AA13CR29

AS (2013) CR 29

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Twenty-ninth sitting

Monday 30 September 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 no 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. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee; Observation of the parliamentary elections in Albania

      THE PRESIDENT* – The committees have just finished. We now resume the debate on the progress report of the Bureau and the observation of the parliamentary elections in Albania. The debate must conclude at 3.30 p.m. in order to receive the communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly. I therefore propose to interrupt the list of speakers at about 3.25 p.m.

      I call Ms Leskaj.

Ms LESKAJ (Albania) – After the 23rd elections in Albania, our left-wing coalition won a landslide victory, with 83 seats in Parliament out of 140. The last elections marked a turning point for Albania, not only in terms of political rotation but also, and especially, in terms of the quality of the elections, the process of which was carefully assessed by our international partners.

First, I thank the Parliamentary Assembly for the constant support that it has given to the democratic processes in Albania, for a functioning democracy, for the rule of law and for the protection of human rights. I wish to extend my special thanks for its supporting my country to have free and fair elections, and for its assistance in the preparation of the legal framework, through the Venice Commission, which has been important for us.

Such a landslide victory is, of course, a great responsibility for us. It is a great responsibility to fulfil the high expectations of the general public and our international partners.

We have explicitly expressed our political will that the new legislature will advance my country’s European Union integration agenda. We are committed to fulfilling all our obligations for the 12 priorities, not just on paper but in reality, impacting on real people’s lives.

We are determined to turn a new page in respect of how our parliament functions. We know that the profound reforms that we are committed to are not easy to carry out. We know that they have a cost for our government, but of course we are ready and willing to undertake this cost. We are resolved to set a new standard of communication in parliament – a standard that respects opposition, guaranteeing it the necessary space to play its important role in parliament.

We have read carefully the report of the Parliamentary Assembly mission on the elections in Albania, and we are determined to fulfil all the recommendations of this report in order for my country to have stability in fulfilment of election standards.

Last but not least, I reiterate our good will towards improving collaboration with the Parliamentary Assembly in all respects. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Ms Kapetanović now has the floor.

      Ms KAPETANOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – Thank you, Mr Chairman. Dear ladies and gentleman and colleagues, I provide my assessment as the appointed observer of the Group of the European People’s Party, observing the Albanian parliamentary elections in the town of Tirana, which is in the most developed region in Albania, and I hope that there is no adverse opinion.

      Albanian citizens have assumed full responsibility for successful elections, by which I mean that they showed their commitment to not allow breaches of rules and regulations on compliance with the election law of Albania. We observers allocated to Albania’s capital, Tirana, could not find any alleged infringement of, or deprivation resulting from, the voting procedures. The electors and local observers did not complain at any of the 12 places that we visited and observed.

      Marked ballot papers were correctly put in held ballot boxes and we were told, and could see, that everything was done according to the central electoral register. After voting finished, the ballot boxes were distributed to an election commission centre for data processing, followed by a lot of police, the local election committee and us observers, of course.

The electoral campaign was not 100% politically correct. One TV broadcast showed the arrest of the leader of one of the biggest political parties and a picture of him being put in jail, but this is only one incident. I am sorry to say that one man was killed in a voting place in the north of Albania.

I congratulate the Albanian people on the high level of democracy that they have shown during the election procedure. As I have said, in 12 different places in Tirana there was no accident or complaint.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you.

Mr Dişli, please.

Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – Dear colleagues, our visit on the occasion of the parliamentary election in Albania was beneficial. As reported by Mr Tatsopoulos, I am glad to see the steps taken to improve the legal framework, to create an appropriate atmosphere for democratic elections. The recent amendments of the electoral and criminal code in Albania were commendable. Yes, some issues need to be enhanced: there is still room for improvement in respect of implementing the legal framework and its enforcement. Once more, Albania has to be complimented on the competitiveness of the elections, on active citizen participation throughout the campaign and on genuine respect for fundamental freedoms.

The parliamentary elections in Albania were, without doubt, generally in line with international standards and respected the values upheld by the Council of Europe. With regard to the report’s recommendations, I call on my Albanian colleagues and the authorities not to get tired of co-operating with the international community and to benefit from the experiences of their friends.

We can be sure that Albania will continue the democratisation process and grant its citizens a more democratic and pluralistic life.

I take this opportunity to thank the Albanian authorities for their hospitality during our stay in Albania.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Mehmeti Devaja.

Ms Mehmeti Devaja is not in the Chamber, so I call Mr Bugnon.

Mr BUGNON (Switzerland) – Thank you, President. Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, I once heard somebody in the Chamber say that, after all, the Assembly of the Council of Europe is a machine to create wind. People might think that, having spent half a day listening to interventions from participants, but what they do not see, or what we should still better communicate, is what we do in situ. We saw it this morning, during the moving ceremony awarding the Vaclav Havel prize, and we see it in our participation in election monitoring in different countries.

I have done this several times, including recently in Albania, and I can tell members that we do play an authentically fundamental role. It is not by chance that democracies are evolving and not by chance that the leaders of countries, who are accustomed to an inflexible system under the former communist system, must make an effort to understand about advancing the principles of democracy. The other element is to convince the citizens that elections are genuinely under the scrutiny of the Council of Europe and are based on democratic principles.

In Albania, more than once I had the opportunity to speak to people in polling stations. I spoke in German – many Albanians have worked in Germany – and asked them, without needing interpreters, “What credibility do you give to these elections?” More than once they responded by saying, “We give credibility to these elections because foreign observers are here, doing their job, proving to us that the preparation of the whole election system and the running of the elections are credible.” We have to play a fundamental role. That was the sincere view of these people.

Without the observers ensuring that the electoral code conformed with democratic rights and that the elections proceeded smoothly, out of habit people would have assumed, even before the results, that everything was askew and that the results would be rigged. We bring credibility to the elections and give the population confidence that those running the elections play by the rules. The Council of Europe’s work is fundamental to ensuring and broadcasting the progress of democracy.

      The President* – Thank you, Mr Bugnon. I call Mr Seyidov.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – Together with my friends from the Council of Europe, I congratulate Albania on the election results, which were excellent given the short time they had to do this special thing for the future of their country.

      At the same time, we should be careful about the Hungarian issues, not because of Hungary, but because sometimes we try to change decisions already adopted by the Council of Europe and the Assembly. I do not want to call it a tendency, but such attempts have been made. Remember that four Committees – the Political Affairs Committee, the Monitoring Committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Culture, Science and Education – are involved in these Hungarian issues. We have decided to do our best for Hungary, but if we try to change our own decisions, it will damage our work over the past two years. It is important that the Council of Europe and the Assembly focus on all member States, but we should also stick to our decisions and implement those that we have already adopted; and on this matter, the Council of Europe has already adopted a very important document. We should implement all documents already adopted, not think about revising them.

      I wish to make another point about the progress report and our daily life here. We should think about reforming Bureau decisions and referrals. When many members sign various papers and ask for further initiatives, the Bureau should more attentively investigate why. That is important if we are to ensure that this Organisation makes correct and objective decisions.

      The President* – Thank you. I call Mr Le Borgn'.

      Mr LE BORGN' (France)* – We are satisfied with the positive development in the Albanian elections on 23 June, which were to the credit of the whole country. Despite tensions over the past four years, politicians have behaved responsibly, and the elections demonstrate democratic progress. The rapid recognition of defeat by Prime Minister Berisha is a strong sign of political maturity. I pay tribute to the outgoing government and the new coalition under Mr Edi Rama.

      The political class in Albania responded to the call before the elections by Štefan Füle, the European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy. The presence of international observers during the campaign and on polling day, which was important, shows Europe’s interest in the democratic process in Albania. These observer missions provide added value for countries in transition. However, we deplore the isolated but serious incidents that occurred, especially in Laç. The observers were most critical, however, of the delay in announcing the official results on the evening of the poll.

As stated in Mr Tatsopoulos’s report, these significant improvements not only rely on legislation, but require a change of attitude and practice from the principal political groups and their leaders. This change, which is under way, is essential. We must depoliticise the institutions that guarantee elections and the recognition of results. Some things worked well, but other things still need improvement. Henceforth, with pluralist and regular elections, new leaders will have to deal with the political, economic and diplomatic challenges facing Albania. In that, the opposition must play its role fully.

Albanian friends, you have assumed your responsibilities and have made genuine democratic progress, and we will accompany you on the road to European Union membership. A successful poll was a condition for candidate status, but there are others for the Edi Rama Government. We know your convictions, and if Albania needs Europe, as you often say, be assured that Europe needs Albania.

The President* – Thank you, Mr Le Borgn'.

I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office (Room 1083) for publication in the Official Report.

Mr Harutyunyan, do you wish to reply? You have six minutes and 15 seconds remaining.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia) – I thank all speakers for their contributions. The majority were about the elections in Albania, but several dealt with the progress report. I shall address some of the ideas expressed.

Mr Gross, you rightly mentioned this new term, majoritarianism, which is an issue we have to tackle. I remind you that in 2008 we adopted Resolution 1601 about procedural guidelines on the rights and responsibilities of the opposition in a democratic parliament, which aimed at resolving this very issue. We are talking about another, more severe issue, however: with the involvement of the opposition, the majority can sometimes lead a country into dictatorship, so just giving rights to parliamentary opposition is sometimes not enough. We must find other solutions, but that is not easy.

On Hungary, Ms Lundgren raised an important issue: the European Union is also scrutinising us, which is why we asked for an urgent debate. It is trying to represent Hungary as our failure, but it is not. We decided how to deal with it, nominating three Committees – the Political Committee for a report and two other Committees for an opinion – and Mr Seyidov is absolutely right that we must stick to our decisions. That is why the Bureau today rejected a proposal to nominate a third Committee – the Monitoring Committee – for an opinion. Nevertheless, we must find efficient ways to tackle this issue, and I am sure that Mr Walter’s proposal, if pursued in a timely fashion, will help us to help Hungary to overcome this constitutional crisis.

