AS (2013) CR 02

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Second sitting

Monday 21 January 2013 at 3 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.

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 report.

(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.10 p.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Attendance register

THE PRESIDENT* – We did not start on time because some important committee meetings were taking place, so I apologise, Mr Saboya Sunyé, but we needed to give parliamentarians time to get to the hemicycle.

May I remind all members, including substitutes, observers and partners for democracy, to sign the attendance lists outside the doors of the Chamber at the beginning of every sitting?

2. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT* – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in the document Commissions (2013) Addendum 3.

Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

      The changes are agreed to.

3. Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Mr Gilbert Saboya Sunyé, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Andorra, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now come to the communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Assembly, presented by Mr Gilbert Saboya Sunyé, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Andorra and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. After his address, those members registered on the list will be able to put questions and, as is customary, the Minister will answer those questions orally.

      It is a great pleasure, Minister and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers, to welcome you in the Chamber. It is also an opportunity for me to hark back to the meeting of our Standing Committee in Andorra la Vella on 23 November last year. We were welcomed warmly by the Andorran authorities. During that meeting, we had a frank and constructive exchange of views, and you showed that you really were interested in our work. We were particularly touched by your staying with us throughout the meeting of the Standing Committee – that is worth underscoring – which shows how interested you are in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

      On the occasion of that exchange of views, you stressed the importance of internal co-ordination within the Council of Europe. I agree with you; it is very important. I believe that exchanges of views between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly at all levels are important. They have become a regular practice. I say this for the benefit of the ambassadors present, including the one who chairs the Committee of Ministers in your absence whom I meet when I come to Strasbourg.

      Last November, I paid a joint visit to Tunisia with your predecessor, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania. I hope that during your term of office it will be possible to repeat that experience in another country.

      I take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the Andorran chairmanship in office on its ambition, and even its clairvoyance, because it is working in close co-operation with the future chairpersonships in office of Armenia and Austria on the future of the European Court of Human Rights and on the follow-up to the negotiations on the accession by the European Union to the Convention, both vital issues for the Organisation. We have discussed this. I have discussed the accession to the European Convention with Martin Schulz, and it should really take place before the next elections to the European Parliament in June 2014.

      The Andorran chairmanship in office has centred its priorities on the great experience of your country in the areas of tolerance, multiculturalism and intercultural dialogue. So we are particularly interested in the activities you are deploying in the fields of youth and education. We welcome also your campaign to interest young people in the Organisation, which was set up in 1949. We have the European youth centres in Budapest and Strasbourg, for example. Everything done in that sector is important. We organised the second assembly of young people of the Council of Europe. That was a significant moment for us, as well. We also welcome your efforts to promote the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly through social networks.

      Minister, I am convinced that our exchange of views today will be an excellent opportunity for us to strengthen our co-operation still further. I assure you, therefore, of the full support of our Assembly. It is a great pleasure for me to give you the floor. I welcome not just you, but your delegation, including someone I recognise – the Speaker of the Andorran Parliament, if I am not mistaken, who also welcomed us in Andorra with a lot of warmth and kindness.

I give you the floor, Mr Saboya Sunyé.

Mr SABOYA SUNYÉ (Minister for Foreign Affairs of Andorra and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers)* – Thank you, President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Secretary General, Madam Deputy Secretary General, parliamentarians, ladies and gentlemen. Last November, I had the pleasure of addressing the members of your Standing Committee in Andorra. Today, I have the honour of speaking to your plenary Assembly for the first time. It is a great honour for me, but above all it is a source of great pride for my country, which, 18 years after joining the Organisation, has now taken over the chairmanship for the first time.

I begin by paying tribute to the memory of President de Puig. Lluís Maria de Puig was a devoted European and a kind-hearted person. He made a great contribution to your work and strove hard to ensure good relations between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. As an Andorran, I must mention the key role he played in the process leading up to my country’s accession to the Council of Europe. His commitment to the European cause must continue to be an inspiration for all of us.

The Andorran chairmanship is well under way. I shall not give you a detailed presentation of our priorities, as I did so when your Standing Committee met last November in Andorra. However, let me recall that the main theme of our chairmanship is the promotion and protection of human rights and democracy through education. We have chosen education in human rights, democracy and the rule of law as a priority line of action, in our determination to promote education in the values which we all defend within the Council of Europe. Accordingly, last November we organised a major conference on the impact of the Council of Europe charter on education for democratic citizenship and human rights education. The conference was attended by participants from 50 different countries, and it was an opportunity to pinpoint practical means of reinforcing human rights education in all areas of education. It was also an opportunity to familiarise the public with the Council of Europe’s work in this field and to intensify co-operation among all the parties involved at the national and international levels. We were pleased to note that this conference was a resounding success.

The next major event in the educational field will be the high-level conference to be held in Andorra la Vella from 6 to 8 February. The theme will be “Competences for a culture of democracy and intercultural dialogue: a political challenge and values”. The Parliamentary Assembly has naturally been invited to this event, and I hope that with the support of each one of us the conference will meet with the anticipated success. We should also bear in mind the 24th Conference of Ministers responsible for Education, which will take place in Helsinki in April 2013, on the theme of “Governance and Quality Education”. We are hoping to participate actively in that event.

We believe it is indispensable to work with young people. We want to work with young people to bring our ideals to fruition, so, together with the Council of Europe, we shall be organising in Andorra next April an encounter of young ambassadors for peace. This event will be accompanied by a training course on mediation for Andorran young people.

Furthermore, guaranteeing the long-term efficiency of the European Convention on Human Rights and the proper functioning of the Court is another of our priorities. Like the three previous chairmanships, and the Armenian and Austrian chairmanships which will succeed ours, we have undertaken to ensure follow-up to the decisions taken by the Committee of Ministers in the wake of the Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton Conferences.

In that respect, the work on reforming the European Court of Human Rights is proceeding apace. I thus have the pleasure of informing you that the Committee of Ministers has just decided to transmit the draft text of Protocol No. 15 amending the European Convention on Human Rights for opinion to your Assembly and to the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee of Ministers will consider your opinion with great interest. We are convinced that this new instrument, which is the result of our joint efforts, will further reinforce the efficacy of the human rights protection system in Europe. We are hoping that Protocol No. 15 will be adopted at the 123rd session of the Committee of Ministers on 16 May next.

      Concurrently, as you know, the Ministers’ Deputies have also instructed the Steering Committee on Human Rights to prepare a draft optional protocol No. 16 on extending the Court’s jurisdiction to providing advisory opinions. This work should be finalised within the next few weeks. Draft optional protocol No. 16 should then be transmitted to your Assembly for opinion during your second part-session next April. Moreover, as decided at the Brighton Conference, the Committee of Ministers, which is responsible for supervising the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, is continuing its discussions on how to improve its procedures for monitoring the effective enforcement of the Court’s judgments.

      The Committee of Ministers is also devoting close attention to the vital issue of European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. As I speak, the ad hoc negotiating group responsible for preparing the European Union instruments of accession is holding its fourth meeting here in Strasbourg. European Union accession is a vital precondition for creating a coherent space for human rights protection in Europe. We are hoping that the negotiations will soon reach a successful conclusion so that Europe Union accession can become a reality.

      Once these various initiatives have been completed, they will greatly increase the efficacy of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, we should not forget that it is primarily for the States themselves to ensure the implementation of the Convention. In fact, you will be considering this matter tomorrow during a debate on the viability of the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee of Ministers will of course ensure that appropriate action is taken on the results of your discussions.

      To that end, the Andorran chairmanship will soon be launching a campaign to promote reading of the European Convention on Human Rights, using a special webpage. We invite everyone to support this campaign. We would like to alert civil society to the importance of the Convention and are considering how best to use social networks for this purpose in order to reach as many people as possible, particularly young people. We hope to mobilise civil society first and foremost by involving youth. As we heard in this very Chamber at both the Forum for the Future of Democracy and the Youth Assembly, youth is not only the future, but above all our present.

      That ties in with one of the conclusions of the seminar organised by the European Committee of Social Rights and the René Cassin human rights institute last December, under the auspices of the Andorran chairmanship, entitled, “The European Social Charter: discretion of States”. Our Minister for Tourism and Environment participated in this seminar, from which it emerged that we must all work together to make our rights known in order to ensure their effectiveness.

