inter-institutional co-operation in combating terrorism. We need to make more effective the legal instruments for protecting human rights. We also need to acknowledge the weakness of the international order and of the transnational democratic deficit, and to enhance legal and political measures to overcome that weakness. We must encourage and assist the states to enhance the appropriate measures to prevent such phenomena from taking place again.

In conclusion, let me say that I am happy to welcome Commissioner Frattini here today. His presence is symbolic, as, in addition to having been a Foreign Minister, he also had parliamentary control of the secret services of his country. I would like to take this opportunity to ask him to demonstrate a highly developed vigilance in dealing with member states – I am happy to include the acceding member states in that – when they come to him with the argument that the political control of the judiciary or the limitation of individual rights might make more effective the fight against terrorism or corruption. If we cannot discover the whole truth about the past, we should at least use this experience to avoid debates such as these having to take place in the future.

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

Mrs DEFRAIGNE (Belgium) thanked Mr Marty for an excellent report and said that she had witnessed the problems of carrying out such investigations in Belgium. In Belgium, the parliament had a wide range of tools at its disposal, but Mr Marty’s work, without such resources, had rapidly shed light on a whole series of problems and questions. For example, what authority had possession of the relevant data and information? Who was responsible for such information? How was such information transferred and to whom? It was necessary to improve legislation in this area. We could not get round this without a pan-European intelligence service.

She said that there was a conflict of cultures; parliamentary culture on the one hand and that of the intelligence services on the other. Since 11 September 2001, issues of security and individual freedoms had both come to the forefront of public debate. But there could not be complete freedom of action in pursuit of terrorists. Trampling international law under foot was exactly what the terrorist would do and we could not defeat terrorism by resorting to its own methods.

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

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – Let me begin by saying that Mr Marty has, as usual, presented a report that does a great service to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights know very well his hard, efficient and principled work. I warmly congratulate him on this report, which among other things has reminded millions of Europeans about the existence of the Council of Europe.

Some colleagues have questioned the findings of the report. They say that most of the inferences drawn by Mr Marty are not yet warranted by the facts. I do not share those criticisms. Those who are criticising the findings are labouring under a misconception. They see Mr Marty as a public prosecutor presenting his case before a judge and jury. However, he is not a public prosecutor but a politician and a parliamentarian, and an excellent parliamentarian at that. As such, he has diligently collected the facts, critically analysed them, and concluded with reason that a number of European countries assisted the United States or turned a blind eye to the illegal arrest and transfer of suspected terrorists by the United States and her agents.

As I have said during the deliberations on this matter before my group, those who question the correctness of the above conclusions remind me of the judge who was trying a case involving the killing of a zoo worker by an elephant. The elephant was big enough to be brought into the court yard, and the judge, lawyers, litigants and witnesses moved to the yard to inspect the African elephant. However, the judge dismissed the case saying that there was no scientific evidence before the court to establish that the animal was an elephant. Like Mr Marty, I am prepared to conclude that an African elephant is an elephant, without scientific evidence. I am certain, dear colleagues, that most of you would do the same.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Kucheida.

Mr KUCHEIDA (France) congratulated Mr Marty. He said that the United States had rejected the values of its founding fathers and that, since 9/11, Europe had become an outpost for the United States’ capture and interrogation of suspected terrorists. The countries where this had happened were guilty of negligence, ignorance or active collusion. He had contempt for these members of the Council of Europe. He defended the values of democracy and said he was not anti-American. He said that the Council of Europe and the European Union should conduct an investigation and punish those responsible. It was unacceptable that anyone should get away with this. All United States’ detainees should be released in reasonable time. Europe should develop an institution to prevent such problems occurring again.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Sasi.

Mr SASI (Finland). – I congratulate Mr Marty on his hard work. As has been said several times, the Marty report is a strong political document and not a legal one. It is a good gathering of public information and refers to single cases in which civil servants did not act in accordance with good standards of human rights. The burden of proof lies very much with the governments, which should reply to the report. They cannot ignore it but must respond to the accusations. That is the way to find the truth.

Mr Pourgourides gave a very good example. When a politician sees an elephant, he knows it is an elephant. However, if a judge is to determine whether an elephant has committed a crime, he needs the DNA proof. The proof must be beyond reasonable doubt.