      Finally, I would like to mention one other issue, which was raised in the statement by Mr Walter – that of the World Forum for Democracy – because I did not touch on it during my presentation. It is probably now time to inform you of what happened during the last two Bureau meetings. At those meetings the Bureau had debates, with the participation of the Secretary General, the Deputy Secretary General and the director general for democracy of the Council of Europe, who is responsible for the organisation of the world forum. We criticised them because, from the perspective of the Bureau, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was not sufficiently involved in the preparation of the forum. So, in Dubrovnik, the Bureau decided to establish an ad hoc committee with the participation of representatives of different committees, just for the world forum. Before Friday, we expect that it will be announced who will be represented in this ad hoc committee. But let me express the hope that, in future, the Parliamentary Assembly will be more and better involved in the preparation of coming events, especially the world forum, because the Parliamentary Assembly was at the origin of the forum.

      Thank you very much. I propose that the Assembly approve the report.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The debate is concluded.

      The Bureau has proposed a number of references to committees for ratification by the Assembly. Are there any objections to the proposed references to committees?

      There are no objections, so the references are approved.

      The other proposals of the Bureau are contained in the activity report in Document 13307 and addenda 1 and 2, as well as in Document 13312. Are there are any objections to the adoption of these proposals?

      There are no objections, so the proposals are agreed to.

2. Communication from the Committee of Ministers

THE PRESIDENT* – Our next business is the communication to the Assembly from the Committee of Ministers presented by Mr Edward Nalbandian, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Armenia, and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. After his address Mr Nalbandian will take questions from the floor.

Minister, I was very happy to meet you in my office. We had an exchange about the political situation generally speaking, and I am grateful to you for the chairmanship that you are exercising. I would like to associate those thanks and congratulations to the Armenian Ambassador, who sits to your right. We were happy this morning to have been able to admire the stained glass just above me. Alas, I am one of the only ones who cannot see it now, but it is magnificent and we are very sensitive to the gift of your country on the occasion of your chairmanship. It further beautifies this historic Chamber. Thank you for the work that you perform.

I invite Mr Nalbandian to address the Assembly.

Mr NALBANDIAN (Minister for Foreign Affairs of Armenia) – Distinguished President Mignon,

distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the warm welcome. I am pleased to address this Assembly once again in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers. You have already received the written activity report of the Armenian chairmanship on the progress achieved over recent months. However, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few important developments.

On 3 September 1953, 60 years ago, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms entered into force. I stressed in my previous communication that the treaty was undoubtedly the cornerstone for the protection of human rights in Europe. Over 60 years, persons within the jurisdiction of the member States of the Council of Europe have benefited from this unique legal instrument. Since 1953 the European Court of Human Rights has delivered approximately 16 500 judgments, and over 500 000 applications have been dealt with under the European Convention on Human Rights. Several landmark judgments of the Court have helped to strengthen the rule of law and democracy significantly across the European continent.

The promotion of human rights is an ongoing process and it is our common responsibility to ensure that the European Convention remains the effective instrument of European public order that it has become over the years. I am convinced that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe should and will continue to do its utmost to ensure that the rights enshrined in the Convention are respected and protected across Europe.

The consolidation of the Council of Europe system of human rights protection is becoming a topic of great importance, and that is the reason why the Armenian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe highly values the recent adoption of Protocols Nos. 15 and 16 to the Convention. On 10 July, the Committee of Ministers took note of the Parliamentary Assembly's opinion on draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as of the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights. It adopted the protocol and agreed to open it for signature in Strasbourg on 2 October 2013. In that regard I underline the importance of Protocol No. 16, as it would establish a platform for judicial dialogue between the Court and the national superior courts and contribute to the resolution of complex problems at national level, such as the prevention of repetitive applications, thus reducing the backlog of the Court.

On 10 October, we will celebrate the European day against the death penalty. That event is a good occasion for the Council of Europe, which is the only area free of the death penalty, to highlight the worldwide campaign on the abolition of that inhuman punishment, working hand in hand with international partners. We are particularly encouraged by positive developments at the international level, including the latest resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty adopted at the United Nations. On 18 September the Committee of Ministers adopted a declaration deploring recent executions, and reiterates its unequivocal opposition to capital punishment in all places and in all circumstances. We all remain determined to continue our efforts towards global abolition of that inhuman practice.

The Armenian chairmanship further reflected on the European standards on the rule of law against the background of the most recent developments regarding the implementation of the principles of the rule of law by Council of Europe member States. On 3 July a conference, “The European legal standards of the rule of law and the scope of discretion of powers in the member States of the Council of Europe”, was opened in Yerevan. The conference also discussed the judicial review of the laws and other legal acts by independent judicial bodies, and the co-operation of human rights defenders with state and local self-government bodies in ensuring the effective implementation of the principle of the rule of law.

Local democracy remained high on the agenda of the Armenian chairmanship. We believe that the outcome of the conference on “Participatory democracy at local level”, co-organised by the Armenian authorities and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities and held in Yerevan on 19 June, can be a good basis for further reflection on the fundamental issue of citizen participation in the decision-making process as one of the prerequisites of a well-functioning democratic society.

Distinguished parliamentarians, as you are aware the overarching theme of our six months in the Chair is combating racism and racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance, and promoting European values through intercultural dialogue. We are convinced that our Organisation, as the guardian of human rights and democratic values, must play a leading role in that direction. I am pleased to see this Assembly taking the same approach and, as you well know, the Assembly’s report on a strategy to prevent racism and intolerance in Europe is now under preparation in the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. However, despite the many initiatives undertaken, we are still witnessing alarming new developments, which prompt us to do even more in this regard.

      In September, the Committee of Ministers held a thematic debate on the role of the Council of Europe in addressing the rise of extremism in evolving societies, with the aim of identifying further actions to be undertaken both to prevent and to fight extremism. There was a general agreement that an inclusive approach, with the involvement of all actors, is needed for further actions to combat these worrying trends. First of all, governments and political leaders should demonstrate consistency and leadership to engage in debate on these issues and to publicly condemn manifestations of hate in public discourse. From this perspective, freedom of expression cannot be brought up as justification for the dissemination of hate speech. Education for democratic citizenship, conduct of awareness-raising activities, and the role of local authorities, NGOs, the media and other institutions in promoting tolerance and mutual understanding are some of the important factors.

      The High-Level Conference on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and Intolerance in Europe to be held in Yerevan on 21-22 October is a timely response to these challenges. The purpose of the conference is to reflect upon racism and xenophobia in political discourse, as well as topics related to combating hate speech and racial stereotypes in social networks and media. High-level state representatives, international and independent experts, and representatives of international organisations will come together with the aim of discussing the challenges and possible ways forward. We hope that the final outcome document of the conference will help us to steer the right course for our future actions.

      The Armenian chairmanship is supporting the “No Hate Speech” movement launched by the Secretary General and will also contribute financially to the activities in this framework. Armenian youth is now part of a pan-European campaign against hate speech online, and a number of activities have been undertaken at national level.

      Diversity is both the strength and richness of Europe and we are convinced that the promotion of European and universal values through intercultural dialogue, including a religious dimension, must remain a priority for our societies. In this context, we were pleased to host on 2-3 September the 2013 exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue. The 2013 Yerevan exchange was the sixth one of its kind and addressed such important issues as freedom of religion as a fundamental human right, the protection of religious minorities, the fight against intolerance and hate speech, and youth education. Participants in the exchange stressed the importance of a dynamic civil society in order to develop further the concept of dialogue, particularly through innovative initiatives. The younger generation’s commitment to the principles of equality and non-discrimination in relation to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, in accordance with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was also highlighted.

      The activities undertaken in this field by different partners of the Council of Europe, particularly the European Union and the International Organisation of la Francophonie, are encouraging. We hope that future chairmanships of the Committee of Ministers will continue to provide their support and contribution to these exchanges. At the same time, I think it is the right time, after the sixth exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue, to assess and analyse the results, to evaluate the impact and to identify areas for improvement, both in terms of the substance and the format of the exchange.

      The implementation of the Council of Europe policy towards neighbouring regions continued to be on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers. On 3 July, within the package of decisions related to the Council of Europe external presence, the Committee of Ministers decided to establish Council of Europe offices in Rabat and Tunis. This operational presence is instrumental in strengthening co-ordination and co-operation with the partners and donors, along with raising the Council of Europe’s profile in the countries of the Mediterranean area. Negotiations are under way with a view to formalising this presence.

We have been satisfied with the results achieved so far in the Council of Europe’s field of expertise since the co-operation priorities with the countries concerned were approved. At the same time, a great deal of work still lies ahead in ensuring the full implementation of co-operation programmes and expanding activities to other regions, including central Asia. To this end, the Ministers’ Deputies called on the member States to consider the possibility of supplementing the financing of these priorities through voluntary contributions. At the same time, discussions will be resumed soon in the relevant rapporteur group on the possible creation of a formal status for interested countries in the neighbouring regions, under several conditions, in order to work out an institutional framework for co-operation. With a view to ensuring a coherent approach to this issue, we also will have in mind Assembly Recommendation 1972 (2011), whereby the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers examines the possibility of creating a special status for the countries of the neighbouring regions.

Maintaining stability and sustainability in our neighbouring regions in a broader context is in the interests of the Council of Europe, and here I cannot but refer to the situation in Syria. I have taken note that you, distinguished parliamentarians, have today decided to hold a debate on Syria, which demonstrates your serious concern over the humanitarian crisis there, and your determination to have your strong voice heard in condemnation of the widespread systematic and gross human rights violations. In my national capacity, I recently welcomed the proposals based on the agreement reached in Geneva between the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and the United States Secretary of State John Kerry; and in New York two days ago addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations I also welcomed Resolution 2118 of the Security Council, adopted unanimously, which could lead to the elimination of chemical weapons and the exclusion of their use in Syria and which could also open the way to finding a political solution to the Syrian crisis through peaceful means, putting an end to the sufferings of the Syrian people, including dozens of thousands of Armenians.