      The fundamental freedoms secured by the European Convention on Human Rights include freedom of the media, which you will also be debating during this part-session, and freedom of religion. Last December, the Ministers’ Deputies held a thematic debate on this question. During the debate, they recalled that freedom of thought, conscience and religion were closely linked to freedom of expression and freedom of association. While freedom of expression authorises criticism, it must also be exercised in a responsible manner, avoiding stigmatising religious beliefs or disseminating stereotypes liable to encourage intolerance and violence. At the same time, we can never accept attempts to restrict, in the name of religion, the freedoms of opinion and expression secured by the Convention. We encourage the Secretary General in his action against hate speech on the Internet.

      A broad consensus has emerged in favour of continuing the Council of Europe’s action to encourage dialogue among the different religions and to promote the awareness and implementation of existing standards in Europe and beyond, as part of the Council of Europe’s policy vis-ŕ-vis neighbouring regions. I know that this is a subject which is also close to your hearts, and your contribution to these efforts will obviously be welcomed.

      Let me now move on to a number of political matters that have featured prominently on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers since Andorra took over the chairmanship. These issues have included the conflict in Georgia. In November, the Ministers’ Deputies examined the sixth consolidated report, which the Secretary General has prepared on this subject. Regular examination of the Secretary General’s reports allows the Committee closely to monitor changes in the situation on the ground. The Committee of Ministers is prepared to reinforce its action to guarantee human rights protection in the areas affected by the conflict. In order to achieve this, however, freedom of access to the areas in question is vital. This sensitive question was one of the themes addressed by Mr Zalkaliani, the new Georgian First Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, during an exchange of views with the Ministers’ Deputies last November. I have no doubt that it will also be central to the discussions you will be holding on Wednesday on the humanitarian situation in the regions affected by the conflict.

      Following the parliamentary elections last October, the new Georgian Government has now been established in conformity with democratic principles. In so doing, the country has taken a further step in consolidating its institutions. This is a matter for great satisfaction. It is also to be hoped that the transition process will proceed smoothly on the basis of genuine dialogue among all the political forces, with respect for the rights of all involved.

Elsewhere in the Caucasus, fresh elections are fast approaching. This applies to Armenia, which will hold presidential elections next month. The Committee of Ministers will closely monitor the conclusions of the Assembly delegation observing the elections. The Ministers’ Deputies will shortly take stock of the progress made by the Armenian authorities in implementing the commitments they accepted when their country acceded to the Council of Europe. In this connection, a visit to the country by a select group of ambassadors is currently being prepared, also with a view, inter alia, to assessing possible needs in terms of assistance from the Council of Europe. The same also applies to Azerbaijan, where a visit is also scheduled for the spring. The discussions you will be holding this week on the honouring of this country’s obligations and commitments, as well as on the issue of political prisoners, will be useful to the Ministers’ Deputies as they continue their work.

The Assembly and the Committee of Ministers have always paid particular attention to the situation in Kosovo. We are convinced of the need to ensure that all persons living in Kosovo enjoy the same rights as all other Europeans. In order to achieve this goal, the Assembly recommended that the Council of Europe directly involve the competent institutions in Kosovo in implementing its activities, while respecting the neutrality demanded by Resolution 1244 of the United Nations Security Council. The Committee of Ministers echoed this call. Last December, the Secretary General told the Ministers’ Deputies that an agreement had been reached to allow the Council of Europe directly to interact with the Kosovar authorities, while of course ensuring respect for statutory neutrality. I welcome this positive development, to which you will certainly return during your debate on the situation in Kosovo and the Council of Europe’s role there. The Committee of Ministers awaits your conclusions with great interest. This example shows that when we work in consultation and harmony with our partners, in this case the European Union, we obtain our best results.

      In that respect, I am delighted that Mr Štefan Füle, the European Commissioner responsible for enlargement and the European neighbourhood policy, has been invited to address your Assembly next Thursday. Commissioner Füle maintains regular and highly productive contacts with our Organisation, for instance in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s enforcement of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Sejdić and Finci, which is still a matter of grave concern. Last December, the Committee of Ministers discussed it yet again and adopted an interim resolution expressing its disappointment at the lack of agreement between Bosnia and Herzegovina’s political leaders on amending the constitution, as recommended in the joint declaration by Commissioner Füle and the Secretary General of this Organisation in September 2012. As the interim resolution points out, implementing constitutional reform is in the best interests of consolidating democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We must hope that the reform will be truly implemented in the near future.

The Council of Europe’s policy on neighbouring regions also requires a coherent approach by the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers, in co-operation with the European Union. With that aim in mind, last November, along with our Secretary General Mr Jagland, I took part in a meeting with the Cypriot Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Kozakou-Marcoullis. We held an in-depth exchange of views on the state of and prospects for co-operation between Europe and the southern Mediterranean. Thanks to its excellent co-operation with the European Union, I am glad to say that the Council of Europe is now in a position to open an office in Tunisia, which will help reinforce its action on behalf of democratic transition in that country.

The same applies to Morocco. Last December, the Ministers’ Deputies invited it to accede to a number of Council of Europe conventions, including the Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. These developments will enable us to provide more effective support to the southern Mediterranean countries endeavouring to implement democratic reforms. Two years ago almost to the day, the Arab Spring began, providing much hope in those countries. Many reforms have been launched, but advances in the direction of democracy and human rights, even in our own countries, are seldom entirely linear. As our experience has shown, democracy is built up step by step. On the other hand, it is vital to progress, and to consolidate each step of the way as much as possible. The political crises in the Mediterranean basin, especially the war in Syria, engender fears and uncertainties regarding how those countries will evolve, making it even more urgent today than it was two years ago to muster all our energies in support of the democratic reforms initiated in the countries covered by the Council of Europe’s neighbourhood policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, parliamentarians, I cannot conclude my statement without welcoming the intensification of relations between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, to which I attach great importance. I am delighted to note that what looked until recently like ad hoc initiatives are being transformed into well-established practice. That is true of the increasingly frequent encounters and exchanges among representatives of the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. Last month, the chairperson of the rapporteur group on legal co-operation attended a meeting of your Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in the context of the Secretary General’s initiative to take stock of all Council of Europe conventions.

As for you, Mr President, I am grateful to you for agreeing to come to present the results of this part-session to the Ministers’ Deputies on 30 January next. Your presentations, which you will now give on a regular basis, are awaited with great interest by the Ministers’ Deputies, who appreciate their frank and open tone.

Thank you all for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Minister, for that extremely interesting address. I have no doubt whatever that the questions put to you will be just as interesting. I remind members that questions must be limited to 30 seconds. Colleagues should ask questions and not make speeches.

The first question is from Mr Vareikis, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – I would like to ask one simple question. You said that you will try to promote human rights via education. Can you elaborate on how clever your students are, what kind of new knowledge they will learn and how good your Andorran professors are? I admire your country. My next question is: how do you see the future of your country? Will you join the European Union in the near future?

Mr SABOYA SUNYÉ – Thank you for that question. It is interesting, because it is the core of our chairmanship, so I welcome it. It enables me to enter into a little more detail about this top priority for us.

As you mentioned, we launched the idea of targeting education as a tool for promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law because we believe that it is possible to define competencies and indicators that can lead to the better promotion of those values through education. We do not mean to create a single subject of education in democracy. That is not the purpose of the idea, and it might be a reductive approach to the problem. Looking for competencies and indicators is much more conducive to establishing transversality. Using subjects already taught in schools, we might find a way to protect and promote the values that we all share as members of the Council of Europe.

We are committed, and, may I say, excited, about the work that will take place in Andorra in two weeks’ time, on 6 and 7 February. The organisation of the conference is important, and we would be delighted if it produced some conclusions for going forward. As you probably know, in April, the ministerial conference on education will be held in Helsinki, and the hope is to follow up there on some of the proceedings and conclusions arising from the conference in Andorra. We would be very proud if it had positive results that were useful during the ministerial conference.

      When we launched the initiative, the idea was also to connect it with other priorities. It was not conceived on a stand-alone basis. That is why we positioned as a second top priority the promotion of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is why we intend to focus especially on youth. We think that education is one way to promote values at the right stage; the sooner the better. Making young people aware of the European Court of Human Rights is also key. There is a strong connection between the two priorities and I would be happy to give more details on how we intend to promote the European Court of Human Rights through social networks.

THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Lord Tomlinson, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – The Assembly suffered from some misinformation at its last part-session. When debating a report on the Russian Federation, it was asserted that the Committee of Ministers could not consider the Assembly resolutions unless accompanied by a recommendation. Can you dispel that myth and affirm that the Committee of Ministers has the competency to discuss whatever it wants?