It is also important to remember that terrorism is a threat to the lives of innocent civilians and we must fight wholeheartedly against it. Terrorists kill people every day somewhere in the world and we must bear in mind the fact that suspected terrorists can be arrested legally.

This issue has been good for the Council of Europe. It has drawn attention to the body and has emphasised that it plays the main role in defending human rights, not only in Europe but in the rest of the world. We should now try to look forward. Everyone living in Europe should be given full legal protection and the ability to take a case to a competent court. No member state of the Council of Europe can violate that principle and if civil servants do not treat people according to the rule of law, there should be a right to compensation.

If national authorities do not treat people fairly or in accordance with the standards of human rights, those people should have the right to bring their case to the European Court of Human Rights. I expect that some of the cases referred to in the report will go to the court so those involved will receive full rights.

There must also be control over intelligence service organisations. In each of the member states of the Council of Europe, there should be external control over the intelligence services so that highly respected politicians and judges can receive all the information on what those services are doing. I understand that it is not possible to publicise all the information, but someone should have the right to control what the intelligence services do. Such control is the best way to prevent the cases that we have heard about in Europe.

Governments have an obligation to provide better explanations than they have done so far in responding to the accusations in the Marty report. All members of the Council of Europe have an obligation to work towards that in their own parliaments. I am happy to note that there are no accusations involving Finland.

(Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mrs Lavtižar-Bebler.)

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The last speaker in the debate will be Mr Lambert.

Mr LAMBERT (Belgium) congratulated the rapporteur, and said that he had tried to question the Belgian Government in his own parliament and had found it difficult to get answers. The Council of Europe must safeguard human rights; it would have no reason to exist otherwise. He said that the Council of Europe had helped new democracies develop, but that the Council of Europe’s authority was being undermined by these events. Countries must not practice terrorism in the war on terror. He said there were three lessons. First, members must be European first and foremost and Europe must make its voice heard in international matters. Secondly, the Council of Europe must encourage parliamentary control at a domestic level. Thirdly, members could not stand idly by. They must draw conclusions and ensure that the Council of Europe was not ignored.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

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 the election of three judges of the European Court of Human Rights is currently taking place in the area behind me. I urge members who have not already cast their votes to do so.

We now have a contribution from Mr Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe. I want to thank him especially for his strong commitment to, and support for, this discussion since the beginning of the investigation by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Mr DAVIS (Secretary General of the Council of Europe). – I want to start with a point of principle. Contrary to some beliefs, the European Convention on Human Rights is not a collection of lax, ineffectual and utopian principles. It is a solid body of international law, which was drafted in difficult uncertain times and has been tested ever since in courts across Europe and in the European Court of Human Rights. The Convention balances the rights and freedoms of individuals against the interests of the larger community. It allows for a robust, effective and fair response to all threats to society, including terrorism. Those who argue that the Convention erects obstacles in the fight against terror either have not read it or have not understood what they have read.

Secondly, I should like to pay tribute to the immense effort invested by Dick Marty in drawing up his report. He has compiled an impressive amount of information. His conclusions are contested by some governments, but I do not think that blanket denials are an adequate response. The most effective way to refute allegations of secret detention and rendition is through prompt, thorough and transparent official investigations. Those individuals who believe that their rights have been violated through an action or an omission to act by a Council of Europe member state should seek redress and compensation through national courts and ultimately the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr President, on the basis of my own inquiry under Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights and on the basis of information received from governments, I draw two unequivocal conclusions. The first conclusion is that renditions have definitely taken place in some Council of Europe member states, so we are not dealing with a theoretical threat to the rights protected by our Convention on Human Rights. The second conclusion is that rendition could have happened in literally all Council of Europe member states simply because they do not have adequate legal and administrative safeguards to protect individuals from such violations of human rights.

The analysis of the replies received from governments identified three main loopholes in the effective enforcement of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to the risk of renditions. The first one is that, unlike the activities of domestic intelligence and security services, the operations of their friends and colleagues from allied foreign agencies are not subject to appropriate and effective control. I shall therefore recommend to the Committee of Ministers that it should prepare a new Council of Europe instrument containing principles and guidelines for a legislative and administrative framework for the organisation and functioning of security services. Such a framework should provide for adequate safeguards against abuse, including parliamentary oversight and judicial control.