Distinguished parliamentarians, the Committee of Ministers attaches great importance to the World Forum for Democracy and considers it to be a useful framework for strengthening the relevance and the efficiency of the Council of Europe’s efforts in the field of democracy. The 2013 World Forum for Democracy will take place on 27-29 November in Strasbourg. For the second time, political personalities and representatives of civil society, the media and academia from around the world will come together to discuss the issue of “Re-wiring Democracy: connecting institutions and citizens in the digital age”.

Bearing in mind the critical comments made after the first edition of the forum, including those voiced by distinguished members of the Assembly, this year’s discussions will be organised in a new format - in labs - and the results of the discussions in these labs will then be presented by rapporteurs to all participants.

We believe that the most active participation of all Council of Europe bodies will only serve to contribute to the furthering of our common objective of strengthening democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The Committee of Ministers is looking forward to the contribution of the ad hoc committee representing the Assembly to the activities of the forum.

Against the background of the successfully implemented reforms of last year, we continue to fully support ongoing reform efforts to make the work of the Council of Europe more streamlined and more effective. The further improvement of the intergovernmental committee structure of the Council of Europe is a welcome initiative by the Secretary-General. The intergovernmental structure for 2014-15 will be priority-driven, aimed at ensuring political relevance and high-level attendance by member States and promoting intergovernmental dialogue at the pan-European level.

As you are well aware, the principle of zero nominal growth has been applied to the programme and budget for 2014-15, in view of the difficult budgetary situation in member States. Discussions on the programme and budget for the coming two years are well under way and we hope to be in a position to have the budget adopted in November. Another important development is the review of the contractual policy for staff of the Council of Europe, which is expected to be completed at the end of the year.

I will speak briefly about the political questions that continue to command the attention of the Committee of Ministers. I would first like to mention that the committee discussed and took note of the report on the implementation of the Council of Europe’s programmes in Kosovo, which allow people to benefit from Council of Europe standards in relation to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. While encouraging the Secretariat to continue implementing these activities, the Committee called on member States to consider supplementing the financing of these activities through voluntary contributions. As I told the Assembly in my previous address, I remain convinced that, irrespective of the status of the territories in which individuals live, all people in Europe should be able to enjoy good governance, democracy, the rule of law and the same legal and human rights.

Belarus has remained on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers throughout this period, and the Organisation’s long-term strategic goal is for it to become a full member State, within the overall framework of the policy of “cautious engagement” with Belarus. In particular, I would like to inform distinguished parliamentarians that the Committee of Ministers acceded to Belarus’s request for observer status with the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law, on the understanding that the matter will be followed in the light of developments in Belarus relating to Council of Europe values. Ministers’ Deputies also looked at the activities of the Council of Europe’s information point in Belarus, which is currently the main tool for co-operation. The Deputies instructed the Secretariat to open a procedure for extending the registration of the information point with the Belarusian authorities to allow the Council of Europe’s activities and presence in Minsk to continue.

With regard to the supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the Ministers’ Deputies held their 1 179th meeting in September 2013. During this meeting they decided to close the examination of 34 decisions and judgments of the Court. More detailed information about the results of the meeting is available online.

Let me turn to the preparations that are under way for several other conferences that will be held in the remaining two months of our chairmanship. Between 1 and 4 October the conference of parties to the 2005 Warsaw Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism will be held in Dilijan, Armenia. Two events within the framework of the conference have been organised: the first will be devoted to raising awareness of the convention, and the second will be a special training course for the experts who will be assessing State parties’ compliance with the convention.

On 8 and 9 October we will host the eighth plenary meeting of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors in Yerevan. On 11 and 12 October the Armenian chairmanship, together with the Congress, is organising another event that directly concerns the work of local authorities: the conference of mayors of the capital cities of Council of Europe member States, entitled “Making the metropolis citizen-friendly: a challenge for public authorities.” It will reflect upon the growing role of capital cities and their institutional capacity to address challenges to the quality of life. The administrative organisation of metropolises and the problems local authorities encounter are especially relevant in times of economic crisis, thus becoming relevant not only within the framework of local authorities, but from a wider perspective. We hope that the Parliamentary Assembly will contribute to the conference’s discussions.

As I mentioned earlier, on 21 and 22 October the high-level conference on combating racism, xenophobia and intolerance in Europe will be held in Yerevan. In that context, I am pleased to note that the Secretary General, Thorbjørn Jagland; the Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks; high-level representatives of member States of the Council of Europe and international organisations active in this field will be contributing to that important event.

Symbolically, our last event, which will take place on 13 and 14 November, the day we hand over the chairmanship to Austria, which can be assured of my country’s full support, will be devoted to youth. This youth policy symposium, which will gather around 60 key players from various countries, will be a good opportunity to discuss the role of activities for and with young people in education, in democratic citizenship and participation.

Before concluding, I would like to thank the Assembly, you, President Mignon, and the Secretariat for the constant support you have shown during our chairmanship. I am convinced that close co-operation between all the statutory organs of the Organisation, particularly the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, is imperative if we are to achieve our common goal – reinforcing our shared values across the continent and beyond. Armenia, as an active member of this Organisation, will continue to contribute to the objectives, values and principles of the Council of Europe. I thank you and will be glad to answer your questions.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Minister. We shall indeed now move to questions. These are questions, not general declarations. I ask members to please respect the time limit of 30 seconds. I call Ms Čigāne to ask a question on behalf of the European People’s Party.

Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – Thank you, Minister, for your detailed report. I have a question about the Council of Europe’s budget. As we know, we will have zero nominal growth for the next two years. In such a situation, it is important to focus on the most essential activities for the Council of Europe. In your opinion, what are the essential and non-essential activities that we should be working on?

Mr NALBANDIAN – On 7 May 2013 the Deputies decided to apply zero nominal growth in 2014-15 in view of the difficult budgetary situation in member States. That departs from the practice of zero real growth that has been followed until now. The Parliamentary Assembly’s overall budget will be reduced by 1.67% in 2014-15, compared with 2013, which corresponds to the suppression of two posts and to a decrease of €80,000 in operational expenditure. The Committee of Ministers thanks the Assembly for its budgetary efforts in the context of zero nominal growth. With regard to the renewal of the Assembly’s electronic voting system, I understand that the Secretary General will make a proposal shortly. In that respect, it is paramount to ensure that the statutory organs have the necessary means to work properly. I am confident that a solution will be found shortly. The Committee of Ministers will give the matter due attention.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Lord Tomlinson to ask a question on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Minister, for the enthusiasm with which you spoke about the Court and the European Convention on Human Rights. Against that background, do you share my concern that the Government of the United Kingdom seems to be diminishing its commitment to the Convention and seeking to assert the supremacy of its supreme court? Is that an embarrassment to you and are your colleagues concerned about it?

Mr NALBANDIAN – Thank you for that question. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on statements made in Britain, but I am fully confident that the United Kingdom, as one of the first states to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights and host to the high level conference held last year in Brighton on the future of the European Court of Human Rights, is strongly attached to the European system of human rights protection, which is undoubtedly the greatest achievement of this Organisation.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call Ms Mateu Pi on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms MATEU PI (Andorra) – On behalf of the ALDE group, I thank you, Minister, for your precise report. We were informed that during the meeting of Deputies on 11 September the Committee of Ministers mentioned the possibility of organising a mission in Hungary to support the implementation of freedom of expression in the media of that country. Can you provide us with further details, and will the Committee of Ministers consider doing the same thing in other member States?

Mr NALBANDIAN – I thank the distinguished parliamentarian for that question. The issue you raise requires a substantive and detailed answer, so I will reply in written form.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call the Earl of Dundee on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – Minister, you mentioned scope for improving inter-governmental procedures and dialogues. Following the Chaves report, what particular Council of Europe reforms will you have facilitated by the end of your chairmanship, and what further measures will you encourage your successors to adopt?

Mr NALBANDIAN – As underlined by the Chaves report, which promotes synergy between the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities and the inter-governmental sector of the Organisation, it is essential to increase the effectiveness and visibility of the work of the Council of Europe in the area of local and regional democracy. I am confident that practical ways of establishing such synergies will be high on the agenda of the Congress and of the new inter-governmental committee on multi-level governments, which will be established next year.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Minister, I think you have again forgotten to mention whether there have been any developments in relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. You will surely come back to that, as you have on previous occasions. My question concerns the worries of the Assembly and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the European Commission is planning to develop its own monitoring mechanism, which would be a duplication of what we do in this Assembly. Will you please elaborate on that, and on whether the Committee of Ministers shares the worries of the Secretary General and the Assembly?

Mr NALBANDIAN – I am aware of the discussions under way in the European Union concerning the possible introduction of mechanisms to deal with situations that are liable to pose a threat to the fundamental values of the Union or the rule of law. This is an issue to which the Committee of Ministers has given a great deal of attention. Initiatives aimed at strengthening the rule of law in Europe are obviously to be welcomed. It is important, however, not to duplicate the work already done within the Council of Europe. In his numerous contacts with representatives of member States, the European Commission and the European Parliament, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe has taken care to draw attention to that point. I fully support his efforts and encourage him to continue down that path. In its May session next year, the Committee of Ministers will examine human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe on the basis of a report to be prepared by the Secretary General.

      Mr MICHEL (France)* – Minister, you referred to the Syrian crisis. Your country has been an ally of Iran for a long time. We know that Iran is one of the actors necessary in finding a political solution to the situation in Syria – it has to be involved in negotiations. Do you think that Iran is prepared to play that role, and does it favour a peaceful solution?