Mr SABOYA SUNYÉ – That did, indeed, happen with that resolution, as there was not the required majority. Following up on all human rights questions is in the DNA of the Committee of Ministers, however, so, despite the lack of a recommendation, all such issues can be subject to a detailed follow-up, with the help of the Secretary General. That would be the case with regard to the Chechnya question, or any of the other issues that were mentioned in the report on Russia. It is probably a myth that all matters are continuing to be followed up, however, but it is also true that there was no recommendation, because of the lack of a majority vote in the Assembly.

      THE PRESIDENT – The next question is from Ms Memecan, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – During our November visit to Andorra for the Standing Committee meeting, I was happy to discover your country’s embrace of diversity as a crucial component of prosperity and development. We can all benefit from your experience. During your term in office, do you have any plans to launch any initiatives at the Council of Europe for promoting diversity as a fundamental part of a more prosperous and democratic Europe?

Mr SABOYA SUNYÉ – I appreciate your kind words. We do not pretend to be setting an example. That would be presumptuous, and presumptuousness is not an Andorran character trait. I do not know whether we deserve such praise, therefore, but diversity is already a top priority. When we talk of education as a tool for promoting democracy, human rights and rule of law, that is directly linked to diversity. The people of Andorra have very diverse origins. Half the population are not nationals and we have more than 100 nationalities among just 75,000 inhabitants. Diversity is part of our identity. We have a unique education system that gives our citizens the ability to choose between three free public education systems: Andorran, French and Spanish. We are convinced education is linked to diversity, therefore. Albania had already been focused on the topic of diversity, and we in part chose education in order to be in line with the efforts made by previous chairmanships. I also thank Armenia and Austria for their chairmanships; I thank them for their support for continuing those initiatives.

There are concrete proposals under the European Union Irish chairmanship, too. We and the European Union have co-sponsored a conference in Dublin, to be held in February, with inter-cultural cities as a theme. We are proud to co-sponsor that with the Irish presidency, which I salute.

THE PRESIDENT – The next question is from the Earl of Dundee on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) How much progress has already occurred since the Chaves report and the Kiev summit to continue to promote local and regional democracy? What further internal Council of Europe co-ordination does your chairmanship support so that the Council of Europe can address European local democracy more efficiently, and which of those aspects of better co-ordination will your chairmanship have encouraged in advance?

      Mr SABOYA SUNYÉ – In our small country, local areas are very close together and regional interests are well represented in our Parliament. I am therefore aware of these issues. Co-operation between the different organs of the Council of Europe to help in this endeavour is essential. I would be happy to pass on further details to you, as you follow this question closely.

      The Kiev Conference of November 2011 presented us with an excellent opportunity to identify a number of areas where better co-ordination was needed. Following the conference, the Committee of Ministers told the European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy to conduct activities that would have a positive impact on local economies. It also dealt with sensitisation to the dimension of human rights, the principles of good governance and the elimination of hurdles or obstacles to transfrontier co-operation.

It is important right now to put in place a pragmatic approach to co-operation between the Committee of Ministers and both the Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities to make sure that there is coherence on all actions and efficiency in the decisions that we may take in the Council of Europe on these important aspects. The work that has been done since the meeting in Kiev in November 2011 gives us some tools and insights into how to face the challenge of deepening collaboration with the local powers. I give the assurance that the Committee of Ministers is very much committed to this and to having in mind the coherence and efficiency of all the measures that may be taken.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Minister, thank you very much for updating us on the new protocols to improve the Convention and on the negotiations between the European Union and the Council of Europe. You told us that you assumed that these negotiations would soon conclude. That is all good news at the beginning of the year. The only “but” is that your predecessor also said that he thought that we would soon have a result from the negotiations and his predecessors have all said the same thing since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. What does “soon” means nowadays in the Committee of Ministers?

Mr SABOYA SUNYÉ – That is certainly a tough question. It is probably subject to different approaches, so I am not sure that I can qualify what “soon” means for every one of us. However, I will give as much information as I can on the developments. It is true that the discussions were a little stuck in block mode until last autumn, so we have to take account of that. However, it is also true that since last autumn the negotiations have advanced. As you probably know, there are meetings this week, from today to Wednesday, I think. That will be the fourth meeting, so we are confident that things are advancing.

The focus is now on a few issues. That is good news, in that the problem is not with the accession overall. The application of the mechanism of the co-defendant is one critical question. The rules on votes are also critical and take up a large part of the discussions. From our point of view, having the chairmanship, we are promoting dialogue – we are very attentive to that. We are conscious that, as I mentioned in my speech and as your President said, there has been in the past few years a huge improvement in the collaboration between the European Union and the Council of Europe. That has been the case since 2007, when this process started. In the past 15 or 18 months, there has been a strong will on the part of the European Union and the Council of Europe, through the Secretary General.

As I had the opportunity to discuss with Dr Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis in our high-level meeting in November, it is clear that the European Union is interested. That is important at the moment because of the neighbourhood policies, in which only by working together can we achieve results. That has clearly been seen in the initiatives in Jordan, Tunisia and Morocco, which, by the way, have been supported by the welcome initiative from the Parliamentary Assembly, the Partnership for Democracy, whose value we should appreciate. When we collaborate with the European Union, we have better results.

We should outline and appreciate the financial aid that the Council of Europe has received in the past few months, which has enabled the creation of a structure in Tunisia. As you know, it is very important to be as soon as possible in those places where there are movements towards democracy and human rights. The expertise of the Council of Europe, specifically on constitutional processes – with the Venice Commission, for example – is unique. At the high-level meeting in November, we outlined the importance of being there and speaking with one voice; otherwise we are not perceived to be as powerful as we could be. As I said, we are committed to facilitating all the processes of the accession, as that gives support to those initiatives that have been very strong in the past few months, for which I thank the European Union.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Baroness Nicholson.

Baroness NICHOLSON (United Kingdom) – Does the Minister agree that, given the closeness of the Federal Republic of Iraq with one of the most important member States of the Council of Europe, the present dialogue between the Council of Representatives, the institutions and Government of Iraq and the Council of Europe’s institutions may be insufficient to enable Iraq to move towards a whole democracy framework?

Mr SABOYA SUNYÉ – I mentioned the importance of the neighbourhood policy approach. Our values and principles are not only for ourselves and it is important that we are anywhere where our influence can be felt. We must support efforts to help all the countries that wish to adhere to our values and principles. At the same time, those countries must be compliant on specific issues. We must be demanding in that context. We must find a good balance in our willingness to support those countries’ approaches to our institution.

Another factor is the specific status that can be given, although that is done only rarely. Only a few countries have acceded in this way – the Holy See, the United States of America, Canada, Israel, Japan and Mexico. Those have been very much compliant with our standards. Even if the possibility of new or observer status is somehow delegated, that is not, as I have mentioned, our only tool to help countries to approach us. In that regard, promoting their adhesion to some of our judicial instruments as conventions or partial agreements is a tool that could be explored. Therefore, we may be able to reinforce their will to approach us and have the opportunity to reinforce values and principles globally, while at the same time not diluting our values by granting a status under which compliance would not be guaranteed.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Minister. I call Mr Huseynov.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – To give a human being life and to deprive them of life is an exceptional right of God. None the less, there have recently been initiatives to restore the death sentence and related debates are being held in certain Council of Europe member States. What steps can be taken by the Committee of Ministers to prevent the intensification of such efforts?

Mr SABOYA SUNYÉ – Your question gives me a unique opportunity to reaffirm the Council of Europe’s position on the death penalty. We have consolidated a death-penalty-free zone. You have enabled me to reaffirm the firm opposition of the Council of Europe to the death penalty in all circumstances. Recently, the October 2012 declaration about the abolition of the death penalty coincided with world day against the death penalty.

I can only reaffirm the strong belief and position of the Council of Europe. As I have said, we have all been able to build up a death-penalty-free zone. Even if the death penalty is not abolished everywhere, we have taken important steps, including through moratoriums in certain countries. That is really an asset of the Council of Europe, and I can only tell you that the Committee of Ministers is committed to continuing to reaffirm such an intention. The fact that we participated through the declaration in October 2012 was a good way of reaffirming that globally and loudly.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Minister. Dear colleagues, I am sorry, but we have gone beyond our time. I apologise to you, Ms Brasseur, but I will call you if you have a brief question. I ask the Minister to give a brief reply while we wait for Mr Saakashvili.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* – Thank you, Mr President. Minister, with budget restrictions, we know that member States tend to reduce funding for international organisations. Might the Committee of Ministers attempt to convince member States to provide the necessary funding to the Council of Europe, so that we can continue to do our work? I am sure our Assembly is already convinced that that work is absolutely essential.