Secondly, I have concluded that the existing standardised procedures in the case of civil aircraft and immunity in the case of state aircraft mean that it is virtually impossible for states to assess with certainty whether aircraft in transit through their airspace are being used for purposes incompatible with the Convention on Human Rights. I shall therefore ask governments to introduce national safeguards and controls, which are possible under the existing international rules, and to initiate a review of the international regulatory framework for civil aviation through their participation in the appropriate international and European bodies. As for state aircraft, I shall be making specific proposals for a series of model human rights clauses to be inserted in bilateral agreements or decisions to grant overflight clearances to third countries.

Thirdly, there is a need to establish clear exceptions to state immunity in cases of serious abuses of human rights. Immunity should not mean impunity, and I shall therefore recommend that the Committee of Ministers start working on a new Council of Europe legal instrument to that effect.

This is a summarised version of a detailed set of proposals which I shall shortly submit to the Committee of Ministers for their official consideration. The first round of discussions should begin in September, and I expect a quick and meaningful response to my recommendations. I am confident that I can also count on this Assembly’s full support in this regard.

People should not be allowed to disappear into thin air, regardless of the crimes of which they are accused. The only effective measures against terrorism are those that stop more terrorists than they help to recruit. As was explained earlier in this debate by Mr Gilmore from Ireland – a country which has some experience of fighting terrorism over several decades – I believe we have now reached a turning point in our response to the allegations of rendition flights and illegal detentions in Europe. It is time to turn to the future. We cannot undo what has already happened, but we must make sure that it does not happen again.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Secretary General. I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the Assembly to thank you and to wish you success and support in your continued work.

I now give the floor to Mr Frattini to reply to the debate. Owing to the time schedule, I ask you to do so in a few minutes.

Mr FRATTINI (Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security) said that it was necessary to undertake global strategic action to combat terrorism. What emerged from the report was the need for a political strategy and direct action to extirpate the roots of terrorism, which risked undermining democracy. Defending democracy could not mean reducing freedom. This was the challenge of the decades to come, as it could not be achieved overnight.

The first step was not to violate fundamental freedoms. This was the difference between us and the terrorists. The second step was to agree an international definition of terrorism. This opportunity had been missed in the past. The European Union should speak with one voice and agree a definition of terrorism and a strategy to combat it.

It was important also to consider the rights of victims, those who had lost their right to life and those who had had their freedoms impeded. There needed to be greater trust between secret services and greater transparency as to their methods. There was an idea that you could not reveal information about their methods, but this should not be an excuse for states to engage in criminal activity.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now give the floor to Mr Marty, the rapporteur, to reply.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said that after these contributions he did not have much to add. He was grateful for the praise for the report as well as the criticisms. The report did not aim to be complete or perfect, but to raise awareness of the fundamental values that had developed since the Second World War. It also aimed to create some momentum in efforts to establish the truth.

He did not accept the allegation by the Polish delegation that he had been dishonest. Poland and Romania had not been accused in the report of allowing unlawful detention centres but the report did refer to those allegations and other indicators that this was the case. The Polish Government should therefore encourage investigations. Everybody wanted their country to be as perfect as possible, but the Polish position seemed to be that any reference to evidence was an accusation and a violation.

Mr Hancock’s speech had been the most dangerous in that he suggested there was a clash between guaranteeing the fundamental rights of citizens and ensuring their security. From his background as a judge with experience of combating organised crime and drug trafficking – which affected more lives than terrorism – he knew that it was possible to combat terrorism at the same time as respecting fundamental rights.

Some renditions were justifiable, such as that of Carlos the Jackal. A love of freedom should not prevent catching those who abuse it. Sometimes, however, it was necessary to admit that mistakes had been made and to begin work on improving matters.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I thank you again, Mr Marty, for your excellent work. I now call Mr Schieder to reply on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria) said it was important not just to focus on the national level but also on the European hubs. The secret services had an important role to play in combating organised crime, drugs and terrorism. Could it be said that the spirit of Europe was alive and well if those agencies were spying on each other?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution and a draft recommendation.

Sixteen amendments have been tabled to the draft recommendation. They will be taken in the following order: Nos. 6 to 8, 15, 16, 3, 4, 13, 17, 18, 5, 14, 9, 1, 10 and 11.