Mr NALBANDIAN – I said in my statement that in my national capacity I welcomed the unanimous adoption two days ago of the United Nations Security Council resolution on chemical weapons in Syria. We hope very much that it will pave the way to eliminating chemical weapons in Syria and open the possibility of a negotiated peaceful solution to the conflict. That the resolution was passed unanimously is a success for all countries involved in the discussions – not just those in the Security Council. All Security Council resolutions are binding, so I think it will be respected by all countries – by those in the region and others – that can contribute to realising the provisions in the resolution.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I do not see Mr Beneyto, so I call Mr Seyidov.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – Minister, I am glad that this time you have taken into account my letter to President Mignon about the unfair and unbalanced presentation you made last time in the Chamber. In your capacity as Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers, what do you think about the possibility of meeting Azerbaijanis who have been cleansed from the Armenian community in Nagorno-Karabakh? We always ask about this matter and there is never an answer from the Armenians. What do you think about this initiative?

      Mr NALBANDIAN – In my answer during our previous meeting, I talked about the realities of the negotiating process. You were not satisfied because of the differences in approach by the Armenian side and the Azerbaijani side. Our position is completely in line with the international community, as expressed through the three co-chair countries – the United States, Russia and France – which have a mandate from the international community for mediation. They have come up with several suggestions and proposals at the highest level – presidential level – through the framework of the G8 and G20 summits in L’Aquila, Moscow, Deauville, Los Cabos and Enniskillen. In contrast to the Azerbaijani position, Armenia has expressed a readiness for a settlement based on the proposals made by the three co-chair countries. What you propose is an Azerbaijani idea which is not supported by the international community, including the three co-chairs. You therefore have to look attentively at the proposals of the three co-chairs, which have been expressed in a very detailed way by three Presidents in five statements. Several statements have also been adopted in Helsinki, Athens, Almati, Vilnius and Dublin, in ministerial conferences and at the Astana summit. That is the basis of the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which has been proposed at the highest level. Armenia has welcomed this approach and is ready to work on that basis towards that settlement.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – Will the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers tell the Assembly what further consideration the Committee has given to the clear breaches of Article 5 of the convention by Malta, France and other countries that continue to hold prisoners for unacceptable periods of time without trial? When can we expect some action from the Committee of Ministers on this matter?

Mr NALBANDIAN – Thank you for your question. The right to liberty and security is a fundamental one in a democratic society. The situations in which a person may be deprived of their liberty are exhaustively listed in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which also provides for the rights of persons deprived of their liberty to have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed by a court. By ratifying the Convention, all member States of the Council of Europe, whether or not they are members of the European Union, have agreed to be bound by that provision. Any person under the jurisdiction of a State that is party to the Convention and who considers that their right to liberty has been violated can ultimately seize the European Court of Human Rights.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I do not see Ms Reps, so I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – Minister, I thank you for the work that you have done. As we speak, some industries are still selling chemical products to the parties engaged in the civil war in Syria. Thousands of people are being killed, and they are the only innocent ones in the conflict. Through the Committee of Ministers, can some influence be brought to bear on certain European Governments so that the industrial corporations based in our countries cease to produce the chemical ingredients with which those arms are made?

Mr NALBANDIAN – Thank you for your question. After the unanimous adoption of the resolution on chemical weapons in Syria by the United Nations Security Council, it is important to fully support the resolution’s realisation. That resolution and the proposals made by the United States Secretary of State and the Russian Foreign Minister, based on the agreement reached in Geneva on the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria, provide the detailed basis of how that work will be done. It is now important to support the realisation of the Security Council resolution.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – Mr President, in the past month the European Union has expressed its willingness to set up a new mechanism to ensure that human rights and the rule of law are respected. The initiative would include, inter alia, the monitoring of the situation in member States and the production of recommendations or sanctions. That recalls the work of the Monitoring Committee and the undertakings of the Committee of Ministers; the European Union again seems to have forgotten that the Council of Europe has experience in the human rights field. Like Mr Kox, I have my doubts about those declarations. Can you say more about them, Minister?

Mr NALBANDIAN* – Thank you for your question. It is a great pleasure to see you here, Mr Rouquet. I have already responded to your question in English. Assembly members have already asked that question, which I have answered.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – Minister, during the last part-session, we welcomed the opportunity given by your chairmanship and the future chairmanship of Azerbaijan to facilitate exchanges between your two countries and to create conditions for a speedy settlement of the thorny question of Nagorno-Karabakh. Will you say whether, as we were expecting, a virtuous cycle has opened within the Council of Europe and there are tracks towards finding pragmatic solutions acceptable to all parties?

Mr NALBANDIAN* – Thank you for the question. The only format for the negotiation process with an international mandate is that of the Minsk Group, and especially its co-chairmanship. As I have already pointed out, several proposals have been made through that co-chairmanship at the highest level, with the presidents of three countries that are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – Russia, the United States and France. Detailed proposals have been submitted five times in declarations from the presidents of those countries, and Armenia is prepared to go to the negotiating table on the basis of those proposals. If Azerbaijan is as ready to reach a settlement on the basis proposed by the international community, or in the name of the international community by the three co-chairmen, there is a possibility of our heading towards an exclusively peaceful resolution of the problem.

Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – Since Romania is in everyone’s sights, my question is about preventing the persecution of, and threats and acts of violence against, human rights defenders, LGBT – lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender – groups and organisations working for gender equality in Romania. I am thinking of the recent attacks on clubs and the diversity march in 2012, and the closing down of those organisations and the actions of the government.

Mr NALBANDIAN – I can inform you that the Committee of Ministers has not discussed that issue during this reporting period. The issue requires detailed consideration, so I will discuss it with the Secretariat and reply to your question in writing.

Ms OEHRI (Liechtenstein)* – Minister, the fight against racism, intolerance and xenophobia is one of the Liechtenstein Government’s priorities, as are the rights of women, both regionally and internationally. The Armenian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers has espoused the same aims, but what have you done to implement those priorities, what success have you had and what measures are you taking to stop violence against women in Armenia?

I thank the Armenian Government for the stained-glass windows, which we all greatly admire.

Mr NALBANDIAN – Thank you for the question. Gender equality is central to human rights and genuine democracy. As we all know, progress is still needed to make it a reality. Our Organisation has played a pioneering role on the issue, and has worked out a solid legal and policy framework. Its full implementation is key to advancing women’s rights and coming closer to de facto gender equality.

We are all aware that action in this field needs political backing and financial support. In 2012, the Committee of Ministers therefore launched a Council of Europe transversal programme on gender equality and established a Gender Equality Commission. The programme will soon be reinforced by a new gender equality strategy for 2014 to 2017, which is currently being finalised. The Committee of Ministers will carefully study the priorities and objectives allocated by that strategy to the Council of Europe.

As the Armenian Minister for Foreign Affairs, I initiated consideration of the signature and ratification of the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. As in any other country, the process of considering signature and ratification in Armenia includes studying existing legislation and circulating the proposal to all Ministers concerned, and such procedures naturally take some time.

Without prejudice to the signing of the convention, many of its provisions have already been covered in the draft law on domestic violence in the national programme to combat gender-based violence, and the Republic of Armenia’s action plans on combating gender-based violence and on gender policy, under which the Armenian Government will monitor the effective implementation of the convention. The mechanism identified in the convention to provide social support, psychological and legal counselling and temporary housing, as well as effective monitoring, is reflected in the Republic of Armenia’s law on social assistance. As for the mechanism to reveal domestic abuse cases, that has been fully accommodated within the conceptual framework of the comprehensive programme on integrated social services launched by the Armenian Government. On the obligation to apply the punitive measures imposed by the convention against perpetrators, the Prime Minister of Armenia has instructed the Minister of Justice to make relevant amendments to related laws, and cases of domestic violence have to be considered in the context of the ongoing reforms of the judiciary.

THE PRESIDENT* – We still have a little time at hand. Does anyone want to put a final question? I see no one raising their hand. Minister, I thank you warmly for your presence and for the work that you are doing in chairing our Committee of Ministers.

3. Free Debate

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now come to the free debate. We are a little ahead of schedule, which will allow us to give the floor to more speakers on the list.

I remind members that this debate is for topics not already on the agenda agreed this morning. Speaking time will be limited to three minutes. The free debate will finish at 5.30 p.m.

      I call Lord Tomlinson to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – I was not surprised that the chairman of the Committee of Ministers could not be more specific in his reply to my question. That is why I asked to speak on behalf of my group in this debate in which we have a slightly longer period of time.

The Minister quoted serious statistics about the work and role of the European Court of Human Rights. It is a matter of deep regret that in my country, the United Kingdom, the Court and its role have become a political football. It started seriously with the issue of prisoners’ voting rights. Almost every Eurosceptic, ignoring the fact that the European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the European Union, latched on to the issue to attack the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court.

As we meet here this week, the political party that forms the major part of the coalition will meet in Manchester. We all know as a matter of certainty, because the press were heavily briefed over the weekend, that the Minister of Justice and the Home Secretary will make strong speeches attacking the Court and the Convention. The argument becomes much more sinister than the argument over prisoner voting. It says that if the United Kingdom has a body called the supreme court, it ought to have supremacy over all other courts. That is not an argument that many of us in the United Kingdom can respect or understand – we certainly cannot accept it.

I want the Assembly to know that the European Court and the European Convention are under serious attack in the United Kingdom. Were we not one of the founder members of the Council of Europe, but a more recent member, there would be demands for a monitoring process to be opened because of the stance that we are taking. I therefore take this short amount of time in this free debate to raise the concern of the Parliamentary Assembly and to ask it to monitor carefully what is happening, because it could have an impact on other countries that are less than happy with the Court. I still support the Court, as does my party, but it is under threat.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Lord Tomlinson. I call Ms Guţu to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – On behalf of the ALDE group, I will talk about the Eastern Partnership, which is a powerful tool for co-operation between six eastern European countries: Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. The initiative was launched by Poland and Sweden to improve democracy in those countries, to move them towards sustainable development based on energy security and to advance relations between their peoples.