Mr SABOYA SUNYÉ* – We touched on that difficult question at the Standing Committee meeting in Andorra. Admittedly, the Committee of Ministers and the Secretariat are convinced that in times of austerity we need to be concerned about economies, and our citizens expect us to deliver. Of course, we do not want to undermine the Organisation by cutting away muscle, rather than fat, so we must ensure that we do not hack away at its sinews. Obviously, in going through a financial crisis, we need to ensure that austerity measures do not impact negatively on the working capacity or effectiveness of the Council of Europe. It is precisely when we go through financial strictures – with certain sections of the population suffering from economic distress, which can lead to more hate speech and aggressive actions – that we must ensure, as the Committee of Ministers is concerned to do, that our efforts do not undermine the capacity of the Council of Europe to operate effectively.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Minister. You spoke of muscles or sinews. We are considered the heart of the Council of Europe, and the heart, like any muscle, needs to be properly irrigated. We have been going through difficult times in recent years, and our budget has not increased but decreased in real terms, which obviously creates a problem. I thank Ms Brasseur for raising that vital issue.

Thank you, Minister, for being kind enough to answer all the questions and for showing a continued interest in our Assembly. We hope that we can meet soon to discuss other matters. Thank you, too, for remaining with us for the next discussion.

4. Address by Mikheil Saakashvili, President of Georgia

THE PRESIDENT* – We now have the pleasure of greeting Mikheil Saakashvili, President of Georgia.

President Saakashvili, allow me to welcome you to this Chamber, with which you are familiar as you were a member of its first Georgian delegation. This is your fourth visit to the Assembly in your capacity as head of State, and that proves your strong personal commitment to our Organisation and to the values and principles that we embody. In January 2008, in your last address to the Assembly, you stressed the strong determination of the Georgian people to build a stable State based on strong democratic institutions, not on the power of individual personalities. The most recent elections were competitive and well organised and were excellent proof of that determination, although we agree that a great deal remains to be done if we are fully to implement the standards in democratic elections. As you are aware, the Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee of Ministers is committed to that goal, and we regularly send delegations to ensure proper conduct of elections.

The change of parliamentary majority and the political cohabitation that has emerged in your country is a test of how your democratic institutions have matured. When the results were announced, you immediately acknowledged that your opponents had won the elections. It is now up to the Georgian political class to represent both the majority and the opposition and ensure that the cohabitation runs smoothly. I know from personal experience that that is not easy to achieve: we have experienced co-habitation in France, and we considered our democracy to have been strengthened by that experience. Democracy does not mean dictatorship by the majority, but sharing power. Everyone should be equipped with effective mechanisms that allow them to express their positions and be involved in decision making.

      Mr President, our Assembly is, as always, at the disposal of the Georgian people and authorities. We are willing to provide our political support and expertise, and are keen to identify new opportunities for co-operation and concrete initiatives. The tradition in the Assembly is that the parliamentarians should also have their say, so we have a long list of questions, and I am sure you will have an opportunity to reply.

Mr SAAKASHVILI (President of Georgia)* - Distinguished President of the Assembly, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, ladies and gentlemen.

(The speaker continued in English.)

As has been noted, this is the fourth time I have had the honour of addressing this Assembly. I attribute that not to my personal merits, but to the fact that I have been around for a long time as President, and it is part of the job description. It is an immense privilege to address the Assembly at such a crucial time for Georgian democracy.

Allow me first to express my deepest gratitude to the President of the Assembly, Jean-Claude Mignon, for inviting me to echo in this room the European and democratic aspirations of the Georgian people. As you all know, just three months ago the first transfer of power through elections in the history of our nation took place. As in every democracy, majorities can change in Georgia according to the wishes of the voters, but our national striving for freedom and European integration goes beyond any political division; it unites us, and constitutes the essence of our young State and the identity of our old nation. That is my main message today and I can think of no better place than this Assembly to deliver it.

The Council of Europe gathers all the nations of our continent around the principles and values that have shaped European destiny since the end of the Second World War: the values and principles that have torn down the Berlin Wall and led European reunification: the values of freedom, human rights, political accountability and the rule of law, to which the Georgian people are so attached and which have driven my entire political life.

Distinguished members of the Assembly, I remember well the day I discovered the Council of Europe as a young intern from what was still called the Soviet Union back in 1991, soon after the collapse of the Berlin Wall. My first steps in the free world and, therefore, in real politics – as real politics can exist only in freedom – were made in this very town and this very place. I made not just my first steps in politics here, but my main steps in life. I remember dividing my time between sleepless nights at the library of the European Court of Human Rights preparing for examinations in human rights case law at the Human Rights Institute, and chasing on a bicycle a beautiful young student from the Netherlands, who happened later to become my wife and who is sitting here smiling. Strasbourg was, therefore, a very exciting and special place for me.

On my return visits to Strasbourg, everything has changed for me, except my wife. I came back as an MP of independent Georgia with other young reformists for whom the Assembly has been an amazing school of democracy. Years later, I was invited here to speak as one of the leaders of the so-called Coloured Revolutions that were continuing the movement of emancipation and reunification initiated by the Velvet Revolution of 1989. Those were times of hope and enthusiasm.

Now I am here again, standing in front of you, as a president of cohabitation, a leader of a movement that has returned to opposition after more than eight years in office. It might surprise you, but after all those years, my hopes and my enthusiasm have only grown.

Ladies and gentlemen, from the very beginning, in the early ’90s, when Georgia was a failed State, a divided and brutalised nation, my involvement in politics was inspired by the idea that Georgia would finally join the family of European democracies, the family of nations where governments are changed by ballots, not bullets.

Of course, every politician in the world wants to win elections, and I am disappointed that the United National Movement failed to convince a majority of voters in last October’s parliamentary elections. But I am proud that this party – my party – has contributed to building a system in which governments and majorities are changed through elections, not coups d'état or revolutions, and an institutional framework that facilitates legitimate transfers of power instead of preventing them: a democracy.

For more than eight years, I have led a team that has radically transformed our nation, fought restlessly against corruption and organised crime, systematically dismantled the bureaucratic hurdles inherited from our Soviet past, liberated initiatives in society, and helped to shape the common perception that the government was there to serve the people, not the other way round, and that legitimacy comes from the bottom to the top, rather than the reverse.

Many observers have rightly characterised this change of paradigms as a “mental revolution”. Fatalism, passivity, cynicism – the long-lasting legacy of Homo sovieticus – has been overcome in Georgia. As in most European nations, alternance will become, and has become, the rule, and no leader, no government, no political or social force – nobody – can do anything to reverse that. That is why my hopes and enthusiasm are stronger than ever. What happened in Georgia during these last eight years, including on 1 October – a date that stands as an integral part of our democratic experience – has changed our nation and, I deeply believe, beyond – our region. During these years, Georgia has shown that corruption was not a fate and authoritarianism was not a destiny, and that the choice was not between chaos and tyranny – as it is too often presented in the post-Soviet world – but between democracy and all other forms of government, whatever you call them. Georgia has proven that there was a radical alternative – a European choice.

During the past decade, we have paid a huge price for choosing transformation and Euro-Atlantic integration. Georgia has been threatened, embargoed, bombed, invaded and occupied. Two of our regions have been “ethnically cleansed”. Hundreds of thousands of our citizens have been expelled from their homes and, as I speak, still cannot go back to their towns and villages. That is, my dear friends, the environment in which we have built our democracy, in which our new State has emerged and in which our mental revolution has occurred.

I want to say today how proud I am of the Georgian people and the sacrifices that they have made so that our independence can survive and our democracy grow and flourish, and how much I admire their bravery and their faith in the future, their absence of hatred and their thirst for freedom of peace.

I want also to pay tribute to our friends all over Europe. Without their continued support, our democratic experience could not have survived and succeeded, and we could not have broken away from the prison of stereotypes and old clichés. I want especially to thank the Assembly for the multiple resolutions that it passed after the 2008 invasion. I thank you, distinguished members, and those who are no longer members but are present in the Chamber, such as Mátyás Eörsi, who helped us so much during those difficult times.

Resolutions 1633, 1647 and 1683 called in unambiguous terms for the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Georgia, full access of the European Union Monitoring Mission to the occupied territories, the reversal of “ethnic cleansing”, a new peacekeeping format and an international policing force, and the withdrawal of the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as so-called independent States.