Two amendments have been tabled to the draft recommendation, which will be taken in the following order: Nos. 2 and 12.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Peter Schieder, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 15, add the following sentence:

“In that context the Assembly wishes to commend the repeated efforts of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and his clear line taken on the matter.”

I call Mr Schieder to support Amendment No. 6, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria). – Our Secretary General has kissed the sleeping beauty, Article 52, out of its sleep. We have to thank him for using Article 52 in such an excellent way. He has done a lot in that regard. Therefore we should mention it in our draft resolution.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 6 is adopted.

I have received an oral amendment from Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which reads as follows:

At the end of paragraph 15 of the draft resolution, to insert the words, “It encourages the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe to play an active role in this respect.”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

That is not the case.

I call Mr Pourgourides to support the oral amendment.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – The oral amendment is self-explanatory. It encourages the commissioner to play a more active role.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Peter Schieder, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15, insert the following paragraph:

“The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment should be invited to review its principle of strict confidentiality concerning its reports when the situation in a given member state clearly shows sign of grave human rights abuse.”

I call Mr Schieder to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria). – At the moment, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment can, with a two-thirds majority, make certain things public. A Council of Europe institution should not need a two-thirds majority to make public grave human rights abuses. Those should be made public in any case.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee regarded the work of the CPT to be so sensitive that we should not try to intervene and to make it do things that it may not wish to do. If the CPT itself were to come up with a suggestion such as that of Mr Schieder, that would not be a problem but the committee thinks that it would be wiser not to mention the invitation in this context and therefore it is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Peter Schieder, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly believes that broader rights should be attributed to the institution of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, in order for it to be more closely involved in any investigations on violations of human rights the Assembly might carry out in the future.”

I call Mr Schieder to support Amendment No. 8 on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria). – This is a proposal to make our institutions and the Commissioner for Human Rights in particular more effective in its important task.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Lund to support Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mr Rune Lund, Mr Mats Einarsson, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Andros Kyprianou, Mr Leo Platvoet and Mr Abilio Dias Fernandes, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 18.1, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“secure that unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees will not be permitted and take effective measures to prevent renditions and rendition flights through the member states’ territory and airspace;”.

Mr LUND (Denmark). – Paragraph 18.1 states: “The Assembly calls upon the member states of the Council of Europe to:

undertake a critical review of the legal framework”,

as well as to protect whistle-blowers, undertake a review of bilateral agreements and urge the United States to dismantle its system of secret detentions. It says very little about the Council of Europe and the amendment is designed to rectify that.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 15 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 16, tabled by Mr Rune Lund, Mr Mats Einarsson, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Andros Kyprianou, Mr Leo Platvoet and Mr Abilio Dias Fernades, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 18.1, insert the following sub-paragraph: “ensure that no one is arbitrarily detained, secretly or otherwise, on a member state’s territory or any territory within the member states’ effective control;”.

I call Mr Lund to support Amendment No. 16.

Mr LUND (Denmark). – Amendment No. 16 deals with secret detentions. Amendment No. 3 appears to seek the same outcome. However, Amendment No. 16 is preferable because it includes “any territory within the member states’ effective control”, which could, for example, mean a military base in Afghanistan. Amendment No. 16 is therefore more precise than Amendment No. 3.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 16 is adopted.

I understand that Amendment No. 3 has been withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mrs Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold, Mr Christos Pourigourides and Mr José Vera Jardim, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 18.1, insert the following sub-paragraph: “and ensure that all international co-operation and mutual legal assistance is carried out only in circumstances that respect human rights.”

I understand that Mr Frunda wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights which reads as follows: “At the end of the amendment, to add the words ‘and international conventions in the field’”.

Before we deal with that, I call Mr Jurgens to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The reason for the amendment is that the text might not be broad enough. We are dealing with intelligence services working with each other and not applying human rights. Various forms of legal assistance could be provided and the words that Mr Frunda wants to add are useful because they show that other things are being done apart from co-operation. The majority of the committee is in favour of both.

THE PRESIDENT. – 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?

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

      Mr Frunda (Romania). – The amendment speaks for itself.

TE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case. The committee is in favour.