      There will be an Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius at the end of November, at which Ukraine will sign its association agreement with the European Union. Georgia and Moldova will also signal such an accord. The decision of those three countries to follow the path of European integration is a sovereign decision based on national and international law. The commitment to become closer to the European Union because of its values is particularly laudable given that all three countries have communist, totalitarian pasts.

Russia was surprised and not very friendly, indeed hostile. It has put economic pressure on Ukraine and Moldova. For example, it has introduced an embargo on fruit and vegetables from Moldova and on certain Ukrainian products. Russia is encouraging separatism in regions such as Transnistria and has never removed its army from that part of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Moldova.

The Russian military pressure on Georgia continues. Even more alarmingly, Russia is moving into the heart of Georgian territory. For several months, Russian soldiers have been building steel fortifications to mark illegal frontiers that are way beyond the territories that were occupied after the 2008 war. People in Georgian villages such as Dvani have been forced to leave their houses and cannot cross those new physical borders. They now find themselves in areas that are occupied by the Russian army.

Distinguished colleagues, this situation has to be put to rights. Those countries have taken sovereign decisions and there is no reason why they need the consent of a third country. Russia should be involved as a member State of the Council of Europe and this Parliamentary Assembly, not because it is a great power that is exerting economic and other kinds of pressure. We hope that the process that is under way in those three Eastern Partnership countries will be completed successfully based on international law, Parliamentary Assembly resolutions and international norms.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Guţu. I call Ms Orobets to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms OROBETS (Ukraine) – I will raise an issue that is traditionally swept under the carpet: the so-called trade wars that Russia has practised over the past seven years against its neighbours, including Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, to influence their domestic and foreign politics, and especially their will to join the European community.

      I will mention the most notorious examples of that economic pressure, which are of an obvious geopolitical nature. In March 2006, there was a prohibition on the importation of Moldovan wine in response to the statement of the acting president that adding Moldova to the USSR was an act of occupation. In March 2006, there was a prohibition on the importation of Georgian wine and Borjomi water to Russia in response to the arrest of Russian officers in Georgia. In October 2006, there was a prohibition on the importation of Latvian sprats, which was removed only in 2007 after the settlement of the controversy regarding the Pytalov region. In 2007, there was a boycott of Estonian goods because of the intention of Tallinn to move the monument to the Soviet soldier. In October 2010, there was a prohibition on Ukrainian milk and meat imports to motivate us to join the customs union. In June 2011, there was a radical increase in the customs charges on Ukrainian metal, pipes and agricultural goods for the same reason. Last but not least, in August 2013, sanctions were imposed on Ukrainian chocolate and artificial problems were created for all Ukrainian imports, while sanctions were imposed on milk from Lithuania and that country also faced enhanced vehicle inspections. That was to punish Ukraine for expressing its willingness to sign the EU association agreement and Lithuania for speaking in its defence.

      Economic pressure is only the first step. The next one includes the activation of pro-Russian influence groups in neighbouring states to destabilise the situation. In the Baltic states, that may be limited to public demonstrations, but it can end up in war, as in Georgia. Silence and the absence of reaction only motivate the economic aggressor to use force. This scenario is likely, because there are Russian military forces – as my Moldovan colleague mentioned – on the territory of neighbouring states: that is how, right now, Russia is increasing the occupied territory in Georgia; that is why the Transnistrian and Karabakh conflicts are ongoing; and that is why we expect provocations in Crimea, in Ukraine. The longer we keep silent, the more brutal the methods – from economic suppression to provocation and destabilisation inside the country and, finally, to change foreign policy vectors and standards. Please beware.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Orobets. I now call Mr Marias, to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr MARIAS (Greece)* – Distinguished colleagues, as we can see from reports by international human rights organisations, human rights are suffering because of extreme-right or neo-Nazi organisations. We need to be aware of the influence of such groups and to understand that it is a matter of concern. I will therefore concentrate on the problem of Golden Dawn, which is a paramilitary organisation that has arisen in Greece.

      As we heard from a report, Golden Dawn has been perpetrating acts of violence and aggression against weak citizens and immigrants. In Greece, we need to draw conclusions from that experience, in order to stand up for human rights. Several Golden Dawn supporters, including six members of the Greek Parliament, were arrested last week for setting up a criminal organisation that has carried out acts of violence, killings, breaking into people’s homes and so on. It succeeded in having 18 deputies elected to the Greek Parliament.

Obviously, those who vote for Golden Dawn are not necessarily fascists or Nazis themselves, but why are they supporting it? First, neither the Greek State nor the European Union has any viable solution to the illegal migration that has brought so many security and safety problems for Greek society. On top of that, Golden Dawn’s influence has increased because of its policy on the tax adjustments that have been wrongly imposed on the population. We were given credit equivalent to 120% of our GDP, but nothing functons in Greece. We have huge unemployment figures, and it is obvious that the Assembly should call on governments to counter the influence of extreme-right, fascist groups. To do that, they need to stop imposing such shock policies on the population as a whole; it only causes them to flock to the extreme right, thus increasing its influence. International bodies, such as the Council of Europe, need to aid those countries that are at the very edges of Europe and that are suffering the most from illegal immigration.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Marias. I now call Mr Ivanovski.

Mr IVANOVSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – I want to raise the issue in and the awareness of the Parliamentary Assembly of the activities, brutal actions and consequences of the Greek party, Golden Dawn. My colleague from Greece has already spoken about it, similarly, but in a different way.

As is well known, this famous Greek parliamentary party with 18 members of parliament advocates and, unfortunately, practises modern, quasi-nationalistic policies and deeds. However, realistically, that is classic neo-fascist or neo-Nazi behaviour and actions. Golden Dawn is accused not only of killing a famous Greek left-wing activist and singer, but of classical crime – illegal holding of weapons, money laundering – and all this was raised by Greek institutions after the murder case.

      I support the legal moves by the Greek institutions against Golden Dawn, its members of parliament and members, but they should have been made much earlier, because Golden Dawn activists were already taking brutal, violent and legally and politically unacceptable action against immigrants and human rights activists. They were also taking such action against my country, the Republic of Macedonia, and its citizens. In classic Nazi style, they protest on the Greek-Macedonian border, insulting our nation, history and State, and calling for violence against us Macedonians. They are known to have undertaken more than 30 acts of causing damage to the cars of Macedonian tourists in Greece during this summer. Unfortunately, there has been no police or court action taken against such unacceptable behaviour against my country’s citizens.

      The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should not remain silent about or passive on the issue of this Greek fascist, paramilitary and criminal party or organisation. We should condemn its actions loudly and call for a definite ban on this party. There should be court cases against its activists. We should at least examine the credentials of the Golden Dawn member of parliament here in our Assembly – we should not allow that MP to have membership here, because there should be no place for such a party in free and fair democratic societies. The sooner, the better, because we should not have ghosts from the past continuing to exist in Greece, Europe or worldwide.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Ivanovski. I now call Mr Pylypenko.

Mr PYLYPENKO (Ukraine) – Dear colleagues, over the past three years Ukraine has fulfilled most of the obligations arising from its membership of the Council of Europe. Thus, in accordance with Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe opinion No. 190 (1995), a key and the latest obligation to be undertaken by Ukraine since becoming a member of the Council of Europe is the reform of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, or PPO.

The substantially new draft Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office was developed at the initiative of the President of Ukraine and on the basis of previous recommendations by the Venice Commission. It is a complex measure, which aims to bring the activity of the PPO in line with European standards. The PPO will therefore be deprived of the function of general supervision, and its attention will be focused on: providing guidance for the investigation of crimes; supporting prosecutions in court on behalf of the State; and, mainly, supervision over serving a criminal sentence. The draft law also provides for the highest possible levelling of the prosecutor’s and advocate’s powers.

      Previous reforms – on the judiciary and on the Bar Association of Ukraine – were carried out in close co-operation with the experts of the Venice Commission and solely on the basis of their recommendations. Currently, Ukraine expects the Venice Commission to express a favourable opinion as to the adoption of this reform soon at its regular session in a few weeks’ time, given that the reform of the PPO was carried out on the basis of recommendations by the Venice Commission.

      I assure you that, following the opinion of the Venice Commission, the Ukrainian Parliament will waste no time in adopting the draft law. Thus, dear colleagues, Ukraine awaits your positive reaction and looks forward to the post-monitoring dialogue. Ukraine is a willing partner, as the positive transformations that I have mentioned confirm. Thank you for your attention.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Zohrabyan.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – Since 8 August of this year, the Azerbaijani authorities have been holding the Armenian soldier Hakob Injighulyan, who, having lost his bearings, found himself a prisoner in Azerbaijani territory. It was thought that Azerbaijan, as a member State of the Council of Europe, would at least respect international obligations and standards of international law, including humanitarian law, yet Azerbaijan is grossly violating the Geneva Convention by dressing the Armenian soldier in Azerbaijani uniform and organising stage-managed interviews for Azerbaijani television in which he clearly displays traces of physical and psychological violence.

Despite the efforts of the Red Cross, Azerbaijan is limiting Hakob’s contact with his family. The parents of the Armenian soldier cannot have precise information about how their son is. What is more, he does not have the right to return to his country. The Azerbaijani side replies with absurd information, emphasising that Hakob is said to have expressed the will to go to a third country. It is clear that that supposed will was imposed on him following physical and psychological violence.

The actions of Azerbaijan, a member State of the Council of Europe, are inadmissible. While the Council of Europe continues to keep quiet, the consequences continue to be deplorable. Let us recall the case of the Armenian shepherd Manvel Saribekyan, who, having been taken prisoner, was subject to torture by the Azerbaijanis and whose horribly tortured body was eventually returned to his parents. I repeat unambiguously that Hakob will not have to answer for anything in his country. Let us not allow the gross violation of international law by a member State of the Council of Europe lead once again to an irreversible tragedy. Hakob is still warmly awaited at home, and he must go home.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Shlegel.

Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I would like to talk about European values, or rather the problem of how they are treated in this Assembly, which takes us to the very heart of the relationship between our countries and how we work together. The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly is a unique place for dialogue, but at the moment it is not at its healthiest. Often it is a place for monologue, with one group of countries lecturing the rest. That monologue does not allow for alternative points of view or cultural differences; it is just about settling old political scores. As a representative of the Russian delegation, I know what I am talking about. Our Assembly has some members who are pleased to sit in judgment on others, but are not prepared to submit themselves to anybody’s judgment.

For instance, in the Baltic States, there is the problem of the hundreds of thousands of non-citizens whose rights are being systematically violated, but the Assembly undertakes no effort to change anything. Those States are not even being monitored. There are also others whose rights are being violated, including millions of internet users, but we know that that, and the problems of freedom of speech in countries such as the United Kingdom, for instance, will never be discussed. As for minority rights, the situation is absurd. In many countries, normal family values are simply laughed at. We know that the European Union has no agreement on such issues; it just takes ad hoc decisions case by case, and they are often purely artificial.

We have heard many warm words about the Arab spring, and representatives of Arab countries, some of whom have actually participated in the destruction of thousands of people, have been welcomed. People continue to perish, but we are not saying anything about it. We are not even investigating it. Countries are supplying arms to countries in the Middle East. If they are supplying arms, they should be party to the destruction being wrought by those arms.

Some people talk about the serious problems of this Assembly. I think that the main problem is that these so-called values are used as a smokescreen to advance the political interests of some. We should remain an Organisation in which people listen to each other, because we exist for dialogue.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Sobolev.

Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I want to continue speaking about the problem that our colleague from the United Kingdom named the “political football”: the non-implementation of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights. That is not only a problem for Great Britain; it is also, of course, a problem for Ukraine. There are hundreds of cases of people who saved our country at the time of Chernobyl – not only our country but Europe and the whole world – and who still have not received their money, even after the decision by the European Court.

Ukraine’s problem now is not the budget alone. We have another problem: political repression. When the Committee of Ministers made its last decision, our Government and our President still had not implemented the European Court decision on the case of Yulia Tymoshenko. She is still in prison, despite the European Court declaration that that was in violation of human rights – not only hers, but those of a lot of people who are currently political prisoners in Ukraine.

For us, the problem now is not only internal but external – a problem not in our relations with the peoples of the Russian Federation but with officials in the Presidential and Government Cabinet, who have now declared economic war not only on Ukraine but on Moldova and other countries such as Georgia that want to sign free trade and association agreements. For 17 years, we have had a free trade agreement with the Russian Federation, and each item of that agreement is still operative. We want to sign the same agreement with the European Union, and we are ready to do so. That is not the choice of Russian or Ukrainian officials; it is the choice of millions of Ukrainian people who want equal relations with the European Union and the Russian Federation.

It is a problem when the Russian Federation begins to dictate what we should do. These two months before the decision of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and other countries to sign the agreement have been a first step towards the values of Europe and humanitarian values overall. It is a real step for our future development. A Russian Minister declared that it is not European values. I ask Mr Naryshkin this: if it is not European values, why do you want to have a speech in the Council of Europe, where European values are the main point?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Durrieu.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I wanted to provide a human voice and talk about something that we never discuss: apartheid. Apartheid has not gone away.

Last week, I was in part of South Africa and Angola. We are going to Lisbon soon, to our north-south centre, and that should require us to talk now and then about what goes on in the south. We will have a seminar there about the emancipation of that part of the world south of the Mediterranean.

I was in Windhoek, where friends live. It is a privileged place, but moving through the city you can see no-man’s lands, between where the middle classes live and where the real black Africans live, where not a single white face can be seen. The townships of Windhoek show us that Nelson Mandela is still alive and well – but so is apartheid. There are real slums there: the kind of slums that people who travel have seen. It is boiling inside houses with corrugated iron roofs; it is over 40°C and more in the summer and very cold in winter. The poverty is appalling.

I have just two things to say. First, on the requirement for justice in the African continent, people are being by-passed by development. It is important that development should cover everybody and everything. Only then will all people be free. We do not want just the elite in those countries to be free.

Secondly, Africa is supposed to be the continent of the 21st century. We can see the power in the African subsoil – it is not just oil and minerals – but we have the Mediterranean link, and the Mediterranean is the junction between Europe and Africa, and North Africa and the Maghreb. We do not want a vertical situation; we want Europe to concentrate on Africa, particularly on the southern part of the continent.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mrs Durrieu. I call Mr Ariev.

Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – I should like to express my concern about the state of health of the people in Russia. If we analyse the recent restrictions imposed by the Russian Government on some food products, it is easy to see a strange picture. Ukrainian chocolate, Moldovan wine, Georgian sparkling water, Polish fruits and Lithuanian cheese are now dangerous to the health of Russians, but Russian vodka is not. Okay, we may agree that this ban is a bit peculiar, because it has no relation to health, it is related to politics. It is a good thing to make friends with somebody. Unfortunately, this process has taken on a sort of bear hug aspect, with people being told, “Just make your choice. Either you belong to Moscow and you are a friend, or you become an enemy.”

Of course, the Kremlin has made some progress in the past 50 years. Compulsion to friendship is rarely accompanied now by tanks. There are now modern forms of compulsion. Economic pressure on pro-European governments and European Union States that really care for eastern partnership means that Putin is furious. Why has he chosen Ukrainian chocolate as a target? Because the owner of the largest chocolate company – Roshen – Mr Petro Poroshenko, strongly stands for pro-European politics and supports the European integration of Ukraine.

There are similar cases, but in all cases the Russian side dominates our bilateral agreements, making them unilateral. There is only one logical explanation why the Russian Government is eager to lose its image of being a good, reliable partner: Putin needs to control the post-Soviet States, prior to future elections. He is interested only in so-called geopolitical victories. He needs those victories because Russia is losing its geopolitical weapons: gas and oil monopolies.

By the way, having read the customs union stipulations, I came to a general conclusion: Putin needs slaves, not partners or neighbours. That is why he plays an all-or-nothing game with his neighbours.

I guess the Russian Government understands the inevitability of the European Union association agreement and has started this campaign of economic pressure on Ukraine to prevent European integration, brutally breaking the multi-sided memorandum, signed in 1994, when Ukraine decided on its position regarding nuclear weapons, and Russia, among other signatories, guaranteed to prevent putting any kind of economic pressure on Ukraine if it decided at some time to join any union. Maybe Otto von Bismarck was too sagacious in his assessment of documents signed by Russia.

I hope that Russia will finally understand that it is difficult to make friends using bear-hug politics, threats, pressure and arrogance, and that it starts listening to the voices of its neighbours, otherwise neighbours who have made the European choice know how to defend themselves – and they want to say a few words to the Russian delegation. I have some pieces of Ukrainian chocolate to give to you. Chocolate sometimes makes people happier, and happiness makes people kinder. Kindness helps you understand that your neighbours have made their civilisation choice. Just listen to us.

Thank you.

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

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – Thank you, President, and Mrs Durrieu.

I should like to talk about Africa, above all because of its geographical vicinity; I do not think we ever talk about that here. Also, Lord Tomlinson, yes, I would like to talk about the European Court of Human Rights, which is the jewel in the crown of this Organisation. I think that it is the highest constitutional court of the 47 States that make up the Council of Europe. But I am even more worried about the progress of fascism and Nazism in all our countries – some in particular – that comprise the Council of Europe.

Fascism is not the only phenomenon – we can see what is happening in Greece with neo-Nazis – and it does not mean simply that some xenophobic parties have been making progress in Europe. And let us not make “nationalism” synonymous with Nazism. Certain parties in my country – for example, in Catalonia and the Basque country, with the Basque Nationalist Party – are neither Nazi nor fascist and are not xenophobic, and they fought for freedom in Spain.

We should not use this expression in too liberal a way. Yes, in the financial crisis and with mass unemployment we are seeing the return of fascism, not just in the form that it takes in Greece and other countries. We have also witnessed it emerge subtly and delicately, in the way that people look with scorn at organised politics. Why? Because, in general, organised politics is unable to get to grips with the prevailing problems and tackle unemployment or poverty. The first guilty party that people find is the political parties. Who is in the window of that shop? It is the politicians. We need to think about that and about all the ideas being advanced against organised politics.

All these things are bad for politics, because it is inconceivable that we can have parliamentary democracy without political parties and without politicians. I invite members to think carefully about how we go about things in our political parties, with our hierarchical models – our vertically organised models – that sometimes ensure that capable, free and well-organised people do not wish to take part in politics, thinking it an unattractive activity. Let us convert parliamentary democracy into something that is attractive, so that fascism does not progress and so that we stop the advance of this great generalised scorn against organised politics.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Diaz Tejera. I now call Mr Nikoloski.

      Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – I would like to speak about the document that the European Parliament adopted on the possibility of suspending visa liberalisation for third countries. This is not a good document; it is a reaction to asylum issues in the Schengen zone and is perhaps the worst reply these countries could have made. Several years ago, a positive signal was sent to the countries of the western Balkans – starting with Macedonia, Serbia and Croatia, which is now a member of the European Union, and continuing to other countries – about visa liberalisation, and the citizens of these countries can now travel freely to the European Union. That system is connected with countries such as Canada and the United States.

It is true that asylum applications are made to European countries, but it is also true that the mechanisms for dealing with asylum issues are not always very clear or strict in Europe, which makes it possible for people to abuse the system and stay longer than six or nine months. That is not good, but the problem should be solved by legislatures inside the countries concerned, not by opening up the possibility of suspending visa liberalisation. That is even more important given the heightened tensions in the region. Several colleagues have spoken about Golden Dawn in Greece and other nationalist movements in Balkan countries. The good way is the European way, whereby people can travel and communicate freely; the bad way is the way of the 1990s. This decision by the European Parliament is perhaps its worst ever.