As you all know, those demands are still to be met. Since the resolutions were passed, the Russian military build-up in our occupied regions has never stopped, more Georgian villages have been burned and erased from the map by the “ethnic cleansers”, the EUMM has not been allowed in the occupied areas, and Russia’s diplomacy has been touring the world to bribe and pressure countries to legitimate its illegal occupation. Nevertheless, the formulation of those requests by the Assembly has been instrumental: such signals coming from you deter the aggressors, show everyone that principles and values matter, tell the victims that they are not alone, and remind the world what is so special about this institution and Europe in general.

I know that a resolution on the humanitarian situation in our occupied regions is being processed by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. I thank you in advance for supporting the resolution and for all your efforts to help us overcome the tragic humanitarian consequences of the invasion, the “ethnic cleansing” and the occupation.

I came here to express the immense gratitude of the Georgian nation and its hope that your attention and focus in support of our internal democratic progress will not decline before external threats. Georgia needs a strong and efficient Council of Europe and a vivid and relevant Parliamentary Assembly, as do all our neighbouring countries and the European continent in general. That is why I want to express my appreciation and support for the reforms initiated by the Secretary General and President Mignon.

(The speaker continued in French.)

      I congratulate you, Jean-Claude, on your successful initiative. It was urgent and necessary to carry out this reform. I am convinced that it will enhance the role and weight of the Assembly. The principles and dreams of the founding fathers of Europe are still alive in this Chamber. In Georgia, as elsewhere – perhaps more than elsewhere – we are aware of the crucial importance of what you do. We enthusiastically support everything that can enhance the Assembly and the Council of Europe. We are not just European-minded, but enthusiastic Europeans.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      During the last eight years, you accompanied us on our journey of institution building and democratic transformation. You have advised us, welcomed our progress – as in the latest resolution, Resolution 1801 – and proposed changes where you have thought that we could further improve our practice and our framework. The co-operation that we have had during these years with the Council of Europe, the Assembly and the Venice Commission has been exemplary and has constantly helped us to improve our legal framework. Nobody can deny the expertise, good will and open attitude of the Venice Commission. That is why I call on our new government to wait for its recommendations before enforcing laws, especially when they touch on the court system and the judiciary.

I would like to seize the opportunity of this address to offer a special thanks to those of you who have monitored our parliamentary elections. First, I thank the chairman of the delegation, Luca Volontč. You have been able to testify that Georgia is getting closer to the standards that this institution promotes and that should one day unite all of us in this Chamber. Your vigilance, now that my country has passed what was presented as a litmus test, will be crucial to help ensure that Georgia continues to progress on the same path.

Unfortunately, as most of you know, and as has happened in many democracies in their early years, the Georgian political class suffers from the winner-takes-all mentality. From the selective prosecutions targeting former government officials, opposition MPs, local authorities and independent media, to the direct physical assaults by pro-ruling party activists against opposition representatives and elected local self-governments, a coherent campaign has started to silence the political opposition, to get a constitutional majority in parliament through blackmail, pressure and criminal cases against MPs and their families and to seize the entirety of the institutions.

The peaceful and constitutional change of government, by showing that the institutions did not belong to any party and by opening a period of cohabitation between different elected bodies with diverse political colours, should have been a tremendous opportunity to push further the reforms that we had not been able to carry out fully and especially to ensure the independence of the judiciary and the media. Instead, the new authorities have publicly linked the wave of arrests to the political activities of the opposition; we have heard claims in the media that the mission of the new government is to destroy the United National Movement through the judiciary; we have witnessed daily attacks on the judges who are trying to assert their autonomy; and there has been constant harassment of the independent media, starting with the Georgian Public Broadcaster.

The Georgian Public Broadcaster was created to set new standards of objectivity in the Georgian media landscape. According to the European Union Monitoring Mission, the first public channel was the only absolutely balanced TV channel during last year’s election campaign. Instead of reinforcing the emergence of an objective public TV channel, the new government has pushed the director of GPB to resign and has announced a plan to merge GPB with a channel privately owned by the new leaders. Such an initiative would take us years and years backwards. Simultaneously, the director of the biggest private channel in Georgia, Rustavi 2, has been detained and faces court hearings that could bring him many years of prison for charges related to the commercial activities of his legal company. Plans have been announced to change the ownership of Rustavi 2 through the judiciary.

It is true that we did not succeed in all our reforms and that much more needs to be done, but the new government – we wish it success – should go further in building our democratic framework, instead of undermining what has been built. It is also true that some reforms were not fully understood by various segments of the population. I agree that our communication to the public was sometimes deficient, but I believe that principles and values are worth taking political risks for.

The law that we passed in 2011 to give equal rights to all religious minorities might have cost us some votes, but is it a reason to resort to hate speeches and revive the fire of intolerance, for instance by attacking innocent citizens or by releasing with all honours fanatics who had been convicted for physical assaults against minorities? It is possible that our decision to remove all the monuments to the glory of Soviet tyrants and our constant fight against the communist legacy has displeased certain categories of the population, but does that justify the restoration of statues of Stalin in some areas of Georgia, paid for by State funds?

Ladies and gentlemen, the new government in Tbilisi says that it wants to pursue the European and Euro-Atlantic integration of Georgia. That is obviously a positive signal, and I have welcomed it publicly several times, offering to help the relevant ministers on this topic as much as I can. It is good to claim it, but claiming it will not be good enough; one has to act accordingly. The European Union and NATO are not simple partners for Georgia; they are the families we want to join, the transformative goals of our foreign policy and the horizon of our internal reforms. That explains the surprise created by the statements of the Prime Minister during his recent visit to Yerevan. He said there that a country can and should have good relations with Russia and NATO at the same time, putting a strange equidistance between both, and citing our Armenian friends as an example.

      I am tremendously proud that, during my presidency, relations between not only the governments but the peoples of Georgia and Armenia have improved dramatically, and the relations are exemplary at the moment. That is important, and I am very proud of it. It is good that after initial verbal attacks against our regional partners and neighbours, the new Georgian Government has toned down such rhetoric. It is important to understand, however, that Georgia has chosen to pursue NATO membership but Armenia, for its own reasons, has not. It is the sovereign right of every nation to choose the alliances it wants to join, but relations and integration are not the same. Unfortunately, what the Prime Minister said a few days ago changes everything we have been saying for all these years. He gave up de facto Georgia’s NATO aspirations; that is what the declaration meant. I think that Georgia should integrate with NATO and have good relations with Russia at the same time.

I was the one who initiated visa-free travel with Russia, and I was the one who supported the World Trade Organisation deal with Russia. We unilaterally abolished visa requirements for Russian citizens. Under no government have so many Russian tourists entered Georgia as under the last years of my government, and I am very proud of that. Under no government have we had so many cultural ties with Russia as during the last years and months of my government, and I am very proud of that too. It is one thing to have cultural, economic and trade ties – that is something we should enhance – but it is another thing to change our foreign policy and orientation, which are based on values and the fundamental direction of our nation. I do not think that that is what the Georgian people have voted for. I hope that we can get better explanations and can help to correct the Prime Minister’s very alarming declaration.

We need good relations with neighbours, but we should not sacrifice other objectives. The level of obligation implied by the word “integration” has nothing to do with a simple relation between two entities. Unfortunately, such a statement comes after several national security and foreign policy moves that, for the first time in a decade, cast doubts on what the Georgian Government intends to do. Denouncing the Baku-Istanbul railway project, which is a huge geopolitical breakthrough connecting Georgia to Europe while promoting the railway to Russia through Abkhazia without clearly answering questions on its status means changing the strategic orientation and basically disconnecting us from European strategic lines. Freeing without investigation people who were convicted for spying for Russia while jailing some of those who built our counter-intelligence system in co-operation with the West also raises concerns. Explaining proudly to the Georgian public that the new government has repelled successfully a wave of “western attacks” is anti-western rhetoric from a sovereign democracy, rhetoric that we thought long dead in our country.

We have preserved our enthusiasm for European Union and NATO despite the threats, the bombs, the invasion and the occupation that aimed to oblige us to change our path. The Georgian people will not give that enthusiasm up lightly. Is it time, now that we are closer than ever to our objectives, to show hesitation or to cast doubts on our trajectory? Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is irreversible and there is room, I am sure, for a fruitful cohabitation in Georgia. I told the Prime Minister that we need to find a way out of the stand-off. We would both benefit from it and we owe it to the Georgian people. I offered a five-step plan to the majority to ensure a peaceful cohabitation and guarantee that we all put the supreme interests of the nation above our political rivalries. From the economy, with a joint conference for investors, to foreign policy, with common initiatives on the European Union and NATO, we can and should work together. Nobody would gain anything from the paralysis of our institutions, a pause on western integration or the decline of our economy. Nobody has an interest in the failure of our new government and the new majority, because such a failure would hurt the country in general.