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. The opinion of the committee has already been given.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mrs Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr José Vera Jardim and Mrs Rodica Mihaela Stănoiu, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 18.4, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“enforce the prohibition of forcible return or transfer of any person to any place where there are substantial grounds to believe that the person would be at risk of imposition of the death penalty, or other grave human rights violations, including torture or other ill-treatment, a flagrant denial of justice or, ‘disappearance’. Diplomatic assurances should not be sought or relied upon in the presence of a risk of torture or other ill-treatment; ‘disappearance’ or a flagrant denial of justice;”.

I call Mr Wodarg to support Amendment No. 13.

Mr WODARG (Germany) said that the aim of his amendment was to ensure that the allegations were properly investigated.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee does not agree with the amendment because it is too broad. Diplomatic assurances are not part of the report and we would prefer to keep the report as it is.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 13 is rejected.

I call Mr Lund to support Amendment No. 17.

Mr LUND (Denmark). – I propose to withdraw Amendment No. 17, as it appears that our colleagues who tabled Amendment No. 18 had the same idea as me, and their amendment is just as good as mine.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

We come to Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mrs Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr José Vera Jardim and Mrs Renate Wohlwend, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 18.4, insert the following sub-paragraphs:

“ensure that independent, impartial and effective investigations are carried out into any serious allegation that the territory, including airports or airspace have been used in the context of rendition or secret detention. Such investigation should investigate thoroughly any action taken by state or foreign agents linked to rendition and laws or practices which may facilitate it. The scope and findings of the investigation should be made public;

ensure that any person responsible for human rights violations in connection with rendition or secret detention, including those who have aided or abetted these crimes are brought to justice;

ensure that all victims of rendition or secret detention have access to an effective remedy and obtain prompt and adequate reparation, including restitution, rehabilitation and fair and adequate financial compensation;”.

I call Mr Wodarg to support Amendment No. 18.

Mr WODARG (Germany) said that the idea behind the amendment was to ensure that human rights violations were investigated by independent bodies. It was also important that the airports were within the scope of investigations. The findings should be made public.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 18 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mrs Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold, Mr Christos Pourgourides and Mr José Vera Jardim, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 19.4 with the following sub-paragraph:

“prohibit the extralegal transfer of persons suspected of involvement in terrorism and all forcible transfers of persons from any country to countries that practise torture or that fail to guarantee the right to a fair trial, regardless of any assurances received;”.

I call Mr Jurgens to support Amendment No. 5.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The amendment would broaden the scope of paragraph 19.4 and states specifically that forcible transport cannot be used to practise torture or to stop a fair trial being held.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No.14, tabled by Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mrs Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr José Vera Jardim and Mrs Rodica Mihaela Stănoiu, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 19.5 with the following sub-paragraph:

“issue official apologies and award compensation to the victims of illegal detentions or renditions; and bring to justice those responsible for secret detention or human rights violations in the course of renditions;”.

I call Mr Wodarg to support Amendment No. 14.

Mr WODARG (Germany) said that the amendment would ensure that perpetrators were brought to justice. It was not adequate for the victims simply to receive an apology.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – Although it is not quite clear who should offer their apologies and award compensation, the committee is in favour of the general idea of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 14 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Peter Schieder, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 19.6, add the following sub-paragraph:

“review, together with European states, their bilateral agreements in order to avoid creating direct or indirect de jure or de facto exemptions in applying European conventions to which Council of Europe member states are parties.”

I call Mr Schieder to support Amendment No. 9 on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria). – The amendment is self-explanatory, Mr President.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 9 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Erik Jurgens, Lord John Tomlinson, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Abdülkadir Ateş and Mr Stef Goris, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 20 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly invites its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to continue following up the issues raised in the present resolution and report back to the Assembly as appropriate.”

I call Mr Pourgourides to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – The aim of the amendment is to empower the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to continue to pursue the issues raised in the report. I think that this is necessary.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Peter Schieder, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 21, add the following sentence:

“The Secretary General’s inquiry under Article 52 of ECHR should be a first basis of information on which member states should build upon.”

I call Mr Schieder to speak to the amendment on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee .

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria). – This is a follow up to Amendment No. 6, which has already been decided.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 10 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Peter Schieder, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 23, after the words “human rights”, insert the following words: “, democracy and respect for the rule of law”.