      Furthermore, the European Parliament asks that no citizens of the countries concerned leave the countries without stating clearly where they are going and why. At the same time, in a move that I support, the Assembly, in its report on Macedonia, asks for this rule not to be applied in the customs area. That was a good decision, but which decision should the governments of the western Balkans follow? Is the best way to deal with the asylum issues to suspend visa liberalisation for the whole region?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Vahe Hovhannisyan

Mr Vahe Hovhannisyan (Armenia) – The three-year negotiation process between Armenia and the European Union failed recently. The Armenian authorities declared their willingness to join the customs union, in a decision that made difficult, if not impossible, the signing of the association agreement between Armenia and the European Union.

I draw everybody’s attention to the roots of the issue. Armenia must continue to co-operate with European structures, but we need a new agenda – one that is open and acceptable to the public. In particular, I mean that part of our society which is the real carrier of European values of democracy and whose opinion has so frequently been ignored by European institutions. Quite often, I have the impression that the European Union’s goal is to negotiate with the visible part of the iceberg, readily compromising the invisible part. Very often, European structures make visible concessions – I might even say that they close their eyes – in respect of fundamental questions, such as fair elections and human rights. That was probably done for the sake of smooth negotiations.

Everybody is fed up with the beloved phrase of the election observers from Europe – that the elections were one step forward. Given the problematic electoral process, society and political parties lost confidence in European structures each time that phrase was pronounced. My country and European structures will keep working together – this is about mutual interest – but it is important that the new page of our joint work, negotiations and dialogue has a new agenda and that our main concern is for human rights. We must remember that fundamental rights can never be subject to compromise. No one has given the right to compromise them to the Armenian authorities or to European officials.

Moving from the conceptual to the specific, the possible physical border between Armenia and the European Union is the Armenian-Turkish border, which we all know is still closed. Was this issue ever seriously considered during the negotiations on the association agreement? Could we enhance economic co-operation between Armenia and the European Union without any real ground communication or a functioning railway? Closed borders are not European values. It is now a tense time on the Armenian political scene. The political party that I represent understands the importance of this issue and is willing to deepen co-operation, but we need a new political agenda for negotiation and new topics for discussion. That is the way to regain mutual confidence.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I do not see Mr Pushkov, so I call Mr Rustamyan.

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia)* - Recently, the follow-up committee organised a hearing on frozen conflicts, including the one in Nagorno-Karabakh. The main issue raised was an appropriate and constructive role for the Council of Europe in solving the conflict. Three essential components were mentioned. First, the Council of Europe must recognise the mandate of the OSCE Minsk Group. We must not contradict the Minsk Group, but ensure that our decisions are in line with it. It is the only forum internationally recognised for the solution of the conflict, but that fact has not been recognised in this hemicycle.

Secondly, we must ensure the full participation of competent and legitimate representatives in Nagorno-Karabakh as the main parties involved in the conflict when matters related directly to them come on to the agenda. This practice has always been respected within the Assembly in the case of Kosovo, Cyprus and Palestine, but strangely not when it came to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Thirdly, the Council of Europe must give pre-eminence to its values, above all to human rights. We must never state that the conflict is an obstacle to democracy. The need to find a political solution does not justify the non-application of the Council of Europe’s standards and norms to the inhabitants of the area affected, depriving them of their fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Council of Europe needs to encourage all parties to reaffirm the ceasefire signed in Bishkek between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh and to adopt a new peace agreement.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I do not see Mr Gaudi Nagy, so I call Mr Badea.

Mr BADEA (Romania)* - I wish to draw the Assembly’s attention to a serious issue – the treatment of female workers from eastern Europe. They are citizens of Europe beyond the borders of the European Union. Often, when they work as household help in the European Union, perhaps taking care of older people or children, they work seven days a week without clear time off. That often puts them in a desperate situation. Sometimes in these countries there are no laws to regulate their employment. In those cases, their rights and the European laws on human rights are virtually trampled underfoot. Those women do not manage to have a normal life like any other female employee. The role of the Council of Europe is to be more attentive to that situation, and to bear it in mind. When it comes to the committee on non-discrimination, we should pay particular attention to this issue.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr Badea. I call Mr Petrenco.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* - Distinguished colleagues, today it is 75 years since Hitler and Chamberlain, along with Mussolini, signed the so-called Munich Agreement. We in the Parliamentary Assembly have a duty to remember, analyse and draw our own conclusions so that we should be able to prevent any repetition of such a disgraceful page in our history. That Munich plot has been forgotten. It is very different from the efforts made by historians to constantly remind us of the so-called Molotov pact.

We hear of the Vilnius plot now. The 1938 Munich Agreement, which led to the Second World War, is not only a symbol of betrayal; it is a symbol of the new division of Europe and its peoples. The Vilnius Agreement, particularly for Moldova and Ukraine, is an attempt to make a new division in the heart of Europe. If no one took any account of the views of Czechoslovakia back in 1938, no one nowadays is taking any notice of the views of Ukraine and Moldova after the Vilnius plot. No one has had a referendum in either country. Is it that we are simply faced with a new Chamberlain – with new versions of those 1938 individuals? With all the conditions that have suddenly appeared, and by putting up border posts, the European Union is forcing Moldova to agree to live without Transnistria. There is a pocket government, and the vast majority of the population of Moldova is against this agreement.

The Vilnius summit, if it takes place in the form expected, will provide a new twist in the confrontation in Europe. We need to learn the lessons of history. The peoples of Moldova and Ukraine need the right to decide their own fate, and they are obliged to use that right. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Petrenco. I call Mr Shipley.

Mr SHIPLEY (Observer from Canada) – Mr President, I thank you and the Assembly for once again allowing me to speak on the issue of human trafficking. I was fortunate enough to have been able to speak on the related issues of trafficking of migrant workers and organ trafficking during the Assembly's first part-session in January.

I commend the Council of Europe for the leading role that it has taken in bringing attention to the issue and for urging member and non-member States to take action through stronger legislation, more vigorous enforcement, better co-ordination among States, and addressing the root causes of trafficking, including improving the employment prospects of individuals exploited by traffickers.

The area that requires increased attention is the role of organised crime in human trafficking. The statistics are staggering and depressing. The global profits derived from human trafficking approach the $10 billion to $30 billion of the drug trafficking business. I shall give this a human dimension: it is estimated that over 20 million people were in forced labour globally at any given time between 2002 and 2011. We must strengthen labour and immigration laws as well as victim protection laws, but we also need stronger and more sustained efforts to break the criminal organisations that feed off those looking to improve their lives.

Strong criminal sanctions in domestic laws are a basic starting point. However, greater resources are needed for law enforcement, more effective sharing of intelligence, and greater transnational co-operation and co-ordination. We need to be sure that there are strong criminal consequences for individuals and organisations that act as third-party agents, including employment agencies and immigration or travel agents, all of whom may play a role in arranging for entry of trafficked persons into the destination country, who are then at the mercy of traffickers. More needs to be done to condemn and punish the individuals and legitimate organisations that accept trafficked persons for labour, sex or, sadly, their organs. Trafficking in organs was also identified as a pressing global issue by this Assembly during the January part-session.

I am encouraged by the Council of Europe, through the work of the Assembly, and by other institutions that have identified human trafficking as a priority requiring strong action. I thank the members of the Assembly for their dedication to addressing this human tragedy. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Shipley. I do not see Mr Zingeris, Ms Marjanović or Ms Khidasheli, so I call Mr Aligrudić.

Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – Thank you, distinguished President. Dear colleagues, the point that I would like to raise is provoked by recent events that took place in Croatia, in the city of Vukovar, when the enforcement of the law that puts Cyrillic script in official use sparked a wave of protests.

The entitlement of ethnic minorities to exercise their right to have their language and script in official use in communities where they are considerable in number is indisputably one of the core values of modern democratic systems. Croatia, as a member State of the Council of Europe and the European Union, is obliged to grant ethnic minorities the right to use their language and script, and to prevent any attempt to obstruct the enforcement of this right. Unfortunately, except for the verbal statements, we have not seen any tangible efforts made by the Croatian authorities to prevent events such as the violent removal of signs in Cyrillic from official buildings. What is more, various Croatian officials issued statements as if offering apologies to the perpetrators.

All of you have heard at least something about conflicts in former Yugoslavia. All of you know about conflicts between Croats and Serbs. However, many seem to forget that in the middle of the 1990s, while fighting for secession from Yugoslavia, Croatia forced many Serbs out of their homes in Croatia and most of them have not returned, nor will ever be able to return taking into account recent developments. This was done in police and military operations Bljesak and Oluja – Flash and Storm. The number of those killed and those still not accounted for is around 3 000, and more than 250 000 Serbs were forced to leave. Today, Croatia celebrates these events and Serbia marks them as a gloomy anniversary of Serbian suffering and oppression.

Not many are aware that Croatia won its independence by forcibly changing the administrative lines of Tito’s Yugoslavia and creating state borders, and driving Serbs out of their ancestral homes. Despite this fact, with the aim of improving relations and ensuring stability, Serbia has recognised Croatia and is fully engaged in addressing all unsettled issues through dialogue. However, Croatia must be committed to the same goal if we want to preserve peace and stability. The people of the region deserve to live in peace and prosperity, which means they must have the right to return to their homes freely and without fear.

Even fewer people know, and many simply do not want to know, that the history of Croats and Serbs has not always been one of conflict. A long time ago it was the history of two peoples of similar origin with a fervent wish to be unified. However, developments over the past 100 years or so have not made that happen. Conflicts occurred, people were incited to violence - with the support of major powers before the Second World War and the Nazis during the war – and the wrong solutions were applied to tackling national issues in the time of communism.

I am aware that many of you do not know that the Croatian and Serbian languages are so similar that we understand each other very well without the need for interpreters. The Cyrillic script was valued and accepted by Franciscan Roman Catholic priests in the 19th century. Therefore this issue is even more devastating and disturbing when we think about it today.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Pintado.