      This is my solemn pledge: let us work together to improve what can be improved in our democracy and let us focus on the principles on which we can agree, the very principles that are the basis of the Council of Europe and that all major political forces claim to respect, promote and defend in Georgia. What is at stake is much more important than our respective political interests, and much deeper than our personal rivalries or collective ambitions. What is at stake is the future of our democracy, and, beyond that, the future of democracy in our region. That is worth standing up for and fighting for.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr Saakashvili, for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you.

I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues should be asking questions and not making speeches. The first question is from Mr Volontč, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VOLONTČ (Italy)* – Immediately after your general election, you made very positive declarations and introduced the country to a period of cohabitation – indeed, you just spoke about a plan of cohabitation. We took note of some rather disconcerting decisions that were taken by the government over the past few weeks and months. How do you view that cohabitation and how can the Council of Europe help democracy in Georgia?

Mr SAAKASHVILI – First, I could have tried to form a government for a few months, and of course I did not do that. The president could have kept the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Prosecutors Office, but we did not do that; we gave them away. Georgian people voted, and I thought that this government should have assumed the whole responsibility. I still believe that that was the right thing to do. The way in which we approached the affair was for the new government to assume the whole responsibility and the president to play an arbitration role. Unfortunately, some of the events that unfolded later made such a neutral arbitration role much more difficult to enforce because the very foundation of the constitutional system came under attack, like the constitutional majority. Pressure was put on MPs by blackmailing them and bringing criminal cases against them. There have been attacks on local government en masse and attacks on the judicial system. Those are not good.

Otherwise, as I said, we have a strong interest in keeping this new model of co-operation, because it is new. In the parliamentary majority, there are people who understand that Georgia has to move to another model where people have different levels of responsibility. There might be a president from one party, a parliamentary majority from another and local government in different places from different parties; that is a normal way of life. That is a new tradition, and I think there is a unique chance for the judiciary to become strong and for the media to play a key role. The president has an important role in fostering political cohabitation to help this process for the remaining 10 or 11 months before the new term of office. This is an important process of transition. We do not have a tradition of this, but I think we should create one. I do not lose hope.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Saakashvili. The next question is from Mr Iwiński, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – Mr Saakashvili, how do you see the chances for internal reconciliation between your movement and the Georgian Dream, as well for external reconciliation in relations with the Russian Federation? Has the Georgian establishment as a whole learned the lesson offered by Madam Rice in 2008 that peace is always better than war?

      Mr SAAKASHVILI – We do not have to learn the lesson that peace is always better than war; I have always believed that, and it is especially true for a small country in a difficult geopolitical environment, unless you are a fool or you are suicidal. I claim to be neither of those, and I do not think that I represent a nation that is foolish or suicidal en masse.

      The issue is not one of reconciliation of the parties. We should keep in place core political systems that allow different opinions to be voiced: an independent judiciary and media, and checks and balances that prevent things getting out of control even if people despise or lambast each other. That is not what I would choose to do – I am not comfortable with that – but, whatever happens, political systems should allow opinions to be voiced within a framework. That is what we have tried to create in Georgia.

      We have taken a number of important steps to reach out to Russian society. Overall, normalisation between Georgia and Russia should be based on small ideas. The principal need for our region, though, is that Russia should give up imperial ambitions and allow all the countries to regain their territorial integrity, to develop as independent nations on their own, to join any alliances they want, to be free in their choices and to be successful on their own without being impeded. Russia should only gain from that, so it is in the interests not only of those nations but of Russia.

      We do our best. Even at the height of the tensions when Russia was bombing us, we never used hate speech against Russian society or Russia in general. We always wanted to protect our country, but we never wanted to do irreparable damage to our relationship. I always kept that in mind, as did most of the Georgian political class. As I said, despite the fact that Russia placed heavy visa requirements on Georgia and has introduced a visa for trade, we have never placed any restrictions on Russian trade. They imposed a full-blown energy embargo on us, but we sold electricity to them. We encourage Russian tourists to visit and do our best to strengthen cultural ties. We had a chance to block Russia’s access to the World Trade Organisation, but we thought that keeping Russia within a multilateral framework was good for us, as a small country. I still believe in all that. Eventually things will go the right way, but small nations must be patient. Meanwhile, we have to survive and be successful on our own.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Ms Fusu, who speaks on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms FUSU (Republic of Moldova)* – Thank you for your very comprehensive and focused speech. As a representative of Moldova, I can well understand the predicament of your country in your relations with Russia. Following the recent elections, the parliamentary majority has changed and your party is now in a minority. That being the case, and with the new situation of cohabitation, do you consider that your pro-Atlantic and pro-European stance still holds good in Georgia? What about future negotiations to become partners in the European Union?

      Mr SAAKASHVILI* - Thank you for that question. As I said in my speech, everything that the new government has said publicly is premised on the idea that there can be no alternative for Georgia apart from NATO and the European Union. That at least is what it said in the early weeks after it took office. Now, its tone has changed completely. We hope that that is purely accidental, or that it will change again in the future. After all, we held a referendum in which almost 60% of Georgians voted in favour of joining NATO. The percentage of those in favour is much higher now – almost 80% – and the number of those against is very small, even insignificant. We consider that there is no major opposition group that might prevent that from happening.

Any government, or any political group that harbours hope of governing Georgia, if it wants genuinely to represent the interests of the population, must not disregard the fact that the entire population is in favour of NATO and Europe. Indeed, the Assembly, the European Parliament and all the important European political institutions can act tremendously to enhance and promote democracy in Georgia. All Georgians are aware of a strong feeling of sympathy, support and concern, and that is perhaps more important than public statements. Obviously, public statements have changed a lot, but there is more to it than that.

THE PRESIDENT* – The next question if from Mr Pushkov, who speaks on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – We keep hearing from inside Georgia and from international organisations such as Human Rights Watch multiple reports about serious, even massive, violations of human rights, including the torture of prisoners, which happened in Georgia during your presidency, behind the democratic façade. Do you recognise those accusations, and what do you think about your personal responsibility for those violations?

Mr SAAKASHVILI – I am very pleased that our Russian neighbours are suddenly taking a very keen interest in human rights, democracy and the freedom of individuals. I hope that you put those principles into practice on a daily basis in your wonderful, great country. Of course, we welcome the fact that Russia daily respects the rights of individuals. Once you do that, maybe one day we will learn from you.

      In my country, we always welcomed and listened carefully to every criticism from an international group or organisation. Sometimes we disagreed, but we always listened. I am very proud of the fact that although we came from a time of lawlessness, from a place that was one of the most criminalised and lawless in Europe, according to the European Union, Georgia has now become the safest country in Europe. Its crime rate is a fifth of that in Russia, by the way, to point out a small comparison. We have also become the least corrupt country in Europe. According to Transparency International, the last figure showed us 80 places ahead of Russia. In the rankings for business environment, Russia is 139th and Georgia is 9th. Those rankings are worked out by international organisations; this is not me telling you what I believe. Those are our benchmarks, and for small countries, they matter. I guess that for a big country such as Russia, they do not really matter. Some people in Russia rejoiced in our success and congratulated us on it; some people got nervous. It is a matter of choices and priorities.

      We have further work to do, and we will share our experience with Russia. Thank you for your question.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Mr Kox, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Let me start by thanking you for being, as far as I know, the one who initiated these spontaneous question-and-answer sessions with heads of State and government in the Assembly. You started, and others followed, and we appreciate it very much. As you are not afraid of spontaneous questions, will you tell us what you consider your best political decision in the past eight years of your presidency, and what was your worst?

Mr SAAKASHVILI – First, thank you for telling me. I heard it from you today at lunch, but did not know about it before. Perhaps one of the things about which I am proudest and could write in my autobiography is that I introduced a new rule into this Assembly. After my last speech, somebody in the Bureau said that, following Saakashvili asking for spontaneous questions, no one has to write questions. When I was a member of the Assembly, I had to write questions that I wanted to ask. So if I have allowed some ink to be saved here, that is a great honour for me. Thank you for telling me that that is what happened.

One of my best decisions, taken during the elections on 1 October, was immediately, without any delay after the exit polls – within a few minutes – to recognise the results. Nobody did that in Georgian history before, neither opposition nor the government, even if the government usually won the elections. There was one before the Rose Revolution that did not. However, I did not hesitate. I have to tell you that I did not consult anybody, not even my closest friends. I did it because I thought that it was the right thing to do. I did it in an upbeat and optimistic mood for the future of the country. I have to say that I was not optimistic about the government that was coming in – I was pessimistic – but I was optimistic about the country and about the experience that it would gain from that government about which I was pessimistic. That was my instinct.