I call Mr Schieder to speak to the amendment on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee .

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria). – The amendment is self-explanatory.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 11 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 10957, as amended.

The draft resolution in Document 10957, as amended, is adopted.

We now come to the draft recommendation in Document 10957, to which two amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the following order: Nos. 2 and 12.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Holger Haibach, Mrs Veronika Bellmann, Mrs Doris Barnett, Mr Ulrich Adam, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Rainder Steenblock, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg and Mr Eduard Lintner, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 4, insert the following paragraph:

“The Secretary General continues to ask member states for progress reports on their investigations into this matter and to report to the Parliamentary Assembly as soon as possible.”

I call Mr Wodarg to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr WODARG (Germany) said that this amendment would require the Secretary General to chase progress in the investigations conducted by the relevant members states.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands) (Translation.). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Peter Schieder, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 4, insert the following paragraph:

“In light of what has been stated in the Parliamentary Assembly’s Resolution …(2006) paragraph 12, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers should consider amending Article 11, paragraph 1 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which reads that ‘the information gathered by the committee in relation to a visit, its report and its consultations with the party concerned shall be confidential’.”

I call Mr Schieder to support Amendment No. 12 on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee .

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria). – I have learned that we should not make proposals to the anti-torture committee, but I hope that we are still allowed to make proposals to the Committee of Ministers within their competence concerning the work of the anti-torture commissioner. I think that we should adopt this proposal.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – Mr Schieder refers to matters relating to the CPT, but the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights believes that it would be better not to involve the CPT in the discussions at this time. We should leave it to the CPT to make its own policies. As we have rejected Amendment No. 7, we want to be consistent by rejecting Amendment No. 12.

THE PRESIDENT. – I thought that this was to do with the Committee of Ministers, and not with the CPT.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – That is clear, but the committee was of the opinion that we should leave the CPT to do its own work at this time rather than effect recommendations about it.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 12 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 10957, as amended – a two thirds majority is required.

The draft recommendation in Document 10957, as amended, is adopted.

I congratulate the rapporteur, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and its staff on their excellent work and I hope that they will continue as they have done in the past. I also thank the Political Affairs Committee and especially the rapporteur for their contribution. That last vote was a victory for the Political Affairs Committee.

6. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRESIDENT. – It is now 1 p.m. Does any member still wish to vote in the election of three judges to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Finland, Monaco and Switzerland?

The ballot for electing three judges to the European Court of Human Rights will close in five minutes. The counting of votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers, Mr Dupraz and Mrs Defraigne. I invite them to go at once to Room 1087. The results of the election will be announced at the start of this afternoon’s sitting.

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

THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the orders of the day which were approved yesterday.

Are there any objections?

That is not the case.

The orders of the day of the next sitting are therefore agree.

The sitting is closed.

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

CONTENTS

1.        Minutes of proceedings

2.       Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

3.        Written declaration

4.       Organisation of debates

5.       Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states

      Presentation by Mr Marty of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs

      and Human Rights (Doc 10957 and Addendum)

      Presentation by Mr Schieder of the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee        (Doc. 10977)

Statement by Mr Frattini, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security

Statement by Mr Cem Özdemir, Vice-President of the Temporary Committee of the European Parliament on Alleged Use of European Countries by the CIA for the Transport and Illegal Detention of Prisoners

Speakers

Mr Malins (United Kingdom)

Mr Lund (Denmark)

Mrs Durrieu (France)

Mr Breen (Ireland)

Mr Eörsi (Hungary)

Mr Gilmore (Ireland)

Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Frunda (Romania)

Mr Karski (Poland)

Mr Vera Jardim (Portugal)

Mr Haibach (Germany)

Mr Severin (Romania)

Mrs Defraigne (Belgium)

Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

Mr Kucheida (France)

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Mr Lambert (Belgium)

Replies

Mr Frattini (Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security)

Mr Marty (Switzerland)

Mr Schieder (Austria)

Amendment No. 6, oral amendment, amendments Nos. 8, 15, 16, 4 as amended,18, 5, 14, 9, 1, 10, 11 agreed to.

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 12 agreed to.

Draft recommendation, as amended, agreed to.

6.        Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

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