      Mr PINTADO (Spain)* – From June onwards I was already thinking about the beginning of next year. We need to think about the forthcoming 20th anniversary of our particular family and the announcement that we will soon be submitting a resolution that will mean this Assembly will next year be able to go into greater depth on various topics, which logically could mean we can continue to look at what the United Nations will be doing in 2014. There will be public debates on the implementation of policies by various member States and international institutions and associations, in order to generate a debate about the role of the family at present. How can we best reconcile family and professional life, counter poverty and address the various measures that can be taken by governments, and how can we protect women and children? As the United Nations data show, in many States it is women and children who suffer the consequences of the economic crisis.

When we vote on a range of motions on policies that relate to various aspects of family life, we will consider connected issues such as family and professional life and the larger question of what family is. So let us prove we are capable of promoting the right policies and providing genuine aid in ensuring families are supported.

We must work on the documents being prepared by the economic and social committee of the United Nations. They provide many potential avenues to go down when we come to prepare our own policies and think about our own approach.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Gaudi Nagy; I called you earlier but you were not here, but I have not forgotten you.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I apologise for my late arrival, but I had a lot to do in relation to the Hungarian community living in Vojvodina in Serbia. I invited a visiting group to this session in order to raise the issue of the 300 000 Hungarians living in Vojvodina. Their situation is more than worrying. We therefore decided to inform Europe and the Council of Europe Assembly about the bad situation facing them. They are deprived of territorial autonomy.

Serbia is now an accession state to the European Union, and it is said successful progress has been made. There is officially a peaceful relationship between Hungary and Serbia, but beneath the surface nothing has changed. Today we showed a documentary film about a case in which seven young Hungarians were kept in prison for one year just because they were attacked by some Serb youth in a pub in Temerin in Vojvodina. Even though they were almost killed, they were brought to court. They are now being kept in prison for one year. Only one Serb has been charged, but he is defending himself as a free man. That is unfair, and it shows the unfair system of justice in Serbia.

The problem is bigger, however. Mr Štefan Füle, Commissioner for enlargement, is absolutely right when he says the rule of law is a priority in the discussions with Serbia and that, of course, covers the rights of minorities. Serbia has to ensure territorial autonomy for Hungarians living there, because if in Kosovo 100 000 Serbs can have territorial autonomy under the Brussels pact, concluded in April of this year, there is a double standard and it cannot be tolerated – and what about ensuring that the 300 000 South Tyrolean people can live fairly with the Italian people? That is why I would like to ask President Nikolić of Serbia on Thursday when Serbia will ensure territorial autonomy for the Hungarians. That is also why there will be a demonstration in order to raise this issue here in Strasbourg this Thursday.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Le Déaut.

Mr LE DÉAUT (France)* – We are discussing energy transition in France at the moment. There is a draft law that will be voted upon next spring and I co-chair the parliamentary office dealing with these matters. Our national debate shows there is one thing we did not take sufficient account of: European co-ordination and its part in the success of energy transition. Europe already acts on this matter, but there are very few links with the Council of Europe.

How does Europe act? It does so, first, by defining the major goals hammered out in the process of international negotiations on climate change. There is also, just for the European Union, the treaty under which there is dialogue to establish lists of global and national goals. That is part of the process by which the European Union has defined its objectives called 20 20 20. There are also initiatives like supporting the financing for the budget for research. Also the European Union – this is nothing to do with the Council of Europe either – is active in four areas, including making sure the market functions properly, the interconnection of the grids, and renewable energies.

This is an example of the European Union acting well by having flexible rules and then a posteriori monitoring. It is important that there should be as much of a link as possible between countries, however, because co-ordination is an essential part of the picture as we are all diversifying our energy sources. We must co-ordinate in energy in the same way as we have done in aerospace. The European Union should be talking to the Council of Europe on this.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Le Déaut. I call Mr Oscarsson.

      Mr OSCARSSON (Sweden) – Egypt, Syria, Iran and Pakistan; it is a great shame that we are getting used to newspaper headlines about religious minorities being badly persecuted in one country after another. Last Sunday, 22 September, after mass, two suicide killers blew themselves up outside the 130-year-old Anglican church in the city of Peshawar. The two terrorists, who belonged to a group linked to the Pakistani Taliban, killed at least 78 people, including 34 women and seven children, and wounded more than 100, making it one of the deadliest attacks against Christians in Pakistan in modern times. The group promised to continue targeting those they considered enemies of Islam, but are they themselves not enemies of Islam? And is it not our obligation to speak out for the persecuted and for moderate Muslims?

      Freedom of religion is a human right and a central aspect of democracy. To this liberty the European Convention on Human Rights links freedom of thought and of conscience as fundamental rights. In Article 9 we read that “this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private”.

      To disrespect another person’s deepest convictions is often the starting point for breaking other fundamental human rights. That disrespect comes not only from people with religious convictions, but from those with secular convictions. Disrespect for a person just because they are a believing Christian is what we recently saw from some of Sweden’s media elite as our Prime minister appointed a new minister. That should not be compared to people who suffer martyrdom, but the disrespect for another person just because she has a different faith has the same root as fundamentalism. When you say that someone should be excluded from certain public offices just because they have a certain faith, that is unacceptable. It is not in the democratic spirit and it is not tolerant.

      What are we to do about martyrdom? Previously we unanimously adopted Recommendation 1957 on violence against Christians in the Middle East. We also need to combat fundamentalism and promote liberty as we assemble today.

      I started this speech by saying that we are getting used to this because it happens often, but we should never get used to it. Instead, let us take a firm stand against persecution. Let us remember the victims of Peshawar and the thousands of believers imprisoned around the world just because of who they are and in whom they believe.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Oscarsson. Mr Japaridze is here, but we have already gone over time. The group meetings need to start and the interpreters need time to get upstairs, so unfortunately I must interrupt the list of speakers. Those who have been present but have been unable to speak can give their texts to the Table Office so that they can be included in the Official Report. I thank all those who participated in the debate.

4. Changes in the membership of committees

      THE PRESIDENT* – Our last item of business is to consider additional changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in the document, Commissions (2013) 07 Addendum II.

      Are the proposed changes agreed to?

      They are agreed to.

5. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda that was approved this morning.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 5.35 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee; Observation of the parliamentary elections in Albania

Speakers: Ms Leskaj, Ms Kapenatović, Mr Dişli, Mr Bugnon, Mr Seyidov, Mr Le Borgn’, Mr Harutyunyan

2. Communication from the Committee of Ministers

Address by Mr Nalbandian, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

Questions: Ms Ċigāne, Lord Tomlinson, Ms Mateus Pi, Earl of Dundee, Mr Kox, Mr Michel, Mr Seyidov, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Rouquet, Mr Fournier, Mr Biedroń, Ms Oehri

3. Free debate

Speakers: Lord Tomlinson, Ms Gutu, Ms Orobets, Mr Marias, Mr Ivanovski, Mr Pylypenko, Ms Zohrabyan, Mr Shlegel, Mr Sobolev, Ms Durrieu, Mr Ariev, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Nikoloski, Mr Vahe Hovhannisyan, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Badea, Mr Petrenco, Mr Shipley, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Pintado, Mr Gaudi Nagy, Mr Le Déaut, Mr Oscarsson

4. Changes in the membership of committees

5. Next public business

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Karin ANDERSEN/Tor Bremer

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI/Christian Bataille

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE*

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Silvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA/Oerd Bylykbashi

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Teresa BERTUZZI*

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO*

Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Jean-Pierre Michel

Eric BOCQUET/Bernadette Bourzai

Mladen BOJANIĆ*

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN

Gerold BÜCHEL/Rainer Gopp

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA

Sylvia CANEL*

Nunzia CATALFO*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Mikael Oscarsson

Özlem CEKIC*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON/Jonathan Evans

Deirdre CLUNE

Agustín CONDE*

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Jonny CROSIO*

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Milena DAMYANOVA

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER*

Roel DESEYN*

Manlio DI STEFANO*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Jim DOBBIN

Karl DONABAUER/Edgar Mayer

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS*

Damian DRĂGHICI

Daphné DUMERY/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Joseph FENECH ADAMI

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO*

Karl GARÐARSON

Ruslan GATTAROV*

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Sandro GOZI

Fred de GRAAF*

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM

Patrick De GROOTE

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON/Riitta Myller

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI/Marek Borowski

Hamid HAMID*

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Armen Rustamyan

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD*

Joachim HÖRSTER*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Vladimir ILIĆ

Florin IORDACHE

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI/Zbigniew Girzyński

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Stella JANTUAN*

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON*

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA/Ivan Račan

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Deniza KARADJOVA*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Maryvonne Blondin

Ulrika KARLSSON

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK*

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN*

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN*

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Václav KUBATA/Miroslav Krejča

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Christophe LÉONARD*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT/Nikolaj Villumsen

François LONCLE

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE/David Crausby

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV

Nursuna MEMECAN*

José MENDES BOTA*

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Vesna Marjanović

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

Igor MOROZOV

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Lydia MUTSCH/Fernand Boden

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR/André Reichardt

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Marian NEACŞU

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Charles Kennedy

Michele NICOLETTI*

Brynjar NÍELSSON*

Elena NIKOLAEVA

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Mirosława NYKIEL/Grzegorz Czelej

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS

Sandra OSBORNE/Michael Connarty

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI*

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS*

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Foteini PIPILI*

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS*

Eva RICHTROVÁ

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE/André Schneider

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Pavlo RYABIKIN

Rovshan RZAYEV/Fazil Mustafa

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER*

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN*

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Boris SHPIGEL*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Ladislav SKOPAL*

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV

Christoph STRÄSSER

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Robert Shlegel

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Mihai TUDOSE/Daniel Florea

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI*

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Tomáš ÚLEHLA*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Petrit VASILI

Volodymyr VECHERKO/Larysa Melnychuk

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL

Robert WALTER*

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Katrin WERNER

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM*

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN/Vahe Hovhannisyan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Jānis DOMBRAVA

Spyridon TALIADOUROS

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Miguel ROMO MEDINA

Michel RIVARD

Partners for Democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Bernard SABELLA