If I start mentioning the worst decisions, it will be a long list and I do not want to burden the Assembly with those. Maybe I will think more about it.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next question is from Ms Gündeş Bakir.

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Mr Saakashvili, you moved Georgia on a path towards democracy, economic liberalisation and Euro-Atlantic integration, but given Mr Ivanishvili’s close links to Russia, is it likely that Georgia will now follow a different path? Will Georgia move away from the western bloc and Euro-Atlantic integration? I ask with regard to the government, not with regard to the people of Georgia. Do you expect political instability or an autocratic government in the near future in Georgia?

Mr SAAKASHVILI – As I said, we should keep in place the democratic framework; that is what really matters. We should keep an independent judiciary, which is under attack right now, as we speak. Members of the government, such as ministers and others call the chairman of the supreme court, say, a criminal on a daily basis. He is anything but criminal. They just initiated, by the way, a Maoist law in the Georgian Parliament that would replace courts with so-called jury trials, but the defendant would not have the right to choose whether to face a jury. That was the proposal. I do not know whether it will be finally voted on.

We have seen what these mobs look like, because they attack our local government from time to time on a daily basis. I know what they look like. The same people that attack local governments with sticks and other things in their hands will be given the right to try political figures. They said that political figures should be tried by them. They will be nominated by prosecutors and the defendants will not have the right to choose between them and a professional judge. The only example I know like that is the Cultural Revolution in China in the 1950s and 1960s. That was one of the proposals that we got.

If you create such proposals, there is a problem, but hopefully proposals will not pass. I hope that there will be people who understand that this would lead to absolute madness. Hopefully, they will understand that calling the chief justice, who has a totally untainted reputation and is a highly respected figure in Georgia, a criminal every night is madness and irresponsible. Hopefully, they will understand that menacing every government official – or former government officials – with arrest every night on television is, to say the least, unserious. Hopefully, they will understand that telling your parliamentary opposition, “You had better shut up or we will send you to prison”, on a daily basis in parliament, in front of cameras, is not serious. I think that this will not pass.

This happened in other places, as well. It happened in the 1990s with regard to political orientation. I think that there is no segment of the Georgian population that wants such change. Georgian people voted for a better life, not for arrests, and not for resisting NATO, Europe and the west and not for turning our back on NATO and the European Union. No, they did not vote for that. They did not vote for the Government to go against what they fundamentally wanted. There is no such segment of the Georgian population; we are not divided in that way.

That is why I am optimistic about our society. People everywhere want to live better. Economic growth in the first four years of our government was a double-digit average, which was good. In the last three years, we had more or less 6%, then 7%, then we were supposed to have 8% last year, but it was a little bit less because the elections happened. We had high economic growth, but no matter how fast you grow, people want more; we know it. You can never catch up.

As politicians, you know how it is. It is like surfing. You are surfing political waves and in the end some wave will catch up with you and cover you. The main thing is not to drown and, one day, to come back on the wave. Any surfer experiences this from time to time. We are political surfers, from that point of view. That is normal. But we should not change our direction in the surf, that is for sure, because the direction of the wind – I do not know whether members surf – never changes.

THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Mr Shlegel.

Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – Mr Saakashvili, thank you for your warm words about the Russian Federation, but unfortunately words often differ. Under your presidency, relations between our two countries have found themselves at an impasse. I do not understand why you are criticising the deeds of your prime minister, who is trying to get us out of that impasse.

Mr SAAKASHVILI* – On relations between Russia and Georgia, you see one Georgia and I see a different one. For all the respect that I have for you, you need spectacles to see Georgia as it really is. Georgia is a fully fledged member of the international community and, whatever you say about other people, it will not change anything in this Assembly. Nobody, not even the most pro-Russian person in Georgia, will be able to give you what you want. Georgians just are not going to give up their territory – it is a simple point – and there is no reason we should. Once you begin to see Georgia as it really is, then we can enter into positive relations.

We have never tried to create any problems for you. You know that the leaders of many countries would refuse to answer you in your language. I have told President Putin that I may be the last Georgian leader able to speak to him in Russian and able to quote Yesenin, Brodsky, Pushkin and even contemporary Russian writers, not just the classics. I speak Russian much better than the current Prime minister, not to mention that I know the poetry of Yesenin and he does not.

So let us shed our illusions and let us really understand the nub and essence of the issue, which is that the Russian Federation has to shed its imperialist ambitions and cease trying to increase its territory using the means that it does.

      I have visited the borders that you closed down unilaterally and have shaken hands with hundreds of Russian tourists who come to our territory. I never felt any aggression from them. The Russian man in the street is not the problem; the imperialist ambitions of its leaders are the problem. One of the people I shook hands with ended up in prison, so now I do it without television cameras. We should have good relations with all our neighbours. Our borders are what they are, and that is a lesson in geography that you should learn so that Georgia’s integrity can be preserved.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Ms Brasseur.

      MS BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* – I had wanted to ask about the difference of opinion between the new majority and you over international relations, but I think that you have already answered that question fully. What are your main differences over domestic policy? In your view, what are the big challenges facing you in the short term?

      MR SAAKASHVILI* – With your permission, Madame, I will reply in English.

(The speaker continued in English.)

      When I was asked by the Georgian people before the election, I told them how I saw it. The new government promised the people that they would return to the past. They told them that the reforms of the past eight years were bad and that what had happened before was good. I told them that what was before was bad and that what had happened since was not ideal, but that we were heading in the right direction and that we should move forward. That was the essential difference. We advised our people not to risk returning to the past, because there was nothing nice there. We are now experimenting with reliving the past, and the past has concrete names, faces, experiences – of corruption, mismanagement and certain attitudes towards minorities, local government, relations between ethnic and religious groups, the idea of Europeanness and whether western culture is part of our psyche. We are debating those fundamental values. Our differences are value-based, not just about what kind of social or small economic adjustments we should make.

      I fundamentally believe that we cannot promise people what we cannot deliver. For instance, we cannot promise them that they can do nothing and we can feed them. That has not happened anywhere, and it will not happen in Georgia. It is a myth. We have lived through this myth. Our people understand, first, that you cannot be idle – not work – and expect someone to feed them. It is nostalgia. Nobody ever managed to deliver it, however, and no one will do so in Georgia, not matter how many billions they might have in their pockets. In fact, the more billions they have, the less they will deliver to the people. It is a myth that if someone has money, they will share it with you. It is usually exactly the opposite.

      The second idea is that you can change your relations with your neighbours, especially great imperial neighbours, simply by trying to please them, without giving up fundamental interests. That is not how it works. Instead, you should develop and be successful on your own, and then they will reconsider their relations with you. The third thing we will learn is that we should continually rejuvenate our institutions and continually have new blood and give way to new generations. The country should also be open to new ideas. We should never return to the past. That is how I see it. We should be open to the future and never try to revisit the past. I am not that young anymore. When people long for the past, they do not long for communism or the Soviet Union; we simply miss our younger years – we miss looking better, being more energetic and having better prospects, and that is all right. In our case, however, there was also a very bad political system. Our population has been offered a poisonous bill, and we swallowed it. I hope we will survive it and will go on with our lives.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr President. The next question is from Mr Xuclŕ, but he is not here, and neither is Ms Čigāne. I call Ms Durrieu.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I welcome our ex-colleague from the Council of Europe. We travelled a long way together. Opinion here is divided. The Council of Europe must respect the sovereignty and integrity of States, however, so I launch an appeal to find a peaceful solution between the two countries.

      Mr SAAKASHVILI – Merci Madame Durrieu

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Mr Herkel.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I thank you, Mr President, for mentioning our monitoring report on the consequences of the war, but you referred to attempts to legitimise illegal occupation. Will you elaborate on that, because it is in our best interests to recognise those attempts, if they exist?

      Mr SAAKASHVILI – The last attempt at legitimisation concerned the poor health of Hugo Chavez, who was our Russian neighbour’s last hope in the Americas. Then they bribed a couple of small island nations in Oceania – Nauru and Tuvalu. The Prime Minister of Tuvalu met Foreign Minister Lavrov in New York for three hours. They summoned a plane for him to New York, and he was flown out and brought to Abkhazia, where he signed an agreement recognising Abkhazia. I can only guess what else was involved in the transaction. The great nation of Russia, after long discussions with the island nation of Tuvalu, made a big diplomatic breakthrough: finally somebody else recognised their occupation of Abkhazia. Congratulations Russian friends. It is great.

It is a shame that the Russian Federation, in the 21st century, is playing such diplomatic tricks on a nation that should be its natural friend and ally, provided it respects our right to exist and develop normally. That is the point. Instead of trying to reach out to us, however, it is trying to reach out to Tuvalu. I have nothing against Tuvalu – I have lots of friends in Oceania, and, as a result of Russian policy, I take an interest in that region – but is that the way for our neighbourly relations? Is that the way to pursue our foreign policy goals? I think that is exactly what we are trying to change eventually, once Georgia develops further.

Twice in one week last year, Dmitri Medvedev said, “We have to imitate Georgia.” First he said, “Yes, I absolutely hate Saakashvili, but we have to acknowledge that he made some amazing reforms and learn from them.” The second time, he said, “I would like to learn from them, but we are too big and they are too small. It is impossible for Russia; we cannot really do it.” Four years ago, they said that Georgia should disappear and that I was a political corpse. They menaced me with physical destruction – I guess that threat is still there – but they are still saying four years later, “By the way, we should also learn from this guy whom we are going to hang very soon how to run our own country.”

That is remarkable. It shows that there is a chance for realism in Russian policy. I welcome it, and I hope that it will grow and that no matter who is in government or who is president of Georgia or Russia in future, our peoples will find a common language based on their interests rather than talking through faraway island nations, which, with all due respect, I do not think should be decisive players in our bilateral relations.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr President. I do not see Mr Ghiletchi or Mr Jensen, so I call Mr Japaridze.

      Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – President Saakashvili, do you seriously think that the current Georgian Government is surrendering to Russia or saying no to our European aspirations? If so, why and what are the facts on the ground?

      Mr SAAKASHVILI – I hear what I hear. When I hear it, then I start to think. What I have heard – I do not have to repeat it at length – is that we managed to resist pressure from Europe and America. I have not heard such a quotation from any Georgian leader since 1991. I have heard that the Secretary-General of NATO – correct me if I misquote any of you – came close to intervening in the domestic affairs of Georgia, and I have heard that for the first time ever in Georgian history, Georgia has something called domestic affairs in which the Secretary-General of NATO cannot meddle. I do not accept that. I know that there are people with different views on NATO, but I have my own strong views. If you want to be part of NATO, you accept friendly criticism, or at least listen to it without openly objecting. Membership has its price. It clearly resonates with certain notions of democracy in other countries.

      Just a few days ago, I heard a great example: I heard that we should have the same distance from and the same kind of relations with Russia as with NATO. I refuse to accept that. That tests the concrete price of foreign policy. I also heard it said that Georgia should stop being a problem for relations between the west and Russia, and I fully agree, but the way that point has been put suggests we should stop being a problem without the current problems being solved. That might mean Georgia disappears as a country, not just as a problem. That has happened in our history. Clearly, therefore, in some ways we think things are moving in the wrong direction. I hope I am wrong about all this, but other people think the same way as I do.

            THE PRESIDENT* – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Saakashvili. I thank him most warmly on behalf of the Assembly for his address and for the remarks he has made in the course of questions.

5. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

            THE PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. with the agenda which was approved this morning.

            The sitting is closed.

            (The sitting was closed at 5.15 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Attendance register

2. Changes in the membership of committees

3. Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Mr Gilbert Saboya Sunyé, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Andorra, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

Questions:

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Lord Tomlinson (United Kingdom)

Ms Memecan (Turkey)

Earl of Dundee (United Kingdom)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Baroness Nicholson (United Kingdom)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg)

4. Address by Mikheil Saakashvili, President of Georgia

Questions:

Mr Volontč (Italy)

Mr Iwiński (Poland)

Ms Fusu (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Pushkov (Russian Federation)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Ms Gündeş Bakir (Turkey)

Mr Shlegel (Russian Federation)

Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg)

Ms Durrieu (France)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mr Japaridze (Georgia)

5. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

Appendix

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk.

Francis AGIUS*

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*

Karin ANDERSEN/Ingjerd Schou

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI/Alessandro Rossi

Khadija ARIB

Volodymyr ARIEV

Mörđur ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Ţuriđur BACKMAN*

Daniel BACQUELAINE/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Viorel Riceard BADEA

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloďsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Tinatin Khidasheli

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Delia BLANCO*

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET/Jean-Pierre Michel

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ/Mladen Ivanić

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL

Piet DE BRUYN/Ludo Sannen

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT*

Otto CHALOUPKA

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH*

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE*

Igor CORMAN*

Telmo CORREIA*

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Giovanna DEBONO*

Armand De DECKER*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA/Carmen Quintanilla

Peter van DIJK

Klaas DIJKHOFF*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Jim DOBBIN

Karl DONABAUER

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Gianni FARINA*

Relu FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV

Doris FIALA*

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON

Erich Georg FRITZ

Sir Roger GALE

Jean-Charles GARDETTO*

Tamás GAUDI NAGY*

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI*

Paolo GIARETTA/Renato Farina

Jean GLAVANY*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI

Svetlana GORYACHEVA/Robert Shlegel

Martin GRAF/Johannes Hübner

Sylvi GRAHAM

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Ana GUŢU/Corina Fusu

Carina HÄGG*

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI/Marek Borowski

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON*

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Hĺkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER*

Martin HENRIKSEN

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD

Joachim HÖRSTER

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO

Susanna HUOVINEN*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Vladimir ILIČ*

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/André Schneider

Roman JAKIČ

Tedo JAPARIDZE

Ramón JÁUREGUI

Michael Aastrup JENSEN

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON*

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Ferenc KALMÁR*

Božidar KALMETA*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Bernard Fournier

Burhan KAYATÜRK

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK*

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Zbigniew Girzyński

Serhiy KLYUEV*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN*

Alev KORUN/Christine Muttonen

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Václav KUBATA

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE*

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

Jean-Louis LORRAIN*

George LOUKAIDES/Stella Kyriakides

Younal LOUTFI

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX*

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET*

Pietro MARCENARO

Thierry MARIANI

Epameinondas MARIAS/Spyridon Taliadouros

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA/Riitta Myller

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Luc Recordon

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV/Sergey Sobko

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Marie-Jo Zimmermann

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ*

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI*

Andrey MOLCHANOV*

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

Patrick MORIAU

Joăo Bosco MOTA AMARAL*

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK/Marek Krząkała

Alejandro MUŃOZ-ALONSO

Lydia MUTSCH*

Lev MYRYMSKYI

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Gebhard NEGELE

Aleksandar NENKOV*

Pasquale NESSA*

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON

Elena NIKOLAEVA

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL/Iwona Guzowska

Carina OHLSSON*

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS

Sandra OSBORNE

Liliana PALIHOVICI*

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclŕ

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG

Foteini PIPILI

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN*

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT

Jakob PRESEČNIK/Polonca Komar

Radoslav PROCHÁZKA*

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV

Mailis REPS*

Eva RICHTROVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE/Marie-Louise Fort

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET*

Marlene RUPPRECHT

Ilir RUSMALI*

Pavlo RYABIKIN

Rovshan RZAYEV

Giacomo SANTINI*

Giuseppe SARO*

Kimmo SASI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER/Gerhard Pfister

Damir ŠEHOVIĆ*

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Boris SHPIGEL/Yury Solonin

Arturas SKARDŽIUS

Ladislav SKOPAL/Dana Váhalová

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV

Christoph STRÄSSER

Karin STRENZ*

Giacomo STUCCHI*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO/Yevhen Marmazov

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO

Romana TOMC

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Mihai TUDOSE/Florin Iordache

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI/Konstantinos Triantafyllos

Tomáš ÚLEHLA

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Viktor USPASKICH/Egidijus Vareikis

Giuseppe VALENTINO*

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Liana Kanelli

Ljubica VASIĆ*

Volodymyr VECHERKO/Larysa Melnychuk

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTČ*

Vladimir VORONIN*

Varujan VOSGANIAN*

Tanja VRBAT*

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL/Frank Schwabe

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM

Karl ZELLER*

Svetlana ZHUROVA

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Tamerlan Aguzarov

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Montenegro*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Joris BACKER

Joe BENTON

Maria GIANNAKAKI

Cheryl GILLAN

Traian Constantin IGAŞ

Elvira KOVÁCS

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Observers

Corneliu CHISU

Partners for Democracy

Bernard SABELLA